finknottle

Your political take is legit - Jews for Jesus is an anathema. I'm only pointing out that your glee at the prospect of their demonization is revealing about your character. It's sort of like getting excited that an opponent campaigning in KKK country is going to have the fact revealed that he dates interracially. As to whether I am Jewish, you may assume what you wish.

I find your celebration of bigotry troubling. Because that's what the vilification of Jews for Jesus boils down to: bigotry. Resentment against somebody leaving the group and finding their own way. It shouldn't be surprising: it's the same reaction levied against women who go Republican: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/03/the-f...e-female-abuse/ And lets not even get into the plight of black Republicans.

Yeah, because the idea of Jews for Jesus is sooo odius. Conversion and outreach go against everything that the Democrats stand for. What next? Conservative blacks? Religious Democrats?? Gay Republicans??? People should be banned from changing their religions, and religions that poach shut down. There should be a big sign outside Christian Churches that says "No Jews."

You asked for specifics, not a comparitive judgement: The fact is that she made decisons and accomplished things which are real and have costs and conseqences. They are executive decisions. If you want to debate whether raising the sales tax to fund a sports complex or whether raiding your surplus (as opposed to congresses deficit spending) to give everybody $1,200 is worthwhile, I suggest you start a separate thread. As for your conclusion, that really is the pot calling the kettle black. Obama's legislative career has been described by none other than the Washington Post as sidling his way into co-sponsoring everybody elses bill. My favorite incident, as recounted by the Post, was the Immigration bill. He encountered the authors on thier way to announce it to the press, asked if he could come along to co-sign for the photo-op (apparently not an unusual request), and they said yes. Once there, he grabbed the mic first, and thanked himself and *then* the other senators for the long hours they had put in to make the bipartisan legislation possible. Apparently Ted Kennedy was livid (and I'm sure McCain was none too pleased either). And of course there are the tough votes he has made: a record number of non-commital 'present,' and no bucking of the party.

I think he might have. For McCain, it's about the shot of energy she brings and her anti-corruption reputation as much as anything. Keep this in mind - there was serious consideration given to Bobby Jindal. Basically, the same deal: limited experience offset by the enthusiasm generated by turning the party over to a new generation.

Surprise, surprise - even Mother Jones (no friend to Republicans) has backed off on the claim: http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archiv...connection.html Not that it matters - the AIP is the third largest party in Alaska.

I assume can google as well as I, so you know as mayor she reduced property taxes 40%; secured $27 million in earmarked funds (not bad for a city of 9,000); raised sales taxes to buid an ice rink and sorts complex; and reduced the mayors salary. During this time she also was elected president of the Alaska Council of Mayors. As governor led a campaign on clean government, rescinding the late-hour appointments of her (corrupt R- ) predecessor; sold off the executive jet he had purchased; raised taxes on the oil companies; pushed through the development of a new Canadian oil pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48; and is currenly pushing a $1,200 rebate to each Alaskan fom the oil windfall.

Why not? It is the elephant in the room. She has had to make executive decisions on a daily basis, and take responsibility. Outside of running their campaigns, neither of the democratic candidates have ever had this experience. 'The Buck Stops Here,' even if only a very small bill, is not something that can be said about their work history's.

Is it possible that McCain, who see's himself as the great reformer, might have also been particularly attracted to her reputation as a anti-special interests crusader? No, that would be too simple. A VP is chosen for one and only one attribute. At least Obama's appears to have been... how else do you explain the selection of a consumate Washington insider (the kind Obama pledges to rid us of), who managed to have somehow supported the second Iraq war while being one of the few who opposed the first.

Caught him on the radio today. I understand that the RNC has been making overtures to him to buy his email list, but nothing he said there suggested a reapprochment was in the offing.

And with this logic, the Democrats hereby resolve to reject any candidate for higher office with experience. Next up - candidates with advanced degrees.

Every country in the world has an intelligence service. Only the left believes otherwise.

Funny how the left has been insisting for years that this was an imperialist war to seize Iraq's oil for our oil companies. And when that turns out not to be the case, the administrations leadership is faulted.... I'm looking forward to the mea culpa's.

C'mon, the child is special. All evidence points to him as a Child of Obama, perhaps even another immaculate conception! I'm sure it was all foretold somewhere.

What next, a kid named Barak?

Unbelievable - you get so fixated on your talking points that no mater how often people bring you evidence you ignore it. The sum of McCains mlitary career was *not* spent sitting in a POW camp. Among other things, he commanded the naval station in Florida. He served until 1981, yet you woud have us believe he spent the last decade as a fly boy tossing back drinks.

NOW he say's it. But during the early debates, it was a very different story - that's what distinguished him from Clinton. He would announce a *public* timetable and just do it - it was the unilateralism itself that was to prompt the Iraqi's to get their act together. His opponents said you have to withdraw rationally, based on progress and events on the ground, and under no circumstances to you make the timetable public, letting the insurgents know just how long they needed to lay low. For better or for worse, it was Obama's view that carried the day with the party activists. That is the key point that is being glossed over by the democrats today. They would have us believe that the difference between the candidates is that Obama wants a thoughtfull, carefull withdrawl, and McCain wants to be there for 100 years. They ignore the real difference in philosophy that became evident: in a war, do you announce your plans and your intention to follow them unilaterally, or do you keep your timetables secret from your enemies and adjust them as the situation dictates.

That's pretty much how he laid it out. No side-by-side comparison of actual accomplishments. I wonder why? There is a track record for Palin's accomplishments as mayor and governor, short as the time may be. Surely the poster would like to illuminate us on how Obama reformed the Illinois political scene, all the difficult and momentus legislation he passed, and the wastefull spending he defeated. Shouldn't we see these things side-by-side too, or is it only about the schools they attended? Aren't his accomplishments in Illinois and the US Senate a good barometer for what he would accomplish as president? If the One is going to remake the US the way he did Illinois, what does that mean?

I agree with this. The 'advice' to wear kids gloves is not because she is a woman, but because he runs the real risk of coming off as pompous windbag if he starts running circles around her - Biden is like that. The smart move is the just answer the questions, ignore her, and hit McCain.

McCain doesn't do the vetting. He has people. And he's also a little busy campaigning right now. If he wanted to keep this pick a media surprise the last thing he would do is have second and third interviews.

Yeah, and anyone in January 1944 who thought we should finish things up in Europe before finishing off the ones in Asia who actaully attacked us would certainly have supported a candidate whose view of how to do that was to announce to the Germans a binding timetable for withdrawing our troops.

Hence? Because if one republican is without vision every republican is? I suppose that when McCain began criticizing the administration in Iraq, he was doing it out of political expediency, not because he had a vision of how to bring stability? And bucking his party on global warming isn't because he has a vision about how his administration would fight it, it's because he likes being beat up? And McCain-Feingold wasn't about a vision for reforming politics, it was just something to do that the establishment would thank him for?

By your logic, if I ran and adopted her platform exactly, they should all vote for me. Positions oly go so far. Many people voted for her and against Obama on the basis of the person, the type of leadership they thought they would bring, and what they thought they could really accomplish. If you want somebody who talks loftily about change, vote Obama. But, for better or for worse, some people respond to the less glamerous candidate that excudes technocrat and policy wonk, and has mapped out their plans in excrutiating detail. That may not be McCain, but it is the antithesis of Obama's image - that is, as he put it in the debates, old and out-moded. If you want somebody who talks airily about transcending bipartisanship, vote Obama. But forgive those their folly for responding to candidates who have a history of reaching across the isle on contentious issues, and bucking their party establishment.

And she's also going to eat your babies!

No way - he summoned it, to show the Power of his Wrath.