SDS

Last 2 minutes of each half the ref upstairs reviews the calls on the field.

Whenever I read your posts...

Correct response: "I'd drop you like a sack of dirt." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Seinfeld#The_...Kicks_.5B8.4.5D

"You want a piece of me????"

ooh! ooh! Mr. Kotter! I have!

To be fair - I brought it up again because I didn't appreciate the nuance of the NYT article.

I think it is safe to say that the book of federal programs that cost significantly more than the pitch price is a fuggin' thick one.

Yeah, that is a much cleaner quote. Thanks.

Gotcha. The article was a bit misleading in order to score style points. Although, I don't know how you can say an anonymous person is "100% supported the actual McCain aide who said it first", when other named sources have refuted the claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/tel...amp;oref=slogin

That phrase has been a red herring for years. Morality is legislated every single day. Any time a law or policy is passed because someone claims it is the "right" thing to do - it is based upon someone's morals. It doesn't matter if it is abortion or the minimum wage.

I don't know if it is accurate, but if it is... ouch. Perhaps the UAW can get together with steel workers and share war stories of sticking it to "the man"...

To those who say we have to "control costs" - I say line them up and have them sign a contract that they will not accept any form of care that has been improved from this day forward. "Controlling costs" is tantamount to saying "stop progress". We do some amazing freakin' things in this country with regards to health care and furthering our knowledge of our bodies. That costs money. I'm sure the medicine of the 1950's would be pretty cheap today. Some penicillin, a cold wet rag when you had a fever, the occasional lobotomy... But we want the best. We want it to be perfect (or we'll sue) and it better not interfere with my cell phone contract or Directv.

I think this is a HELL of a lot more credible than "anonymous sources" from the losing campaign.

GM builds cars (crappy ones) for the sole reason of paying inflated salaries and lifetime benefits to its retirees. It can no longer do that. The UAW will make sure that the auto workers and the steel workers meet the same fate.

John Sununu pro-choice?

Ummm.... words have definitions. You might try looking at a dictionary or something.

The auto industry is probably a good topic to discuss. It seems apparent to me that there are WAY too many car companies with WAY too models to support with WAY too many dealerships to really be sustainable these days. Cars just don't go to the junk yard after 60k miles like they did in the 70's.

Did she order Gucci bags for her daughters or were they supplied to her? That is the point I'm making - clearly she was complicit, maybe even an enthusiastic supporter, but it is hard to separate her actions from the campaigns actions. And I stand by my point earlier, politics is so much about image these days. Obama spent far more on image than she did. It was just spent a different way. I also think he campaigned as a man of the people. This doesn't excuse or validate the campaign's decisions - it just is what it is.

Again, I don't think you made the case that this was Palin driven and not campaign driven. If you are trying to sell me on the fact that this campaign was mishandled and all over the map on message, well... duh. Surely it was. It was one contradiction after another. The fact that it was extended to Palin is not a surprise to me.

The controversy is stupid because today's politics are entirely formed by image and symbolism. Each campaign poured money into "image". What did it cost to construct that phoney greek temple in Colorado? Is it a suit? No. Could it have just been a lectern? Yes. Regardless, nothing you said above disputes my claim that this was just as much a responsibility of the campaign than a shopaholic diva going crazy. After the convention, she received a tremendous amount of press for her "look". I have no doubt that the campaign seized on that and tried to make political hay. Obviously, it didn't work. My only point in continuing this is that there is plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize anybody. There's no need to make stuff up or exaggerate.

The part in bold is what drives me nuts. What does that actually mean to someone who was plucked out of her home state a billion miles away and all of a sudden has to become VP material? I may have to turn in my man card for pointing this out, but a woman's wardrobe is not like a man's. 3 suits for the convention and 3 suits for the campaign? For a female? They were following her look in the Style sections in major newspapers. It's not like she can have 6 suits and 20 ties. Now, think about this - what was the crack used against her in these anonymous reports? Wasilla hillbillies invading NM, etc...? Well, the non-slanderous way to look at this was that they are from a remote, rural region of the country and they indeed needed to be "re-made" to counteract that criticism. I'm pretty certain her North Face fleece pull-overs weren't going to cut it. As far as I've read, she has no history of been a fashionista. I seriously doubt that she just let loose of all that pent up shopping demand once in the lower 48. IMO, the campaign wanted her to look a certain way and she didn't object to it. She may have even advocated it as part of the make over strategy. What I don't buy is that she, and she alone, went crazy and the rest of the staff went along with it kicking and screaming, disagreeing with her choices all the way.

I know - I read the stories too. What I'm asking for is a reasonable explanation of how this is a solely Sarah Palin driven event and not a campaign driven one that Palin didn't object to? If she didn't do the actual shopping - how exactly did she dictate the spending? Did she put money floors under all these requests?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...-aide-offe.html Do any of you stop to ask yourselves how she managed to do all this shopping? Seriously, don't you think she would have been noticed if SHE spent the entire day. Day after day - in the mall? If she didn't do the shopping herself - did she tell others to go out and buy x, y, and z and make sure you spend over $x? Just please provide a reasonable explanation for how she was the one spending this money, while the rest of the campaign staff had no part in it besides doing her bidding.

FWIW, it is a he said/she said situation: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...-aide-offe.html I can understand that someone who doesn't speak on national issues makes a verbal gaffe. The explanation given in this article is entirely plausible. Now, that isn't to say she was indeed knowledgeable on these matters, just that some internal people may had already turned on her and are now taking things out of context to paint her in the worst possible light.