To keep it a little cleaner, let's start the thread here. I don't think we'll miss much from the old thread

President Bush will speak tonight via satellite. Boooooooring! [yawn]

It sounds like Rudy's speaking engagement has been scrapped? That could be the best news of the convention.

Expect Palin's speech to be the convention highlight.

I flipped on PBS HD, saw a video flag waving and an announcer blathering about some GOP "What does the flag mean to you?" contest. Puleeaze.

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwhy.

Sam Brownback just said during an interview, something that I have heard from others who espouse her experience, that she has more executive experience then anyone, "on either side."

Her less-than 2 years of governing is better than McCain's just because it's "executive." Someone needs to try to spin this.

CNN's web feed just showed that the police had to use tear gas because the protestors outside were running towards the fence.

CNN's web feed just showed that the police had to use tear gas because the protestors outside were running towards the fence.

The protesters might as well go home. The republican's are self destructing nicely on their own. Dumping America's Mayor™ in favor of the bottom half of the "Sore Loserman" ticket? Priceless.

I haven't nor will I watch either convention. I can hear the candidates all like to me on their own without a bunch of people behind them saying "yeah!".

Can you hear the old man cheering right now (while Mrs Bush is speaking)? My wife said it sounds like Homer Simpsons Dad...

LOL

(YEAH...!)

NBC "accidentally" airing Bush's speech without the applause track.... very professional. But I admit it was funny to watch....

I see this thread is going as nice and smooth as the Dem convention thread. :lol: This will be good.

Wow, Fred Thompson just did one hell of a job of putting over the McCain/Palin ticket, and took quite a few direct jabs against Obama.

Wow, Fred Thompson just did one hell of a job of putting over the McCain/Palin ticket, and took quite a few direct jabs against Obama.

Anyone know what the hell he was talking about with swamps and alligators?

When does anyone know what Fred Thompson is talking about?

Lieberman - why are you still calling yourself a Democrat?

The Dems still let him caucus with them so why not call himself that?

Great speech by Lieberman so far. The part about helping people recover from natural disasters was great.

Did the RNC just cheer Bill Clinton?

Yeah they did... talk about opportunism!

Wow, Fred Thompson just did one hell of a job of putting over the McCain/Palin ticket, and took quite a few direct jabs against Obama.

He's just promoting a new Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay movie, where he plays a small role as a Republican Senator.

Good times. :up:

---

Also, Newt just slapped some Asian lady on the ass. Is that his wife? :wtf:

Joe L. is putting me to sleep.

Did the RNC just cheer Bill Clinton?

They can't exactly cheer George W. Bush for any of those things.

I like Joe, but he would be a lot better if he would allow Alf to go everywhere with him instead of leaving him at home.

Joe L. "John McCain is a superhero."
RNC: "Yeahhhhh! USA! USA! USA! Yeahhhh!"
Joe L. "John McCain is, well, uhhhh, John McCain."
RNC: "Yeahhhhh! USA! USA! USA! Yeahhhh!"
Joe L. "John McCain is a....man."
RNC: "Yeahhhhh! USA! USA! USA! Yeahhhh!"
Joe L. "John McCain just got a haircut."
RNC: "Yeahhhhh! USA! USA! USA! Yeahhhh!"

Lieberman - why are you still calling yourself a Democrat?It probably has a lot to do with voting with the Democrats in the Senate the vast majority of the time.

This RNC is surreal. Fred Thompson? Joe Lieberman? Thousands of old white guys in St. Paul?

I'm watching on TiVo and I just got to the Reagan tribute. In one video, they encapsulate everything that's wrong with the Republican Party:
The focus on the past -- Reagan's been off the national scene for two decades, and dead for four years. Move on!
Anger -- lashing out at the media and Jimmy Carter? Take a valium, announcer man!
Hypocrisy -- let's praise President Reagan for being a Washington outsider! Let's talk about him being a celebrity! But of course those are good things when we're talking about President Reagan.
Hubris -- Ronald Reagan saved our century? Isn't that a little excessive?

Not a fan of Lieberman's but enjoyed the night. Such a contrast to the rock concert we saw last week.

Thousands of old white guys in St. Paul?That's pretty typical for Minnesota, to be honest. It's not exactly the "melting pot", unless you count a mixture of Germans, Swedes, and Norwegians as "diversity".

Well, talk about an uneventful night. The Republicans can't even do a convention right.

Did the RNC just cheer Bill Clinton?
I thought they were cheering that he worked with Republicans to pass welfare reform (after vetoing it two times) and NAFTA.

Well, talk about an uneventful night. The Republicans can't even do a convention right.
Nothing can top the greatest speech since MLK. :lol:

Nothing can top the greatest speech since MLK. :lol:

Well, until Obama gives his inauguration speech. :)

Thompson did a pretty good job. I'm sure some people sitting this one out might have changed their minds.

Wow! I just saw Olbermann (sp?) rebute what a Republican congresswoman said about Obama's Illinois position on not allowing an unsuccessfully aborted baby who was born alive, to live. After she was done he made his statement and then went to commercial.

I'm used to people from either party disagreeing, but the "news person" doing it seemed way out there.

I like Joe, but he would be a lot better if he would allow Alf to go everywhere with him instead of leaving him at home.

:lol: Every time I hear Lieberman talk I think of Alf!

I'm watching on TiVo and I just got to the Reagan tribute. In one video, they encapsulate everything that's wrong with the Republican Party:
The focus on the past -- Reagan's been off the national scene for two decades, and dead for four years. Move on!
Anger -- lashing out at the media and Jimmy Carter? Take a valium, announcer man!
Hypocrisy -- let's praise President Reagan for being a Washington outsider! Let's talk about him being a celebrity! But of course those are good things when we're talking about President Reagan.
Hubris -- Ronald Reagan saved our century? Isn't that a little excessive?

Dude. PM me your address and I'll send you some Xanax.

So, who is this Sarah Pawlenty person the vice-chair of the RNC says is going to be the next vice president?

Wow! I just saw Olbermann (sp?) rebute what a Republican congresswoman said about Obama's Illinois position on not allowing an unsuccessfully aborted baby who was born alive, to live. After she was done he made his statement and then went to commercial.

I'm used to people from either party disagreeing, but the "news person" doing it seemed way out there.

I was happy he did, it's a popular lie that Republicans like to spew. I think Olbermann was waiting for Matthews to say something, and when he didn't, Keith did the right thing.

Go get 'em, Keith!

I'm used to people from either party disagreeing, but the "news person" doing it seemed way out there.
Keith's over-fawning of Obama last week was gag-inducing.

Keith's over-fawning of Obama last week was gag-inducing.

I have a feeling you didn't like his speech. ;)

I have a feeling you didn't like his speech. ;)
His speech was excellent. Try again.

His speech was excellent. Try again.

then you just don't like Keith.

I'm watching on TiVo and I just got to the Reagan tribute. In one video, they encapsulate everything that's wrong with the Republican Party:
The focus on the past -- Reagan's been off the national scene for two decades, and dead for four years. Move on!
Anger -- lashing out at the media and Jimmy Carter? Take a valium, announcer man!
Hypocrisy -- let's praise President Reagan for being a Washington outsider! Let's talk about him being a celebrity! But of course those are good things when we're talking about President Reagan.
Hubris -- Ronald Reagan saved our century? Isn't that a little excessive?
No it isn't excessive. Especially not when we're talking about a 2 term president who actually did something as compared to an inexperienced candidate who hasn't been elected yet but promised everything including the kitchen sink. During his acceptance speech he rattled off a laundry list of everyone's wishes with no indication that he has a realistic plan to actually make those things a reality.

Right or wrong, I give President Clinton credit for the economic improvements made under his watch and I give President Reagan credit for helping to bring the cold war to an end.

Obama doesn't have a track record of delivering on what he promised.

then you just don't like Keith.
I like objective journalism.

I like objective journalism.

Chief Karlin: Why are you doing this, Mr. Fletch?
Fletch: I like men. I like to be manhandled. I like you.

Reagan didn't even know the Cold War was ending. He was just at the right place at the right time.

Keith's over-fawning of Obama last week was gag-inducing.

Olberman lost any credibility he had some time ago...and to consider Olberman to be anything close to a "news person" as X stated is a reach if there ever was one.

I like objective journalism.

Keith's not a journalist, and doesn't pretend to be.

I really don't get the dislike for the guy. He really isn't the "left" version of O'Reilly.

Wow! I just saw Olbermann (sp?) rebute what a Republican congresswoman said about Obama's Illinois position on not allowing an unsuccessfully aborted baby who was born alive, to live. After she was done he made his statement and then went to commercial.

I'm used to people from either party disagreeing, but the "news person" doing it seemed way out there.

A single set of quotes is insufficient for describing Olbermann as a "news person" -- it needs to be at least ""news person"".

Keith's not a journalist, and doesn't pretend to be.
lol whut

He really isn't the "left" version of O'Reilly.
You're right. O'Reilly isn't allowed to spew his bs on the normal newscasts.

I like objective journalism.


So I can get your word that you never watch Foxs News?

Reagan didn't even know the Cold War was ending. He was just at the right place at the right time.

Xanax for you, too, son?

Keith's not a journalist, and doesn't pretend to be.

I really don't get the dislike for the guy. He really isn't the "left" version of O'Reilly.

Then why is he anchoring convention coverage with Chris Matthews?

I agree that he's MSNBC's answer to O'Reilly, and there's nothing wrong with that. But Fox never lets O'Reilly sit with Brit Hume and Chris Wallace, wihle MSNBC sees nothing wrong with letting a political hack share a table with real reporters who are trying to report a story fairly.

So I can get your word that you never watch Foxs News?
I predominantly watch CNN and occasionally switch to the other two. Anything else?

Xanax for you, too, son?

come again?

You're right. O'Reilly isn't allowed to spew his bs on the normal newscasts.

Because Fox has a plethora of other capable right wing loons to do that. And be careful what you say about Keith, your choice for VP desperately wanted to work with him at Sportscenter before becoming mayor when she realized she'd actually have to move to Connecticut to recap the night in sports with Keith.

come again?

Some people on the left appear to need a Xanax tonight. I'm willing to let go a few, because as a centrist, I advocate a pharmaceutically-induced move to the center for all who get a little too partisan.

.And be careful what you say about Keith, your choice for VP
Really? I'm voting for McCain now?

Then why is he anchoring convention coverage with Chris Matthews?

I agree that he's MSNBC's answer to O'Reilly, and there's nothing wrong with that. But Fox never lets O'Reilly sit with Brit Hume and Chris Wallace, wihle MSNBC sees nothing wrong with letting a political hack share a table with real reporters who are trying to report a story fairly.

When exactly is Keith not being fair? Just wondering if anyone can answer that question.

As far as Brit Hume goes, did you see him last week at the DNC? He acted like he was being put to death. And yes, I'm fully aware that he always/looks like that, but it was even worse. I can't tell you how Fox looked tonight, I can only hear "maverick" for so long.

Some people on the left appear to need a Xanax tonight. I'm willing to let go a few, because as a centrist, I advocate a pharmaceutically-induced move to the center for all who get a little too partisan.

I don't need one, thanks. But you seem to, since you were quick to want to give me one.

I predominantly watch CNN and occasionally switch to the other two. Anything else?

Than you're not getting objective news. Anyone who thinks ANY of the 3 cable channels gives you really objective quality news are kidding themselves. Wolf Blitzer and Larry King might not be EVIL like Sean and Bill, but they are anywhere from average to horrible journalists. Same goes for most of the rest of the CNN gang.

I don't need one, thanks. But you seem to, since you were quick to want to give me one.

My mental equilibrium is fine, thanks. But some of you all need to move away from the politics of personal destruction, particularly the Dems, for whom this is supposed to be a key issue. A little Xanax might make you more mellow, more loving of your fellow man. Or, as of late, your fellow woman, since Palin seems to be the pinata of the week.

Than you're not getting objective news. Anyone who thinks ANY of the 3 cable channels gives you really objective quality news are kidding themselves. Wolf Blitzer and Larry King might not be EVIL like Sean and Bill, but they are anywhere from average to horrible journalists. Same goes for most of the rest of the CNN gang.

Agreed. If anything, CNN is leaning right these days. But I'll still tune in for a few minutes to see if all the talking points are the same across the board, and they usually are. I stick with MSNBC because they seem to actually think more than the other networks.

My mental equilibrium is fine, thanks. But some of you all need to move away from the politics of personal destruction, particularly the Dems, for whom this is supposed to be a key issue. A little Xanax might make you more mellow, more loving of your fellow man. Or, as of late, your fellow woman, since Palin seems to be the pinata of the week.

How can you love people who never love you back? (Republicans)

Than you're not getting objective news. Anyone who thinks ANY of the 3 cable channels gives you really objective quality news are kidding themselves. Wolf Blitzer and Larry King might not be EVIL like Sean and Bill, but they are anywhere from average to horrible journalists. Same goes for most of the rest of the CNN gang.
Did I say they were? I find CNN to be the most tolerable of the three networks. I didn't say they were perfect, and I'm only talking about cable news networks. I get objective news from plenty of other sources.

If anything, CNN is leaning right these days.
rotfl :lol: rotfl

Some people on the left appear to need a Xanax tonight. I'm willing to let go a few, because as a centrist, I advocate a pharmaceutically-induced move to the center for all who get a little too partisan.

Do you know what Xanax is for?

With all due respect and dropping any disagreements between people posting their political opinions, I don't see anyone who's acting in a way that isn't reasonably calm.

rotfl :lol: rotfl

I guess you don't count Headline News part of CNN?

How can you love people who never love you back? (Republicans)

Step one is admitting that you're incorrect about that. And that even if some Republicans will never love you back, many will, and you've used to broad a brush to paint the party with.

Why are Democrats willing to negotiate with and make offers of appeasement to anyone except Republicans?

Do you know what Xanax is for?

With all due respect and dropping any disagreements between people posting their political opinions, I don't see anyone who's acting in a way that isn't reasonably calm.

I do indeed, having taken it on and off for a number of years. A lovely drug for presenting papers at academic conferences.

Dropping some of the ideological anxieties might make for more fruitful conversation.

Just a thought. Not trying to elicit anger form anyone.

My mental equilibrium is fine, thanks. But some of you all need to move away from the politics of personal destruction, particularly the Dems, for whom this is supposed to be a key issue. A little Xanax might make you more mellow, more loving of your fellow man. Or, as of late, your fellow woman, since Palin seems to be the pinata of the week.

Personal destruction? You mean item 1 in the Rove playbook? If Dems were good at personal destruction (sadly, maybe), we'd actually win elections more than once or twice a decade.

Step one is admitting that you're incorrect about that. And that even if some Republicans will never love you back, many will, and you've used to broad a brush to paint the party with.

Why are Democrats willing to negotiate with and make offers of appeasement to anyone except Republicans?

Because the last time we let down our guard, George W. Bush became president. Ya dig?

I guess you don't count Headline News part of CNN?
:lol:
No, nor do I count Fox Business Channel as Fox News or CNBC as MSNBC. Talk about moving the goalposts!

Personal destruction? You mean item 1 in the Rove playbook? If Dems were good at personal destruction (sadly, maybe), we'd actually win elections more than once or twice a decade.

Tu quoque fallacy.

Try again.

:lol:
No, nor do I count Fox Business Channel as Fox News or CNBC as MSNBC. Talk about moving the goalposts!

Lou Dobbs is down the center?

Because the last time we let down our guard, George W. Bush became president. Ya dig?

That's not because you let your guard down. It's because enough people in the right states voted for George Bush instead of Al Gore. That's been proven again and again.

Let me ask you this: are you more concerned that your party win, or are you more concerned with looking back at a campaign that was run with integrity and truly did what it could to try and heal a divided America?

Lou Dobbs is down the center?
He's right on some things, left on others, as best as I can see. His big issue is obviously immigration, but he's pro-choice, pro gay rights, and critical of international trade. Your point?

Don't forget those right-wingers Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, and Campbell Brown! :lol:

That's not because you let your guard down. It's because enough people in the right states voted for George Bush instead of Al Gore. That's been proven again and again.

Let me ask you this: are you more concerned that your party win, or are you more concerned with looking back at a campaign that was run with integrity and truly did what it could to try and heal a divided America?

You are hoping for the campaigns, either one of them, to heal a divided America?

I'm kind of of thinking it's gonna take a lot longer than 2 months to heal what
George and Dick have had 8 years to tear apart.

He's right on some things, left on others, as best as I can see. His big issue is obviously immigration, but he's pro-choice, pro gay rights, and critical of international trade. Your point?

Don't forget those right-wingers Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, and Campbell Brown! :lol:

Anderson doesn't count, he's only there to look hot. Wolf has a situation in his room and that's that he sucks. Campbell's ok.

He's right on some things, left on others, as best as I can see. His big issue is obviously immigration, but he's pro-choice, pro gay rights, and critical of international trade. Your point?

Don't forget those right-wingers Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, and Campbell Brown! :lol:

Don't forget that no one really understands what a centrist is anymore. Dobbs is an evil conservative because he talks a lot about illegal immigration, and he's one of the loudest voices against it. He is therefore an ideological enemy, even if he's for abortion and what have you.

No deviance from the platform is to be permitted. That's the way of modern politics, since the 1930s and the 1940s. Neither party actually has a big tent.

You are hoping for the campaigns, either one of them, to heal a divided America?

I'm kind of of thinking it's gonna take a lot longer than 2 months to heal what
George and Dick have had 8 years to tear apart.

We were divided before we even started counting the votes in 2000. And the more the world throws at us, the more divided we become.

Putting it all in Bush and Chaney's laps is irresponsible. We are also all at fault, for allowing ourselves to become the rabid, partisan animals we have become, who care about party over all else.

INGSOC is here.

Americans have been polarized since the Continental Congress. :lol:

Let me ask you this: are you more concerned that your party win, or are you more concerned with looking back at a campaign that was run with integrity and truly did what it could to try and heal a divided America?

You mean the campaign that is claiming to put "Country First" yet has George W Bush talk about the "angry Left," or have Fred Thompson speak with such disdain for the Democrats?

Yeah, bludgeon the other party on their character and patriotism, not on the facts or the challenges facing this nation after 8 years of a Republican White House. That's putting "Party First" and "Country Second."

Americans have been polarized since the Continental Congress. :lol:

But we are now able to communicate that polarization with maximum efficiency. And we are able to read the thoughts of the most rabid members of the right and the left.

I work on a university campus, generally a hotbed of politics. And it's gotten worse each election, even though I moved from the land of the protestors, Eugene, Oregon, to the Midwest.

People have access to more information, but most of it comes in the form of half-assed opinions or reporting before all of the facts are in. Then voters run of half-cocked thinking they have some idea of what's going on in the world when in reality, they know diddly shit.

This election is going to bring change, alright.

You mean the campaign that is claiming to put "Country First" yet has George W Bush talk about the "angry Left," or not have Fred Thompson speak with such disdain for the Democrats?

Yeah, bludgeon the other party on their character and patriotism, not on the facts or the challenges facing this nation after 8 years of a Republican White House. That's putting "Party First" and "Country Second."

And the speeches from the Democrats? Particularly after the Palin announcement? Again, tu quoque.

That's not because you let your guard down. It's because enough people in the right states voted for George Bush instead of Al Gore. That's been proven again and again.

Let me ask you this: are you more concerned that your party win, or are you more concerned with looking back at a campaign that was run with integrity and truly did what it could to try and heal a divided America?

This country is already so divided, and gets more divided with every passing day. It won't be until we have a president that is willing to actually make real changes that you are going to see any unity. I don't see how McCain is offering anything more than what we've seen in the last 8 years. I think he was a very lucky to have survived the POW camp, but you gotta have more than that for me to pick you as president. He's too anti-women's rights, pro-war, pro-rich.

The Republicans, meanwhile, tear down every single thing about Obama, who's clearly smart, eloquent, charismatic, but no experience, and hasn't accomplished anything. But that's deceitful, as it would be ignoring his past 20 years of his life. But the most amazing thing he's done is running a presidential campaign, one that overtook the front runner (Clinton), and has gotten people in this country that haven't been excited about this country for many, many years. People like to be inspired by their leaders. All this coming from a fairly humble upbringing. There have been great presidents with little experience, btw.

I'd rather have a cheerleader in the white house than a warmonger. But with Obama, we're probably going to have both.

So I'm all for unity. But the Republicans doesn't even budge. They don't want change. They want more of the same, but even worse. For example, when Republicans are wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade, there's no way the Republicans are going to find much unity.

And the speeches from the Democrats? Particularly after the Palin announcement? Again, tu quoque.

Hillary Clinton: "Now, John McCain is my colleague and my friend. He has served our country with honor and courage. But we don’t need four more years of the last eight years…"

Joe Biden: "John McCain is my friend. We’ve known each other for three decades. We’ve traveled the world together. It’s a friendship that goes beyond politics. And the personal courage and heroism John demonstrated still amaze me."

Barack Obama: "The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect."


These aren't the filler speeches given at the start of the Convention day, they were the headlines. I also saw that you mentioned "after the Palin announcement," so I thought I'd add Obama's response: "a compelling person . . . with a terrific personal story. I'm sure that she will help make the case for Republicans."

So go ahead and use some Latin phrase without regards to the facts as I use hubris, a Greek-derivative for arrogance.

He's right on some things, left on others, as best as I can see. His big issue is obviously immigration, but he's pro-choice, pro gay rights, and critical of international trade. Your point?

Don't forget those right-wingers Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, and Campbell Brown! :lol:

The pundits that come on their shows, who are more right than down the center. You really don't think so?

The pundits that come on their shows, who are more right than down the center. You really don't think so?
I actually think the opposite. It's only because of our own biases that we perceive it that way. If you asked 100 Republicans, most would say the channel was left-wing, and if you asked 100 Democrats, most would say the channel was right wing.

I actually think the opposite. It's only because of our own biases that we perceive it that way. If you asked 100 Republicans, most would say the channel was left-wing, and if you asked 100 Democrats, most would say the channel was right wing.

I never said CNN was right wing, but it tends to lean a bit right. center right I guess. But it gets old when you don't have a staff that really even thinks about the questions and answers, and let people get away with screwing with the facts. That's why I like guys like Olbermann. He doesn't take any crap.

I wish I could be self-complacent. But I see what both sides do, and I tend to agree more with the left and how they think about the issues than I do about the right, because I pay attention to the rest of the world, and realize one isn't really helping anyone except themselves. They can spin it all they want.

Hillary Clinton: "Now, John McCain is my colleague and my friend. He has served our country with honor and courage. But we don’t need four more years of the last eight years…"

Joe Biden: "John McCain is my friend. We’ve known each other for three decades. We’ve traveled the world together. It’s a friendship that goes beyond politics. And the personal courage and heroism John demonstrated still amaze me."

Barack Obama: "The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect."


These aren't the filler speeches given at the start of the Convention day, they were the headlines. I also saw that you mentioned "after the Palin announcement," so I thought I'd add Obama's response: "a compelling person . . . with a terrific personal story. I'm sure that she will help make the case for Republicans."

So go ahead and use some Latin phrase without regards to the facts as I use hubris, a Greek-derivative for arrogance.

That's fear of alienating those who've served in uniform, nothing more.

And Obama comparing his experience to Palin's by citing her time as mayor was disingenuous bullshit. She's governor of a state, Barry. Make the comparison on that level.

I know they all do it, but this Obamessiah stuff gets really, really old.

He's not demonstrating any capacity for change save to heat up the divisions that are already there. I'm sure Herbert Marcuse would be proud of him.

That's fear of alienating those who've served in uniform, nothing more.

And Obama comparing his experience to Palin's by citing her time as mayor was disingenuous bullshit. She's governor of a state, Barry. Make the comparison on that level.

I know they all do it, but this Obamessiah stuff gets really, really old.

He's not demonstrating any capacity for change save to heat up the divisions that are already there. I'm sure Herbert Marcuse would be proud of him.

Okay, answer me this: what are the Republicans doing to create unity?

That's fear of alienating those who've served in uniform, nothing more.

You're proving my point; the speakers tonight did nothing, nothing to try to reach across the aisle or say something positive about their current opponents. There was no regard to not alienating or swaying some Democrats.

In fact, the only line that was said in remote praise of a Democrat was Independent Joe Lieberman talking about former President Bill Clinton working with Republicans to pass welfare reform and free trade.

That's some unity. And I wasn't for Obama in the primary, I don't think he's the Messiah, and I'm not voting for him because he's a Democrat but because he's not a part of the current Administration's mindset of the world or domestic policy. And he's doing a better job of trying to bring in Republicans by not demonizing them as a voting bloc, but calling out the elected officials.

That's fear of alienating those who've served in uniform, nothing more.

And Obama comparing his experience to Palin's by citing her time as mayor was disingenuous bullshit. She's governor of a state, Barry. Make the comparison on that level.

I know they all do it, but this Obamessiah stuff gets really, really old.

He's not demonstrating any capacity for change save to heat up the divisions that are already there. I'm sure Herbert Marcuse would be proud of him.

I'm still trying to figure out where people like you get the idea most of us view Obama as the MESSIAH. He's not. Ok? He's just somebody who is DIFFERENT than the CURRENT administration, and is willing to DIVERT from SOP politics that have gone on for the last 8 years.

Ok sure, Palin is a governor of a state.

But so was Jesse Ventura.

Let's not use the word governor as the Republican parallel word for the Democratic word messiah, shall we? Because it isn't. Being governor, in itself, means nothing. What we go by, are accomplishments, how the person speaks to a crowd of people, how the person conveys their goals, how much the person can parallel their personal life when requesting the same from the country they want to be a leader of, etc.

Jesse may have been governor, but what exactly did this guy do for Minnesota. The question can be asked of Palin, but she's only been there less than two years.

Know what I mean? Defending Palin is pointless. Nobody can do it. It only makes the person defending her seem like a dumbass. And I know you're not a dumbass. So, don't defend her.

Hey, Palin, I would imagine, is a nice person and is meant for Alaskan politics. She's seems fit for small-town issues. But we have to come to reality here is, is she fit for NATIONAL politics. And I just don't think she is. There were plenty of other Republican women McCain could have chosen, but he chose her. Once again, I say this falls on McCain's inept decision making, and we don't need this kind of whimsical person in office. We've had the same problems for the last 8 years.

If McCain would have chosen an experienced Republican woman, we would hardly be talking about experience, and would be debating issues more--like a mature country should. McCain chose Palin because she may have been the more attractive woman of all candidates, and he wanted to simply steal some progressive female voters from the Democrats (as has been discussed at length here and elsewhere).

But bottom line is, McCain fucked up. I can't think of any other sentence at the moment. From tonight's intro from the RNC, I swear I had cottonmouth from the dryest speeches I have ever heard. I mean, this was terrible. The RNC seems to be distant, in a religious-patriotic trance, and appear to be clones like they were from some horror B-movie I've seen in the 80's.

If this is all the RNC has, then having Palin strut the stage in a bikini probably would be a good idea.

Keith's not a journalist, and doesn't pretend to be.

I really don't get the dislike for the guy. He really isn't the "left" version of O'Reilly.

WrjwaqZfjIY

Keith loves to pretend he's a journalist. He even steals Murrow's sign off line. Unfortunately he's just a partisan asshat.

And yes he is as bad as O'Reilly and maybe a little worse as MSNBC seems to love to bend over and spread its cheeks for him. Any respectable news organization would have dumped his ass a while ago.

I remember the 2004 Republican Convention. It was energetic and exciting. This one feels like a whimper. They don't seem to be putting much effort into it. Good to see Bush 41-- looking more frail now; quite a contrast with a YouTube clip I just watched from the 1992 "town hall" debate-- and Barbara, but tonight just seemed to flatline.

Either Thompson or Lieberman noted that Obama had voted to cut the funding to the troops. There's more to that story. He voted against a funding bill once, due to its lack of conditions for the administration. He voted for troop funding ten other times. McCain also voted against a bill, as a timetable for withdrawal had been attached.

--THX

Wow! I just saw Olbermann (sp?) rebute what a Republican congresswoman said about Obama's Illinois position on not allowing an unsuccessfully aborted baby who was born alive, to live. After she was done he made his statement and then went to commercial.

I'm used to people from either party disagreeing, but the "news person" doing it seemed way out there.

If someone is misrepresenting a known fact about another, which happens all the time in these settings, I don't see a problem with a news anchor making a correction. I don't know if it's their responsibility, but I appreciate it.

Zell Miller delivered accurate, but misleading, information during his keynote address at the Republican Convention in 2004. Chris Matthews knew what he had neglected to say, the lack of which framed Kerry unfairly (unintentional rhyme), and proceeded to fill the gaps. To me, this is a good practice. Let us know what's true and what's not.

--THX

Keith loves to pretend he's a journalist. He even steals Murrow's sign off line. Unfortunately he's just a partisan asshat.

And yes he is as bad as O'Reilly and maybe a little worse as MSNBC seems to love to bend over and spread its cheeks for him. Any respectable news organization would have dumped his ass a while ago.

So when exactly does Keith just make up lies, cuts people off from expressing their points, even those who agree with him, and otherwise just loses it in front of the camera?

Okay, answer me this: what are the Republicans doing to create unity?

You mean besides shit like NCLB (with Kennedy), McCain/Feingold, the prescription drug plan, etc etc?

You see, this is how you tell someone is partisan. Even when the other party works with the other side on some serious issues(education/healthcare/campaign finance), it's not enough. They must come ALLL the way over.

The funny thing is, I absolutely HATE that they worked with the Democrats at ALL on those issues. Republicans were supposed to be about shrinking the federal gov't. In case you haven't noticed, that hasn't happened with Bush. There was a time when Republicans actually called for dismanteling the DOE. :up: They pretty much ran far left on that one though!

As a conservative, I don't believe Europe is better than the USA, so why should we continue to move towards that goal?

Okay, answer me this: what are the Republicans doing to create unity?

didn't they have a democrat give a speech at their convention yesterday?


but really i dont think they are doing anything...just like i dont think the dems are doing anything

didn't they have a democrat give a speech at their convention yesterday?This is a very good point, and one that I don't think can be dismissed lightly - at the same convention where the Republicans approved their most extremist anti-choice plank in the party's history, they also allowed a pro-choice senator from another party to speak. But hell, maybe they're just desperate...

For my own edification if nothing else, did former Iowa congressman Jim Leach speak at the Democratic convention, or was he just hanging out giving interviews?

How is it more anti-choice than the past abortions planks?

I believe Leach spoke.

Ok sure, Palin is a governor of a state.

But so was Jesse Ventura.

Let's not use the word governor as the Republican parallel word for the Democratic word messiah, shall we? Because it isn't. Being governor, in itself, means nothing. What we go by, are accomplishments, how the person speaks to a crowd of people, how the person conveys their goals, how much the person can parallel their personal life when requesting the same from the country they want to be a leader of, etc.


Know what I mean? Defending Palin is pointless. Nobody can do it. It only makes the person defending her seem like a dumbass. And I know you're not a dumbass. So, don't defend her.



Brilliant technique. Paint those who hold opposing views as dumbasses, then maintain that you're not calling the poster a dumbass followed by an ultimatum (Don't won't to be a dumbass? Then don't defend Palin). Simply brilliant.

How would you respond to someone saying that only a dumbass could support a candidate for President who thinks it's okay to allow a child born alive from a botched abortion to die in order to complete the procedure and then has the gall to say that it's "above his pay grade" to express an opinion on when life begins. Don't want to be a dumbass? Then don't support Obama!

Sounds like a really open-minded, respectful approach to politics, doesn't it?

Calling your opponents 'dumbasses' may let you vent, but it doesn't advance your argument that Palin is unqualified or that Obama IS qualified.

Condescendingly describing the task of governing Alaska as dealing with "small-town issues" seems consistent with your preferred candidate's elitist disdain for the small-town "dumbasses" who bitterly cling to their guns & religion out of frustration.

Instead, let's elect a Chicago-machine-style politician who's Ivy-league educated (like George Bush) yet stammers & stutters when confronted with basic questions about his beliefs for which he cannot refer to prepared notes or teleprompters.

Or perhaps you prefer his loose-cannon running mate who loves the sound of his own voice, steals other people's speeches, and constantly makes remarks for which he finds the need to apologize?

Did you even listen to Palin's remarks on Friday? Your description of a leader (quoted above) fits Palin perfectly. Unlike Obama, who is still in search of his own identity & pay grade (along with searching for a new church since the one he's attended for nearly half his life really doesn't represent his beliefs), Palin has actually lived the small-town life & shared the same aspirations & goals of MOST Americans. She is a gifted public speaker who sounds genuine (unlike young Barak "Elmer Gantry" Obama) & immediately connects with those Americans who don't look down their noses at anyone who doesn't fit into the hedonistic hipster image that so appeals to Obama's supporters. Remember, it's Americans who will choose our President...not Europeans.

As far as a candidate paralleling his or her personal life when requesting the same from your countrymen/women, how much more American can you get than someone who has raised a large family while holding public office, supports her children when they make mistakes (rather than trying to take the "easy" road while compounding the mistake through more serious...even fatal...errrors), has children actually serving in the military in defense of the country, etc.? Compare that to someone whose main claim to fame is the role of "community organizer" (even liberal pundits were hard-pressed to explain exactly what such a job entails, so it's hard to see how you feel that this makes your candidate so eminently qualified to hold national office. Perhaps as President, he could go across the country "organizing" one community at a time in Brother Obama's Traveling Road Show & Humanistic Crusade).

Note to all you governors (including Reagan, Clinton, & Bush) & mayors out there: Your experience in making executive decisions and being held personally responsible for all the diverse elements in your city/town/state counts for ABSOLUTELY nothing; in fact, anyone who thinks so is a "dumbass".

On the other hand, serving as a "community organizer" and serving in a state legislature automatically qualifies you to be on the hot seat of the Presidency.

This is a very good point, and one that I don't think can be dismissed lightly - at the same convention where the Republicans approved their most extremist anti-choice plank in the party's history, they also allowed a pro-choice senator from another party to speak. But hell, maybe they're just desperate...

For my own edification if nothing else, did former Iowa congressman Jim Leach speak at the Democratic convention, or was he just hanging out giving interviews?

Perhaps it's in reaction to the most extreme pro-abortion candidate in American history.

"I've never met an abortion I didn't like. I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message."

Some abominations...such as child-killing...don't deserve to be dignified as a "choice".

How is it more anti-choice than the past abortions planks?No exceptions.

It's mind boggling that an Obama supporter would venture anywhere near the topic of 'experience' or 'accomplishments'.

I mean truly that's astounding to me. A testament to man's need for self delusion, or maybe mass delusion.

The worst deluded are the self-deluded.


"The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind."

No exceptions.

Yes, unlike the Democratic platform, which allows one to kill one's own child under any circumstances, the Republican platform has decided that it's wrong to kill the child under any circumstances.

Of course, it's the ones who want to protect the lives of children who are guilty of "polarizing" America.

No exceptions.

From The New York Times:

ST. PAUL — The Republican Party platform this year will reassert the party’s opposition to abortion. And again it will not allow for exceptions in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, even though Senator John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee, has long called for such exceptions.


Mr. McCain has been trying to win over social conservatives wary of his candidacy, and the party is set to approve the platform Monday without the exceptions. On Friday, he named a vice-presidential running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, who opposes any exception for abortion and whose selection was hailed unequivocally by groups opposing abortion rights.
_______________

Again I ask the question - how is it different?

Again I ask the question - how is it different?I suppose I was misinformed by Mrs. Greenspan last night.

From The New York Times:

ST. PAUL — The Republican Party platform this year will reassert the party’s opposition to abortion. And again it will not allow for exceptions in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, even though Senator John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee, has long called for such exceptions.


Mr. McCain has been trying to win over social conservatives wary of his candidacy, and the party is set to approve the platform Monday without the exceptions. On Friday, he named a vice-presidential running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, who opposes any exception for abortion and whose selection was hailed unequivocally by groups opposing abortion rights.
_______________

Again I ask the question - how is it different?

The platform & VP choice, at least, represent progress for America.

Compare that to someone whose main claim to fame is the role of "community organizer" (even liberal pundits were hard-pressed to explain exactly what such a job entails
Sorry to clip so much of your post, but I'd really like for someone here to tell me just what it is that a "community organizer" does, if they can. I did finally hear someone yesterday say that it had something to do with "signing up voters" (or as they say in Chicago, "digging up voters").

I suppose I was misinformed by Mrs. Greenspan last night.

That's why you should listen to me and not Andrea Mitchell. :lol:

I like objective journalism.

Please. The Fox guys sit there and fawn over their guy. Olbermann fawns over his guy. Is MSNBC not allowed to grasp the overt left-wing bias to balance the Fox overt right-wing bias? It seems that Fox is the only one allowed to shamelessly promote one party over another.

Sorry to clip so much of your post, but I'd really like for someone here to tell me just what it is that a "community organizer" does, if they can. I did finally hear someone yesterday say that it had something to do with "signing up voters" (or as they say in Chicago, "digging up voters").
The only ones pushing the "community organizer" bullet of Obama's resume are the likes of Sean Hannity. This is so silly. He was a state legislator and is a Congressman.

Olberman lost any credibility he had some time ago...and to consider Olberman to be anything close to a "news person" as X stated is a reach if there ever was one.

Difference between Olberman and Brit Hume is...? :lol: Oh, I know. Olberman is actually very good at constructing monologues.

The only ones pushing the "community organizer" bullet of Obama's resume are the likes of Sean Hannity. This is so silly. He was a state legislator and is a Congressman.
So, you don't know what the "job" entails either.

Did any of you watch Morning Joe this morning?

Mika (sp?) was very critical of the media's handling of the 'Palin thing(s).'

In additon - David Gregory was almost as critical.

So, you don't know what the "job" entails either.
No I don't. And I don't particularly care either. Why does it matter?

No I don't. And I don't particularly care either. Why does it matter?
Why the fuck does anything matter? I want to know. You haven't a clue either, so quit wasting my time.

It seems that Fox is the only one allowed to shamelessly promote one party over another.That's a nice straw horse you're building.

Why the fuck does anything matter? I want to know. You haven't a clue either, so quit wasting my time.
Since you don't know how to use Google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizing

These aren't the filler speeches given at the start of the Convention day, they were the headlines. I also saw that you mentioned "after the Palin announcement," so I thought I'd add Obama's response: "a compelling person . . . with a terrific personal story. I'm sure that she will help make the case for Republicans."

So go ahead and use some Latin phrase without regards to the facts as I use hubris, a Greek-derivative for arrogance.

No, no, no. We were just told a few days ago by one of our conservative members that sites like DailyKos ARE the "Democrat" party and the random posts on the blog are orchestrated by the Obama campaign. :lol:

(I still love how the GOP go out of their way to call the party the "Democrat Party" and not the "Democratic Party." I'm still trying to figure out exactly what insult they are attempting to convey.)

Did any of you watch Morning Joe this morning?

Mika (sp?) was very critical of the media's handling of the 'Palin thing(s).'

In additon - David Gregory was almost as critical.

No, what'd they say?

I did watch the Today Show this morning and they had Dr. Phil (ugh!) talking about how pyschologically harmful all this media scrutiny could be to Bristol Palin. This segment aired after about 20 minutes worth of Gov. Palin coverage that featured Bristol's name being thrown around a lot.

They care!

That's fear of alienating those who've served in uniform, nothing more.

:lol: Like the GOP's shameless attack of Silver Star recipients?

Since you don't know how to use Google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizing
Thanks for the link. I had no idea Obama was connected to ACORN.

Keith loves to pretend he's a journalist. He even steals Murrow's sign off line. Unfortunately he's just a partisan asshat.

And yes he is as bad as O'Reilly and maybe a little worse as MSNBC seems to love to bend over and spread its cheeks for him. Any respectable news organization would have dumped his ass a while ago.

Has Olberman been proven wrong as often as O'Reilly has? Sure Olberman is partisan but he also doesn't chase around people in parking lots or in their driveways. He doesn't declare a boycott of France or decry the war on Christmas. O'Reilly is a ridiculous reactionary.

The fundamental difference between Olberman<b>n</b> and O'Reilly is (as has been pointed out) that FNC gives O'Reilly his show but doesn't present him as an anchor, while MSNBC has elevated Olbermann to the level of Matthews, where he is essentially the co-anchor of their political news coverage. In doing so, MSNBC has blurred the lines between reporting and editorializing far more than FNC has.

This is a very good point, and one that I don't think can be dismissed lightly - at the same convention where the Republicans approved their most extremist anti-choice plank in the party's history, they also allowed a pro-choice senator from another party to speak. But hell, maybe they're just desperate...


The Democrats had a pro-life Senator give a speech at the DNC.

Yes, unlike the Democratic platform, which allows one to kill one's own child under any circumstances

Sorry, I don't believe I have the right (yet) to "kill" my 9 year old. -rolleyes-

The Democrats had a pro-life Senator give a speech at the DNC.Yes, but he was a Democrat who votes with his party most of the time. My point was that the GOP allowed a Senator from another party, and one who opposes their policies the vast majority of the time, to have a featured spot at their convention. Lieberman is no Zell Miller, as much as extremists on the left like to paint him as such. Probably the best analogy would be if Senator Hagel (R-Neb) had spoken at the Democratic convention.

Did any of you watch Morning Joe this morning?

Mika (sp?) was very critical of the media's handling of the 'Palin thing(s).'

In additon - David Gregory was almost as critical.

Did someone inform Gregory and Mika that they are the media? :lol:

When exactly is Keith not being fair? Just wondering if anyone can answer that question.


Telling Joe Scarborough to "get a shovel" because he didn't like what he was reporting. Brokaw and Jennings would never've pulled crap like that.

I've heard three comments that point to Palin's foreign policy experience: One, she's commander of the Alaskan National Guard. That was the same line that Clinton used and it was bashed by H. W. Bush in '92. Two, she's located near Russia. Three, she traveled once to Kuwait and Germany in an official capacity as Governor.

That's it. If McCain's unable to complete his term, she's got to step into that role with the least foreign policy experience of any of the candidates, by far. And yes, Obama has less foreign policy experience than McCain, but he has Biden to rely on; what is wrong with deferring with someone under you who's more experienced? That's how the Presidency always works because no President was an economist, ambassador, veteran, professor, scientist, and physician all rolled into one. And if Obama should not be able to fulfill his term, Biden is a capable replacement to step right in at what would be a trying time for the country. Just imagine for a minute Sarah Palin raising her right hand as she's sworn in as President aboard Air Force One; to me, that's not a reassuring visual.

All I hear is that Palin's got a great story, something that didn't gel with me with Obama, that she's a reformer, who was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it, she's got more executive experience than "anyone on either side of the ticket" - Mike Huckabee, and she's young. Nothing specific on the economy, not a single word on health care, nothing on the future of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and nothing on education. And yet it's proclaimed she's a great speaker after one national speech? She's qualified because in the words of Fred Thompson, she was in charge of the "biggest state in the Union?" Only an actor could deliver that line without breaking a smile.

So here's a question: If Obama becomes President, does he have more executive experience in his first day of office than being Governor of Alaska for 20 months? Think really carefully about that before you answer.

The fundamental difference between Olberman<b>n</b> and O'Reilly is (as has been pointed out) that FNC gives O'Reilly his show but doesn't present him as an anchor, while MSNBC has elevated Olbermann to the level of Matthews, where he is essentially the co-anchor of their political news coverage. In doing so, MSNBC has blurred the lines between reporting and editorializing far more than FNC has.

That would be true if you could truly equate the two. Again, when does Olbermann declare boycotts on foreign nations or wars on retailers who do not say "Merry Christmas?" If you equate Olbermann's editorial style with O'Reilly's silliness and his propensity to be flat-out wrong then there is no point in discussing this.

Olbermann is more akin to Brit Hume. Although Hume doesn't seem to have the goods verbally that Olbermann has, he does most obviously anchor the newscasts and obviously is slanted far to the right.

And yes, Obama has less foreign policy experience than McCain, but he has Biden to rely on; what is wrong with deferring with someone under you who's more experienced? That's how the Presidency always works because no President was an economist, ambassador, veteran, professor, scientist, and physician all rolled into one.

isn't that why a potential palin presidency would have a state department to advise her and could pick a FP expert as a VP?


btw, I dont think Palin has FP experience at all. I'm not entirely sure she needs it, but i could see why people would want it.

That's a nice straw horse you're building.

How so?

How so?You're asserting something that, as far as I can see, there is no evidence to indicate it to be true, that "Fox is the only one allowed to shamelessly promote one party over another." I think most people here acknowledge that FNC is in the bag for the Republicans, MSNBC is the Obama channel, CNN is barely worth watching anymore, and that this is essentially an OK state of affairs.

isn't that why a potential palin presidency would have a state department to advise her and could pick a FP expert as a VP?


btw, I dont think Palin has FP experience at all. I'm not entirely sure she needs it, but i could see why people would want it.

Well she said she's too busy with state business and hasn't really thought about the Iraq situation. What do you think, then, is her position on Sudan or Myanmar or South Ossetia or Pakistan? Do you have any doubt that Obama could give you a position on each of those topics?

Difference between Olberman and Brit Hume is...? :lol: Oh, I know. Olberman is actually very good at constructing monologues.

Hume=Mathews

Olbermann=O'Reilly

The first two report news with some bias. The latter two just rant. The latter two are pundits, not journalists, but for some reason MSNBC treats Olbermann as both.

The fundamental difference between Olberman<b>n</b> and O'Reilly is (as has been pointed out) that FNC gives O'Reilly his show but doesn't present him as an anchor, while MSNBC has elevated Olbermann to the level of Matthews, where he is essentially the co-anchor of their political news coverage. In doing so, MSNBC has blurred the lines between reporting and editorializing far more than FNC has.

I don't disagree with your view that Olbermann is being presented as an anchor when he's an opinionated host and yes, Matthews is in the same boat , but FNC has blurred the line just as much. They have O'Reily doing an hour of convention coverage with opinion-based guests like Dick Morris. Brit Hume, who is their main anchor, is the last leg of the All Star Panel on Fox News Sunday. They've had Karl Rove on as an analyst and took forever to disclose that he had given some support to the McCain Campaign. They've run chyrons that ask rhetorical questions like "Is Obama [insert the blank]?"

So yeah, they are both trying to be the station for their respective bases with some "unbiased" reporters and stories sprinkled throughout their newscasts.

You're asserting something that, as far as I can see, there is no evidence to indicate it to be true, that "Fox is the only one allowed to shamelessly promote one party over another." I think most people here acknowledge that FNC is in the bag for the Republicans, MSNBC is the Obama channel, CNN is barely worth watching anymore, and that this is essentially an OK state of affairs.

I asked a question in the form of a sarcastic statement.

I don't disagree with your view that Olbermann is being presented as an anchor when he's an opinionated host and yes, Matthews is in the same boat , but FNC has blurred the line just as much. They have O'Reily doing an hour of convention coverage with opinion-based guests like Dick Morris. Brit Hume, who is their main anchor, is the last leg of the All Star Panel on Fox News Sunday. They've had Karl Rove on as an analyst and took forever to disclose that he had given some support to the McCain Campaign. They've run chyrons that ask rhetorical questions like "Is Obama [insert the blank]?"

So yeah, they are both trying to be the station for their respective bases with some "unbiased" reporters and stories sprinkled throughout their newscasts.Doesn't O'Reilly have an hour on the air anyway? Are they giving him <b>more</b> time, as MSNBC is doing for Olbermann? But I must confess I don't watch FNC much at all, so my understanding of their coverage is limited.

I asked a question in the form of a sarcastic statement.Doh!

btw, we have a media bias thread :p

This is a very good point, and one that I don't think can be dismissed lightly - at the same convention where the Republicans approved their most extremist anti-choice plank in the party's history, they also allowed a pro-choice senator from another party to speak. But hell, maybe they're just desperate...

For my own edification if nothing else, did former Iowa congressman Jim Leach speak at the Democratic convention, or was he just hanging out giving interviews?

Rep. Leach spoke at the Democratic Convention, as did pro-life Senator Casey of Pennsylvania.

And Sen. Lieberman hasn't been a Democrat since 2006.

Well she said she's too busy with state business and hasn't really thought about the Iraq situation. What do you think, then, is her position on Sudan or Myanmar or South Ossetia or Pakistan? Do you have any doubt that Obama could give you a position on each of those topics?

Without checking with his advisors first?

enjoy

<embed FlashVars='videoId=183780' src='http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

The Best Fucking News Team Ever - Hurricane Gustav Relief

While the Republican leadership races to the Gulf Coast to show their empathy, their delegates are left abandoned in the Xcel Center.

Doesn't O'Reilly have an hour on the air anyway? Are they giving him <b>more</b> time, as MSNBC is doing for Olbermann? But I must confess I don't watch FNC much at all, so my understanding of their coverage is limited.

With Olberman, I think there are a few things going on.

First is ratings. Apparently, KO is the only personality to achieve any sort of ratings on the channel - EVER. They are riding his coattails thinking his mere presence will bring in the ratings. Not sure how that is working out.

Second, MSNBC could be playing along with Fox's childish games. Fox has started to attack NBC's parent GE saying that GE supports the views of the NBC hosts, I guess. So NBC is fighting back the blowhards like O'Reilly with the person they hate the most and the person who has been given carte blanche to decimate Fox and their personalities.

And Sen. Lieberman hasn't been a Democrat since 2006.His votes for caucus organization and his committee assignments would indicate otherwise. But I don't know if this is an argument we really want to have, since I doubt it would go anywhere. :shrug:

That's it. If McCain's unable to complete his term, she's got to step into that role with the least foreign policy experience of any of the candidates, by far.

Lincoln and Truman didn't have any foreign policy experience either. In fact, there are very few people who have such experience -- most Presidential candidates just puff up their resumes on the subject.

isn't that why a potential palin presidency would have a state department to advise her and could pick a FP expert as a VP?


btw, I dont think Palin has FP experience at all. I'm not entirely sure she needs it, but i could see why people would want it.

It depends on the circumstances but a vice presidential replacement is not a given; Johnson didn't have one until he was re-elected.

She'd have those things at her disposal, but there's still a learning curve, that given a certain situation, could be a big detriment.

I heard a great analogy on Morning Joe: "The opponent doesn't focus on the backup quarterback in preparing for a game" to which was responded with "but if that quarterback's 72 years old they would!"

Lincoln and Truman didn't have any foreign policy experience either. In fact, there are very few people who have such experience -- most Presidential candidates just puff up their resumes on the subject.

How much foreign policy was being formulated in 1861?

Lincoln and Truman didn't have any foreign policy experience either. In fact, there are very few people who have such experience -- most Presidential candidates just puff up their resumes on the subject.

Lincoln wasn't the Vice President and was a staunch critic of the Mexican-American War, which cost him his House seat, and Truman was in World War I as well as a US Senator, not sure how long, but it was more than two years for sure.

Again, we're talking about the Governor of Alaska circa 2006. This isn't the gold rush era, Russian influenced, having to fight Canada over boundaries at the turn of the 20th century Alaska.

Has everyone forgotten that Obama has Joe Biden on the ticket largely for his "foreign policy experience" (to balance out Obama's inexperience)?

If, God forbid, anything happened to McCain, Palin would not have to go it alone. She would have not only the national security advisors, but...in the event that McCain died or became incapacitated...would have someone to fill in as Vice-President.

Heck, all she'd have to do would be to call up Biden to come take the job that he's so qualified to do. After all, isn't Joe all about putting Country First?

Case solved!!

Lieberman was great.

And for what it's worth, it isn't disunity that is causing the problems in this country--it's liberalism. As a conservative I don't want republicans to reach out and work with liberal dems but I do want them to convince people that disagree with conservatism that they are wrong. I want liberalism to die the death that it richly deserves, but I still want a few liberals around who are bitterly clinging to the communist manifesto and their picture of Che so that people can point and laugh.

How much foreign policy was being formulated in 1861?Look at it this way - if the European powers had come into the war on the side of the CSA, the impact of foreign policy would have been far, far greater than almost anything a contemporary president has to face.

it isn't disunity that is causing the problems in this country--it's liberalism.<i>Mod note: you of all people know this sort of generalization isn't allowed here. You've been warned many times before. Stop it.</i>

How much foreign policy was being formulated in 1861?

actually it was a lot, Britain and the rest of Europe was the main source of money for the US

Has everyone forgotten that Obama has Joe Biden on the ticket largely for his "foreign policy experience" (to balance out Obama's inexperience)?

If, God forbid, anything happened to McCain, Palin would not have to go it alone. She would have not only the national security advisors, but...in the event that McCain died or became incapacitated...would have someone to fill in as Vice-President.

Heck, all she'd have to do would be to call up Biden to come take the job that he's so qualified to do. After all, isn't Joe all about putting Country First?

Case solved!!

The 25th Amendment says that a vice presidential replacement for a succeeding Vice President has to be ratified by a majority of both the House and Senate. That's not step in, that's voted in.

It's accepted as fact that Biden was chosen to fill-in Obama's gap in foreign policy; You're arguing with no one.

Yeah, she'll call up the pro-choice guy even though you just stated her full pro-life stance is "progress in America." Is your neck ok after that complete 180?

<i>Mod note: you of all people know this sort of generalization isn't allowed here. You've been warned many times before. Stop it.</i>

Sorry. I thought it was political parties.

Look at it this way - if the European powers had come into the war on the side of the CSA, the impact of foreign policy would have been far, far greater than almost anything a contemporary president has to face.Foreign Recognition and Intervention in the War

The issue of the blockade's effectiveness became the major foreign policy question in the first few years of the war. The Confederacy confidently expected England to escort Confederate cotton vessels or to send British merchant and war ships to southern ports to pick up vitally needed cotton. To hasten this active intervention, the Confederacy informally cut off most cotton exports in 1861. Surprisingly, England took no official action to break the blockade and even tolerated the seizure by the Union of British ships trading with the Confederacy. Nor did England ever officially extend diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy.

This is not to say that the failure of England and other European countries officially to support the Confederacy was a foregone conclusion. Nor is it to say that no aid was extended from England to the Confederate war effort. Far from it. At several times during the war, both England and France came close to recognition and to intervention. It took all the skill of America's minister to England, Charles Francis Adams, the grandson of President John Adams and the son of President John Quincy Adams, to keep England out of the war.http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/lincoln/essays/biography/5

There goes them Adams' again... :)

Has everyone forgotten that Obama has Joe Biden on the ticket largely for his "foreign policy experience" (to balance out Obama's inexperience)?

If, God forbid, anything happened to McCain, Palin would not have to go it alone. She would have not only the national security advisors, but...in the event that McCain died or became incapacitated...would have someone to fill in as Vice-President.

Heck, all she'd have to do would be to call up Biden to come take the job that he's so qualified to do. After all, isn't Joe all about putting Country First?

Case solved!!

in 1992 Clinton knew he couldn't take Bush on foreign policy based on experience, because he had none. He fixed that by speaking on foreign policy to different organizations to show that he knew about foreign policy issues affecting the US. Same with Bush in 2000. he hired a bunch of people to teach him to speak on foreign policy and proved that he at the minimum he knew something about it

Palin has about 2 weeks to start speaking and answering questions from the media

A few points:

1) Lieberman - How low can it get for the Democrats that their 2000 nomination for VP has spoken at the 2008 Republican convention

2) Palin - If the media was biased for the Republicans instead of the Democrats, they would be focusing on how historic an event it was the party had selected its first female nominee for VP instead of her lack of experience. Case in point is Obama and his lack of experience - the biased media is obsessed with how historic of an event it is that he is the first black nominee rather than focus and vet on his huge shortcomings.

3) Olberman - The only individual I find worse than Olberman is Rachel Madow. Olberman was an embarassment last night. I thought Matthews was doing a good job of providing somewhat intelligent coverage, however Olberman would quickly follow him up by just slinging mud and tomatoes at the stage rather than providing any useful or thoughtful critique. It almost seemed like he was just reading a script from the fax machine or a blogger's site spewing the latest negative spin. On Madow, I can not imagine her show lasting too long as she is just not entertaining on any level. She just rants the Democratic Party (news media) talking points. Step 1: Attack Palin personally Step 2: Attack McCain for picking Palin

4) New Media - I am just amazed how open the news media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) is about their liberal bias. They do not even hide it anymore and almost seem to celebrate it. The "Dan Rather" incident has seemed to have almost no effect on the media being conerned about its public perception.

<i><b>dick_grayson</b>, we really don't need people "officiating from the sidelines".</i>

His votes for caucus organization and his committee assignments would indicate otherwise. But I don't know if this is an argument we really want to have, since I doubt it would go anywhere. :shrug:

All true. On the other hand, the Democratic candidate for his position was Ned Lamont. Senator Lieberman ran as an independent and was sent to Congress as an independent.

Maybe one of us could start a "What does it mean to belong to a party" thread (I don't care enough to do it, but if you want to, I'm sure I'll post in it).

All true. On the other hand, the Democratic candidate for his position was Ned Lamont. Senator Lieberman ran as an independent and was sent to Congress as an independent.

Maybe one of us could start a "What does it mean to belong to a party" thread (I don't care enough to do it, but if you want to, I'm sure I'll post in it).That's something I'll consider. In the future.

The very long term future. :lol:

Lieberman was great.

And for what it's worth, it isn't disunity that is causing the problems in this country--it's liberalism. As a conservative I don't want republicans to reach out and work with liberal dems but I do want them to convince people that disagree with conservatism that they are wrong. I want liberalism to die the death that it richly deserves, but I still want a few liberals around who are bitterly clinging to the communist manifesto and their picture of Che so that people can point and laugh.


Liberal
Function: noun
one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways, a member or supporter of a liberal political party, an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights


Conservative
Function: noun
an adherent or advocate of political conservatism, a member or supporter of a conservative political party, one who adheres to traditional methods or views, a cautious or discreet person


See, I am OK with YOUR beliefs. I have no issues with what YOU decide, and how YOU want to live YOUR life. It's not that I'm WRONG, it's that I'm Different than you. And conservatives seem to want to ELIMINATE those that have a different opinion.

A few points:

1) Lieberman - How low can it get for the Democrats that their 2000 nomination for VP has spoken at the 2008 Republican convention.

Lieberman is seen as a traitor from most dems, and was re-elected only because the republicans couldn't elect their own guy, so they threw support behind the "independant" Lieberman. I actually agree with lots of his policies (back in 2004) but I now see him as someone that values his power more than his beliefs.

So to answer your question, most dems probably don't care, other than thinking he is an attention whore.

And conservatives seem to want to ELIMINATE those that have a different opinion.
You mean conservatives have hit squads. I didn't know, where do I send my donation?

The 25th Amendment says that a vice presidential replacement for a succeeding Vice President has to be ratified by a majority of both the House and Senate. That's not step in, that's voted in.

It's accepted as fact that Biden was chosen to fill-in Obama's gap in foreign policy; You're arguing with no one.

Yeah, she'll call up the pro-choice guy even though you just stated her full pro-life stance is "progress in America." Is your neck ok after that complete 180?


:hscratch:

Evidently your sarcasm meter was broken. However (sigh), just to make it clear....I wasn't actually suggesting that she contact Tailgunner Joe.

I was merely pointing out that Palin would have access to Joe Biden as much as Obama (if she inexplicably preferred Biden to other better-qualified experts on foreign policy).

I'd bet that Condi Rice would be glad to assist her if needed.

Personally, I always liked Sam Nunn and some of the elder statesmen who could put party loyalties aside for the good of the country.

My point was that, in the event of a national crisis, Palin wouldn't have to go it alone. To suggest otherwise is to say that the country's leadership would be paralyzed if part of the Cabinet died in a terrorist attack or plane crash & that there would be no one to step in immediately. Surely you're not suggesting that the surviving members of Congress/Supreme Court/White House have to wait until normal procedures followed before naming people to fill in until order is restored.

Since there is an order of succession in place in the event of disasters, wouldn't that be followed in national calamities?

Anyway, I wasn't talking about the official VP slot, just someone to take over for the short term. Isn't that what all the concern is about???

You mean conservatives have hit squads. I didn't know, where do I send my donation?

I want liberalism to die the death that it richly deserves...

Again, say what you want, but your posts/beliefs/position are CLEARLY why I wouldn't support a conservative.

It's too bad, because there are many things I side with cons on, but the fact that most want to push their thoughts and positions on EVERYONE, makes me support the other team.

You mean conservatives have hit squads. I didn't know, where do I send my donation?

I think they just rent out teams of albino assassins from the Catholic Church. You know, like in The Da Vinci Code.

Lincoln wasn't the Vice President and was a staunch critic of the Mexican-American War, which cost him his House seat,

So if Palin had criticized the Iraq War, that'd count as foreign policy experience? This is a strange definition, and certainly not what I think of when someone brings up foreign policy experience.

and Truman was in World War I

Being a soldier cou