NationStates Jolt Archive


Caribou Barbie Covering Her Own Ass

Gauthier
08-11-2008, 18:02
Palin Denounces Her Critics as Cowardly (http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palin-denounces-her-critics-as-cowardly/241668?icid=200100397x1213009388x1200834821)

So not only is she blaming her (Republican) critics for reports of her Quaylisms leaking out, but she's also conveniently backing off from demanding that Uncle Ted resign.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Churchlady02.jpg

"Howww conveeenient!"
No Names Left Damn It
08-11-2008, 18:07
She's called Caribou Barbie now?
Intangelon
08-11-2008, 18:16
She's called Caribou Barbie now?

Has been for a while. If the Saks Fifth Avenue fits....
The Black Forrest
08-11-2008, 18:17
"That's cruel. It's mean-spirited. It's immature. It's unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context, and then tried to spread something on national news. It's not fair and it's not right."

Welcome to politics!


She's called Caribou Barbie now?

Yes. It's meant as an insult centered on hunting, etc. However, it could be argued it's insulting to Barbie.
Grave_n_idle
08-11-2008, 18:20
I am suing Gauthier for the emotional distress (and loss of breakfast) caused by an OP that talks about Sarah Palin's ass.
Obscurans
08-11-2008, 18:21
Barbie deserves the insult.
Gauthier
08-11-2008, 18:23
I am suing Gauthier for the emotional distress (and loss of breakfast) caused by an OP that talks about Sarah Palin's ass.

Oh please, it's not like I linked to Sarah Palin porn (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS214US214&q=Sarah+Palin+porn).

:tongue:
Katganistan
08-11-2008, 18:27
"That's cruel. It's mean-spirited. It's immature. It's unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context, and then tried to spread something on national news. It's not fair and it's not right."

Welcome to politics!




Yes. It's meant as an insult centered on hunting, etc. However, it could be argued it's insulting to Barbie.
*raises eyebrow*

What's sauce for the goose....
Intangelon
08-11-2008, 18:32
*raises eyebrow*

What's sauce for the goose....

A Wrath of Khan reference? Fascinating.

I love how the woman can claim distortion and say it's not fair, just after spewing some heinously distorted bullshit herself. The woman has no shame -- she's a born politician.
Gauthier
08-11-2008, 18:32
*raises eyebrow*

What's sauce for the goose....

Yeah, but we're all just being sexist.

:D
Grave_n_idle
08-11-2008, 18:33
Oh please, it's not like I linked to Sarah Palin porn (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS214US214&q=Sarah+Palin+porn).

:tongue:

*Carefully avoids accidentally clicking the link*.

There aren't many cases where I'd be happy if the link I click turned out to be Rick Astley...
Dyakovo
08-11-2008, 18:34
Oh please, it's not like I linked to Sarah Palin porn (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS214US214&q=Sarah+Palin+porn).

:tongue:

Hey, one of those links is actually pretty good...

Quebec comedy duo talks porn and politics with oblivious Sarah Palin (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5idPXM6GDkOzIX-_At5WVYrBoJ6JQ)
Luna Amore
08-11-2008, 21:08
This is Barack Obama's time right now, and this is an historic moment in our nation and this can be a shining moment for America and our history, and look what we're talking about. Again, we're talking about my shoes and belts and skirts. It's ridiculous.For once I agree with her. Yes, she's inept. Let the Alaskans deal with it. I doubt she's getting anywhere near the Presidency again.
JuNii
08-11-2008, 21:28
"It's not happening. Nobody's told me that they're coming to my house to look through closets, to look through anything. The belly of the plane that had clothes in it, and those clothes being packed up and sent back by staffers, perhaps that's what they're talking about, but these aren't attorneys."

good for her.

"This is Barack Obama's time right now, and this is an historic moment in our nation and this can be a shining moment for America and our history, and look what we're talking about. Again, we're talking about my shoes and belts and skirts. It's ridiculous."
very sensible

Palin backed off from calling for the resignation of fellow Alaskan Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in Senate history. Stevens leads Democrat Mark Begich by about 3,500 votes with more than 50,000 to be counted.
A Washington jury convicted Stevens on Oct. 27 of seven felony counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in gifts, mostly renovations on his home. Stevens is appealing the verdict.

"The Alaska voters have spoken and me not being a dictator won't be telling anyone what to do," she said.

Fellow senators have indicated they could boot Stevens.

"That's their baby," Palin said. "They'll have to figure out what to do there."
let the voters decide.

her poltical gaffes were more mistakes made by a newbie in the national politics field. Frankily, the actions of the GOP after the elections are more telling than what was said during the elections.
Kbrookistan
08-11-2008, 21:39
For once I agree with her. Yes, she's inept. Let the Alaskans deal with it. I doubt she's getting anywhere near the Presidency again.

She's pretty clearly gearing up for a run in '12. Running against an incumbent will be tough, but if she can convince the evangelicals that they'll be welcome again in the party, she might just be able to mobilize the base. And believe me when I tell you that Republican strategists are going to be studying Obama's grassroots efforts veeeeeery carefully in the next few months and years.
Luna Amore
08-11-2008, 22:40
She's pretty clearly gearing up for a run in '12. Running against an incumbent will be tough, but if she can convince the evangelicals that they'll be welcome again in the party, she might just be able to mobilize the base. And believe me when I tell you that Republican strategists are going to be studying Obama's grassroots efforts veeeeeery carefully in the next few months and years.I don't know that she is 'clearly gearing up' for a 2012 run, at least that's not what she's saying:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/05/palin-cannot-even-imagine-2012-bid/
Kbrookistan
08-11-2008, 22:43
I don't know that she is 'clearly gearing up' for a 2012 run, at least that's not what she's saying:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/05/palin-cannot-even-imagine-2012-bid/

She's a politician. Not a very good one, I'll grant, but still a politician. Her mouth is moving, therefore, there's a lie. Somewhere.
Frisbeeteria
08-11-2008, 23:55
I don't care what anyone says. Nobody can be as stupid as Palin was portrayed to be and be elected to the Statehouse of ANY state. Of course she's responding to the criticism, and her remarks are entirely justified. It was the McCain campaign that threw her in the toilet, and I think her responses have been more mature than the crap they dished out.

I don't like her or her stances. I don't like the image she presented in the campaign. I don't think she was ready to be Veep. But she's not a stupid person, just a bad politician who was badly shaped by some bad campaign staff.

Now if she tries for the national stage again, I'll be laughing along with Jon Stewart and Tina Fey again. That's just par for the course when you try to sit in the Big Chair.
JuNii
09-11-2008, 00:19
Now if she tries for the national stage again, I'll be laughing along with Jon Stewart and Tina Fey again. That's just par for the course when you try to sit in the Big Chair.

It would be interesting tho. to see how she would portray herself in 4 years... y'know... see if she learned anything from this jaunt...
Lacadaemon
09-11-2008, 00:34
It's easy to think of her as dumb because of the accent. Though she probably isn't the most well informed person either.

Mind you, nobody ever complained about Al Gore's lack of brains. All in the accent I guess.
[NS]Nation of Quebec
09-11-2008, 00:57
I always knew that she was an unqualified hack who was only picked in attempt to appeal to women and the fundamentalists.

I find it funny that she's whining about the attacks on her are so unfair and told by jerks when she had no problems and took pride with her pallin' around with terrorists remark.

That's politics for you.
Knights of Liberty
09-11-2008, 02:49
Awwww poor baby.
Non Aligned States
09-11-2008, 03:29
But she's not a stupid person, just a bad politician who was badly shaped by some bad campaign staff.


Given her remarks during election and extreme religious convictions (prayer against voodoo? Come on), I would contest this statement.
Braaainsss
09-11-2008, 03:32
I don't care what anyone says. Nobody can be as stupid as Palin was portrayed to be and be elected to the Statehouse of ANY state.You can, however, be completely ignorant of national and international affairs. As a high school student, I interned in the office of a state representative, and one of my jobs was to read documents and write summaries of their contents. On one legislative proposal we got I simply wrote "unconstitutional--Griswold v. Connecticut." I was called in and ended having to explain what a Supreme Court decision was and how they applied to state laws, too. I also ended up explaining the Darfur conflict to a bunch of people after we got a Sudan Divestment proposal.

Of course she's responding to the criticism, and her remarks are entirely justified. It was the McCain campaign that threw her in the toilet, and I think her responses have been more mature than the crap they dished out.
The attacks on her are very unprofessional, but I can't blame them too much if she was as abusive and ignorant as is alleged.
[NS]Cerean
09-11-2008, 04:03
I don't care what anyone says. Nobody can be as stupid as Palin was portrayed to be and be elected to the Statehouse of ANY state. Of course she's responding to the criticism, and her remarks are entirely justified. It was the McCain campaign that threw her in the toilet, and I think her responses have been more mature than the crap they dished out.

I.

The rise of evangelism means stupid people voting for stupid people.
Dyakovo
09-11-2008, 04:19
I don't care what anyone says. Nobody can be as stupid as Palin was portrayed to be and be elected to the Statehouse of ANY state.

This indicates otherwise: (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5idPXM6GDkOzIX-_At5WVYrBoJ6JQ)
Quebec comedy duo talks porn and politics with oblivious Sarah Palin

Nov 1, 2008

MONTREAL — In an over-the-top accent, one half of a notorious Quebec comedy duo claims to be the president of France as he describes sex with his famous wife, the joy of killing animals and Hustler magazine's latest Sarah Palin porno spoof.

At the other end of the line? An oblivious Sarah Palin.

The Masked Avengers, a radio pairing notorious for prank calls to celebrities and heads of state, notched its latest victory Saturday when it released a recording of a six-minute call with Palin, who thought she was talking with Nicolas Sarkozy.

Throughout the call, which was making the rounds in U.S. political circles by day's end Saturday, Palin and the pranksters discuss politics, pundits, and the perils of going hunting with Vice-President Dick Cheney.

"We have such great respect for you, John McCain and I, we love you," Palin gushes, evidently unaware she's speaking to an infamous Quebec comedian named Marc-Antoine Audette.

At one point, Palin even comes close to confirming her intention to one day run for president, when Audette slyly remarks he can see her taking over the big desk in the Oval office.

"Maybe in eight years," she replies with a nervous chuckle.

Over the course of the interview, Palin doesn't seem to realize she's being tricked until Audette comes clean near the end of the call.

"Ohhhh . . . have we been pranked?" she says, in her inimitable style. Seconds later, Palin's aide can be heard taking the phone before the line goes dead.

Throughout the conversation, Audette drops plenty of clues that something's amiss.

He identifies French singer and actor Johnny Hallyday as his special adviser to the U.S., singer Stef Carse as Canada's prime minister and Quebec comedian and radio host Richard Z. Sirois as the provincial premier.

"We should go hunting together," Palin offers when Audette professes a love of hunting - or, more precisely, killing animals. "We can have a lot of fun together while we're getting work done. We could kill two birds with one stone."

Audette then jokes that they shouldn't bring Cheney on the hunt, referring to the 2006 incident in which the vice-president shot and injured a friend while hunting quail.

"I'll be a careful shot," responds Palin, who praises Sarkozy throughout the call.

"I look forward to working with you and getting to meet you personally - and your beautiful wife, oh my goodness," she says.

"You've added a lot of energy to your country with that beautiful family of yours."

Audette then tells her his wife, Carla Bruni, a singer and former model, was jealous to hear Sarkozy would be speaking to Palin. "Give her a big hug for me," Palin responds.

Audette goes on to describe Bruni as "hot in bed" and claims she's written a song for Palin, the French title of which translates as "Lipstick on a Pig." In English, Audette says the song is about Joe the Plumber.

Finally, he mentions a notorious Hustler video titled "Nailin' Paylin," describing it as "the documentary they made on your life."

"Oh, good, thank you, yes," Palin replies.

"That was really edgy," Audette says.

"Well, good."

In an interview Saturday, Audette told The Canadian Press it wasn't easy setting up the interview with Republican presidential candidate John McCain's running mate, and described the accomplishment as the pair's biggest triumph to date.

"It really took a lot of work," he said.

"We had to go through the Secret Service, the people in her entourage. It's the biggest coup so far. We're proud to add (this prank) to our top hits."

It took the pair, known for securing surreptitious interviews with celebrities, politicians and heads of state, five days to set up the call, Audette said. The secret to getting powerful people on the line? Time and persistence.

"I wanted to see how (Palin) was on an intellectual level," Audette said, comparing the latest prank to the duo's crank call with pop idol Britney Spears.

"You can see that she's, well, not really brilliant."

In a statement Saturday, Palin's team said the vice-presidential nominee was "mildly amused" to learn she was the victim of a prank.

"Gov. Palin was mildly amused to learn that she had joined the ranks of heads of state, including President Sarkozy, and other celebrities in being targeted by these pranksters," said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.

"C'est la vie."

Audette, too, was contrite afterward.

"I hope we won't have a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay."

The well-known radio prankster duo of Audette and Sebastien Trudel have most recently tricked Rolling Stones singer Mick Jagger. Other celebrity victims include Spears and Bill Gates.

In 2007, they conned Sarkozy himself by impersonating Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And their 2006 call to former French president Jacques Chirac was rated by the BBC as one of the top 30 all-time best moments in radio history.

Known as the "Masked Avengers," they've been popular on the Quebec comedy scene for a decade.

The Avengers, who have a regular show on Montreal radio station CKOI, will air the full interview on the eve of the U.S. elections. It can also be heard in full on their website www.justiciers.tv .
Sdaeriji
09-11-2008, 04:48
To be fair, strictly speaking, anonymously leaking insulting reports of questionable veracity does seem to fit most every definition of the word "cowardly". Now, do I feel bad for the woman who repeatedly made claims that President-elect Obama had ties to terrorists having unfounded accusations thrown her way? Not particularly. But no one can claim that these supposed McCain staffers are paragons of honor and integrity.
Collectivity
09-11-2008, 06:00
I haven't any sympathy for the Miss Alaska runner-up. She tried to do an Alaskan "Princess Di" but it desrevedly backfired with the voters. They loved her for the first month but after that she ran out of steam because she needed to have the brains to go with it (Condaleeza Rice's maybe). True she had the savvy with the Bible belt but she was trying to be a Presidential contender when she was a political lightweight. ("Is Africa a country?" puh-lease!)
Xenophobialand
09-11-2008, 06:21
I'm not believing the Africa bit until I get confirmation from multiple sources. No one can be that dumb, but Sarah Palin apparently could be tarred as that dumb by people trying to cover their own ass after the flaming wreck of the dirigible McCain came crashing down.

While I thoroughly dislike Sarah Palin, and I'm glad that her shot at higher office has been more or less destroyed in the wake of her "real America" comments, I feel a bit badly for her at the moment. Maybe I'm the sympathetic type, or more just than I knew, but she's getting kicked by all comers for no other reason than because everyone associated with the campaign is currently in the midst of an effort to say "It wasn't my fault", which has turned into "It's all Sarah's fault". While she is part of the problem, she's not the whole of the problem by a long shot. The whole of the problem is that every possible rational reason for Reaganism has been dead for 10 years, and yet we still have 45% of Congress and the Presidency convinced that it's 1982. In order to avoid looking at the man behind the curtain, we have Sarah Palin as a curtain, a politics-as-performance-art designed to obscure the fact that we really, really need to fix problems that Reagan had no answer for, and to do that we may have to do things that Reagan wouldn't have been happy about doing.

Eyes on the prize guys. We don't have time to kick people, even people as small as Sarah Palin.
The Black Forrest
09-11-2008, 08:57
*raises eyebrow*

What's sauce for the goose....

+1 for the reference! :)
Tmutarakhan
09-11-2008, 21:43
I'm not believing the Africa bit until I get confirmation from multiple sources. No one can be that dumb
I'm not entirely sure it's true, but OH YES people can be that dumb.
Ashmoria
09-11-2008, 21:53
I'm not believing the Africa bit until I get confirmation from multiple sources. No one can be that dumb, but Sarah Palin apparently could be tarred as that dumb by people trying to cover their own ass after the flaming wreck of the dirigible McCain came crashing down.

While I thoroughly dislike Sarah Palin, and I'm glad that her shot at higher office has been more or less destroyed in the wake of her "real America" comments, I feel a bit badly for her at the moment. Maybe I'm the sympathetic type, or more just than I knew, but she's getting kicked by all comers for no other reason than because everyone associated with the campaign is currently in the midst of an effort to say "It wasn't my fault", which has turned into "It's all Sarah's fault". While she is part of the problem, she's not the whole of the problem by a long shot. The whole of the problem is that every possible rational reason for Reaganism has been dead for 10 years, and yet we still have 45% of Congress and the Presidency convinced that it's 1982. In order to avoid looking at the man behind the curtain, we have Sarah Palin as a curtain, a politics-as-performance-art designed to obscure the fact that we really, really need to fix problems that Reagan had no answer for, and to do that we may have to do things that Reagan wouldn't have been happy about doing.

Eyes on the prize guys. We don't have time to kick people, even people as small as Sarah Palin.
it makes me crazy when people want to blame mrs palin for ANYTHING.

she is who she is. she is the same person she was the day before mccain chose her. she didnt pretend to know stuff she didnt know. she wasnt even running for the job.

when she was chosen she hit the ground running and didnt stop until the polls closed. she did everything she could for john mccain. no one could have worked harder at it than she did.

that she was woefully unprepared for the job is not her fault. its john mccain's fault for choosing an unqualfied candidate. he went for style over substance and any lack of substance on her part is to his detriment. he wasnt interested in substance and he didnt get it.

id like to see her get serious and come back with all the knowledge and analysis that she needs for national office. i dont know that its possible to come back from such a drubbing but id like to see her do it just to stick it to the republican handlers who treated her so shabbily.
Tmutarakhan
09-11-2008, 22:06
she wasnt even running for the job.
That's one of the lies she has recently told, but in fact she lobbied intensely for the job.
that she was woefully unprepared for the job is not her fault. its john mccain's fault for choosing an unqualfied candidate.
THIS, however, is quite true.
Non Aligned States
10-11-2008, 01:31
she is who she is. she is the same person she was the day before mccain chose her. she didnt pretend to know stuff she didnt know.

Really? I seem to recall an interview where she said she had read every magazine (of all kinds) that had been published. That certainly fits the bill about pretending doesn't it?

And what about the whole "terrorist" claims from her? Or for that fact, her claims of "real Americans"?

Some of the things to blame her for are fluff and really not worth the effort. But the others cannot be excused away with "she wasn't prepared", unless by that you mean "she wasn't brainwashed to lose her prejudices". The best thing that we can hope is that the likes of Palin vanishes into obscurity forever, and focus on what has to be done now.
Heikoku 2
10-11-2008, 01:32
i dont know that its possible to come back from such a drubbing but id like to see her do it just to stick it to the republican handlers who treated her so shabbily.

I wouldn't. She's charismatic, she's conservative and she's insane. She's dangerous.
GOBAMAWIN
10-11-2008, 01:37
During the electoral race, this woman with the republican platform backing thought nothing about branding our President elect as a "domestic terrorist," "socialist," "marxist," and suggesting he was unamerican. She can sling this hash but can't eat what is slung at her by her own party? What a hypocrite and what a hypocritical party.
Holy Paradise
10-11-2008, 01:40
She's pretty clearly gearing up for a run in '12. Running against an incumbent will be tough, but if she can convince the evangelicals that they'll be welcome again in the party, she might just be able to mobilize the base. And believe me when I tell you that Republican strategists are going to be studying Obama's grassroots efforts veeeeeery carefully in the next few months and years.

I support: Anyone but Palin '12.
Console do Anjo
10-11-2008, 01:46
She's called Caribou Barbie now?

yep, sexism at it's finest.
Holy Paradise
10-11-2008, 02:04
I support: Anyone but Palin '12.

I made buttons!

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/301/2012buttonxu1.jpg
Knights of Liberty
10-11-2008, 02:07
yep, sexism at it's finest.

Taking shots at Palin for being a pampered little ditz isnt sexist.


I love the worshipers of Palin pretending like the only reason anyone could dislike that **** is because of sexism.
Braaainsss
10-11-2008, 02:16
Taking shots at Palin for being a pampered little ditz isnt sexist.


I love the worshipers of Palin pretending like the only reason anyone could dislike that **** is because of sexism.

And since Palin had lower approval ratings among women, women must be more sexist than men.
Ashmoria
10-11-2008, 02:28
Really? I seem to recall an interview where she said she had read every magazine (of all kinds) that had been published. That certainly fits the bill about pretending doesn't it?

And what about the whole "terrorist" claims from her? Or for that fact, her claims of "real Americans"?

Some of the things to blame her for are fluff and really not worth the effort. But the others cannot be excused away with "she wasn't prepared", unless by that you mean "she wasn't brainwashed to lose her prejudices". The best thing that we can hope is that the likes of Palin vanishes into obscurity forever, and focus on what has to be done now.
yeah that was pretending to know shit.

not.

she was trying to keep her head above water when she was completely out of her depth.

im not saying that she was a great candidate, she wasnt. she was woefully unprepared. she was not qualified for the job of VP when the job HAS no qualifications. but when mccain asked her she stepped up to the plate and did her best. that her best wasnt good enough is part of who she was the day she was chosen.

if our we needed one more person for the olympic track team and instead of a great runner the officials had chosen a supermodel would it have been HER fault that she didnt win? the most you could expect of the supermodel is that she run her heart out.

that is what mrs palin did. that she didnt make the grade is more of a reflection on john mccain than on her.
Dyakovo
10-11-2008, 02:40
that is what mrs palin did. that she didnt make the grade is more of a reflection on john mccain than on her.

It's McCain's fault she's a bigoted idiot? I don't think so. Maybe his fault that the rest of the country found out, but her ignorance is her own fault.
Redwulf
10-11-2008, 03:02
yeah that was pretending to know shit.

not.

she was trying to keep her head above water when she was completely out of her depth.

im not saying that she was a great candidate, she wasnt. she was woefully unprepared. she was not qualified for the job of VP when the job HAS no qualifications. but when mccain asked her she stepped up to the plate and did her best. that her best wasnt good enough is part of who she was the day she was chosen.

if our we needed one more person for the olympic track team and instead of a great runner the officials had chosen a supermodel would it have been HER fault that she didnt win? the most you could expect of the supermodel is that she run her heart out.

Yes. Just like Palin your hypothetical supermodel should have looked at the coach and said "What the fuck are you talking about? I'm not qualified, go find someone who is."
Ashmoria
10-11-2008, 03:02
It's McCain's fault she's a bigoted idiot? I don't think so. Maybe his fault that the rest of the country found out, but her ignorance is her own fault.
yes it is.

it is his fault that an idiot was running for VP and that she was completely unqualified.

otherwise what she knew or didnt know was only a problem for alaskans not for US.
Dyakovo
10-11-2008, 03:04
yes it is.

I fail to see how, she is the one who allowed herself to remain that ignorant, he did not make her be that stupid.
Ashmoria
10-11-2008, 03:06
Yes. Just like Palin your hypothetical supermodel should have looked at the coach and said "What the fuck are you talking about? I'm not qualified, go find someone who is."
yeah.

when your (potential) president asks you to serve, you serve. when you are a politician you dont pass up the greatest opportunity of your life. it was for him to decide who to run with and he chose an idiot.
Ashmoria
10-11-2008, 03:07
I fail to see how, she is the one who allowed herself to remain that ignorant, he did not make her be that stupid.
he chose her.

the blame falls on him.
Dyakovo
10-11-2008, 03:07
yeah.

when your (potential) president asks you to serve, you serve. when you are a politician you dont pass up the greatest opportunity of your life. it was for him to decide who to run with and he chose an idiot.

Which was a bad move on his part, but still not his fault that she is an idiot.

he chose her.

the blame falls on him.
Again, he did not make her be an idiot, so it is her fault.
TJHairball
10-11-2008, 03:09
And since Palin had lower approval ratings among women, women must be more sexist than men.
Hate to sound sexist myself, but when it comes to being hard on women in public, women are way meaner to women than men are.

Who do you really think enforces fashion codes? Social roles?

Now, for being vaguely condescending and belittling, well, men tend to do a lot more of that.It's a different style of things.
Braaainsss
10-11-2008, 03:11
he chose her.

the blame falls on him.

Maybe it's Abraham Lincoln's fault for starting the Republican Party.

Seriously, you want to blame all of Palin's defects on McCain?
Muravyets
10-11-2008, 03:12
yes it is.

it is his fault that an idiot was running for VP and that she was completely unqualified.

otherwise what she knew or didnt know was only a problem for alaskans not for US.

Sarah Palin is an ignorant ditz, but she is also a lying, manipulative, power-hungry, attention-addicted prima-donna who knows enough about politics to sling the most vicious negative campaign shit imaginable, stand by smiling while she whips up crowds into yelling for other people's deaths, hide her personal agenda -- high office, religion in government, etc. -- in order to con people into trusting her, abuse whatever authority/power she does get to satisfy her own personal desires and petty feuds -- and to aggressively pursue the very job she acted so surprised to get.

Frankly, Ashmoria, I am a little sick of this apparent "she was so clueless and innocent" image you seem to have of that woman. She was called "The Barracuda" by people who worked with her in Alaska for a reason.

She is a professional politician and dangerous one at that. Her only redeeming features are her stupidity and her lack of finesse, which at least allowed the majority of Americans saw right through her ridiculous "hockey mom" act. And now that the election is over, I wish Alaska good luck with her, and I fervently hope never to see that ***** again.
Knights of Liberty
10-11-2008, 03:13
Sarah Palin is an ignorant ditz, but she is also a lying, manipulative, power-hungry, attention-addicted prima-donna who knows enough about politics to sling the most vicious negative campaign shit imaginable, stand by smiling while she whips up crowds into yelling for other people's deaths, hide her personal agenda -- high office, religion in government, etc. -- in order to con people into trusting her, abuse whatever authority/power she does get to satisfy her own personal desires and petty feuds -- and to aggressively pursue the very job she acted so surprised to get.

Frankly, Ashmoria, I am a little sick of this apparent "she was so clueless and innocent" image you seem to have of that woman. She was called "The Barracuda" by people who worked with her in Alaska for a reason.

She is a professional politician and dangerous one at that. Her only redeeming features are her stupidity and her lack of finesse, which at least allowed the majority of Americans saw right through her ridiculous "hockey mom" act. And now that the election is over, I wish Alaska good luck with her, and I fervently hope never to see that ***** again.


OMG u r teh sexizt!!!!!11!
Muravyets
10-11-2008, 03:14
yeah.

when your (potential) president asks you to serve, you serve. when you are a politician you dont pass up the greatest opportunity of your life. it was for him to decide who to run with and he chose an idiot.
Really? Someone should have told that to the people who were rumored to have turned down the VP offer.
Intangelon
10-11-2008, 03:17
I'm not sure how reliable the sources in this story are, but if it's even remotely true, it's at least a little worrying.

http://www.truthout.org/110908Y

According to this, Palin's "he pals around with terrorists" demagoguery riled up some folks enough to cause a spike in the death threats against Obama and his family, some even right at Palin's rallies (where -- again, allegedly -- shouts of "he's a terrorist" and "kill him" were overheard).

Some of the article reads too melodramatically for my taste, so take it with a grain of salt.
Muravyets
10-11-2008, 03:27
I'm not sure how reliable the sources in this story are, but if it's even remotely true, it's at least a little worrying.

http://www.truthout.org/110908Y

According to this, Palin's "he pals around with terrorists" demagoguery riled up some folks enough to cause a spike in the death threats against Obama and his family, some even right at Palin's rallies (where -- again, allegedly -- shouts of "he's a terrorist" and "kill him" were overheard).

Some of the article reads too melodramatically for my taste, so take it with a grain of salt.
Haven't read the article yet, but as to the shouts at rallies, they were caught on news video at the time they happened and broadcast on television networks such as CNN and NBC/MSNBC, as well as reported on by other news media. "Kill him!" was shouted by a man at a Palin rally while she was repeating that ridiculous story about Obama and Ayers and terrorism. "Terrorist" was shouted more than once at a McCain rally, and at least once at a Palin rally. I heard those myself on television from sources that I have no reason to doubt.

EDIT: Okay, read the article. The only part of it that I find really doubtful is this:
Irate John McCain aides, who blame Mrs Palin for losing the election, claim Mrs Palin took it upon herself to question Mr Obama's patriotism, before the line of attack had been cleared by Mr McCain.
Seems pretty convenient after the fact, to claim that she was "going rogue" on that, considering how many times concurrent with her, McCain himself repeated those same lies.

As much as I loathe and despise Palin, the way her former campaign team are treating her now is pathetically shameful. Unprofessional doesn't come near to describing this schoolyard bullshit.
Ashmoria
10-11-2008, 03:28
Sarah Palin is an ignorant ditz, but she is also a lying, manipulative, power-hungry, attention-addicted prima-donna who knows enough about politics to sling the most vicious negative campaign shit imaginable, stand by smiling while she whips up crowds into yelling for other people's deaths, hide her personal agenda -- high office, religion in government, etc. -- in order to con people into trusting her, abuse whatever authority/power she does get to satisfy her own personal desires and petty feuds -- and to aggressively pursue the very job she acted so surprised to get.

Frankly, Ashmoria, I am a little sick of this apparent "she was so clueless and innocent" image you seem to have of that woman. She was called "The Barracuda" by people who worked with her in Alaska for a reason.

She is a professional politician and dangerous one at that. Her only redeeming features are her stupidity and her lack of finesse, which at least allowed the majority of Americans saw right through her ridiculous "hockey mom" act. And now that the election is over, I wish Alaska good luck with her, and I fervently hope never to see that ***** again.
i dont admire her.

i dont think that mccain's loss can be blamed on her. she worked as hard as anyone could for him.

he picked the manipulative bitch who was more than willing to go negative and say whatever they told her to say. he picked the ignorant fool who gave us images of putin's rearing head flying over alaska on its way to destroy america. he decided that a pretty charismatic woman was preferable to a less physically attractive republican who read several newspapers and knew that africa is a continent with many countries on it.

and if the rest of the republican party should want to run a woman in 2012 who has no opinions on national policy other than to ban abortion in all circumstances--good for them. and if they DO nominate her i hope that the bastards who chose her then blamed her for the loss suffer for it.
Ashmoria
10-11-2008, 03:29
Really? Someone should have told that to the people who were rumored to have turned down the VP offer.
yes they should have.
Muravyets
10-11-2008, 03:36
i dont admire her.

i dont think that mccain's loss can be blamed on her. she worked as hard as anyone could for him.

he picked the manipulative bitch who was more than willing to go negative and say whatever they told her to say. he picked the ignorant fool who gave us images of putin's rearing head flying over alaska on its way to destroy america. he decided that a pretty charismatic woman was preferable to a less physically attractive republican who read several newspapers and knew that africa is a continent with many countries on it.

and if the rest of the republican party should want to run a woman in 2012 who has no opinions on national policy other than to ban abortion in all circumstances--good for them. and if they DO nominate her i hope that the bastards who chose her then blamed her for the loss suffer for it.
OK, I see. You're just more interested in calling McCain out for allowing the gross incompetence that killed his campaign almost from day one than in lambasting Bible Spice for being... well... Bible Spice. That makes sense. I guess the thing that tweaks some people's nerves is anything that sounds likes it would make her out to be less than the vicious throne-chasing pol she is. As ridiculous as that woman is, she is someone who should not be shrugged off as not mattering, in my opinion. It's also my opinion that we have not heard the last of her, because she is too ambitious.
Leisenrov
10-11-2008, 03:36
I don't see what the big deal is. Someone said some rotten things about her. So what? 3/4 of the nation doesn't really give a damn anyway. We all have our own problems to deal with. I don't blame her for shooting back at them, in fact, I agree with her, but just let it go. Seriously. We have a country to fix, not your reputation, which has already gone down the shitter.
Blouman Empire
10-11-2008, 03:40
She's called Caribou Barbie now?

I liked the name Bible Spice.
Ashmoria
10-11-2008, 03:46
OK, I see. You're just more interested in calling McCain out for allowing the gross incompetence that killed his campaign almost from day one than in lambasting Bible Spice for being... well... Bible Spice. That makes sense. I guess the thing that tweaks some people's nerves is anything that sounds likes it would make her out to be less than the vicious throne-chasing pol she is. As ridiculous as that woman is, she is someone who should not be shrugged off as not mattering, in my opinion. It's also my opinion that we have not heard the last of her, because she is too ambitious.
my wonder is whether or not she can be bothered to do her homework or if she thinks that ambition is all she needs.

she needs to spend the next 8 years studying the hell out of ..... everything. so that if she chooses to run in '16 she can be the next reagan *spit* instead of a laughing stock.
Muravyets
10-11-2008, 03:53
my wonder is whether or not she can be bothered to do her homework or if she thinks that ambition is all she needs.

she needs to spend the next 8 years studying the hell out of ..... everything. so that if she chooses to run in '16 she can be the next reagan *spit* instead of a laughing stock.
I'll be seriously surprised if she does. I really honestly think that she thinks "the Lord will make a way" for her to do whatever she wants, with or without any effort on her part.
Barringtonia
10-11-2008, 03:56
Not sure why John McCain is taking much blame, he wanted to pick Joe Lieberman not Sarah Palin, who was pretty much foisted upon him. I'd say that goes a long way in explaining the bile coming from his camp about her, they didn't want her in the first place and so she's a natural scapegoat.

She was simply way out of her depth, the Katie Couric interview was, I mean as much as people might think she was unfairly treated, that interview was simply appalling, she was worse than useless.

She might be a nice person, the type of voter she appeals to, though, is not.
Heikoku 2
10-11-2008, 04:05
yep, sexism at it's finest.

You call that sexism?

Name ONE useful thing she did, regardless of her gender. She was a prop. She was a vagina with a cute face around it. McCain picked her OUT OF sexism, in the hopes of getting women to vote for him because Palin had a vagina. And you call a nickname that, let's face it, she goddamn earned, sexism?

ANYONE that wants respect must earn it. Female or male. And so far, all Palin has shown about herself is the fact that she's a vagina with an utterly insane proto-politician, unable to tell Africa is a CONTINENT, around it.
Ashmoria
10-11-2008, 04:09
I'll be seriously surprised if she does. I really honestly think that she thinks "the Lord will make a way" for her to do whatever she wants, with or without any effort on her part.
i hate to stereotype her as the type of woman i think she is--one that does the minimum and relies on looks and charm to get her what she wants. its what she has done so far but outside of a small state like alaska that doesnt work these days where women are pretty, charming AND have spent years building the resume they need for the job they want.
Ashmoria
10-11-2008, 04:10
Not sure why John McCain is taking much blame, he wanted to pick Joe Lieberman not Sarah Palin, who was pretty much foisted upon him. I'd say that goes a long way in explaining the bile coming from his camp about her, they didn't want her in the first place and so she's a natural scapegoat.

She was simply way out of her depth, the Katie Couric interview was, I mean as much as people might think she was unfairly treated, that interview was simply appalling, she was worse than useless.

She might be a nice person, the type of voter she appeals to, though, is not.
john mccain chose her. he was the boss. if he couldnt make the choice he wanted for VP or run the campaign as he thought it should be run then thank god he didnt win. we dont need a wimp for a president.
Braaainsss
10-11-2008, 04:27
john mccain chose her. he was the boss. if he couldnt make the choice he wanted for VP or run the campaign as he thought it should be run then thank god he didnt win. we dont need a wimp for a president.

I can't believe you're defending Palin and attacking McCain. John McCain is such a better person than Sarah Palin. He let his advisers convince him he needed an evangelical Christian to shore up the base. There's no way he could have guessed she would be that dumb.
Heikoku 2
10-11-2008, 04:36
I can't believe you're defending Palin and attacking McCain. John McCain is such a better person than Sarah Palin. He let his advisers convince him he needed an evangelical Christian to shore up the base. There's no way he could have guessed she would be that dumb.

He COULD have vetted her.

Regardless:

McCain is an old, corrupt warmonger who is unable to vet his VP choice, and whose main argument for "vote for me for President" is "I got beaten up in the country I invaded once". Which would mean, by that kind of thought, that I deserve a position as, maybe, a city councilman in my city, because I was bullied in high school.

Palin is a vagina with a proto-politician around it whose claim to foreign policy expertise is "you can see Russia from Alaska on a very clear day" and who fails to grasp concepts such as Africa being a continent, all the while selling the notion that God is on her side and not only having a delusion that she is doing God's work, but also gaining with it politically.

They are BOTH to blame for EXISTING and drawing breath that could be so much better used by people like ME.
Knights of Liberty
10-11-2008, 04:38
He COULD have vetted her.

Regardless:

McCain is an old, corrupt warmonger who is unable to vet his VP choice, and whose main argument for "vote for me for President" is "I got beaten up in the country I invaded once". Which would mean, by that kind of thought, that I deserve a position as, maybe, a city councilman in my city, because I was bullied in high school.

Palin is a vagina with a proto-politician around it whose claim to foreign policy expertise is "you can see Russia from Alaska on a very clear day" and who fails to grasp concepts such as Africa being a continent, all the while selling the notion that God is on her side and not only having a delusion that she is doing God's work, but also gaining with it politically.

They are BOTH to blame for EXISTING and drawing breath that could be so much better used by people like ME.


You know, not everyone politically opposed to you is evil and deserves to be euthanized.
Heikoku 2
10-11-2008, 04:42
You know, not everyone politically opposed to you is evil and deserves to be euthanized.

They had to be told to stop by the Secret Service after trying to get elected by whipping up crowds enough that people shouted "kill him" and "off with his head" regarding Obama (and Palin went on with her speech after one did). My best friend online is a Republican. I don't think he's evil. But these two, I don't pity them at all. And if Obama or his family come upon harm caused by crazed Republicans who think he's a terrorist, it's blood on McCain's and Palin's paws.
Knights of Liberty
10-11-2008, 04:44
They had to be told to stop by the Secret Service after trying to get elected by whipping up crowds enough that people shouted "kill him" and "off with his head" regarding Obama. My best friend online is a Republican. I don't think he's evil. But these two, I don't pity them at all. And if Obama or his family come upon harm caused by crazed Republicans who think he's a terrorist, it's blood on McCain's and Palin's paws.

McCain wasnt whipping up crowds. McCain was shutting them up.
Heikoku 2
10-11-2008, 04:46
McCain wasnt whipping up crowds. McCain was shutting them up.

"Obama is connected to Ayers, my friends! Ayers is a washed up old terrorist Obama is connected to! Also, Obama is a decent man."

The crowds had to be shut up BECAUSE they were whipped up. Incidentally, McCain was either having pangs of conscience (y'know, before calling Obama a socialist) or this was early-onset Alzheimer's.
Braaainsss
10-11-2008, 04:47
He COULD have vetted her.

Bah, mavericks don't vet!

McCain is a longtime public servant who's made real attempts to work across party lines to get things done--campaign finance, climate change, etc. He f*cked up majorly in picking Sarah Palin. But he was the best out of the GOP primary candidates, and he was a worthy opponent.

But I agree that Palin is an utter joke.
Blouman Empire
10-11-2008, 04:47
They had to be told to stop by the Secret Service after trying to get elected by whipping up crowds enough that people shouted "kill him" and "off with his head" regarding Obama (and Palin went on with her speech after one did). My best friend online is a Republican. I don't think he's evil. But these two, I don't pity them at all. And if Obama or his family come upon harm caused by crazed Republicans who think he's a terrorist, it's blood on McCain's and Palin's paws.

Wasn't it the Clinton campaign team who began the rumours of him being a terrorist?
Redwulf
10-11-2008, 04:48
They had to be told to stop by the Secret Service after trying to get elected by whipping up crowds enough that people shouted "kill him" and "off with his head" regarding Obama (and Palin went on with her speech after one did). My best friend online is a Republican.

Wait, did you just pull out "some of my best friends are republicans" as a defense against an accusation of prejudice against republicans? Have you ever seen "some of my best friends are <FITB>" successfully used as a defense?
Heikoku 2
10-11-2008, 04:48
Wasn't it the Clinton campaign team who began the rumours of him being a terrorist?

Feel free to look up what I said about Hillary at the time.
Braaainsss
10-11-2008, 04:49
"Obama is connected to Ayers, my friends! Ayers is a washed up old terrorist Obama is connected to! Also, Obama is a decent man."

The crowds had to be shut up BECAUSE they were whipped up. Incidentally, McCain was either having pangs of conscience (y'know, before calling Obama a socialist) or this was early-onset Alzheimer's.

Palin was by far the most responsible for whipping up the crowds. McCain aids were saying even during the campaign that they hadn't approved a lot of the stuff she was saying.
Blouman Empire
10-11-2008, 04:50
Feel free to look up what I said about Hillary at the time.

I would but it was Clinton that brought this up and started whipping up the people not McCain.
Heikoku 2
10-11-2008, 04:50
Wait, did you just pull out "some of my best friends are republicans" as a defense against an accusation of prejudice against republicans? Have you ever seen "some of my best friends are <FITB>" successfully used as a defense?

A weakly-based accusation elicits a weakly-based defense.
Heikoku 2
10-11-2008, 04:50
I would but it was Clinton that brought this up and started whipping up the people not McCain.

Who raised Ayers again?
Braaainsss
10-11-2008, 04:51
Who raised Ayers again?

Palin. Allegedly without approval from McCain.
Heikoku 2
10-11-2008, 04:53
Palin was by far the most responsible for whipping up the crowds. McCain aids were saying even during the campaign that they hadn't approved a lot of the stuff she was saying.

Then McCain, who vetted her and picked her (and not, say, ANY OTHER Republican female, Republican male, or Joe Lieberman, whose gender I don't know), should have spoken more forcibly. As opposed to going "I don't care about some washed-up old terrorist Obama has been friends with" and "he's a decent man". He should have openly, forcibly repudiated what she said, instead of risking her getting Obama or his family MURDERED just so he could get closer to the White House. Ironically, if it was done, and done well, it might have gotten McCain in the White House in the first place.
Knights of Liberty
10-11-2008, 04:53
Wasn't it the Clinton campaign team who began the rumours of him being a terrorist?

No.
Blouman Empire
10-11-2008, 04:54
Who raised Ayers again?

Wasn't it Palin. And who orginally brought out the stuff about Obama being a terrorist and a muslim?
Knights of Liberty
10-11-2008, 04:54
I would but it was Clinton that brought this up and started whipping up the people not McCain.

Again, no.

I dont know if youre doing it, but usually the only people who say this are the people who are trying the "OMG ITS NOT THE REPUBLICANS DOING BAD THINGS ITS ALWAYS TEH EBIL DEMS!!!!"
Knights of Liberty
10-11-2008, 04:55
Wasn't it Palin. And who orginally brought out the stuff about Obama being a terrorist and a muslim?

IL state Republicans brought this up when he was a state senator.


The Republicans started this OMG MUSLIM!!! crap. Dont try and pawn this off on the Democrats.

Ive told you this before. 9 times before. You have no excuse to keep parroting this shit.
Blouman Empire
10-11-2008, 04:55
No.

Oh ok, was that about him being a Muslim then?
Knights of Liberty
10-11-2008, 04:56
Oh ok, was that about him being a Muslim then?

IL state Republicans started this stuff when he was a state senator. Thats time 10 Ive told you this.
Blouman Empire
10-11-2008, 04:57
Again, no.

I dont know if youre doing it, but usually the only people who say this are the people who are trying the "OMG ITS NOT THE REPUBLICANS DOING BAD THINGS ITS ALWAYS TEH EBIL DEMS!!!!"

No I was under the impression from both reading various articles and posts on this thread that Clinton engaged in various smear tactics during the candidate selection and brought up stuff like this. Including him being a muslim.
Blouman Empire
10-11-2008, 04:57
IL state Republicans started this stuff when he was a state senator. Thats time 10 Ive told you this.

Yes I know but when I was typing up my post you were posting yours, and so there was some confusion.
Knights of Liberty
10-11-2008, 04:57
No I was under the impression from both reading various articles and posts on this thread that Clinton engaged in various smear tactics during the candidate selection and brought up stuff like this. Including him being a muslim.

She did. But she didnt start it.

And she never directly started the OMG EBIL MOSLEM!!! shit.
Braaainsss
10-11-2008, 04:59
No I was under the impression from both reading various articles and posts on this thread that Clinton engaged in various smear tactics during the candidate selection and brought up stuff like this. Including him being a muslim.

Clinton used the Rev. Wright attack. Which McCain, to his credit, clearly and deliberately vetoed to his campaign.
Heikoku 2
10-11-2008, 04:59
She did. But she didnt start it.

And she never directly started the OMG EBIL MOSLEM!!! shit.

She did pull the "...that I know of." crapola though.

By the way, Hillary Clinton is not a child molester. That I know of.
Muravyets
10-11-2008, 05:13
Palin. Allegedly without approval from McCain.
Well, that dedicated public servant who was such a worthy opponent seemed to have no trouble jumping on her bandwagon then, even though he supposedly hadn't approved it. The name Ayers and the word "terrorist" fell out of his mouth plenty of times. It's only NOW that they have to pick themselves out of their own wreckage that some McCain staffers are claiming she was so freakishly off message.

All this arguing is bullshit. Who cares one way or the other? Palin had no business being in that campaign. McCain screwed every pooch he came across during the whole pathetic saga. I have never seen such a clusterfuck of a campaign. And I, for one, am grateful for it.

Who torpedoed that campaign? Every person who was ever connected to it, even peripherally.

Why did they lose? Because they are losers.

Done and done. Let them all fade into the obscurity they earned.

But discredited and beaten though they may be, they're none of them dead, so there is no reason to start pussyfooting around and avoiding speaking ill of them now. Sarah Palin and John McCain and their entire campaign "team" taken together represent everything that is wrong with our nation -- an insane rightwing hellbent to believe in anything except logic and personal responsibility, a cynical power structure that thinks it can manipulate the nuts with bullshit media images, spineless leaders, and party hacks who would set fire to their own mothers if they thought it would put their bosses into power. None of them deserves even the respect it takes to try to figure them out -- except so we can make sure such creatures never get into power again.
Muravyets
10-11-2008, 05:19
Clinton used the Rev. Wright attack. Which McCain, to his credit, clearly and deliberately vetoed to his campaign.
To his credit? Or might it have had something to do with the batshit crazy clergy he was connected to himself, who he would have had to answer for? Remember Haygee? Who was the other one -- Parsley somebody? Sorry, I can't remember how to spell them.
Neo Art
10-11-2008, 05:23
To his credit? Or might it have had something to do with the batshit crazy clergy he was connected to himself, who he would have had to answer for? Remember Haygee? Who was the other one -- Parsley somebody? Sorry, I can't remember how to spell them.

What is one's crazy preacher is another's stalwart protector against voodooism and that evil god Hindu.
Gauthier
10-11-2008, 05:26
To his credit? Or might it have had something to do with the batshit crazy clergy he was connected to himself, who he would have had to answer for? Remember Haygee? Who was the other one -- Parsley somebody? Sorry, I can't remember how to spell them.

Ted Hagee - Hurricane Katrina was God's Punishment™ to New Orleans for condoning homosexuality.

Rod Parsley - Christians need to rise up in arms and destroy the False Religion that is Islam.

And of course The Liberal Media™ unfairly kept focusing covering on these two while taking it easy on Jeremiah Wright.

:D
Braaainsss
10-11-2008, 05:27
Geez, I'm not trying to defend everything McCain did. I'm just saying on a scale of despicableness, he ranks far lower than Palin. She hasn't done anything worthwhile in her entire life.
Muravyets
10-11-2008, 05:28
What is one's crazy preacher is another's stalwart protector against voodooism and that evil god Hindu.
You said it. :D

Though really, I'm a little puzzled by some people seeming to want, now, to sort of whitewash McCain and even Palin herself, as if they didn't do exactly what they were seen to be doing right on world television.
Braaainsss
10-11-2008, 05:29
To his credit? Or might it have had something to do with the batshit crazy clergy he was connected to himself, who he would have had to answer for? Remember Haygee? Who was the other one -- Parsley somebody? Sorry, I can't remember how to spell them.

I think it's because he didn't want to be perceived as race-baiting. Hagee would not have been a good counterattack, because the meme about Obama "radical" was already there, and it wouldn't have taken hold with McCain.
Muravyets
10-11-2008, 05:31
Ted Hagee - Hurricane Katrina was God's Punishment™ to New Orleans for condoning homosexuality.

Rod Parsley - Christians need to rise up in arms and destroy the False Religion that is Islam.

And of course The Liberal Media™ unfairly kept focusing covering on these two while taking it easy on Jeremiah Wright.

:D
Ah, that's right. Thanks. And those are just McCain's spiritual advisors and friends. Let's not even go near Palin's Reverend Witchfinder General. In fact, let's run far away from him. Yeah, heh, why did McCain keep Rev. Wright off limits? Gosh, I wonder. Musta been his ethics. /sarcasm.

Geez, I'm not trying to defend everything McCain did. I'm just saying on a scale of despicableness, he ranks far lower than Palin. She hasn't done anything worthwhile in her entire life.
I disagree. I'd say they both engaged in equally deplorable excesses, of different kinds, and deserve equal credit for being scummy, each in their own way.
Muravyets
10-11-2008, 05:33
I think it's because he didn't want to be perceived as race-baiting. Hagee would not have been a good counterattack, because the meme about Obama "radical" was already there, and it wouldn't have taken hold with McCain.
WTF are you talking about?
Neo Art
10-11-2008, 05:34
You said it. :D

Though really, I'm a little puzzled by some people seeming to want, now, to sort of whitewash McCain and even Palin herself, as if they didn't do exactly what they were seen to be doing right on world television.

sort of how now, after the fact, all the "conservatives" are railing against bush, trying to pretend that he's not exactly the guy whom they voted for.

Twice.
Braaainsss
10-11-2008, 05:38
WTF are you talking about?
I'm saying that the reason McCain didn't use the Rev. Wright attack was that it would have been perceived as a racist attack. Just as it was perceived as racist when Clinton use it.
Barringtonia
10-11-2008, 05:40
I doubt anyone on the Republican side could have won this election in retrospect. The problem is that what was united under Nixon has now been ripped apart.

Personally, I hope this heralds the death of evangelist religion and its influence on the right. I've never seen anything good about these people and that Genesis video kind of summed it up.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RTrYE4a1BmE

Religion tied to capitalism is an insidious thing, in a way John McCain was the perfect candidate to highlight the fact that pandering to these people causes a corruption of the soul. The fact that Sarah Palin was thrust upon him was all the sweeter.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens to the party.
Neo Art
10-11-2008, 05:43
I doubt anyone on the Republican side could have won this election in retrospect.

I don't think that's necessarily true, as McCain's post convention bounce put him in the lead by a good few points.

Now, I know what you're saying, it was just a convention bounce, and those things drop in time. Now while that is generally true, the time immediately post republican convention showed that there were enough undecideds and weakly democrat leaning independents out there who were at least open to the idea of voting McCain. The fact that he did, at some point, poll ahead (even if it took a convention to get him there, and only temporarily) suggests that it was at least possible for him to get enough people on his side.

The fact that he made serious blunders that later pushed them away doesn't mean it was flat out impossible for him to win, despite the right wingers who try to console themselves with believing that McCain was doomed from the start. He could have won, if he handled it better.
Barringtonia
10-11-2008, 05:54
I don't think that's necessarily true, as McCain's post convention bounce put him in the lead by a good few points.

Now, I know what you're saying, it was just a convention bounce, and those things drop in time. Now while that is generally true, the time immediately post republican convention showed that there were enough undecideds and weakly democrat leaning independents out there who were at least open to the idea of voting McCain. The fact that he did, at some point, poll ahead (even if it took a convention to get him there, and only temporarily) suggests that it was at least possible for him to get enough people on his side.

The fact that he made serious blunders that later pushed them away doesn't mean it was flat out impossible for him to win, despite the right wingers who try to console themselves with believing that McCain was doomed from the start. He could have won, if he handled it better.

I'm just not sure the election was lost by how poorly John McCain did but more on just how well Barack Obama did. He handled each and every issue and/or crisis calmly and confidently.

...and when I think of the other potential Republican candidates, all had the same problem, they could attract one side but not the other.
Muravyets
10-11-2008, 06:06
I'm saying that the reason McCain didn't use the Rev. Wright attack was that it would have been perceived as a racist attack. Just as it was perceived as racist when Clinton use it.
Was it perceived that way? That's not how I heard it analyzed. Frankly, I think the reason McCain didn't go after Wright was twofold: The aforementioned crazy rightwing preachers he was connected to, and the fact that, thanks to Clinton, the claim that Obama was somehow responsible for Wright's words had already been thoroughly debunked.
Grave_n_idle
10-11-2008, 06:07
she is who she is. she is the same person she was the day before mccain chose her. she didnt pretend to know stuff she didnt know.

She most assuredly did. Ignoring the stuff where you can speculate - like her foreign policy experience, which camse down to 'living near Russia', in the end... and going straight for the big one - she repeatedly explained what the actual position of VP means. And she was wrong on every occasion (I make it four times she pretended she knew and was wrong, and one time she ASKED what the job of the VP was... in an interview... AFTER she'd accepte the position).

She absolutely pretended to know stuff she didn't know - from the bottom to the top, including... what her job would be if they DID win.
Grave_n_idle
10-11-2008, 06:09
yeah.

when your (potential) president asks you to serve, you serve. when you are a politician you dont pass up the greatest opportunity of your life. it was for him to decide who to run with and he chose an idiot.

So what about people like Ms Rice, who said she wouldn't take the job even if it was offered? I could be wrong - but I seem to recall there were quite a few 'I wouldn't take it if it was offered' statements issued.
Braaainsss
10-11-2008, 07:03
Was it perceived that way? That's not how I heard it analyzed. Frankly, I think the reason McCain didn't go after Wright was twofold: The aforementioned crazy rightwing preachers he was connected to, and the fact that, thanks to Clinton, the claim that Obama was somehow responsible for Wright's words had already been thoroughly debunked.
But the same two reasons could apply to Ayers, et al. And in the case of the attack on Rashid Kalidi, McCain had actually given money to the guy. Unlike those two, Obama did have a substantive connection to Wright.

Hmm....found a Newsweek article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/164504)that supports my suspicion.
Many senior advisers, as well as McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, believe the campaign should remind voters of Obama's ties to Wright, whose inflammatory sermons emerged as a problem for the Democratic nominee during the primary. "If we were to go up with an ad during the final weeks of this campaign just showing excerpts of [Wright's] sermons, we would probably win," says one senior McCain aide, who declined to be named discussing internal debates on tactics. "But we won't."

McCain has refused to do it. The main reason, according to two aides who did not want to be named discussing private conversations with the candidate: any attack could be viewed as racially insensitive—or stir up racist sentiments—and that gets personal for McCain. He has not forgotten the racial smear directed at his own family during the South Carolina primary in 2000, when he ran against George W. Bush.
Knights of Liberty
10-11-2008, 07:05
But the same two reasons could apply to Ayers, et al. And in the case of the attack on Rashid Kalidi, McCain had actually given money to the guy. Unlike those two, Obama did have a substantive connection to Wright.

Hmm....found a Newsweek article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/164504)that supports my suspicion.

Oh ok. This is funny:

and that gets personal for McCain. He has not forgotten the racial smear directed at his own family during the South Carolina primary in 2000, when he ran against George W. Bush.

Which is why he hired those exact same guys to work for his campaign, right?

Sorry, not buying it.
Ardchoille
10-11-2008, 07:14
So what about people like Ms Rice, who said she wouldn't take the job even if it was offered? I could be wrong - but I seem to recall there were quite a few 'I wouldn't take it if it was offered' statements issued.


Besides, there's sound precedent.

"If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman
Braaainsss
10-11-2008, 07:16
Oh ok. This is funny:



Which is why he hired those exact same guys to work for his campaign, right?

Sorry, not buying it.

But not to do racial attacks. Just because he threw away most of his decency doesn't mean he threw away all of it.

I'd really like to focus my contempt on Palin now, okay? I only have so much of it to go around.
Barringtonia
10-11-2008, 07:56
Again, I'm just not sure this was so much a case of the McCain/Palin losing compared to Barack Obama winning, though one might say it was more that the Republicans overall lost.

If I was the RNC, I'd avoid blaming anyone and think about how they might reconnect.

Generally, however, after a loss like this, parties tend to entrench rather than reconfigure - I'm guessing it will be a good 12 years before they regain power barring unforeseen circumstances.
Muravyets
10-11-2008, 15:25
But not to do racial attacks. Just because he threw away most of his decency doesn't mean he threw away all of it.
Actually, in the end, he did -- or rather, he let proxies do it for him. In the last week before election day, New England was inundated -- I mean every single commercial break on tv -- with scare ads rehashing all the Rev. Wright accusations and claiming that Obama only backed off from Wright after he decided to run for president. Literally every 15 minutes of that, paid for by the Republican party.

Yeah, McCain kept just enough of his decency to demur when asked directly, but he was still whore enough step aside and let others do his attacking for him, just so long as he didn't have to say on tape that he endorsed the message.

I'd really like to focus my contempt on Palin now, okay? I only have so much of it to go around.
Well, then I suggest you give up trying to compliment McCain for character qualities he doesn't have and things he didn't do.
Ashmoria
10-11-2008, 15:35
So what about people like Ms Rice, who said she wouldn't take the job even if it was offered? I could be wrong - but I seem to recall there were quite a few 'I wouldn't take it if it was offered' statements issued.
those people should have been willing to take the job.

but i think mrs palin was the only one offered it. mccain wanted lieberman (that would have been a disaster) and when he couldnt have him, he went rogue and picked palin.
Ashmoria
10-11-2008, 15:42
Again, I'm just not sure this was so much a case of the McCain/Palin losing compared to Barack Obama winning, though one might say it was more that the Republicans overall lost.

If I was the RNC, I'd avoid blaming anyone and think about how they might reconnect.

Generally, however, after a loss like this, parties tend to entrench rather than reconfigure - I'm guessing it will be a good 12 years before they regain power barring unforeseen circumstances.
the blaming thing is a front for the infighting over what wing of the party is going to control the republican party from now on. will it be the "romney wing" that focuses on fiscal repsonsibility or the "palin wing" that focuses on social issues. i think the 2 sides are done with each other.

or maybe they can go the 3rd route of "scared white people clinging to power"

whatever they decide on they will still have to work almost from scratch to create enough of a coalition with someone to have a chance to win in the future. they are going to have to face reality and move toward the center of something.
Tmutarakhan
10-11-2008, 15:56
Besides, there's sound precedent.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_ShermanMorris Udall once said, "If drafted, I will run-- for the Mexican border. If elected, I will fight extradition."
Grave_n_idle
10-11-2008, 18:06
those people should have been willing to take the job.


Why?

If I were legitimate to run for the office today, there are few Democrats I would be willing to run alongside, and even fewer Republicans.

McCain was an attempt to distance the new regime from the old - an anti-Republican Republican. Most Republicans wouldn't want to run for VP on that ticket.
Verdigroth
11-11-2008, 03:01
If anyone is interested there is apparently a standing offer of 2 mil for Bible Spice to do porn. I plan on getting a copy, after all I support my governor:P
Heikoku 2
11-11-2008, 11:48
If anyone is interested there is apparently a standing offer of 2 mil for Bible Spice to do porn. I plan on getting a copy, after all I support my governor:P

"VPILFs In Heat"?
JuNii
11-11-2008, 18:26
"VPILFs In Heat"?

eeewwwww...

sorry, but Ferraro really doesn't look that good.
Ashmoria
11-11-2008, 19:10
Why?

If I were legitimate to run for the office today, there are few Democrats I would be willing to run alongside, and even fewer Republicans.

McCain was an attempt to distance the new regime from the old - an anti-Republican Republican. Most Republicans wouldn't want to run for VP on that ticket.
because if they are a republican they need to support their party, their candidate and their president should he be elected.

in whatever way he needs them to serve. they need to be out there in the bad times as well as the good ones. to calculate that their guy wont win so they wont do their best for him is churlish.

now mrs palin had the extra benefit of being catapulted into the national spotlight in a way that comes once in a lifetime. this was her chance and if she wasnt ready for it (which she wasnt) it was mccain's responsibility to deny her it.

same as joe the plumber who grabbed as much spotlight and benefit he could from his brief time of national attention. an ambitious person does not let opportunity pass by due to lack of qualifications. it will probably never come around again.
Grave_n_idle
11-11-2008, 20:21
because if they are a republican they need to support their party, their candidate and their president should he be elected.


I couldn't disagree more.

McCain was a bad candidate. He wasn't picked because he is a typical Republican, he was picked because he's NOT. Whichever Republican tied themselves to that ticket was choosing to betray their party ideals for the sake of election convenience - which is why the only bite he got was an inexperienced megalomaniac, more interested in her own agenda than the party line.

The McCain ticket was a sell-out. The right thing to do, for anyone who is interested in what the party stands for, was to kick McCain to the kerb.
Muravyets
11-11-2008, 23:48
because if they are a republican they need to support their party, their candidate and their president should he be elected.

in whatever way he needs them to serve. they need to be out there in the bad times as well as the good ones. to calculate that their guy wont win so they wont do their best for him is churlish.

now mrs palin had the extra benefit of being catapulted into the national spotlight in a way that comes once in a lifetime. this was her chance and if she wasnt ready for it (which she wasnt) it was mccain's responsibility to deny her it.

same as joe the plumber who grabbed as much spotlight and benefit he could from his brief time of national attention. an ambitious person does not let opportunity pass by due to lack of qualifications. it will probably never come around again.
Um... belonging to a political party is not like being in the military, nor even like having a job. They are not the boss of their members. No one is required to do anything to support the party they claim to belong to. Also, public service is voluntary in the US. If the candidate your party picks is not one you support, you're allowed to take your vote elsewhere. If the candidate does something you can't support (like pick Palin for VP), you're allowed to withdraw your support of him. And you don't have to feel pressured to comply when your party's candidate asks you to do something for him because, candidate or not -- hell, president or not -- you don't work for him, you don't work for the party, you don't work for the government, you don't work for the country. Unless you want to.

I think I get what you're trying to say, but it's a very weak argument. McCain did not lose because he was somehow let down by other Republicans. The entire Republican party lost because they let their policy position get so whacked out that even much of their own membership could no longer support it, leaving only the most either incompetent or dishonest left to run their show. And if that's how it went, then they deserved to lose. Chiding some Republicans for not jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge just because other Republicans were doing it too seems silly. It's my opinion that any Republican who had any self-respect, or respect for the nation, or any hope of a political future, or any combination thereof, not only could have been expected to steer clear of McCain, but did right by refusing to join forces with him.
Knights of Liberty
12-11-2008, 00:05
same as joe the plumber who grabbed as much spotlight and benefit he could from his brief time of national attention. an ambitious person does not let opportunity pass by due to lack of qualifications. it will probably never come around again.

It didnt help that we had Lou "Mr. Independent" Dobbs saying he should be a senator, which only made Joe stronger in his false conviction that he knew what the fuck he was talking about.
Grave_n_idle
12-11-2008, 01:24
Um... belonging to a political party is not like being in the military, nor even like having a job. They are not the boss of their members. No one is required to do anything to support the party they claim to belong to. Also, public service is voluntary in the US. If the candidate your party picks is not one you support, you're allowed to take your vote elsewhere. If the candidate does something you can't support (like pick Palin for VP), you're allowed to withdraw your support of him. And you don't have to feel pressured to comply when your party's candidate asks you to do something for him because, candidate or not -- hell, president or not -- you don't work for him, you don't work for the party, you don't work for the government, you don't work for the country. Unless you want to.


Makes me think of something else, also.

McCain wasn't the "Republican candidate' for president - he was the candidate running, that the Republican party endorsed. Other individual Republicans are under no compulsion to extend that party endorsement any further. Of course, in practical terms, if your party tells you to jump you probably jump... but there are times when it's worth kicking against the pricks.
[NS]Nation of Quebec
12-11-2008, 01:34
The Republicans pretty much shot themselves in the foot on this campaign. It was a series of bad decisions made by the party that led to their defeat.

McCain picking Palin as his running mate was probably the worst mistake he ever could have made. She was unqualified, ambitious, and too dangerous to ever become Vice President, let alone President. We all know that McCain only picked her to electrify the nuts, which he was successful at, and in an attempt to appeal to women, which he failed at.

Palin scared away the moderates and independents to Obama and I can't blame them for doing so. I wouldn't want to be represented by a party with one of the most extremist nutjobs as the leader's running mate.

As an Obama supporter, I can only hope that this divides the Republican Party so that people like Palin are kept as far away from power as possible.
Heikoku 2
12-11-2008, 01:46
Nation of Quebec;14199826']We all know that McCain only picked her to electrify the nuts

Something Bush is having people do to innocent and guilty inmates alike in Gitmo...
Dyakovo
12-11-2008, 02:47
because if they are a republican they need to support their party, their candidate and their president should he be elected.

I have never understood that attitude. By that reasoning I should have voted for George H.W. Bush in '88 & 92, Bob Dole in '96, George W. Bush in '00 & '04 and McCain this year (I'm actually registered as a Republican). Out of that list I only voted for George H.W. Bush in '88. Granted I should probably change my registration, but I quite frankly don't see the point since it means nothing.
Ashmoria
12-11-2008, 02:52
Um... belonging to a political party is not like being in the military, nor even like having a job. They are not the boss of their members. No one is required to do anything to support the party they claim to belong to. Also, public service is voluntary in the US. If the candidate your party picks is not one you support, you're allowed to take your vote elsewhere. If the candidate does something you can't support (like pick Palin for VP), you're allowed to withdraw your support of him. And you don't have to feel pressured to comply when your party's candidate asks you to do something for him because, candidate or not -- hell, president or not -- you don't work for him, you don't work for the party, you don't work for the government, you don't work for the country. Unless you want to.

I think I get what you're trying to say, but it's a very weak argument. McCain did not lose because he was somehow let down by other Republicans. The entire Republican party lost because they let their policy position get so whacked out that even much of their own membership could no longer support it, leaving only the most either incompetent or dishonest left to run their show. And if that's how it went, then they deserved to lose. Chiding some Republicans for not jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge just because other Republicans were doing it too seems silly. It's my opinion that any Republican who had any self-respect, or respect for the nation, or any hope of a political future, or any combination thereof, not only could have been expected to steer clear of McCain, but did right by refusing to join forces with him.
no

really

national politics is a business of loyalty. if you have ambitions of being a party leader of some sort you have to support your guys. whether or not they are a winner because the worse the loss the worse it is for the party and for you.

i am not saying that mccain lost because the party didnt back him hard enough....

well OK i am in the sense that the republican party is such a mess that they nominated a candidate that no one liked and no one really supported.

come the convention mccain should have been able to run to the middle and pick a rational vp nominee (not that his preference of lieberman was rational) that would bring independents and conservative democrats to his side.

but because the republicans have an unsatisfiable base he had to reach back to the nutcase fundamentalists and generate party excitement with sarah palin.

he still wouldnt have won because without her none of those republicans would have bothered to vote.

and because he ran a horrible campaign that had so many grievous errors that its hard to list them all.
Ashmoria
12-11-2008, 02:54
I have never understood that attitude. By that reasoning I should have voted for George H.W. Bush in '88 & 92, Bob Dole in '96, George W. Bush in '00 & '04 and McCain this year (I'm actually registered as a Republican). Out of that list I only voted for George H.W. Bush in '88. Granted I should probably change my registration, but I quite frankly don't see the point since it means nothing.
you are not a party leader. you dont live and die by what happens to the party.
Dyakovo
12-11-2008, 02:56
you are not a party leader. you dont live and die by what happens to the party.

I'm also not ideologically actually a member of the party :D
Muravyets
12-11-2008, 03:04
no

really

national politics is a business of loyalty. if you have ambitions of being a party leader of some sort you have to support your guys. whether or not they are a winner because the worse the loss the worse it is for the party and for you.
So, does that mean you lay some kind of ethical blame on all Republicans who voted for Obama?

I'm sorry, but in US politics, as much as I despise political parties, I just do not accept an argument that they are some kind of overbearing authority that all their members are supposed to march in lockstep with.
Redwulf
12-11-2008, 03:04
you are not a party leader. you dont live and die by what happens to the party.

Unless they took the party leaders out back and had them shot after the McCain debacle, neither do party leaders.
Muravyets
12-11-2008, 03:05
you are not a party leader. you dont live and die by what happens to the party.
Neither do party leaders. Except for some campaign managers and maybe John McCain himself, I don't think anyone's career has been ended by this loss.
Dyakovo
12-11-2008, 03:05
Unless they took the party leaders out back and had them shot after the McCain debacle, neither do party leaders.

lol
Ashmoria
12-11-2008, 03:10
Neither do party leaders. Except for some campaign managers and maybe John McCain himself, I don't think anyone's career has been ended by this loss.
have you seen the democrats lining up to get goverment jobs?

all those republicans who have been employed for the past 8 years have to get honest work now.
Muravyets
12-11-2008, 03:15
have you seen the democrats lining up to get goverment jobs?

all those republicans who have been employed for the past 8 years have to get honest work now.
That happens with every single new administration. Even when the WH stays within party, the new president will likely replace the old people with his own choices. Party loyalty has little to do with it. Also, voting a certain way does not guarantee a party member a job because, you know, buying votes via quid pro quo is illegal.
Ashmoria
12-11-2008, 03:17
So, does that mean you lay some kind of ethical blame on all Republicans who voted for Obama?

I'm sorry, but in US politics, as much as I despise political parties, I just do not accept an argument that they are some kind of overbearing authority that all their members are supposed to march in lockstep with.
not at all.

voters are different from party leaders.

the party leaders, the reps, governors, senators, etc had a duty to work to get mccain elected. if that had included being tapped as vp nominee it was their duty to take it (as long as they told mccain everything he needed to know about their detriments.) THEY all got elected because the party worked for them. they need to pay the party back for that even if its not the best thing for their personal political position.

AND since mccain winning was not out of the question they needed to support the man who might well be their president if he needed their help in his administration.
Muravyets
12-11-2008, 03:23
not at all.

voters are different from party leaders.

the party leaders, the reps, governors, senators, etc had a duty to work to get mccain elected. if that had included being tapped as vp nominee it was their duty to take it (as long as they told mccain everything he needed to know about their detriments.) THEY all got elected because the party worked for them. they need to pay the party back for that even if its not the best thing for their personal political position.

AND since mccain winning was not out of the question they needed to support the man who might well be their president if he needed their help in his administration.
Party leaders get a vote, too. And -- bear with me, I know this going to sound crazy, but it really happens sometimes -- some of them have principles and consciences (I know, I know). So no, they don't have a duty to try to get McCain elected if they thought he was not the right candidate, or that his campaign plans or policy plans would be bad for the country, or the party, or their voter constituencies, or even just for themselves. If Joe Lieberman could go out and stump AGAINST his party's candidate and still have Obama saying he should retain his status in the Dem party, I fail to see what greater duty to party the Republicans have. It seems to me that the party insiders and leaders themselves think political parties work differently than you think they do.