Running mate choice creates diversion

Discussion: 8 comments so far…

1. By jfnance32

   9/12/08 at 9:21 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   It is the Democrats that want to constantly attack Palin day and night.

   Even the writer has attack Palin in this article.

   Guess what....now we are talking about Palin, again.

   Palin has driven Democrats nuts.

   They have Palin on the brain!

2. By thebs

   9/12/08 at 9:29 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   Yes, Democrats, myself included, have attacked her positions. Just as Republicans around here have attacked the positions of Obama and Biden.

   That's what politics is, Nance. Criticizing people for claiming to be reformers but engaging in the same-old Washington-style politics.

   That's exactly how Palin portrays herself, as being above the fray, when she's anything but above the fray.

   When you look at her governing style, of increasing expenditures by 63% when the population of Wasilla only grew by 37%, and how she's promoting herself as a fiscal conservative, it is a fair to criticize her self-characterization.

   When she draws a blank when asked about the Bush Doctrine, and then endorses Obama's Pakistan position... a position that McCain criticized as "naive," her foreign policy knowledge is open for critique.

   While the Democrats try to steer this election back to the issues, the Republicans have engaged in a politics that even Bill O'Reilly has criticized.

   I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face: calling out someone's political positions IS NOT an attack.

3. By PatriciaLV

   9/12/08 at 9:34 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   Jim it's not an "article". It's a LETTER TO THE EDITOR. And it's clearly labeled as such at the top.

4. By PamPC

   9/12/08 at 10:15 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   The biggest difference that I see between the Democrats and Republicans when "attacking positions" is that we Democrats stick to the facts - not fabrications. McCain's latest ad, for instance, claims that Obama supported comprehensive sex ed for kindergarteners (false), that he says Iran is tiny and doesn't pose a serious threat (taken out of context, entirely not what he meant), that he voted against our troops ... when McCain has voted ten times against increased health care and body armor, as well as voting against the GI bill. There are other discrepancies in the ad. This is just one ad, and it's only a minute long, I believe.

   When Obama does "strike back" - and he will, I have heard - his message will be fact-based. It will be aimed at his opponent's positions and platform, not personal. What the media does is anybody's guess.

   (Patricia, great point.)

5. By jfnance32

   9/12/08 at 11:43 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   So if you want to FOCUS on Palin and talk her about all day long and make fun of her all day long and say stupid comments like her qualification is that she did not abortion then do not act so surprise that that everybody is talking about Palin.

   I think Obama has decided to stop talking about Palin and instead talk about McCain.

   But if you guys want to talk and attack Palin then that is your choice. Just do not whine because she is getting so much attention because you are focusing your attention on her.

6. By thebs

   9/12/08 at 1:21 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   Oh Nance, we welcome the attention on her.

   Anything to expose her as the hypocrite she has become. Look, when the girls from The View are calling McCain out on his lies, you know he has a problem.

   I understand you're upset because you've continually failed to defend her. This is your attempt to shift the focus back on McCain, instead of the lost cause of Palin. I'm mighty happy shining a flashlight behind the curtain and seeing what her record tells us about what kind of a leader she won't be.

   She says she fought earmarks. She didn't.

   She took credit for killing the Bridge to Nowhere. She didn't.

   She says she's a fiscal conservative. She isn't.

   That's an astonishing amount of false advertising and lies in the handful of days she's been campaigning.

   I can't tell you how satisfying it is to watch the poster girl of the rabid religious right take flack for being another Bush clone and watch her implode when asked simple questions about the Bush Doctrine. Or watch her naive saber-rattling when asked about Russia. And watch her out-flank CHENEY on supporting Ukraine and Georgia's admission into NATO NOW!

   The Bush administration's position is NOT to support allowing them blanket admission into NATO immediately, but to the Membership Action Plan, which delays their entry into NATO for, on average, ten years and with stipulations that border soverignty must be unquestioned. (Obviously, that isn't the case with Georgia.)

   Yes, our attention is focused on her. Once people open their eyes and see what she represents, the cynical nature of McCain, who once boasted that mayors and governors weren't prepared to handle national security, it sheds light not only on her, but on McCain and his dangerous judgment and temperment.

   And that's exactly the type of discussion the Dems would love to have.

7. By jfnance32

   9/12/08 at 5:55 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   Here you go again.....making up stuff, twisting words andputting words into McCain's and Palin's mouths.

   You play the word game so well.

   So do not whine when it comes back and slaps you into the face.

   Obama and Biden VOTED FOR the Bridge to Nowhere.

   McCain voted against the Bridge to NoWhere.

   Obama and Biden have voted for tons of earmarks for there own states.

   McCain has not voted for tons of earmarks for his state.

   Palin has reduced the number of earmarks that thte state government of Alaska request.

8. By thebs

   9/12/08 at 7:17 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   And she sold herself as some sort of earmark slayer which she is NOT.

   She's requested them, millions of dollars worth, and it's insincere for her to say otherwise.

   Obama and Biden have never made that claim.

   You can't see the hypocrisy there?

   Figures!

« Previous TenNext Ten »