Palin? Really?

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
Matt
Posts: 539
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
What color are leaves?: Green
Spam?: No
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Postby Matt » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:49 am



The article has been revised, the original second paragraph:

The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin's statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday's anniversary."

It now reads:

"The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion."

Hmmm.
-Matt

Chris M
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:17 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, LA

Postby Chris M » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:53 pm

Matt wrote:


The article has been revised, the original second paragraph:

The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin's statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday's anniversary."

It now reads:

"The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion."

Hmmm.


That changes fuck all.
"I've had 40 years experience with hearing tape and vinyl. I was recording tapes before you were born" - Grant

Matt
Posts: 539
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
What color are leaves?: Green
Spam?: No
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Postby Matt » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:16 pm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/kristol_the_washington_post_di.asp

Kristol: The Washington Post Distorts Palin on Page One

Here are the headline and the first two paragraphs from an article posted online that apparently will be on the front page of Friday’s Washington Post:

_____________________________________________________________
“Palin Links Iraq to 9/11, A View Discarded by Bush"
By Anne E. Kornblut
 Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; A01

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin's statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday's anniversary.”
_____________________________________________________________

Kornblut’s interpretation of what Palin said is either stupid or malicious. Palin is evidently saying that American soldiers are going to Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that is related to al Qaeda, which did plan and carry out the Sept. 11 attacks. It makes no sense for Kornblut to claim that Palin is arguing here that Saddam Hussein’s regime carried out 9/11—obviously Palin isn’t saying that our soldiers are now going over to Iraq to fight Saddam’s regime. Palin isn’t linking Saddam to 9/11. She’s linking al Qaeda in Iraq to al Qaeda.

People can debate how intimate that connection is, and how much of the fight in Iraq is now against al Qaeda in Iraq--but it’s simply the case that Palin is not saying what Kornblut says she is, and that the Washington Post is, right now, leading its paper with a clear distortion of what Palin said.
-Matt

David R. Modny
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Parma, OH

Postby David R. Modny » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:54 pm

Well, I certainly hope then that The Weekly Standard will be sure and point that out in a headline - that is, that the major "related" Al-Qaeda elements that she "must" be talking about then, in Iraq, did indeed only come to fruition as a result of Bush's phony war there. There's nothing to debate! You can't have it both ways. Furthermore, it's a war that John McCain supported and *still* supports. Talk about the "we create the conflict, so we can create the solution" paradigm?!?! This is what they want to run on?

And people wonder where the Bush comparisons come from? The truth is, that Palin was rambling the memorized talking points so recklessly yesterday (in a lame effort to sound like she actually knows what the hell she's talking about) that she practically lifted the sword in the direction of Russia without even realizing it! She's completely in over her head. Tell me, did The Weekly Standard correct the actual purpose -- and Obama's relation to it -- of the "sex-ed" bill in a headline (I'm not talking about a blog)? A bill set up to protect children against pedophiles and sexual predators! Or, that McCain used the term "lipstick on a pig" himself three times over the last few years?

But hey, I'm sure we can still grade her on "style" and intent during the interview...right?

As Chris said...big freakin' whoop. The Republican Party has shifted the "whys" to the Iraq War so many times...that I don't think they even really know why we're there anymore. They themselves, along with neocon magazines like the Standard, intentionally blurred those lines of justification and fact (i.e. Al-Qaeda's *real* base locale) long ago. They can't cry foul now.


As a result, this entire "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" drama has sort of turned into a collective deus ex machina in front of the American public - with the Republican Party serving as both the author (i.e. Bush and Cheney) and the self-appointed solution (i.e. McCain and Palin) to their convoluted story. If it weren't so tragic, it would be comically absurd.
Last edited by David R. Modny on Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

David R. Modny
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Parma, OH

Postby David R. Modny » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:35 pm

Thank you Yahoo/AP - we missed you during Palinmania!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_ ... _the_truth


(BTW, the taxes/misinformed public perception part really irks me. Obama *has* to find some way to set people straight and turn this around.)

Matt
Posts: 539
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
What color are leaves?: Green
Spam?: No
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Postby Matt » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:52 pm

David, I felt the Washington Post backed off a bit, after spinning Palins quote initially. I realize this is all subjective and I wasn't trying to offend anyone here.

In regards to Russia, I think this post countering the TPM spin is relevant:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzI4OGRmYjcwMDliNDUyMjM0NzkyNDExNWJhZDY1ZmQ=

You've got to admit, the "lipstick on a pig" comment by Obama did suffer from bad timing. I agree with you that the "sex-ed" bill was spun by the right.

It really amazes me how much attention Palin is getting right now. As far as for her being in over her head, well what can I say? I was surprised as well by McCain's choice of Palin.

I took at a look at Obama's views on Iraq:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq

Hey, looks good to me.

I took a look at McCain's views on Iraq:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/FDEB03A7-30B0-4ECE-8E34-4C7EA83F11D8.htm

Looks good to me too.

The debates in October should be interesting.
-Matt

David R. Modny
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Parma, OH

Postby David R. Modny » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:08 pm

No offense taken at all, Matt. My beef in that post was solely with the Standard -- I really despise that magazine -- and obviously the Republican administration/ticket as well. Passions run deep.

Post on! : )


PS - I don't believe that the "timing" of Obama's remarks are really an issue here. He said what he said. The media reported it. Next, the media reported the McCain camp's "outrage." Finally, the Obama campaign clearly explained what that old saying means.

The problem is that 90% of the mainstream news outlets failed to go on and note that McCain has used this very same term himself several times (and once in direct relation to Hillary). That's unacceptable from a journalistic standpoint in covering this story - simply because it's paramount in framing the McCain response as the fake outrage that it actually is. Another classic example of accusing the opponent of what they, themselves, have already done.

But...then the media doesn't have a half-baked story to sell to everyone.
Last edited by David R. Modny on Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:54 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Bennett Cerf
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm

Postby Bennett Cerf » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:26 pm

Image

User avatar
Jeff T.
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:28 am
Location: Blueberry Hill

Postby Jeff T. » Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:59 am

from the New York Times today:

EDITORIALS

Gov. Palin’s Worldview
If John McCain seriously thought Gov. Sarah Palin was qualified to be president, it raises profound questions about his judgment.



• More Editorials

Back to Top


OP-ED

OP-ED COLUMNIST
She’s Not Ready

By BOB HERBERT
With Gov. Sarah Palin, it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with her on the issues. It is that she doesn’t appear to understand the important issues.

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:31 am

If John McCain seriously thought Gov. Sarah Palin was qualified to be president, it raises profound questions about his judgment.


Of course McCain doesn't seriously think Palin is qualified. Has anyone suggested that this pick is anything other than a naked ploy to peel off Clinton voters and pump up the hard-right base?

McCain wanted Lieberman, who is an asshole but at least has experience. The campaign (Rove, perhaps) was scared the base would revolt.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4589
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:24 pm

Wow.

Palin aide says Obama backers politicizing Alaska investigation

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will not cooperate with a legislative investigation into the firing of her public safety commissioner, the McCain-Palin presidential campaign announced Monday, accusing supporters of Democratic rival Barack Obama of manipulating the inquiry for political motivations.

Former Palin Press Secretary Meg Stapleton told reporters in Anchorage that the investigation has been "hijacked" by "Obama operatives" for the Democratic presidential nominee -- namely, Alaska state Sen. Hollis French, the Democratic lawmaker managing the investigation and an Obama supporter. French has denied working on behalf of the Obama campaign.

The Obama campaign described Stapleton's charge as "complete paranoia." It has denied sending campaign staff to Alaska to work with the legislative committee's investigation.

McCain campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan said Palin will not cooperate with "that investigation so long as it remained tainted and run by partisan individuals who have a predetermined conclusion," referring to a comment by French earlier this month that the case could produce criminal charges or an "October Surprise" for the GOP ticket.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:41 am

The Ugly New McCain

By Richard Cohen
Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Following his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary, John McCain did something extraordinary: He confessed to lying about how he felt about the Confederate battle flag, which he actually abhorred. "I broke my promise to always tell the truth," McCain said. Now he has broken that promise so completely that the John McCain of old is unrecognizable. He has become the sort of politician he once despised.

The precise moment of McCain's abasement came, would you believe, not at some news conference or on one of the Sunday shows but on "The View," the daytime TV show created by Barbara Walters. Last week, one of the co-hosts, Joy Behar, took McCain to task for some of the ads his campaign has been running. One deliberately mischaracterized what Barack Obama had said about putting lipstick on a pig -- an Americanism that McCain himself has used. The other asserted that Obama supported teaching sex education to kindergarteners.
ad_icon

"We know that those two ads are untrue," Behar said. "They are lies."

Freeze. Close in on McCain. This was the moment. He has largely been avoiding the press. The Straight Talk Express is now just a brand, an ad slogan like "Home Cooking" or "We Will Not Be Undersold." Until then, it was possible for McCain to say that he had not really known about the ads, that the formulation "I approve this message" was just boilerplate. But he didn't.

"Actually, they are not lies," he said.

Actually, they are.

McCain has turned ugly. His dishonesty would be unacceptable in any politician, but McCain has always set his own bar higher than most. He has contempt for most of his colleagues for that very reason: They lie. He tells the truth. He internalizes the code of the McCains -- his grandfather, his father: both admirals of the shining sea. He serves his country differently, that's all -- but just as honorably. No more, though.

I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty. Those doing the accusing usually attributed my feelings to McCain being accessible. This is the journalist-as-puppy school of thought: Give us a treat, and we will leap into a politician's lap.

Not so. What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story -- that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity.

McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.

At a forum last week at Columbia University, McCain said, "But right now we have to restore trust and confidence in government." This was always the promise of John McCain, the single best reason to vote for him. America has been cheated on too many times -- the lies of Vietnam and Watergate and Iraq. So many lies. Who believes that in Afghanistan last month, only five civilians were killed by the American military in an airstrike, instead of the approximately 90 claimed by the Afghan government? Not me. I first gave up on the military during Vietnam and then again when it covered up the death of Pat Tillman, the Army Ranger and former NFL player who was killed in 2004 by friendly fire.

McCain was going to fix all that. He was going to look the American people in the eyes and say, not me. I will not lie to you. I am John McCain, son and grandson of admirals. I tell the truth.

But Joy Behar knew better. And so McCain lied about his lying and maybe thinks that if he wins the election, he can -- as he did in South Carolina -- renounce who he was and what he did and resume his old persona. It won't work. Karl Marx got one thing right -- what he said about history repeating itself. Once is tragedy, a second time is farce. John McCain is both.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Beatlesfan03
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 11:45 pm
Location: Another red state :(

Postby Beatlesfan03 » Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:44 pm

This election season has been a lot like the weather, just wait a few minutes and it'll change.

McCain's bounce is rapidly dissipating and the Palin lovefest seems to have cooled considerably. It would seem we're getting the wind back in our sails, but I think they key is keeping up the momentum. At least in my eyes, Obama appears to be fighting back more than Kerry did. He got swift boated and never recovered.

I have to admit that I puzzled by McCain's lead in Ohio. I know Obama is no doubt a shoo-in where I used to live in liberal Cuyahoga County, but given the economic conditions there right now, the last thing Ohio needs is another four years of this mess.

I eagerly await the debates more so than I did in 2004.
Craig

David R. Modny
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Parma, OH

Postby David R. Modny » Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:15 pm

You know, something else to think about. I have to wonder if -- in light of the National Review article by conservative writer Kathleen Parker -- the McCain camp might consider pulling a fast one and have Palin withdraw from the race. She could go the "take care of my disabled child" route, and the right would forgive here. After seeing Leiberman on TV today shilling for McCain (and talking out of both sides of his mouth), one must wonder if they have another distraction card up their sleeve with the ship sinking rapidly. I believe Palin is now polling at a 34% approval rating. Romney? Lieberman? I mean Parker, herself, has called for Palin to "bow out." Could the other conservative media forces fall into line behind her? After all, diversions seem to be the recipe of their campaign.

User avatar
Jeff T.
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:28 am
Location: Blueberry Hill

Postby Jeff T. » Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:51 pm

I also thought about that. That they might want to try and cut their losses, not because it is a smart strategy, but because they realize that they have selected a scandal ridden inexperienced sink weight.