Max Fischer Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 But blaming the "media" for her performance in this election campaign is just ignoring the obvious fact that she was a horrible choice, not because of her ideology, but because of her inexperience and ineptitude on the national stage. Exactly right. They evily pointed the camera at her and asked how she thought about the issues and what publications she reads. Dastardly. Also, as a Democrat, I will rejoice if Sarah Palin becomes the face of the GOP. The far right should be careful of what they wish for and if she indeed becomes the "Goldwater" of our time they should start to learn the words "historic landslide." But they may hold Idaho and Alaska.
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 Exactly right. They evily pointed the camera at her and asked how she thought about the issues and what publications she reads. Dastardly. Also, as a Democrat, I will rejoice if Sarah Palin becomes the face of the GOP. The far right should be careful of what they wish for and if she indeed becomes the "Goldwater" of our time they should start to learn the words "historic landslide." But they may hold Idaho and Alaska. And you should be careful what you wish for. After four years of far-left socialism, I'm betting this country will have had enough of pansy government. She'll be ready next time.
RI Bills Fan Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 And you should be careful what you wish for. After four years of far-left socialism, I'm betting this country will have had enough of pansy government. She'll be ready next time. And where oh where is this far left socialism you speak of so blithely to be found, pray tell?
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 25, 2009 Author Posted January 25, 2009 No, what I meant was, from a strategical standpoint, she is a potential threat to the dems because she is a Barry Goldwater kind of conservative that appeals to the 'real' conservative base--something the republicans haven't had. By osmosis, I meant she will learn over time to gain more knowledge and the cultural worldliness she so desperately lacks now...Alaska being where it is located is in a cocoon of sorts. This can only help to legitimize her candidacy. Yes, the media went after her, and she didn't help herself --she clearly was not "press" ready. But she is a determined over-achiever with a resume of achievements. The elitist media certainly did a number on her. I think it was class thing (being a moose hunter and such). That's my take. You know, I don't necessarily disagree with you that some of the press would have been bent against Palin because of her views, but even Bush in his fumbling ways was able to stand up to it, make fun of himself and the Press and the Press could only do so much with because people saw his other side, despite my opposition to him. He is a respectful and nice guy. Palin on other hand came across as not being able to handle herself in front of the press. The right wing press comes after Dems and left wing press comes after Republicans. Okay, but the politicians success or failure depends on how that politician handles the opposition. Both Palin and Kennedy failed miserably.... Palin just hung on for a longer period of time, opening up her up to even more redicule. So blame the press (left or right) if you want, the candidate exposed herself as a fraud.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 25, 2009 Author Posted January 25, 2009 And where oh where is this far left socialism you speak of so blithely to be found, pray tell? He is just drinking a bitter pill after losing an election... Many Dems sounded the same after 2000, just say I feel your pain and this too shall pass and be done with him.
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 You know, I don't necessarily disagree with you that some of the press would have been bent against Palin because of her views, but even Bush in his fumbling ways was able to stand up to it, make fun of himself and the Press and the Press could only do so much with because people saw his other side, despite my opposition to him. He is a respectful and nice guy. Palin on other hand came across as not being able to handle herself in front of the press. The right wing press comes after Dems and left wing press comes after Republicans. Okay, but the politicians success or failure depends on how that politician handles the opposition. Both Palin and Kennedy failed miserably.... Palin just hung on for a longer period of time, opening up her up to even more redicule. So blame the press (left or right) if you want, the candidate exposed herself as a fraud. Palin wasn't a fraud--she accomplished more than enough. She wasn't media savvy--that's the difference. Kennedy, you know, was a fraud and, you know.
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 And where oh where is this far left socialism you speak of so blithely to be found, pray tell? You don't call nationalization of banks, and universal healthcare socialism?
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 He is just drinking a bitter pill after losing an election... Many Dems sounded the same after 2000, just say I feel your pain and this too shall pass and be done with him. All of you liberals smell of arrogance and smugness. The poster's name may change but the attitude reflect the same general nastiness.
Dan Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 You don't call nationalization of banks, and universal healthcare socialism? I thought the Bush Administration did that? And we don't have Universal Healthcare yet. So I'll reserve judgment for the time being.
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 I thought the Bush Administration did that? And we don't have Universal Healthcare yet. So I'll reserve judgment for the time being. Agreed on Bush--he sold out on his principles along with a lot of repubs. The healthcare bill is in congress right now ready to roll.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 25, 2009 Author Posted January 25, 2009 All of you liberals smell of arrogance and smugness. The poster's name may change but the attitude reflect the same general nastiness. Not arrogance, just dismissive of your idiotic arguments, how else do you explain your lack of introspection and bitterness towards something your own candidate brought on herself... To use a blunt NY verbiage, "You need to get Honest"
PearlHowardman Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Sabotage = Charlie Gibson condescendingly looking down his glasses at Palin and asking her what the "Bush Doctrine" is. Did anyone in the MSM ask Caroline "Um, Uh, You Know" Kennedy a question like that? No! They wouldn't dare expose Caroline for the brain-dead dolt that she is. Palin was not ready for prime time. Caroline Kennedy will NEVER be ready for prime time.
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Not arrogance, just dismissive of your idiotic arguments, how else do you explain your lack of introspection and bitterness towards something your own candidate brought on herself... To use a blunt NY verbiage, "You need to get Honest" You just proved my point, Fischer. You are every bit as vicious as the people who demonized Palin--no tolerance for differing opinion.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 25, 2009 Author Posted January 25, 2009 You just proved my point, Fischer. You are every bit as vicious as the people who demonized Palin--no tolerance for differing opinion. Hey, I am honest about it. I took a shot at you, not apologizing for it because this pandering to blame the press for your candidates ills is not honest. Sure the press takes illegitimate and sometimes flat out wrong shots at candidates (Heck CNN's Blitzer has to be the most ill informed anchor I have ever seen). That being said, Obama went on O'Reilly and while O'Reilly gave him hell, he stood up to him and was credible... You may have disagreed with him and he wasn't perfect, but he didn't break down the way Palin did and sound like an idiot. McCain went on Letterman after Letterman villified him for not showing up and held his own and was honest.... Biden admitted immediately after he made that one of many stupid remarks that he wish he could have had that one back.... But Palin has insisted on blaming the press for her ills and that only asks for more trouble. He learned that lesson the hard way back in 88 and was forced out after challenging the Press' intelligence. She could have self deprecatingly said I wasn't ready for the intensity of the press questioning, how everything, her winces and looks would be scrutinized and I froze up a couple of times and I have learned from it. That would have been understandable, but she didn't and that just tells me she wasn't ready for prime time, no matter her ideology and for that matter neither is Carolyn Kennedy... The only difference between the two, Palin and Kennedy with some fits and starts Kennedy realized that she wasn't ready either. Either that or her advisers did and despite her disappointment, bowed out relatively gracefully. Blaming the press for ones ills in DC rarely works unless is it done tongue in cheek and with some humor. Otherwise, the press won't care which side you are on, it will eat you if your own party doesn't do it for them... I wonder how much of Palin's missteps were drivin by competing factions within the Republican party.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 25, 2009 Author Posted January 25, 2009 You just proved my point, Fischer. You are every bit as vicious as the people who demonized Palin--no tolerance for differing opinion. Not so, This is not about differing of opinion on ideology. This is about how you handle the press, not a matter what side you are on. Reagan had it, Clinton had it, Nixon learned till his paranoia screwed him up. Carter has never gotten it. Obama appears to have it... Both Gore and McCain appear to have it at times, but not when their own political lives are at stake. Gore is a funny witty, sarcastic man until a TV camera shows up and all the sudden wooden petrification sets in (part of growing up as a son of a Senator's Son, that is what he practiced. McCain seems to waffle back and forth from witty friendliness, with behind the scenes and some small public examples of being an angry young man and wanting to and everyone else around him to do things only the way he says, if not, he gets bitter. Not a Vietnam trait, these antics were documented even at the West Point, where he almost got kicked out because of it. Typical of some military brats I knew growing up, I am surprise he made it this far and has had this much self-control. But this doesn't have anything to do with the ideology of the press, this has to do with a candidates abilities and understanding of the way the press works. Palin failed miserably, face it and quit the tired old liberal media crap.
RI Bills Fan Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 You don't call nationalization of banks, and universal healthcare socialism? The Bail-Out of the financial Services industry is not a nationalization, the "banks" have not been and will not be taken over by the government. That said I wasn't in favor of the bail-out but also don't know what else the BUSH Administration could have done at that point. Admittedly the option to do nothing was there but... I haven't seen a proposal for Universal Healthcare. I have seen different proposals for Universal Health Insurance Coverage. That hardly qualifies as socialistic. Unless you also believe that Auto Insurance laws are socialism?
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 The Bail-Out of the financial Services industry is not a nationalization, the "banks" have not been and will not be taken over by the government. That said I wasn't in favor of the bail-out but also don't know what else the BUSH Administration could have done at that point. Admittedly the option to do nothing was there but... I haven't seen a proposal for Universal Healthcare. I have seen different proposals for Universal Health Insurance Coverage. That hardly qualifies as socialistic. Unless you also believe that Auto Insurance laws are socialism? Ask our Canadien friends on this board if they think their healthcare plan is socialist? I know some have said they come to America to get the care they need.
RI Bills Fan Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Ask our Canadien friends on this board if they think their healthcare plan is socialist? I know some have said they come to America to get the care they need. I'm not planning on emigrating to Canada, so I don't care what the state of Canadian Healthcare is. Nobody is proposing that the US adopt the Canadian Healthcare system. There is a plan for a National Health Insurance System which would help to provide health insurance to those American Citizens who do not currently have health insurance coverage. There is a huge difference between a national health insurance plan and socialized medicine.
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 I'm not planning on emigrating to Canada, so I don't care what the state of Canadian Healthcare is. Nobody is proposing that the US adopt the Canadian Healthcare system. There is a plan for a National Health Insurance System which would help to provide health insurance to those American Citizens who do not currently have health insurance coverage. There is a huge difference between a national health insurance plan and socialized medicine. If there is more tax money coming out of my pocket to pay for the illegal immigrant or the non-productive citizen, then it is socialized as far as I'm concerned.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 25, 2009 Author Posted January 25, 2009 Ask our Canadien friends on this board if they think their healthcare plan is socialist? I know some have said they come to America to get the care they need. Because they have the money... have you ever used the Canadian system. I have and it served my family well. Everyone gets served. If you wan't to get special treatment, you pay out of pocket and it doesn't cost the Canadian Government anywhere near what it costs the American public. That being said, not sure the Canadian system would work here. They have 30-40 million people, we have what 330 million. Big difference and one size does not fit all. But if a form of universal healthcare would lessen the average expense to working folks, then I am all for some form of it. When you take into account the cost we bear because of indigent and those without healthcare insurance using our system.... expenses that we end up paying in the form of higher bills charged to our insurance companies, the administrative costs of a well paid for profit middleman called insurance companies and higher premiums for us because our providers charge outrageous fees to pay for the care of these folks that the are going to serve... we already have universal healthcare... it is just administered ass backward and without any systematic way of controlling costs.
Recommended Posts