I think that irony came through pretty loudly, actually.

That one sticks to IMCollective.

I seriously don't get how you guys can bear it. I'm 5,000 miles away and your right wing bothers the hell out of me. Can't you storm the palace or something?

I've pretty much stayed out of this political debate because there are some of you here I consider friends that I don't want to offend, and the majority of the others, who I would also consider friends, already have covered most of the points I would have made. But I have to weigh in with a couple of things about last Thursday's debate and the weekend after.

Palin "won" if the idea was to show that she was more competent than the person we saw stumbling blindly with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric. That is a ridiculously low bar. She cleared that. But instead, she misspoke, mischaracterized, and (in the service of alliteration) mendacinated. I won't say she lied because that would take the conscious recognition that what she said went counter to the truth. And it's not because she's stupid--I don't think she is. She drank the ultra right wing kool aid. She believes the talking points and has proven to be incurious to verify anything that might question those doctrinal beliefs.

As a vice president, under normal circumstances, she would be no worse than Dan Quayle or any other cipher. But then she had to go to make the Cheneyesque claim for greater constitutional powers for the vice-president. To make such a claim means that she believes that the duties of the vice president carry responsibilities superlative to those as understood by constitutional scholars--and by congress and the courts--for over 200 years.

If the responsibilities of the vice president are expanded (and I am not saying I agree with Cheney's interpretation, which seemed to be concocted solely so that he did not have to answer to congress or be subject to executive brnach inquiry) then I think that the qualifications for the position must be more than ordinary. More than the incurious, ideologically driven cipher that so far has been Sarah Palin.

I am sick and tired of the notion that we should not want the best and brightest to be our representatives in government. "Elite" by the way comes from the word "elect" as in those chosen from among us to be the best qualified to lead.

Her record as mayor of Wasila is reprehensible. The fact that it the town is on such a small scale might give some excuse, but she put the town that had a budget surplus into debt. And not from cutting taxes, but by such things as giving the order to proceed with construction on a sports complex before securing title to all of the land. When advised against proceeding, she overruled and went ahead, ultimately resulting in a judgment against the city of nearly 1.5 million dollars for land that she thought she could condemn by eminent domain.

This is but one of dozens of examples of poor decision making on her part, and the only reason it isn't a longer list is because she does have so little time in public office. And really, it's not about Sarah Palin as it is McCain's reckless choice in picking her.

Now, I am going to ask you to do a little extra reading--an article that the Main Stream Media hasn't picked up on. The reason I am asking you to do this, is because this weekend, Palin made accusations of terrorism by association because of Obama's having served on non profit boards with Bill Ayers. You've all seen the clips, and every "truth squad" report decides that Palin is not telling the truth--there is little association between Ayers and Obama, and what association there has been has been in the service of getting access to better education for inner city kids. That's right, Bill Ayers, an education professor for nearly 20 years now, and a (omigod) community organizer, lives in the same neighborhood as Obama, and served on some of the same boards aimed at finding grassroots solutions to those left out of the Reagan Revolution and the Bush Banking Debacle. Ways of finding jobs and improving schools that rely on community solutions, not bailouts to the wealthy.

The question is one of character. Obama's has been besmirched by claims that are so easily debunked that CNN seems to take pride in being able to clearly label this one false. I don't know Obama personally, but I do know people who worked with him finding jobs for men and women who had given their lives and their health to the steel mills, refineries, and automobile plants on the south side of Chicago, only to be left out of the Reagonomic Miracle. These people speak of someone who rolls up his sleeves and goes to work, caring about solutions, not about who gets the credit.

But what of McCain's character? We all know that he was a prisoner of war and a career Navy man. So here, from Rolling Stone Magazine, is a portrait of the man who wants to be president so badly that he will sell out principles, ideals, and use the same Karl Rove tactics that so badly damaged his 2000 run for the presidency. Some of you may be surprised to find so many parallels between George W. Bush and John Sidney McCain III. But as Rolling Stone cautions us, this is somewhat unfair to one of them....Bush was a much better pilot.



Make-Believe Maverick; Rolling Stone Magazine

This thread is a circle jerk. We need to recruit a true conservative, or maybe a 9/11 truther, to spice things up a bit.

That debate was real bad yall.

"McCain won."
-Famous Person

Trust me. You really don't. The format was awful.

I didn't watch the debate because I was busy, but I'm watching the Daily Show right now, and Stewart mentioned the McCain holding out on telling how to kill Osama thing too. Interesting that these comments are just now getting attention; I saw Olbermann pointing it out a few weeks ago. He sounds a bit crazy, but

themcrob said:
All Presidential debates have terrible formating.


I dunno man this one was particularly awful with the 1 minute rule, almost no follow ups, and the whole "town hall" aspect seeming to trigger some sort of Pavlovian response which made both candidates turn each answer into a stump speech.

The stuff that came out last night about Republican strategists thinking the "that one" comment was a good line and that they should use it in ads is too funny though.



Also I'm with knk on Keith Olbermann's delivery.

But McCain said it in public. Gives me hope that I can keep my 200k house with a 450k mortgage that I qualified for despite lacking a job and bad credit history! Godbless America!

While 25 days is a long time, it looks like we will have a President Thatone. Seriously, McCain would have to run the table in "battleground" states and steal Wisconsin or Minnesota to win. It ain't happening. The more interesting story might be the Senate, where the dems might get 60 seats and therefore a filibuster proof majority.

But Cat, that article's from the NYT

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO



(edit for atrocious lack of punctuation)

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/adg/836109998.html

Contest to think up the best Palin porn title, GO!

I can't think of one better than "Shooting Beaver From Mid-Air." :( There's gotta be something obvious that I'm forgetting.

How about "My Raq Invasion"?

Or you could do an interracial porn called "In Bed with Big Oil." In fact, there's probably a lot of drilling puns you could do. "Faster Pussycat! Drill! Drill!" "Pipelines in Alaska" I'm sure I could think of some more.