This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - naturallybeyoutiful
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  8 9 10 11 12 ... 127
« on: October 05, 2008, 06:47:07 PM »
OJ has got to be the stupidest cat walking the planet next to Sarah Palin.
I really don't know what could have made him think that he was going to be able to get away with something so reckless. OJ should've moved to Europe or Africa and made a new life for himself. The saddest part was when he said that he managed to get his kids through college but won't be able to attend their graduations. ::shaking my head::
« on: October 05, 2008, 02:30:27 PM »
He was a Rhodes scholar, too. I think attending 5 colleges in 6 years for a 4 year degree makes you ineligible for that award. Not sure though, I'll have to get back to ya on that, doggoneit.
It ain't so, Joe. There you go looking back again. Always looking at my past record when what I really want to talk about is how I'm moving this nation forward with my maverick spirit. Give me three days to study up some more stuff ('cuz you know I've only been at this for 5 weeks), and I'll come up with another scripted performance like the RNC and the debates to keep breathing life into this tired
campaign. C'mon and go with me to a soccer game -- and let's ask the people, "Do you really want a Rhodes Scholar as your president?" They'll all say, Shucks and Betcha-by-golly-naw! What the American people want is
an unprepared, untested, intellectually uncurious, and totally scripted
a Washington outsider.
Forget Rhodes Scholar; what America needs in this time of crisis is an "I've-walked-a-tough-road" scholar like the hockey moms and Joe Sixpacks of America. Yes, me and my maverickness ::pause and
to the audience :: want to give a shout-out to all the administrators at those 5 colleges I attended for
getting extra credit for helping me
e get to where I am today. Bless all their hearts!!! And God bless Israel, while we're at it. Because we must never ever ever ever have a Holocaust or let any nation have nuclear weapons because that would be the end-all-and-be-all, you know. But I'm not going to talk about that right now because...well, it would be naive to do this without preconditions and all...plus, I don't plan to say anything that I haven't already rehearsed.
So please, put
John McCain's and my egos
the country first and forget that elitist Obama who is a real bridge to nowhere (which I do, for the record, now oppose). Vote for me and my expansive interpretation of the Constitution's grant of vice-presidential powers. 'Cuz I love America, and John McCain--the maverickest of us all, taking shots from his own party on most issues of little consequence to you--has fought for you. Doggoneit."
« on: October 05, 2008, 10:05:21 AM »
"We don't we have a 'great communicator' this year, (that looks) like Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton," Young said.
« on: October 03, 2008, 10:11:09 AM »
Palin meets expectations but still falls short
John F. Harris, Mike Allen
Fri Oct 3, 2:25 AM ET
ST. LOUIS — Millions of Americans were watching Thursday night’s vice-presidential debate waiting for a demolition derby moment — another crash by GOP running mate Sarah Palin, another serving of raw material for the writers at "Saturday Night Live."
By that standard, she got out alive, though there were white-knuckle moments along the way: questions that were answered with painfully obvious talking points that betrayed scant knowledge of the issue at hand, and sometimes little relevance to the question that had been asked.
But recent days have given John McCain’s team little reason to suppose that not-that-bad is good enough. The Republican ticket’s sliding polls and narrowing electoral map gave it a different imperative in her showdown against Joe Biden. That was to alter the trajectory of the race in a way reminiscent of how Palin first enlivened Republicans—it seems long ago now—when she joined the ticket in late August.
Absent new polling, there is little reason to think she cleared that bar in St. Louis.
To the contrary, it is hard to count any objective measures by which Biden did not clearly win the encounter. She looked like she was trying to get people to take her seriously. He looked like he was running for vice president. His answers were more responsive to the questions, far more detailed and less rhetorical.
On at least ten occasions, Palin gave answers that were nonspecific, completely generic, pivoted away from the question at hand, or simply ignored it: on global warming, an Iraq exit strategy, Iran and Pakistan, Iranian diplomacy, Israel-Palestine (and a follow-up), the nuclear trigger, interventionism, Cheney's vice presidency and her own greatest weakness.
Asked which is a greater threat, a nuclear Pakistan or a nuclear Iran, Palin seemed to be stalling, or writing a term paper, when she said: “An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider.”
Biden was crisper, with a dose of realism: “Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing. They are more than — they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that's able to be deployed.”
Biden relentlessly and clearly delivered a specific message he had been assigned to hammer home: McCain-Palin would be four more years of Bush-Cheney. Biden mentioned President Bush more than a dozen times.
"Look, past is prologue, Gwen," he said at one point. "The issue is, how different is John McCain's policy going to be than George Bush's? I haven't heard anything yet."
By contrast, Palin was in much more of a survival mode, barely delivering on her advisers' hopes that she would be aggressive with Biden, throwing gaffes and policies back at him. For the Alaska governor, it was policy as a second language — adequate, but not enlightening.
She twice referred to the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, as "McClellan." Biden did not correct her.
Washington power lawyer Robert Barnett, who helped Biden prepare, said viewers would come away with the sense that Palin "is a nice person, an interesting person but not a qualified-to-be-the-president-of-the-United-States person."
Biden, he said, "was anecdotal, was a little bit emotional" and showed "professionalism, preparation and knowledge."
Of course, there is long experience at this point showing that it is the subjective measures—-who strikes more voters as more appealing, more genuine, more plausible—on which these encounters turn.
On this ground both candidates had their moments.
From the moment she blew a kiss as she walked onstage, the Alaska governor was folksy and spunky, dropping a “bless their hearts” here, a “God bless ‘er” there, and “darn right” – twice. She showed a cheerful confidence that must have been hard to muster after the humiliating coverage of her amateurish interviews with Katie Couric of the “CBS Evening News.”
Biden offered a fluent, self-assured performance of the sort that can not be especially hard for him after two presidential campaigns, 35 years in the Senate, countless appearances on Sunday morning programs. People impressed by references to legislation, or citations of his record in world hot spots from Bosnia to Darfur, got these in spades.
But Biden also had the evening’s most powerful emotional moment, when he responded to an exchange about how well the candidates relate to the struggles of ordinary Americans by recalling his first wife and daughter—killed in an automobile accident shortly after his election to the Senate in 1972.
Biden seemingly choked up as he said: “Look, I understand what it's like to be a single parent. When my wife and daughter died and my two sons were gravely injured, I understand what it's like as a parent to wonder what it's like if your kid's going to make it.”
But the past couple weeks have offered little evidence that political theatrics—so important in many elections—are what most voters are looking for in the current circumstances, with an economy on the brink and a global financial crisis threatening to push it over.
The debate did nothing to arrest – and may even have helped cement – a gradual but unmistakable turnabout in the race, with Obama gaining in polls and momentum and McCain losing ground in must-win states. The financial meltdown has put a new premium on competence, and Palin did nothing to show she is ready to be in charge.
After Barack Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination in June, the Republican knock against him was supposed to be that he was too exotic and too risky.
But in the months since, Obama chose a Washington fixture in Biden, and McCain chose a little-known and little-tested maverick from Alaska. McCain suspended his campaign and elbowed his way into sensitive financial bailout talks, with little to show for his efforts, while Obama kept his distance and made a show of consulting with Robert Rubin and Warren Buffett. Obama and Biden both offered somewhat subdued debate performances that showed technical command of policies.
In many ways, Obama-Biden has taken ownership of the play-it-safe vote, and McCain-Palin have become the more unpredictable and potentially risky choice.
The Obama campaign got a good laugh out of her answer about when nuclear weapons should be put into play: "Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be-all, end-all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period."
The "be-all, end-all" is already a punch line around Washington.
Asked about the role of the vice president, Biden was comfortable, after discussing the issue with the boss, to say: "I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration."
Palin's answer was more abstract, and obscure: "We have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation."
And she had at least a couple harp-seal-on-the-ice moments, as when she wandered into this sentence when trying to rebut a point Biden had made on energy: “That is not so, but because that's just a quick answer, I want to talk about, again, my record on energy -- your ticket's energy -- ticket also. I think that this is important to come back to, with that energy policy plan, again, that was voted for in '05.”
But if there were some moments that seemed ripe for mockery, there were also many that showed Palin’s skill in taking debates out of the realm of Washington arcana and to a kitchen-table vernacular.
Sometimes that vernacular came with a sharp edge, as when she lectured Biden, “Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq, and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that’s for sure.”
She was more folksy when she talked about taxes, and even seemed to be channeling Ronald Reagan, the supreme example of a politician who connected to voters even while making Washington elites cringe with his shaky grasp of policy detail.
“Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic,” she told Biden. “In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper.”
If Palin had cleared the expectations who were rooting for or praying to avoid a nationally televised splat, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said she had met his team’s expectations almost exactly.
“We’ve said all along that she’s a very talented politician; she proved that again tonight,” said Plouffe. “But she’s selling a failed product.”
« on: October 03, 2008, 09:04:03 AM »
I'm glad Palin was able to show the world that she could (as my dad would say) "walk and chew gum at the same time." Great. Wonderful. Fantastic. I think she owed that to the American people, and most of all to herself
. The winks, the "ya/yers", the "darnits", and all that stuff we are euphemistically calling "folksy" [note to self: I wonder what it would be called if a black woman or if Obama were up there doing the same stuff.....] may endear her to those who are looking for a reason to buy tix on a sinking ship. People see themselves in Sarah Palin, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean those folks could see themselves in the White House, and that's the problem!
Palin can say all she wants about Joe Sixpack, but I could care less about empty promises made to him or Jerome Fourty-Ounce. (I don't mean to play into stereotypes here, but let's be real folks...if Obama came out talking about appealing to the Jeromes of this world, he would be shut down quickly!!!) John McCain's record doesn't support the Joe Sixpacks of this nation. It doesn't. It hasn't. And it won't!!!! And there's no way Sarah Palin can spin the record to convince me otherwise, despite her sincere belief that McCain means well for the people of this nation.
Furthermore, I find it troubling that this nation--this supposed meritocracy we have--has allowed one
woman to "dumb down" what we are willing to accept in the most powerful leader of the free world. I am annoyed that all of a sudden ::gasp::
"the game has changed"
because a woman who couldn't name a single major newspaper that she
read or Supreme Court opinion with which she
disagreed a few days ago spent three straight days cramming and memorizing and putting on a game face for the most formidable political challenger she's faced to date. (Sorry, no way no how do I believe that being a small-town mayor even compared to last night.
Plus, allow me to put my life on hold and cram for three days and I'll convince you of nearly anything. Before you know it, you'd be begging me to build your house, fly your plane, safeguard your nuclear (or nu-ka-ler, if you prefer) codes, and perform your open-heart surgery. But it doesn't make it true that I'd be ready for that job, and it doesn't begin to tell you if I'm actually able to do it.) If life worked like that, then I'd venture to believe that Palin might be ready to be (V)POTUS. Yet when she is faced with the crises of the next four years, I don't have time for her to artificially put her life on hold, fly out to a secluded ranch, and study enough info to dupe the American people into believing that she has the first clue about which she speaks.
I was sorry to hear Palin say something at the end of the debate to the effect that she wished she could have had more opportunities like this, to just be herself, talk to the people, yadda yadda. WITW!?!??!?!?!!?
It was *HER* principal's campaign strategy to cut her off from those of us who wanted to hear about the person who could very well be our POTUS. We wanted to know her command of the issues, confidence in the international arena, etc. and we wanted to hear those things more than 5 weeks before the election. But McCain had a different agenda, different values, and a different set of priorities -- and it seemed that both Palin and the American people have paid the price for McCain's political ambition.
All this is to say -- I'm glad Palin jumped over the low bar that the entire nation had set for her. Biden won the debate with his superior command of the issues, his ability to link McCain with the failed policies of the Bush administration, etc. That was Biden's task, and he did that. It wasn't the best delivery, but he still got the job done. Palin's task was different. She needed to make the case for herself, and that she did. She showed me that with three days of seclusion and intense coaching, a penchant for only answering the question that fits her script and a failure to think through critical issues in a spontaneous way, a tailored suit, a wink, some "folksy" humor, and an expansive interpretation of VP powers -- you could put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
« on: October 03, 2008, 12:03:11 AM »
I didn't think it was that bad actually. I don't know that I've ever watched a VP debate before, so I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/debate_fact_check;_ylt=Akzy1y0edyNHuZLiWz06MOth24cASome facts adrift in vice presidential debate
By Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Facts went adrift on taxes, deregulation and more Thursday when Republican Sarah Palin and Democrat Joe Biden clashed in the vice presidential debate.
PALIN: Said of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama: "94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction."
THE FACTS: The dubious count includes repetitive votes as well as votes to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the rich. An analysis by factcheck.org found that 23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year.
BIDEN: Complained about "economic policies of the last eight years" that led to "excessive deregulation."
THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.
PALIN: "Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell."
THE FACTS: Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska led an effort in 2005 to tighten regulation on the mortgage underwriters — McCain joined as a co-sponsor a year later. The legislation was never taken up by the full Senate, then under Republican control.
BIDEN: Warned that Republican presidential candidate John McCain's $5,000 tax credit to help families buy health coverage "will go straight to the insurance company."
THE FACTS: Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance. That's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer.
PALIN: "We cannot afford to lose against al-Qaida and the Shia extremists who are still there, still fighting us."
THE FACTS: She appeared to confuse the two main Muslim sects in Iraq. Al-Qaida is solely made up of Sunni Muslim militants. Through the course of the war, U.S. forces fought ferocious opposition from both the Sunnis and the country's dominant Shiite sects. Now, both groups are largely maintaining a cease-fire with the U.S. A much-diminished al-Qaida, mainly foreign fighters, remains the primary threat.
BIDEN: Said McCain supports tax breaks for oil companies, and "wants to give them another $4 billion tax cut."
THE FACTS: Biden is repeating a favorite saw of the Obama campaign, and it's misleading. McCain supports a cut in income taxes for all corporations, and doesn't single out any one industry for that benefit.
PALIN: Said the United States has reduced its troop level in Iraq to a number below where it was when the troop increase began in early 2007.
THE FACTS: Not correct. The Pentagon says there are currently 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 17,000 more than there were before the 2007 military buildup began.
BIDEN: "As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry — deregulate it and let the free market move — like he did for the banking industry."
THE FACTS: Biden and Obama have been perpetuating this distortion of what McCain wrote in an article for the American Academy of Actuaries. McCain, laying out his health plan, only referred to deregulation when saying people should be allowed to buy health insurance across state lines. In that context, he wrote: "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
PALIN: Said Alaska is "building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline, which is North America's largest and most expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets."
THE FACTS: Not quite. Construction is at least six years away. So far the state has only awarded a license to Trans Canada Corp., that comes with $500 million in seed money in exchange for commitments toward a lengthy and costly process to getting a federal certificate. At an August news conference after the state Legislature approved the license, Palin said, "It's not a done deal."
PALIN: "Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year."
BIDEN: "The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way."
THE FACTS: The vote was on a nonbinding budget resolution that assumed that President Bush's tax cuts would expire, as scheduled, in 2011. If that actually happened, it could mean higher taxes for people making as little as about $42,000. But Obama is proposing tax increases only on the wealthy, and would cut taxes for most others. In the March 14 budget resolution supported by Obama and Biden, McCain actually did not vote.
PALIN: Said a McCain-Palin administration "will support Israel," including "building our embassy ... in Jerusalem."
THE FACTS: Moving the U.S. Embassy from its present location in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is a perennial promise of presidential candidates courting the Jewish-American vote. In fact, moving the embassy is actually required by U.S. law. But successive administrations of both parties, including President Bush's, have made the same pledge only to find that the realities of Middle East peacemaking have forced them to invoke a waiver to delay it. Jerusalem is claimed as a capital by both Israel and the Palestinians, and Israel's occupation of east Jerusalem is not internationally recognized. The city's status is a key issue of disagreement in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
« on: October 02, 2008, 05:06:40 PM »
I'm a minority and I think its wrong, besides it only really benefits one minority group.
Can't argue that.
Who exactly benefits from affirmative action the most? Do tell.
« on: October 01, 2008, 02:32:55 PM »
Ifill's book was no secret
Wed Oct 1, 10:44 AM ET
Michelle Malkin and World Net Daily have made a lot of noise today about the fact the Gwen Ifill, the moderator of Thursday's VP debate, has a new book coming on Inauguration day about Barack Obama and the politics of race -- it's now leading on the front of Drudge.
Fox's Greta Van Susteren reports that the McCain campaign didn't know about it.
"I am stunned….the campaign (actually both) should have been told before the campaign agreed to have her moderate. It simply is not fair -- in law, this would create a mistrial."
But one didn't have to go the lengths of oppo research to find out about a book that was hiding in plain sight on Amazon and the Random house website.
Not to mention, Ifill discussed it with Howard Kurtz last month in the Washington Post, in the only profile she's done before the debate. (And I'd imagine someone in the campaign should have read it).
To the extent she can carve out any spare time, Ifill is working on a book called "Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." She focuses on the Democratic nominee and such up-and-coming black politicians as Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Newark Mayor Cory Booker.
"We're very lazy when we think about race in this country," Ifill says. "We try to put it in a box. It's Jesse versus Al, or Jesse and Al versus everyone else," she says, referring to Jackson and Sharpton. "We love simplistic conflict. There's a whole group of people who have Ivy League degrees and immense accomplishments who actually benefited from the things their parents were fighting for."
Regardless, the story's getting major play on cable news, especially Fox.
This morning with Bill Hemmer, Fox analyst Juan Williams spoke admirably of Ifill as a journalist but admitted that "it looks like she has some investment" in the outcome of the election, and that "there's a perception problem." The FoxNews.com headline: "VP Debate Moderator Pens Pro-Obama Book."
I think Malkin and other critics have a right to raise questions about whether Ifill should be moderating, but at the same time, it's not as if the veteran PBS journalist has been keeping the book under wraps until now. It's also a logical question to ask whether an Obama book would sell better or worse depending on the outcome of the election. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that if Obama's sworn in on the Jan. 20 pub date, a book with "Obama" in the title will sell more copies.
Legitimate questions, indeed. So why is this coming up less than 36 hours before Palin and Biden hit the stage?
(h/t TVNewser who had this clip of Ifill discussing the book).
UPDATE: A spokesperson for PBS's NewsHour said that Ifill is en route to the debate in St. Louis. When asked whether Ifill might disclose that she's writing this book during the debate, the spokesperson said he had no knowledge that she would, and declined to comment further. I also have a call into the Commission on Presidential Debates, and will update if they have a comment.
« on: October 01, 2008, 02:22:58 PM »
bill clinton's words assist mccain...pretty powerful ad...this one is all over pennsylvania and florida and ohio...
It has been clear where Bill's loyalties were throughout this entire campaign, both before and since Obama accepted the nomination. It is naivete to believe that he didn't know that his interviews were helping the McCain camp and reinforcing the factions in the Democratic party. BC is too smooth of a politician for this fact to have escaped him, and I'm too discerning of a voter to not to have noticed.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  8 9 10 11 12 ... 127