After going on about his cool headedness and ability to be the one to talk softly and carry a big stick - McCain sent a slow-motion lob the size of a grapefruit over the net into Obama's side of the court.
And Obama crushed it.
Listen to Obama during this clip, but watch McCain. He starts off all light-hearted and smiles, but when Obama lowers the boom on him you can see his demeanor visibly change. Not only does he realize that his own words are coming back to haunt him (and there's nothing he can do to stop it) he's also realizing that some of those words were spoken only seconds before when he couldn't resist a snarky, sarcastic comment and a chuckle as Obama lined himself up for the shot.
I don't care who you are, you've got to agree that Obama played this point beautifully. He must have been doing a little dance inside when McCain tried to interupt him at the beginning. It only made his point stronger.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
That One? Are you serious?
Once again, the self-described "cool headed" one lets his frustration get the better of him. In the same debate in which he labeled himself as such - he loses any sense of composure, professionalism, etiquette or common courtesy and refers to Obama; not as "My Colleague", "my opponent", "Senator" or any number of other equally respectful terms.
Instead he called Obama "That one." - with a derisive jab of his finger.
What a sad, desperate, defensive attitude.
Instead he called Obama "That one." - with a derisive jab of his finger.
What a sad, desperate, defensive attitude.
I'm gonna take my ball and go home!!
After claiming to be the "cool headed" one who will "talk softly and carry a big stick" (real original, John) - McCain showed his clear contempt for Obama and his inability to take a spanking like a man by refusing to shake his opponents hand after the debate.
If he wasn't so freaking old I'd call him a punk.
If he wasn't so freaking old I'd call him a punk.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Discovery
During my nightly tour of the blogosphere tonight, I came across Dr. Steven Taylor's PoliBlog.
Since I've only just encountered Dr. Taylor, I have no idea how closely our politics actually are.
I can only speak to his post that I read and some of the responses to it. There were 2 or 3 that I felt a need to respond to.
I finally settled on 2, purely out of consieration for time - although I alluded to the 3rd.
In an effort to save space, I can't post the entire Poliblog post here. But as always, I have a link:
http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=14229
Reading through most of that link will give you the information required to digest the rest of this post.
There were 2 women who responded to Dr. Taylor's post who seemed to think that their advanced age gave them particular insight into the current political climate.
I for one tend to believe that exactly the opposite is true, as indicated by their comments and comparisons.
I really don't want to take the time or the space to include their thoughts here.
I also don't want anyone to read my reply without first hearing the comments that brought it about. So please take the time to click on and read the above link. Doing so will make what follows a lot easier to understand..... go ahead.... I'll wait.
Okay, now that you've (hopefully) read it all - here is my response to Ann and Granny:
To Ann Townsend and Ohio Granny:
I’m sure that my saying that time on this planet does not necessarily make one wise does not come as news to you.
I am also fairly confident that you understand that the political and diplomatic environment has changed significantly since WW II.
So while I’m pretty sure you’ll be put-off by what I am about to say, I hope that you will appreciate the spirit in which it is offered.
Ann… comparing McCain to FDR and Palin to Truman? Are you serious?
Of Palin you say: “SOMETHING in her has gotten her to this place in history…” Yeah… it’s called luck. Or convenience. Or desperation.
You can not honestly look at her credentials, when compared to others on McCain’s short list (other women included) and decry Palin the most qualified of the lot.
To do so is pure delusion.
At least Devildog admits his/her support comes from their shared desire to kill animals for sport.
It took Palin what, 5 different colleges before she graduated with the much sought-after degree of Sports Journalist?
Let me be clear about her degree; I couldn’t care less where she went to school or what she majored in.
Here is why her round-about route to a Bachelor’s Degree is important to me when compared with Obama’s earning of a Law Degree: Palin’s path shows little ambition, dedication or willingness to fight through to the end. It exemplifies indecision, an inability to focus and a final decision based on ego and money.
And before you begin a rant on the financial rewards of being a Lawyer, I suggest you research Mr. Obama’s career after Law School.
Ohio Granny~
You deemed Ann’s response “excellent!” And while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I feel a need to question your reasoning.
You seem to want me to be excited about a candidate who was suddenly “whisked away from home”. Away from her newborn son, pregnant daughter and war-bound older son.
Whisked away? Really?
Is that the woman who I am expected to consider as the next potential POTUS? This is the person, who in your own words is expected to “rescue the GOP”?
To steal a line from your side: If Palin was a man, would she have been “whisked away” from her family? Or would he have “answered the call”?
You, Granny make some of the most sexist comments I’ve seen so far in relation to Palin’s candidacy. You talk about remembering when women were discriminated against for silly reasons like their menstrual cycle and a fear of vanity.
My disdain for Sarah Palin has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. It has to do with the fact that she is supremely under-qualified for the job she has been asked to perform.
Your comments about Obama’s so-called touchy-feely-ness and perceived inability to effect real change to me only show that you haven’t spent the time to actually investigate the policies of the candidates.
Where do you get you information from? (edited from the original)
I myself endevour to probe every niche of the news media. I watch the right-wing blowhards as well as those on the left. I read newspapers and blogs from the UK and Europe. I’ve actually spent hours on both Obama’s website and McCain’s.
Doing so gives one an insight into their actual policies.
And what I have found is that while McCain lies with impunity on the campaign trail, the most I’ve seen from Obama is mere exageration. Of the two, I’ll take the latter.
You say the “people” will get Palin’s “message”. What message are you refering to? The one that says she is clueless on foreign affairs (a key component in any Vice Presidency)? Or the one that says she is totally intolerant of those who hold different ideological and religious views? Or is it the message that says: “It doesn’t matter what I say, as long as I look good and pull some undecided voters to our side”?
Which is why she was chosen in the first place.
And back to Ann:
Suddely Truman isn’t a haberdasher who got lucky. Now you admit to his 10 years in the Senate - albeit you want to minimize how he got there.
Which is a pointless arguement, since we’ve already noticed that the Truman/Palin comparison is utter BS.
You and granny both want to buy into the McCain/Palin rhetoric… I don’t blame you. They talk a good game. Unfortunately, the John McCain of 2000 is gone. The one we are saddled with now is different. The new one is a “win at all cost” politician. He will do and say anything in this last-ditch effort to become President.
The Maverick straight-talker is gone. Replaced by a GOP automoton who truly WILL bring us 4 more years of Bush BS if elected.
Check the facts. Read the policies and compare them to the speeches. If you actually do so, Obama is the clear winner. His rhetoric matches his words.
McCain’s doesn’t.
I too am an Independent. Have been for 20 years.
McCain is bald-faced lying to the American people. Many of whom let him get away with it under the context of this new brand of Bushite, BS “patriotism”.
Fear should not be a domestic political tool - yet they have sharpened it to a razor’s edge.
Why do you suppose that is?
Since I've only just encountered Dr. Taylor, I have no idea how closely our politics actually are.
I can only speak to his post that I read and some of the responses to it. There were 2 or 3 that I felt a need to respond to.
I finally settled on 2, purely out of consieration for time - although I alluded to the 3rd.
In an effort to save space, I can't post the entire Poliblog post here. But as always, I have a link:
http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=14229
Reading through most of that link will give you the information required to digest the rest of this post.
There were 2 women who responded to Dr. Taylor's post who seemed to think that their advanced age gave them particular insight into the current political climate.
I for one tend to believe that exactly the opposite is true, as indicated by their comments and comparisons.
I really don't want to take the time or the space to include their thoughts here.
I also don't want anyone to read my reply without first hearing the comments that brought it about. So please take the time to click on and read the above link. Doing so will make what follows a lot easier to understand..... go ahead.... I'll wait.
Okay, now that you've (hopefully) read it all - here is my response to Ann and Granny:
To Ann Townsend and Ohio Granny:
I’m sure that my saying that time on this planet does not necessarily make one wise does not come as news to you.
I am also fairly confident that you understand that the political and diplomatic environment has changed significantly since WW II.
So while I’m pretty sure you’ll be put-off by what I am about to say, I hope that you will appreciate the spirit in which it is offered.
Ann… comparing McCain to FDR and Palin to Truman? Are you serious?
Of Palin you say: “SOMETHING in her has gotten her to this place in history…” Yeah… it’s called luck. Or convenience. Or desperation.
You can not honestly look at her credentials, when compared to others on McCain’s short list (other women included) and decry Palin the most qualified of the lot.
To do so is pure delusion.
At least Devildog admits his/her support comes from their shared desire to kill animals for sport.
It took Palin what, 5 different colleges before she graduated with the much sought-after degree of Sports Journalist?
Let me be clear about her degree; I couldn’t care less where she went to school or what she majored in.
Here is why her round-about route to a Bachelor’s Degree is important to me when compared with Obama’s earning of a Law Degree: Palin’s path shows little ambition, dedication or willingness to fight through to the end. It exemplifies indecision, an inability to focus and a final decision based on ego and money.
And before you begin a rant on the financial rewards of being a Lawyer, I suggest you research Mr. Obama’s career after Law School.
Ohio Granny~
You deemed Ann’s response “excellent!” And while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I feel a need to question your reasoning.
You seem to want me to be excited about a candidate who was suddenly “whisked away from home”. Away from her newborn son, pregnant daughter and war-bound older son.
Whisked away? Really?
Is that the woman who I am expected to consider as the next potential POTUS? This is the person, who in your own words is expected to “rescue the GOP”?
To steal a line from your side: If Palin was a man, would she have been “whisked away” from her family? Or would he have “answered the call”?
You, Granny make some of the most sexist comments I’ve seen so far in relation to Palin’s candidacy. You talk about remembering when women were discriminated against for silly reasons like their menstrual cycle and a fear of vanity.
My disdain for Sarah Palin has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. It has to do with the fact that she is supremely under-qualified for the job she has been asked to perform.
Your comments about Obama’s so-called touchy-feely-ness and perceived inability to effect real change to me only show that you haven’t spent the time to actually investigate the policies of the candidates.
Where do you get you information from? (edited from the original)
I myself endevour to probe every niche of the news media. I watch the right-wing blowhards as well as those on the left. I read newspapers and blogs from the UK and Europe. I’ve actually spent hours on both Obama’s website and McCain’s.
Doing so gives one an insight into their actual policies.
And what I have found is that while McCain lies with impunity on the campaign trail, the most I’ve seen from Obama is mere exageration. Of the two, I’ll take the latter.
You say the “people” will get Palin’s “message”. What message are you refering to? The one that says she is clueless on foreign affairs (a key component in any Vice Presidency)? Or the one that says she is totally intolerant of those who hold different ideological and religious views? Or is it the message that says: “It doesn’t matter what I say, as long as I look good and pull some undecided voters to our side”?
Which is why she was chosen in the first place.
And back to Ann:
Suddely Truman isn’t a haberdasher who got lucky. Now you admit to his 10 years in the Senate - albeit you want to minimize how he got there.
Which is a pointless arguement, since we’ve already noticed that the Truman/Palin comparison is utter BS.
You and granny both want to buy into the McCain/Palin rhetoric… I don’t blame you. They talk a good game. Unfortunately, the John McCain of 2000 is gone. The one we are saddled with now is different. The new one is a “win at all cost” politician. He will do and say anything in this last-ditch effort to become President.
The Maverick straight-talker is gone. Replaced by a GOP automoton who truly WILL bring us 4 more years of Bush BS if elected.
Check the facts. Read the policies and compare them to the speeches. If you actually do so, Obama is the clear winner. His rhetoric matches his words.
McCain’s doesn’t.
I too am an Independent. Have been for 20 years.
McCain is bald-faced lying to the American people. Many of whom let him get away with it under the context of this new brand of Bushite, BS “patriotism”.
Fear should not be a domestic political tool - yet they have sharpened it to a razor’s edge.
Why do you suppose that is?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Couric and Palin - The "No Answer" Interviews
Holy crap... every time I watch this stuff I am further amazed and dejected that Palin has even a single supporter. Not only is she clearly clueless -- her handlers haven't even prepared her properly for some of the questions everyone knew Couric would be asking. I defy you to find a single clear, concise answer any where in this first interview:
Sheesh... you can almost see her accessing her mnemonics as she stumbles through some of the assinine responses in this segment.
And here's part 2:
What? Democratic values? Tolerance? This woman wouldn't recognize real democracy if she had a picture and a map. And she personally harbors some of the least tolerant beliefs and opinions in society today.
Kind of funny that during her "answer" to the passport question she much more accurately described McCain's upbringing (son and grandson of Admirals) than Obama's (single mother on food stamps).
She makes the claim that one of the ways she has "understood the world" is through education. Somebody needs to explain to her that attending 5 colleges in order to achieve a degree in Sports Journalism isn't the same as traveling the world and learning about other countries and cultures.
Did you miss it? Couric let it slide, but Palin once again refered to Iraq as a "central front" in the War on Terror.
She asserts her contention that Pakistanis want to rid the world of violent Islamic Terrorists just like we do. I'm sure she's right. The part I'm not sure she's right about is her assumption that the Pakistanis believe that adopting an American-style Democracy is the only way to achieve that goal.
Every time Palin is asked to describe something, she merely alludes to it. I'll give you an example; I was a Carpenter for a long time. For much of that time I was a Cabinetmaker. If someone asked me to describe to them how to build a wet-bar, and I were Sarah Palin I would simply say: "You have to buy the materials and build the bar. It has to be built properly, and the countertop and sink need to fit correctly, with no leaks or gaps."
Which doesn't tell the person who wants to learn about building a wet-bar a single goddamned pertinent detail about how to go about it.
I am beginning to think that Gov. Palin truly doesn't understand the definition of the word "specific."
To hear Palin tell it, the Pentagon and the CIA are counting on the Alaskan people to carry out surveillance and defense against any potential threat from Russia. And - oh, yeah - Canada, too.
She also doesn't seem to realize - and this is a bigee - that nobody cares who the "good guys" and "bad guys" in HER world are. In the real world "good" and "bad" are a matter of perspective. And shortly after her glib claim to understanding diplomacy, she almost immediately launches into an invective against Iran as being "bad guys" in "her world".
I found these clips on the internet. The internet is International. Does she not think the Iranian President has access to this shit? If she is ever called upon if -God help us - she actually becomes VP, to meet with the Ahmadinejad; does anyone actually believe he will be receptive to her? Diplomacy is all about empathy (or at least the perception of empathy) and the ability to communicate with those who disagree with you with an even hand. She hasn't even been elected yet, and she's already talking smack about world leaders. Might play well with her base, but the folks she's likely to be "diplomaticizing" with probably aren't too keen on it.
And just so no one tries to misconstrue my opinion here; I am not personally a fan of Ahmadinejad. All I'm saying is that as 2nd in command of the United States of America - one needs to have the ability to consider future possibilities, and to watch ones mouth when talking publicly about the powerful people you may one day need to practice actual Diplomacy with.
Of all the colloquialisms she seems to have learned over the years, it's too bad no one ever taught her one that can be very important in politics: "Never say never."
Now... to end on a note of brevity; please enjoy another installment of Tina Fey's frigging brilliant impersonation of Palin on SNL. This one should be even funnier, coming so close on the heels of the actual interview... you DID watch it, right?
You know what? Having just watched that clip one last time before posting this, it occured to me... other than the obviously comical shit Fey says... she could probably surrogate for Palin at public appearances and her supporters would be none the wiser.
Scary thought.
Sheesh... you can almost see her accessing her mnemonics as she stumbles through some of the assinine responses in this segment.
And here's part 2:
What? Democratic values? Tolerance? This woman wouldn't recognize real democracy if she had a picture and a map. And she personally harbors some of the least tolerant beliefs and opinions in society today.
Kind of funny that during her "answer" to the passport question she much more accurately described McCain's upbringing (son and grandson of Admirals) than Obama's (single mother on food stamps).
She makes the claim that one of the ways she has "understood the world" is through education. Somebody needs to explain to her that attending 5 colleges in order to achieve a degree in Sports Journalism isn't the same as traveling the world and learning about other countries and cultures.
Did you miss it? Couric let it slide, but Palin once again refered to Iraq as a "central front" in the War on Terror.
She asserts her contention that Pakistanis want to rid the world of violent Islamic Terrorists just like we do. I'm sure she's right. The part I'm not sure she's right about is her assumption that the Pakistanis believe that adopting an American-style Democracy is the only way to achieve that goal.
Every time Palin is asked to describe something, she merely alludes to it. I'll give you an example; I was a Carpenter for a long time. For much of that time I was a Cabinetmaker. If someone asked me to describe to them how to build a wet-bar, and I were Sarah Palin I would simply say: "You have to buy the materials and build the bar. It has to be built properly, and the countertop and sink need to fit correctly, with no leaks or gaps."
Which doesn't tell the person who wants to learn about building a wet-bar a single goddamned pertinent detail about how to go about it.
I am beginning to think that Gov. Palin truly doesn't understand the definition of the word "specific."
To hear Palin tell it, the Pentagon and the CIA are counting on the Alaskan people to carry out surveillance and defense against any potential threat from Russia. And - oh, yeah - Canada, too.
She also doesn't seem to realize - and this is a bigee - that nobody cares who the "good guys" and "bad guys" in HER world are. In the real world "good" and "bad" are a matter of perspective. And shortly after her glib claim to understanding diplomacy, she almost immediately launches into an invective against Iran as being "bad guys" in "her world".
I found these clips on the internet. The internet is International. Does she not think the Iranian President has access to this shit? If she is ever called upon if -God help us - she actually becomes VP, to meet with the Ahmadinejad; does anyone actually believe he will be receptive to her? Diplomacy is all about empathy (or at least the perception of empathy) and the ability to communicate with those who disagree with you with an even hand. She hasn't even been elected yet, and she's already talking smack about world leaders. Might play well with her base, but the folks she's likely to be "diplomaticizing" with probably aren't too keen on it.
And just so no one tries to misconstrue my opinion here; I am not personally a fan of Ahmadinejad. All I'm saying is that as 2nd in command of the United States of America - one needs to have the ability to consider future possibilities, and to watch ones mouth when talking publicly about the powerful people you may one day need to practice actual Diplomacy with.
Of all the colloquialisms she seems to have learned over the years, it's too bad no one ever taught her one that can be very important in politics: "Never say never."
Now... to end on a note of brevity; please enjoy another installment of Tina Fey's frigging brilliant impersonation of Palin on SNL. This one should be even funnier, coming so close on the heels of the actual interview... you DID watch it, right?
You know what? Having just watched that clip one last time before posting this, it occured to me... other than the obviously comical shit Fey says... she could probably surrogate for Palin at public appearances and her supporters would be none the wiser.
Scary thought.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Kathleen Parker via Andrew Sullivan
So, ever since seeing Mr. Sullivan on "Real Time" the other day I've been trying to check into his blog from time to time. He's even more link-happy than I am though. So I never get far into his recent posts before I'm off on a tangent of some kind.
Tonight was no exception.
Sullivan's Sunday entry included a link to a post about a FoxNoise story about Conservatives questioning Palin's abilities/credentials that was pulled from their website. This piece alone is worth a lengthy post, but I have to choose my battles.
On the linked post from bradblog.com I found a mention of a National Review article by Kathleen Parker which said she thought Palin should drop out of the campaign.
A Conservative Journalist writing for a Conservative publication being allowed to publish what is virtual blasphemy to the GOP? I had to see it for myself.
And sure enough... Ms. Parker told it like it is. Here are a few quotes from her article in case you were too lazy to read it yourself. FYI: The highlighted text in the previous paragraph is a direct link to the article.
"As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion."
"Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League."
"My cringe reflex is exhausted."
"Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there."
"If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."
"Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first."
So here is a Journalist, who is also a Conservative, writing these words in a Conservative publication. Said Journalist is also a woman. A woman who openly admits to being wowed by Palin's announcement and that she supported her at first.
And here also is a Conservative Female Journalist who has the BALLS to speak the truth that no one else apparently can: Palin is simply not qualified for the task at hand and should step aside for the good of the country.
As a tree-hugging Leftie male I've been saying the exact same thing ever since my first inquiry into the "pit bull with lipstick". So WTF will the Palinites say to Kathleen Parker?
If you want my opinion, they'll say she's jealous. Or catty. Or some equally repugnant (and decidedly FEMALE) adjective. Mark my words.
So anyway... there was a link on the article that said "email the author" or some such thing. I sent an email. Thought it was pretty good, too. Even copied it to include here. And then, like an asshole I lost it by copying the links and quotes above. And since I didn't write the email here on my PC, it's gone.
Suffice it to say I basically thanked her for telling it like it is, briefly explained our political differences and closed by telling her that I hope her party loses the election. Which I had hoped would be a pithy attachment to this post.
And it would have been. But whether my email is included here or not, it's important to recognize that a respected female conservative journalist is calling for Palin to step aside. Not for the sake of her Party, but for the sake of her Country.
If we had more Conservatives with that kind of big-picture thinking, America might not be in the mess we are.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned before -- the powers that be would rather vilify Ms. Parker and slam her message than recognize the truth.
I will not be even mildly surprised to learn of a backlash upon her. Whether it be career-oriented, personal attacks or even claims against her integrity.
The GOP does NOT approve of it's members speaking out of school.
Damn... I really wanted to post a copy of that email.
Tonight was no exception.
Sullivan's Sunday entry included a link to a post about a FoxNoise story about Conservatives questioning Palin's abilities/credentials that was pulled from their website. This piece alone is worth a lengthy post, but I have to choose my battles.
On the linked post from bradblog.com I found a mention of a National Review article by Kathleen Parker which said she thought Palin should drop out of the campaign.
A Conservative Journalist writing for a Conservative publication being allowed to publish what is virtual blasphemy to the GOP? I had to see it for myself.
And sure enough... Ms. Parker told it like it is. Here are a few quotes from her article in case you were too lazy to read it yourself. FYI: The highlighted text in the previous paragraph is a direct link to the article.
"As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion."
"Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League."
"My cringe reflex is exhausted."
"Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there."
"If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."
"Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first."
So here is a Journalist, who is also a Conservative, writing these words in a Conservative publication. Said Journalist is also a woman. A woman who openly admits to being wowed by Palin's announcement and that she supported her at first.
And here also is a Conservative Female Journalist who has the BALLS to speak the truth that no one else apparently can: Palin is simply not qualified for the task at hand and should step aside for the good of the country.
As a tree-hugging Leftie male I've been saying the exact same thing ever since my first inquiry into the "pit bull with lipstick". So WTF will the Palinites say to Kathleen Parker?
If you want my opinion, they'll say she's jealous. Or catty. Or some equally repugnant (and decidedly FEMALE) adjective. Mark my words.
So anyway... there was a link on the article that said "email the author" or some such thing. I sent an email. Thought it was pretty good, too. Even copied it to include here. And then, like an asshole I lost it by copying the links and quotes above. And since I didn't write the email here on my PC, it's gone.
Suffice it to say I basically thanked her for telling it like it is, briefly explained our political differences and closed by telling her that I hope her party loses the election. Which I had hoped would be a pithy attachment to this post.
And it would have been. But whether my email is included here or not, it's important to recognize that a respected female conservative journalist is calling for Palin to step aside. Not for the sake of her Party, but for the sake of her Country.
If we had more Conservatives with that kind of big-picture thinking, America might not be in the mess we are.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned before -- the powers that be would rather vilify Ms. Parker and slam her message than recognize the truth.
I will not be even mildly surprised to learn of a backlash upon her. Whether it be career-oriented, personal attacks or even claims against her integrity.
The GOP does NOT approve of it's members speaking out of school.
Damn... I really wanted to post a copy of that email.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
McCain & Palin on the Bridge to Nowhere... in '07
November 20, 2007
Nearly 10 months before McCain’s announcment of Palin as running mate, FactCheck.org was already talking about his subterfuge about the Bridge to Nowhere. And thankfully linking to Palin's own words about the project.
In reading content from back then, they hardly seem like the tag-team they’ve recently become.
http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html
“… (McCain) never specifically went after the "bridge to nowhere," and he was absent for key votes on its funding.”
“The transportation bill did include a total of $223 million (not $233 million, as the ad says) earmarked for the Gravina bridge – $100 million for construction, plus $18.75 million a year for four years, and an additional $48 million to build an access road. McCain tried, unsuccessfully, to add a “sense of the Senate” amendment to the bill, stating a general objection to earmarks; in the end he voted against the legislation. Several months later, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) tried to divert the Gravina funds to a bridge in need of repair over Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. McCain was not present to vote on Coburn’s amendment proposing this change, which did not pass. Instead, Congress removed Gravina’s earmarks, tossing that money into Alaska’s general transportation pot to be used however the state chose. McCain wasn’t there for that vote, either.”
“In light of the furor over the “bridge to nowhere,” Alaska’s governor opted to use the money for other pursuits.”
But... I thought she said "thanks, but no thanks" to congress. That what she keeps telling us. Over, and over and over and over again.
You know what? It just occured to me... repetition... Where have I used that most effectively in my life? Hmm... yeah; teaching children and training animals. Interesting. Pretty sure it's a key component in brainwashing too... but I digress.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=623&type=1
This is the “opted” link from the above quote. It's not highlighted here, but it is on the FactCheck.org site. Link there if you'd like to double-check me. Shouldn't be too hard, it's the first link on this post.
As you can see from the address, this 2nd link takes you directly to the official website for the Alaska State Government. Specifically, it takes you to a press release from Governor Palin on September 21, 2007. Which states in part:
“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”
It should be noted that the opening paragraph of the release states the bridge’s cost as $398 million. Knowing as we do that congress gave $223 million (the full amount earmarked for the bridge) to Alaska to use as they pleased - had they chosen to put it toward the bridge project, they would have actually been $175 million short. Not the $329 claimed in the release. Assuming of course that the $398 million claim is even accurate.
Even more important than that, though is the language Gov. Palin used in the quote I pulled from her press release. Does that sound like someone who is saying “Thanks, but no thanks.” on the bridge project?
Not to me.
To me it sounds like someone who is saying that after a valiant effort by Alaska to obtain funding for an important project, the powers that be snuffed it out. She even alludes to what seems to be a contention of the attitude of the “lower 48” toward Alaska’s infrastructure needs.
As always, I’ve included a link to my source. Feel free to check it out and let me know if you hear or see the anti-pork Maverick that she is now touting herself to be.
Keep in mind; “liberal media bias” can’t even be whispered on this one. These are Palin’s own words, from her own press release, on her own website.
Spin THAT.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/
This is another link from the FactCheck.org piece that I started this rant with, although it is one not included in anything I have yet quoted. Again, a glance at the address shows it to be from the CNN website, posted on September 22, 2007 and is about the Kethcikan-Gravina Bridge project.
Mostly it is quotes of the Alaska congressmen whining about their project being an international joke and all of the futile work they put into getting the funding. Probably well-deserved whining, too. I’m sure it was no walk in the park trying to get funds for a “$400 million bridge” to a town of 50 people. And to have it fall through probably felt like a slap in the face. However, as we already know - Alaska received the exact same amount of money that had been earmarked for the project. It just didn’t have any stipulation attached on how it was to be spent. Also, they didn’t have to wait for the $75 million that would have been doled out over 4 years in the original plan… they got the full $223 million in one lump sum.
So if they’d really wanted to, they still could have gone on with the project.
The real reason I pulled that link though, is that it includes some quotes from a certain Senator from Arizona:
“Just last month (August of 2007), presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said pet projects could have played a role in a Minnesota bridge collapse that killed 13 people earlier this year.”
"Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country," McCain told a group of people in a town-hall style meeting in Ankeny, Iowa.”
"Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."
So at least we know he was consistently 10 million dollars above the actual earmarked amount.
More interesting to me though is the fact that he actually seems to be blaming the money sent to Alaska (and remember, it WAS sent to Alaska) for the failure of the bridge in Minnesota.
Interesting that back in the late summer of ‘07 there didn’t seem to be any Maverick-to-Maverick backslapping of Palin’s “strong stance” against earmarks. Quite the opposite from these 2 examples. Back then, Palin was blaming congressional/public prejudice against Alaska for the removal of stipulations. And McCain was blaming the money earmarked for (and sent to) Alaska for the collapse of another bridge, in a large (and therefore more important?) city that killed innocent Americans.
Forget for a moment that even those statements are friggin’ ridiculous in and of themselves.
Concentrate instead on the fact that if there was ever a time for these two so-called (by McCain) “soul mates” to bond and build each other up as the Mavericks they are selling themselves as today - this would have been it.
If McCain had truly recognized Palin then as a fellow “reformer” who wanted to fight earmarks and change American politics - as he now claims. Why did he instead essentially blame her for the Minnesota tragedy? And if she had truly said “Thanks, but no thanks” to congress on the “Bridge to Nowhere” - why did she tout the gallantry of her congressional delegation and scorn the public for their “misunderstanding” of Alaska’s infrastructure needs? And if state roads were really more important than the bridge - since that’s what they said they’d probably spend the money on - why weren’t their congressmen fighting for earmarks for roads, instead of a bridge?
I’ll try to put this in a way that Righties can better understand. I’ll use a phony Texas accent with shades of Maine peeking through:
“In ‘merica, we got a word for that kinda talk… we call it Boolsheet.”
Nearly 10 months before McCain’s announcment of Palin as running mate, FactCheck.org was already talking about his subterfuge about the Bridge to Nowhere. And thankfully linking to Palin's own words about the project.
In reading content from back then, they hardly seem like the tag-team they’ve recently become.
http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html
“… (McCain) never specifically went after the "bridge to nowhere," and he was absent for key votes on its funding.”
“The transportation bill did include a total of $223 million (not $233 million, as the ad says) earmarked for the Gravina bridge – $100 million for construction, plus $18.75 million a year for four years, and an additional $48 million to build an access road. McCain tried, unsuccessfully, to add a “sense of the Senate” amendment to the bill, stating a general objection to earmarks; in the end he voted against the legislation. Several months later, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) tried to divert the Gravina funds to a bridge in need of repair over Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. McCain was not present to vote on Coburn’s amendment proposing this change, which did not pass. Instead, Congress removed Gravina’s earmarks, tossing that money into Alaska’s general transportation pot to be used however the state chose. McCain wasn’t there for that vote, either.”
“In light of the furor over the “bridge to nowhere,” Alaska’s governor opted to use the money for other pursuits.”
But... I thought she said "thanks, but no thanks" to congress. That what she keeps telling us. Over, and over and over and over again.
You know what? It just occured to me... repetition... Where have I used that most effectively in my life? Hmm... yeah; teaching children and training animals. Interesting. Pretty sure it's a key component in brainwashing too... but I digress.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=623&type=1
This is the “opted” link from the above quote. It's not highlighted here, but it is on the FactCheck.org site. Link there if you'd like to double-check me. Shouldn't be too hard, it's the first link on this post.
As you can see from the address, this 2nd link takes you directly to the official website for the Alaska State Government. Specifically, it takes you to a press release from Governor Palin on September 21, 2007. Which states in part:
“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”
It should be noted that the opening paragraph of the release states the bridge’s cost as $398 million. Knowing as we do that congress gave $223 million (the full amount earmarked for the bridge) to Alaska to use as they pleased - had they chosen to put it toward the bridge project, they would have actually been $175 million short. Not the $329 claimed in the release. Assuming of course that the $398 million claim is even accurate.
Even more important than that, though is the language Gov. Palin used in the quote I pulled from her press release. Does that sound like someone who is saying “Thanks, but no thanks.” on the bridge project?
Not to me.
To me it sounds like someone who is saying that after a valiant effort by Alaska to obtain funding for an important project, the powers that be snuffed it out. She even alludes to what seems to be a contention of the attitude of the “lower 48” toward Alaska’s infrastructure needs.
As always, I’ve included a link to my source. Feel free to check it out and let me know if you hear or see the anti-pork Maverick that she is now touting herself to be.
Keep in mind; “liberal media bias” can’t even be whispered on this one. These are Palin’s own words, from her own press release, on her own website.
Spin THAT.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/
This is another link from the FactCheck.org piece that I started this rant with, although it is one not included in anything I have yet quoted. Again, a glance at the address shows it to be from the CNN website, posted on September 22, 2007 and is about the Kethcikan-Gravina Bridge project.
Mostly it is quotes of the Alaska congressmen whining about their project being an international joke and all of the futile work they put into getting the funding. Probably well-deserved whining, too. I’m sure it was no walk in the park trying to get funds for a “$400 million bridge” to a town of 50 people. And to have it fall through probably felt like a slap in the face. However, as we already know - Alaska received the exact same amount of money that had been earmarked for the project. It just didn’t have any stipulation attached on how it was to be spent. Also, they didn’t have to wait for the $75 million that would have been doled out over 4 years in the original plan… they got the full $223 million in one lump sum.
So if they’d really wanted to, they still could have gone on with the project.
The real reason I pulled that link though, is that it includes some quotes from a certain Senator from Arizona:
“Just last month (August of 2007), presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said pet projects could have played a role in a Minnesota bridge collapse that killed 13 people earlier this year.”
"Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country," McCain told a group of people in a town-hall style meeting in Ankeny, Iowa.”
"Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."
So at least we know he was consistently 10 million dollars above the actual earmarked amount.
More interesting to me though is the fact that he actually seems to be blaming the money sent to Alaska (and remember, it WAS sent to Alaska) for the failure of the bridge in Minnesota.
Interesting that back in the late summer of ‘07 there didn’t seem to be any Maverick-to-Maverick backslapping of Palin’s “strong stance” against earmarks. Quite the opposite from these 2 examples. Back then, Palin was blaming congressional/public prejudice against Alaska for the removal of stipulations. And McCain was blaming the money earmarked for (and sent to) Alaska for the collapse of another bridge, in a large (and therefore more important?) city that killed innocent Americans.
Forget for a moment that even those statements are friggin’ ridiculous in and of themselves.
Concentrate instead on the fact that if there was ever a time for these two so-called (by McCain) “soul mates” to bond and build each other up as the Mavericks they are selling themselves as today - this would have been it.
If McCain had truly recognized Palin then as a fellow “reformer” who wanted to fight earmarks and change American politics - as he now claims. Why did he instead essentially blame her for the Minnesota tragedy? And if she had truly said “Thanks, but no thanks” to congress on the “Bridge to Nowhere” - why did she tout the gallantry of her congressional delegation and scorn the public for their “misunderstanding” of Alaska’s infrastructure needs? And if state roads were really more important than the bridge - since that’s what they said they’d probably spend the money on - why weren’t their congressmen fighting for earmarks for roads, instead of a bridge?
I’ll try to put this in a way that Righties can better understand. I’ll use a phony Texas accent with shades of Maine peeking through:
“In ‘merica, we got a word for that kinda talk… we call it Boolsheet.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)