Putin: Ph34r Sarah Palin

[mox 298]

How would that change anything? He's already admitted to snorting coke, albeit not off Ariana Huffington's ###, but like his boy Marion Barry, he realizes messin' with blow doesn't distance you from the rest of the Donkeys, it proves you're down with the same things they are, that you're just an average guy, that you're "one of them."

Nah, it just proves Obama is an elite snob. Cocaine huh? Ooooooooh, fancy! Too good to do meth like the little guy, huh?

Biden mudders fromt the side....

"Oh $#!T, I just shot Marvin in the face!"

I would pay money to see Biden shoot someone in the face. Hell it might actually win over some Republicans!

Not to worry guys, they're going to find the "official" birth certificate right before it's all over. Either that, or about 1/2 of the absentee ballots will disappear.

What state will it be this year with "voting irregularities?" I'm betting on Colorado.

I think you need to instill some of that "It's a done deal" optimism to the Obama Campaign, they seem really worried and it might be because they are not reading polls but rather polling TRENDS.

Would you buy stock in a company whose number have dropped so far, so fast?

I haven't read that the Obama campaign is worried. They seem pretty confident to me. Even if they were worried, they wouldn't admit it in public. And I don't know what trends you're talking about that are dropping. Excluding the convention bounces, the trends have remained pretty flat.

While Obama's numbers have eroded significantly... Palins numbers (McCain now seems to be along for the ride) have surged.

I don't know where you're getting this. Rasmussen shows a statistical dead heat right now, with each candidate at 48%.

If she is a far-right "fundamentalist wingnut" (as you say) and in a matter of days she has gained so much support (despite the smear-job), what does that say about the "far-right" in this

Country? Must be a lot more of them that the left likes to suggest.

I didn't realize there was a left-wing conspiracy to cover up the number of right-wing nutjobs. But my point really was that McCain by himself was failing to energize his base of fundamentalist Christian conservatives. The Palin pick was a great pick if that was his goal. It was a terrible pick if he hoped to pick up swing voters, which tells me that he's going for broke and hoping the fundamentalist base will win this thing for him. He will be wrong.

Now of course anything is possible and with an army of Democratic "dirt diggers" and the press looking under every Rock in Alaska, ..one would expect something would be found to take the sparkle off of Palins star. But until that happens... God it's fun to watch the Obama club go from slam-dunk winners to a team trying to play without a clue as what to do.

The reason there is an army of "Democratic dirt diggers" is because the McCain campaign failed to do even the most basic research in vetting her as potentially the second most powerful person in the world. And let's face it, whether you believe the media is too liberal or too conservative, digging up dirt on a candidate is something that is just part of the process. Let's not pretend that this behavior is localized to Palin alone.

And quite frankly there's really no other way to get information on her, since the McCain campaign still won't make her available for interviews. McCain says he won't let the media talk to her until they treat her "with some level of respect and deference." Because Sarah Palin is now the Queen of England I guess. I'll say this: I'm no Hillary Clinton fan, but the press have treated her like dog ####### for the last 20-something years, and never once has she refused to speak to the press until they started being nice to her. I would call McCain's attempt to "protect" Palin from the press sexist patronizing if I didn't see it for what it really is: a thinly veiled attempt to keep her holed up while she crash courses on the issues that any serious candidate should have already known.

I think she is a very likable person and will attract a number of people in the center.

She does seem to be a very likable person, and there will be morons who vote on personality alone. Shame really.

I don't mind saying "I like her"... (and not just those legs) but is it enough to get me to vote for

McCain? I don't know.

If she were my next door neighbor and I knew nothing about her politics or creepy religious views, I'd probably like her too. But as I've said before, I will never be in a position to sit down and have a beer with the President. So likability rates very low on the scale for me. I think Joe Biden is a #######, but he's gonna make one helluva VP.

Ironically, I re-registered (I have a new address) to vote yesterday at the library, some guy had a table set up complete with registration forms and Obama stickers

[Danno 1,228]

ON a side note err observation.

It is interesting that McCain and Obama are somewhere around neck-N-neck in the polls yet I have not seen one McCain bumpersticker or yard sign.

I have seen loads of Obama ones and have for quite a while.

I used to think the "yard sign" thing indicated the popularity of a candidate until this year and I will tell you what changed my mind.

Way back i n the primaries, I saw more bumper-stickers, more Yard signs and even run of the mill home made advertisements about Ron Paul. They were in yards, along roadways hanging from bridges and painted on cars.

in fact, no matter what you put in a Youtube search engine you were sure to get some Ron Paul vids to turn up. Ron Paul supporters OWNED the internet! (or so it seemed)

I have never been a big Ron Paul guy but I thought for sure... this was going to be the "big surprise" story at the polls.

Guess what, Ron paul wasn't even a contender.

what's up with that?

[slim 1,530]

Ron Paul basically said, "Since I was elected as a Republican, once the Republicans voted for McCain and it was clear he was going to be the candidate, it was my duty to bow out so the focus could be on him." (He wanted to avoid a Hillary or Obama type candidacy race in the GOP.)

[mox 298]

Can't wait to see the whole interview when I get back...this was pretty sad:

The lady had absolutely NO idea what the Bush Doctrine is, despite the fact that the last 8 years have been predicated on it. She looked like a deer in the headlights until Charlie Gibson schooled her enough that she could sort of answer the question, and even then all she could do was flounder around about the terrorists and the terrorists and the terrorists and Charlie zomg there's a terrorist right behind you!!!!! It was pretty painful to watch, but not unexpected.

Also, I've gotta say she was looking the least hawt that I've seen her yet. She should have conducted the interview in her kitchen while making me a sandwich...

[Danno 1,228]

Actually, it is Charlie Gibson who might benefit from learning a little bit more about the "Bush Doctrine" as well.

Here is a column by the first person to use or coin the term "Bush doctrine" (which was before 911)

As time has passed, the Bush doctrine has come to mean a number of things, not just one... as

the impatient school teacher Charlie implied as he looked over his glasses and down his nose.

Here in part, is Kruthhamers piece about the subject.

---------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1202457_pf.html

"Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

[slim 1,530]

I read an article tonight about Bush saying basically every decision he makes is based on what the terrorists did or will do and how he can keep America safe and strong.

At least Putin kept it real in his article, "what? We should respond to tanks and multiple rocket launches with a sling shot?"

[Brad and Vika 129]

I read an article tonight about Bush saying basically every decision he makes is based on what the terrorists did or will do and how he can keep America safe and strong.

At least Putin kept it real in his article, "what? We should respond to tanks and multiple rocket launches with a sling shot?"

My personal favorite was Putin's recent comment that "Georgia deserved to be punched in the face" in response to a question about the amount of force used there. Imagine the hysterics if an American President (or candidate) were to make that comment about another country, anywhere.

[slim 1,530]

Well, if any President could get away with it, it'd be GWB.

[mox 298]

Actually, it is Charlie Gibson who might benefit from learning a little bit more about the "Bush Doctrine" as well.

The point isn't that there are differing views on what the Bush Doctrine is. The point is that she had NO idea what Gibson even meant by the phrase. Anyone pretending to have any foreign policy credentials will have at least heard the phrase and be able to speak about it in general terms. She didn't even know what it meant.

the impatient school teacher Charlie implied as he looked over his glasses and down his nose.

If you've ever seen Charlie Gibson, he looks over his glasses at everyone. And actually I think he did her a great favor. He could have let the question hang and let her flounder. He didn't. He threw her a rescue line, which is a lot more than many reporters would have done. In fact, if you've seen other snippets from this interview you'll see that Gibson was pretty easy on her. In fact he's taken a lot of flak for that. I doubt Hillary Clinton would have been treated with such kid gloves.

My personal favorite was Putin's recent comment that "Georgia deserved to be punched in the face" in response to a question about the amount of force used there. Imagine the hysterics if an American President (or candidate) were to make that comment about another country, anywhere.

"Bring 'em on." GWB, 2003.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Mox - "Bring 'em on", is nothing close to "they deserved to be punched in the face" in my opinion. Now if GWB had said "bring 'em on, and we'll put our national foot up thier collective a#$es", then OK.

Don't get me wrong here, I think W makes more than his share of goofy statements - and they reflect poorly on him and us. My point was that I don't believe American leaders make big points (other than with the lunatic fringe) when they make statements like that. I think that Putin is pretty sharp, and knows that his constituents like to hear strong statements - and especially those that are negative about America, NATO, and allies/friends of ours. If W tried that, he would appear to us not as a strong, patriotic leader, but rather as even more of a right wing, war mongering loony. Good theater I guess... but I doubt that we will ever hear "those Serbians deserved to be kicked in the nuts", from our side of the pond. It just doesn't play as well in Peoria.

[mox 298]

Mox - "Bring 'em on", is nothing close to "they deserved to be punched in the face" in my opinion. Now if GWB had said "bring 'em on, and we'll put our national foot up thier collective a#$es", then OK.

Don't get me wrong here, I think W makes more than his share of goofy statements - and they reflect poorly on him and us. My point was that I don't believe American leaders make big points (other than with the lunatic fringe) when they make statements like that. I think that Putin is pretty sharp, and knows that his constituents like to hear strong statements - and especially those that are negative about America, NATO, and allies/friends of ours. If W tried that, he would appear to us not as a strong, patriotic leader, but rather as even more of a right wing, war mongering loony. Good theater I guess... but I doubt that we will ever hear "those Serbians deserved to be kicked in the nuts", from our side of the pond. It just doesn't play as well in Peoria.

Point taken. You're right that Russians seem to expect and tolerate more hard rhetoric from their leaders. especially because of the perception that they've been treated like 2nd class citizens since the end of the cold war. They're experiencing a re-awakening of sorts, and it's this kind of rhetoric that feeds into it. And of course Putin knows how the West loves to feel offended, so I'm sure he gets some laughs from that.

I quoted Bush's statement because you said "imagine the hysterics if an American President (or candidate) were to make that comment about another country, anywhere." It immediately brought "bring 'em on" to mind, because it generated such controversy in our own country, and even our allies were aghast that he had essentially invited another attack.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Mox - "Bring 'em on", is nothing close to "they deserved to be punched in the face" in my opinion. Now if GWB had said "bring 'em on, and we'll put our national foot up thier collective a#$es", then OK.

Don't get me wrong here, I think W makes more than his share of goofy statements - and they reflect poorly on him and us. My point was that I don't believe American leaders make big points (other than with the lunatic fringe) when they make statements like that. I think that Putin is pretty sharp, and knows that his constituents like to hear strong statements - and especially those that are negative about America, NATO, and allies/friends of ours. If W tried that, he would appear to us not as a strong, patriotic leader, but rather as even more of a right wing, war mongering loony. Good theater I guess... but I doubt that we will ever hear "those Serbians deserved to be kicked in the nuts", from our side of the pond. It just doesn't play as well in Peoria.

Point taken. You're right that Russians seem to expect and tolerate more hard rhetoric from their leaders. especially because of the perception that they've been treated like 2nd class citizens since the end of the cold war. They're experiencing a re-awakening of sorts, and it's this kind of rhetoric that feeds into it. And of course Putin knows how the West loves to feel offended, so I'm sure he gets some laughs from that.

I quoted Bush's statement because you said "imagine the hysterics if an American President (or candidate) were to make that comment about another country, anywhere." It immediately brought "bring 'em on" to mind, because it generated such controversy in our own country, and even our allies were aghast that he had essentially invited another attack.

True. I remember the commentary. I still say, now that 'ol dub is a lame duck, he could at least entertain us with a couple of really provocative goofs. How about telling the media that he will inspect our new "NUCULAR" missile site in Poland? Ukraine would no longer need to worry about Crimea, because the Black Sea Fleet would begin leasing space in Venezuela the following week.

Edited September 14, 2008 by Brad and Vika

[mox 298]

True. I remember the commentary. I still say, now that 'ol dub is a lame duck, he could at least entertain us with a couple of really provocative goofs. How about telling the media that he will inspect our new "NUCULAR" missile site in Poland? Ukraine would no longer need to worry about Crimea, because the Black Sea Fleet would begin leasing space in Venezuela the following week.

Ha! Well the word is that he's been sick of being the Prez since before his second term, and can't wait for it to be over and done. So I'd just like to see him show up to a news conference completely blotto, carrying a bottle of Wild Turkey, where he then starts screaming obscenities at reporters. It would be nothing short of awesome.

"Nukular missiles in Poland" would be the shiz though. Condee's facial expression would not change, but she'd drop a big steaming loaf right there. Oh, if only I could control reality with my thoughts...

[Danno 1,228]

Actually, it is Charlie Gibson who might benefit from learning a little bit more about the "Bush Doctrine" as well.

The point isn't that there are differing views on what the Bush Doctrine is. The point is that she had NO idea what Gibson even meant by the phrase. Anyone pretending to have any foreign policy credentials will have at least heard the phrase and be able to speak about it in general terms. She didn't even know what it meant.

the impatient school teacher Charlie implied as he looked over his glasses and down his nose.

If you've ever seen Charlie Gibson, he looks over his glasses at everyone. And actually I think he did her a great favor. He could have let the question hang and let her flounder. He didn't. He threw her a rescue line, which is a lot more than many reporters would have done. In fact, if you've seen other snippets from this interview you'll see that Gibson was pretty easy on her. In fact he's taken a lot of flak for that. I doubt Hillary Clinton would have been treated with such kid gloves.

My personal favorite was Putin's recent comment that "Georgia deserved to be punched in the face" in response to a question about the amount of force used there. Imagine the hysterics if an American President (or candidate) were to make that comment about another country, anywhere.

"Bring 'em on." GWB, 2003.

Perhaps in Charlie's mind, there is only one definition of "Bush doctrine" but as we can plainly see (wilkapedia) there is not just one "bush Doctrine".

when he pitched the questions, she asked him to be specific, he didn't.

I doubt any honest person could say "that was a great Palin interview".

But many people are glad "real questions" are starting to be asked in this election even if it is only on the VP level.

When are these kinds of questions to be asked of Mr. Obama?

I had to chuckle when Palin was busted-on for not even having a passport until a year or two ago, yet Barak's gets by with using his childhood time overseas as "international experience" relevant to seeking Office. He is in the Senate for about a year and announces his intention to Run for President..... where were the serious questions about HIS experience?

How long was Barak a candidate before, his racist leaning church was even a news story?

The media knew someone currently running for president (John Edwards) was having an affair but decided not to report it because it was *not relevant* yet they jumped all over Palins daughter when they learned she was knocked-up.

Sure, hard left women are never gonna vote for McCain/ Palin but a lot of women in the middle see how this candidate is treated and it only draws more women to her, not away from her.

I recall when Hillary had her "teary-eyed" moment running against Barak, I think it was in Pa. or Ohio. I got a scoff out of it and thought , it would hurt her but, she actually Beat Obama in the next run... because women came to the defense of a woman being Picked-on.

It's now gotten so crazy, that Democrats on the campaign trail have forgot to talk about Bush.... you know something has them shaken when they miss hitting that softball at every chance.

[mox 298]

Perhaps in Charlie's mind, there is only one definition of "Bush doctrine" but as we can plainly see (wilkapedia) there is not just one "bush Doctrine".

when he pitched the questions, she asked him to be specific, he didn't.

I doubt any honest person could say "that was a great Palin interview".

But many people are glad "real questions" are starting to be asked in this election even if it is only on the VP level.

When are these kinds of questions to be asked of Mr. Obama?

O'Reilly interviews Obama last week: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

Watch all 4 parts (or any 1 part actually), then go back and watch the Palin interview and seriously tell me that Palin was treated unfairly in the Gibson interview. O'Reilly went after Obama like an actual journalist, and except for his trademark asshattery, I thought it was a damn fine interview. I'd love to see the other candidates get beaten up like this. Except that's not gonna happen because Palin's next interview is with that master of fair and balanced journalism, Sean Hannity. I expect he'll open with "Sarah Palin, how is it that you smell so pretty?" before moving on to such hard-hitting questions as "seriously, nobody can possibly smell so pretty...are you an angel?"

I had to chuckle when Palin was busted-on for not even having a passport until a year or two ago, yet Barak's gets by with using his childhood time overseas as "international experience" relevant to seeking Office. He is in the Senate for about a year and announces his intention to Run for President..... where were the serious questions about HIS experience?

Obama is constantly under scrutiny for his lack of experience, and rightly so. Maybe I'm not watching or reading the right stuff, but I've yet to hear the Obama campaign claim his childhood experience as "international experience," beyond the simple "he knows what life is like somewhere outside his own borders." International experience IS a liability with Obama, and it's worthy of extra scrutiny.

What Obama is NOT claiming as international experience is being able to see Russia from a remote mostly uninhabited part of Alaska. He's also not lying about having been in Iraq, when he was only in Kuwait for a few hours, as Palin has done. I think it's fair to question her experience too, and I'm disappointed to see that the McCain campaign has shielded her from such questions, and that during the few times she's been approached on the subject (such as in the Gibson interview) she's deflected them.

How long was Barak a candidate before, his racist leaning church was even a news story?

By my watch, about 10 minutes.

The media knew someone currently running for president (John Edwards) was having an affair but decided not to report it because it was *not relevant* yet they jumped all over Palins daughter when they learned she was knocked-up.

Personal lives should be left out, absolutely. Whether it's an affair or a pregnant daughter, it's just not relevant. Obama came out and said that Palin's family was off limits, and has been true to his word.

Sure, hard left women are never gonna vote for McCain/ Palin but a lot of women in the middle see how this candidate is treated and it only draws more women to her, not away from her.

I've gotta say, except for the occasional misogynistic rant on the blogosphere, I simply don't see Palin as being mistreated. In fact, it's hard to mistreat a candidate who refuses to even speak to the press except in very tightly controlled circumstances. If gender shouldn't play a role, then why is the McCain campaign treating her like a fragile princess? Hillary Clinton never hid behind Bill or her handlers. Geraldine Feraro likewise didn't need 12 days in a secret hidden bunker in order to study up. Any candidate, Democrat or Republican, that makes themselves unavailable to the press should scare the hell out of anybody.

I recall when Hillary had her "teary-eyed" moment running against Barak, I think it was in Pa. or Ohio. I got a scoff out of it and thought , it would hurt her but, she actually Beat Obama in the next run... because women came to the defense of a woman being Picked-on.

I think that came out in the wash. It was a shrewd, calculated gamble on her part, but those that bought it were canceled out by those who saw it for the stunt that it was.

It's now gotten so crazy, that Democrats on the campaign trail have forgot to talk about Bush.... you know something has them shaken when they miss hitting that softball at every chance.

The Obama campaign hasn't been talking about Bush the entire campaign because this isn't about Bush. This race, in the Obama campaign's mind, is about McCain carrying on the Bush legacy. They have attacked him on his 90% support rate of Bush's policies, and they continue to do so. I will say that their recent "McCain doesn't know how to use a computer" ad was downright stupid. If you want to say that ad shows the Obama campaign is rattled, I wouldn't disagree, but I'd also say it might just be that they're trying some new angles. I don't know, but what I do know is they need to stick with their strengths and keep hammering McCain's record.

Remember too that Obama isn't trying to win the popular vote. He's doing the sensible thing, and going after the electoral college. And if you look at pollster.com, you'll see why the Obama campaign is far, far from being shaken. McCain may be doing well in the polls, but he's got a much harder row to hoe when it comes to electoral votes. To even have a shot at it, McCain must not only perform flawlessly in the debates, but he has to beat Obama handily. And say what you will about Obama, but he is a better speaker and a better debater than McCain. But, young Skywalker, there is...another. It's entirely possible that Joe Biden's mouth will get him in trouble during the VP debate. If he comes across as bullying Palin, it could shift things dangerously. So far the campaign has kept him on a short leash, but Biden has shown in the past that he can lose his cool and go off half cocked.

Edited September 15, 2008 by mox