After Palin's speech last night

[Bob Juch]

In my opinion the more experience you have in politics, the filthier you become.

[SportsFan68]

1) Palin did not answer specifics about her record, such as her stance on the Bridge to Nowhere (which both Obama and Biden voted to fund), which in my view was smart. She acted as if she belonged there. The specifics on the plan (lukewarm support by her as a candidate which cooled considerably once she was in office) are far more complex than either she or the Dems attacking her have made it out to be, and frankly are things most voters aren't interested in hashing out for themselves.

Absolutely true. People are far more interested in sending fake bikini/rifle forwards (I got three) than they are in actually figuring out her blatant hypocrisy on the earmarks and other statements.

As much as Sir G has inveighed against hypocrisy in the past, I don't see how he can possibly support Palin.

As much as Palin's positions are diametrically opposed to those which SSS has claimed in the past, I don't see how he can possibly support McCain.

[NellyLunatic1980]

In my opinion the more experience you have in politics, the filthier you become.

Interesting that you mention that.

It's time once again to play "Guess the Quote"!

Who said, "The more time you spend in Washington, the less qualified you are"?

Answer:

Spoiler

George W. Bush

He said that about Al Gore on "The Tonight Show" just days before the 2000 election.

Shockingly, he didn't say that about John McCain this year...

[ShamelessWeasel]

What I took away from last night is that if there were any statements that either of the two made that were not true, I would like to know.

Since you want to know

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_ ... fact_check

[silverscreenselect]

In my opinion the more experience you have in politics, the filthier you become.

Experience in Chicago politics is like dog years. One year is the equivalent of seven normal political years in terms of filth accumulation.

[NellyLunatic1980]

In my opinion the more experience you have in politics, the filthier you become.

Experience in Chicago politics is like dog years. One year is the equivalent of seven normal political years in terms of filth accumulation.

No different from Alaska politics nowadays.

[Bob Juch]

In my opinion the more experience you have in politics, the filthier you become.

Experience in Chicago politics is like dog years. One year is the equivalent of seven normal political years in terms of filth accumulation.

Oh, so you now believe Obama has a lot of experience?

[SportsFan68]

What I took away from last night is that if there were any statements that either of the two made that were not true, I would like to know.

Since you want to know

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_ ... fact_check

Thanks, Shameless! This is exactly what some of my local Dem friends have been looking for.

[Spock]

What I took away from last night is that if there were any statements that either of the two made that were not true, I would like to know.

Since you want to know

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_ ... fact_check

It is interesting that she has a decade plus of decisions and actions that can be analyzed and studied-as in the quoted article. Obama-not so much.

[wbtravis007]

Taking a cautious step out of the Moratorium Lounge...

What I took away from last night is that if there were any statements that either of the two made that were not true, I would like to know.

Palin repeated the claim about saying "thanks but no thanks" to Congress regarding the "bridge to nowhere".

1. Is is true, as alleged in a blog quote someone posted, that Congress revoked that particular earmark in 2005, before Palin became governor?

2. Is it true that the state of Alaska got to keep all of the money previously allocated for that earmark to spend on highway projects at their own discretion? Isn't that counter to the implicit meaning of "thanks but no thanks," i.e., that "this project is a waste of money, so we're giving the money back"?

Yes.

I'm the one that posted that.

viewtopic.php?t=9021&highlight=

I was pretty surprised that they had her repeat that line last night.

This is one reason that I think she won't be doing many, if any, interviews.

There's also this:

By Yereth Rosen

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - It garnered big applause in her first speech as Republican John McCain's vice presidential pick, but Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion that she rejected Congressional funds for the so-called "bridge to nowhere" has upset many Alaskans.

During her first speech after being named as McCain's surprise pick as a running mate, Palin said she had told Congress "'thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere."

In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska's Congressional delegation during her run for governor.

The bridge, a span from the city to Gravina Island, home to only a few dozen people, secured a $223 million earmark in 2005. The pricey designation raised a furor and critics, including McCain, used the bridge as an example of wasteful federal spending on politicians' pet projects.

When she was running for governor in 2006, Palin said she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere," according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin's campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city.

"People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting," Weinstein said.

Palin's spokeswoman in Alaska was not immediately available to comment.

National fury over the bridge caused Congress to remove the earmark designation, but Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion.

Last year, Palin announced she was stopping state work on the controversial project, earning her admirers from earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation. The move also thrust her into the spotlight as a reform-minded newcomer.

The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding.

In fact, the Palin administration has spent "tens of millions of dollars" in federal funds to start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said.

"She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money," said Elerding about her applause line.

Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, a Republican who represented the Kenai Peninsula city of Homer, is also critical about Palin's reversal on the bridge issue.

"You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it," said Phillips, who supported Palin's opponent, Democrat Tony Knowles, in the 2006 gubernatorial race.

A press release issued by the governor on September 21, 2007 said she decided to cancel state work on the project because of rising cost estimates.

"It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said in the news release. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here."

[SportsFan68]

Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, a Republican who represented the Kenai Peninsula city of Homer, is also critical about Palin's reversal on the bridge issue.

"You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it," said Phillips, who supported Palin's opponent, Democrat Tony Knowles, in the 2006 gubernatorial race.

It doesn't seem to be a problem so far. Unless that 80% approval rating has eroded over the past couple days. I'll watch for the latest, but I bet it stays up.

[ne1410s]

And, yes, she did put the state plane on e-bay. Three times. It did not sell for the minimum so she sold it through a broker for a 500k loss.

[KillerTomato]

And, yes, she did put the state plane on e-bay. Three times. It did not sell for the minimum so she sold it through a broker for a 500k loss.

(I'm not asking this to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious)

What did she do with the money?

[KillerTomato]

OK, so this one is a tad snarky:

I saw a post on one of the myriad political blogs (I think it was the Washington Post's site that hosted it, but it might have been CNN) that said something along the lines of:

John Tyler Hammons is a Republican mayor of Muskogee, OK. He has experience with budgets, leading people and staff, etc. in a city that's five times the size of Wasilla, AK (about 40,000 people to Wasilla's 7,000). He'd obviously be (in the eyes of the Republican PTB) an excellent candidate for VP. Except for one thing: he's 19 years old. Any office that can be held by a teenager isn't worth using as an example of "executive experience."



I can't say I completely agree with that, but the poster has a point. I don't think Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be VP, or even president, because she's inexperienced. Some of the country's better Presidents haven't had "executive experience." And one of the worst (if not THE worst) had plenty of experience running corporations that failed, a lousy baseball team, and some Suthren territory much smaller than the State of Alaska. And his VP was President of one of the most powerful defense contractors in the world. And they both suck(ed).

[Sir_Galahad]

What I took away from last night is that if there were any statements that either of the two made that were not true, I would like to know.

Since you want to know

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_ ... fact_check

Thanks, Shameless! This is exactly what some of my local Dem friends have been looking for.

One of my favorite quotes from this campaign came from Rudy. What he said was something to the effect of "I made some good decisions and I made some bad one. But at least I made them." (The emphasis is mine).

You know, you can nitpick all you want. IMO, none of the candidates has all of the qualifications I would, ideally, want in a candidate. But, having a gun to my figurative head, I know in my heart, that having Obama as president would be a disaster for this country. And, judging from what the governor brings to McCain's table, I have to say that this team will bring this country closest to back on course.

[silvercamaro]

OK, so this one is a tad snarky:

I saw a post on one of the myriad political blogs (I think it was the Washington Post's site that hosted it, but it might have been CNN) that said something along the lines of:

John Tyler Hammons is a Republican mayor of Muskogee, OK. He has experience with budgets, leading people and staff, etc. in a city that's five times the size of Wasilla, AK (about 40,000 people to Wasilla's 7,000). He'd obviously be (in the eyes of the Republican PTB) an excellent candidate for VP. Except for one thing: he's 19 years old. Any office that can be held by a teenager isn't worth using as an example of "executive experience."

It's true that Hammons was elected mayor of Muskogee while he was a freshman at the University of Oklahoma. He dropped out of college to serve as a full-time mayor in a city where politics had been dominated for decades by one of the most corrupt political families since the Longs of Louisiana. He intends to return to college in the future, but he also has said that he hopes to run for office again. I suspect that we will hear from him again on a higher level, and his experience will continue to grow.

He has not yet served as governor. Give him a few years.

[Ritterskoop]

Despite his rhetoric, Obama has never had a "Read my lips" moment.

Yes, we can.

[TheCalvinator24]

This was truly a moment in US history.

At this point, in all honesty, I cannot see how you could vote for any other candidate. If you really are looking out for the best interests of the US (and are not in denial), I just can't see how you could vote otherwise. Of course, that's just my opinion. But, I would bet that millions of others who were on the fence share the same opinion.

And Rudy wasn't too shabby either.

What I took away from last night is that if there were any statements that either of the two made that were not true, I would like to know.

Also, if you're interested, Bill O'Reilly will be interviewing Obama and it will broadcast tonight and into next week. I suspect this will not be the typically powder puff interview a la Larry King or Keith Olberman, though. I look forward to watching this (on Fox if you're interested).

Yeah right.

Palin just gave a well rehearsed speech that anyone could have given.

Rudy could have just played back any of the dozens of previous rantings about 9/11. 9/11, 9/11.

I suspect you didn't listen to Rudy's speech. He only mentioned 9/11 once that I heard. I thought his speech sucked, but it wasn't all about 9/11.

[TheCalvinator24]

After last night's speech I would describe myself as an undecided voter. It was an excellent speech and though I understand the issues that Palin has yet to answer, what about the one charge on Obama. I'd like someone on this bored (or in Obama's campaign) to explain to me what experience Obama has. If no one can answer that sufficiently then I don't think I can vote for him despite the fact that he's my party's representative...

Experience is important, but it's only one factor.

When they assumed the presidency, Lincoln was a failed one-term Congressman and Truman -- despite ten years in the Senate -- was considered by many a political hack. They did okay in the Oval Office.

Ulysses S. Grant led a big army to victory and he was one of our worst Presidents.

Governors, by definition, have no foreign policy experience. Senators, by definition, have no executive experience.

Basically, no job completely prepares anyone for the Presidency. And success at any job never guarantees success in the Presidency.

I nominate this as Best Political Post in the History of the Bored.

[SportsFan68]

After last night's speech I would describe myself as an undecided voter. It was an excellent speech and though I understand the issues that Palin has yet to answer, what about the one charge on Obama. I'd like someone on this bored (or in Obama's campaign) to explain to me what experience Obama has. If no one can answer that sufficiently then I don't think I can vote for him despite the fact that he's my party's representative...

Experience is important, but it's only one factor.

When they assumed the presidency, Lincoln was a failed one-term Congressman and Truman -- despite ten years in the Senate -- was considered by many a political hack. They did okay in the Oval Office.

Ulysses S. Grant led a big army to victory and he was one of our worst Presidents.

Governors, by definition, have no foreign policy experience. Senators, by definition, have no executive experience.

Basically, no job completely prepares anyone for the Presidency. And success at any job never guarantees success in the Presidency.

I nominate this as Best Political Post in the History of the Bored.

I'll second!

Maybe SSS will come to his senses and reconsider voting against his own positions on issues.

[tubadave]

With McCain/Palin, I know where they stand and that they are sincere (if misguided). With Obama, I have no idea where he stands or what he will do....

I never have spoken up in the political discussions in the past, whether I was active on the Bored or not. But everyone who's been around long enough and has paid any attention knows that I have typically always stood on the opposite side of the aisle from SSS, so to speak.

That's why it continues to amaze me when he says things that (other than the 'misguided' part) I completely agree with. That perfectly sums up why the idea of Obama in the White House worries me.


Yes, I know there is much that he and I would still disagree about, and I understand what has him crossing party lines in this particular election....that doesn't stop me from being amazed. It's something I never thought I would see.

[silverscreenselect]

Maybe SSS will come to his senses and reconsider voting against his own positions on issues.

Voting against Obama is not voting against my positions on the issues. I have no faith whatsoever that Obama supports my positions on any issues other than paying lip service to them when giving his stump speeches. He is completely untrustworthy, both in an honest and ethical sense, and is the sense of being a reliable supporter of any position.

Even his "signature moment," his opposition to the Iraq war, seems to come and go from time to time. Now that McCain is making a point of the success of the surge (which I disagree with: the main reason things are getting better there is that we are paying people a lot of money not to shoot at us anymore), he seems to have gone into his defensive posture again.

The worst moment for me in the Palin speech was when she showed disdain for "reading terrorists their rights." That really stuck in my craw because I believe that we shouldn't allow fear to take precedence over the Constitution.

Then I remembered how Obama caved on the telecom immunity question and on refusing to censure Moveon.org for criticizing Petraeus.

I have more respect for someone who feels the Constitution should take a back seat to national security than I do for someone who feels it should take a back seat to political expedience.

And with Obama, everything takes a back seat to political expedience.

[silverscreenselect]

Despite his rhetoric, Obama has never had a "Read my lips" moment.

Yes, we can.

Yes we can what?

I didn't mean that Obama doesn't have a catch phrase. I meant that he has never said "I believe in this and I'm going to do this. Period."

It's all feel good silliness and positions and people that get thrown under the bus whenever the heat is on.

[Ritterskoop]

Yes we can what?

"Don't tell me we can't change.

Yes, we can. Yes, we can change. Yes, we can."

[earendel]

Maybe SSS will come to his senses and reconsider voting against his own positions on issues.

Voting against Obama is not voting against my positions on the issues. I have no faith whatsoever that Obama supports my positions on any issues other than paying lip service to them when giving his stump speeches. He is completely untrustworthy, both in an honest and ethical sense, and is the sense of being a reliable supporter of any position.

And McCain and Palin do support your positions on any issues? I find that extremely hard to believe.