home

Tuesday Night Republican Convention Thread

I'm watching a Pledge of Allegiance video being narrated by a Republican teenager with a wonderful speaking voice.

Then I read this, about Sarah Palin and the Alaska Independence Party, with which she was affiliated (although not a member) for many years. The party founder, Joe Vogel, in 1991 said:

"But you get to thinking. Why the hell do I owe them anything? And then you get mad. And you say the hell with them. And you renounce allegiance, and you pledge your efforts, your effects, your honor, your life to Alaska, that's how I do--I'm an Alaskan see. And they know it. I've told them so-- to go to hell every way I can and then I sway. I took a case to the Supreme Court believing in the Supreme Court. And I'd rather be tried in a wh*rehouse with a madame as a judge--there's more justice! And if they don't like it they know where they can go.

I tried it. I believed in my country. I believed in the court system and it stinks. . . .

[More...]

The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

The audio is located at the Oral History Program in the Rasmuson Library at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. You can listen here.

TPM has more on the Alaska Independence Party and Sarah Palin's reaching out to it.

Three years after the controversial interview, in 1994, Palin attended the group's annual convention, according to [a] witness who spoke to ABC News' Jake Tapper. The McCain campaign is disputing her presence there, but Tapper found two people to attest to it.

....The McCain campaign has confirmed she visited the group's 2000 convention, and she addressed its convention this year, as an incumbent governor whose oath of office includes upholding the Constitution of the United States.

Palin's husband, Todd Palin, was a member of the party from 1995-2002 with a brief exception in 2000.

Vogel is still featured on the party's website. The AIP is the third largest party in Alaska. While the McCain camp denies she attended the 1994 convention, Palin has not responded to calls to confirm or deny the witness' account.

So, Palin has always been a registered Republican and not a member of the AIP but she reached out for their support, attended and spoke at one or more of its conventions.

I can only imagine the response had this come out about a Democratic candidate.

This thread is about tonight's Republican convention.

< Palin the Politician v. Palin the Reformer | McCain/Palin to Campaign in Colorado Springs Saturday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    You can only imagine? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:54:52 PM EST
    I kinda remember 7 solid days on cable TV and 24 hour coverage of this on Fox.  I think it might have had something to do with a democratic candidate's pastor.

    So now we (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:59:06 PM EST
    believe in guilt by association and we're no longer about reaching out to people who are not registered members of out party?

    To be honest (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by airwon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:00:33 PM EST
    I don't know how the AIP thing can hurt Palin in the light of how Rev. Wright did not hurt Obama.  But I guess stranger things can happen.

    Seems like for every tit there is a tat (none / 0) (#45)
    by ding7777 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:21:05 PM EST
    Obama said he would sign the Akaka Bill granting Hawaiians the right to form their own government

    And Clinton did sign the "Apology Resolution" in 1993 which apologized for the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and 1898 US annexation of Hawaii

    Parent

    It can hurt her with (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:29:04 PM EST
    some republicans who are diehards in the belief that it is unconstitutional to secede.

    Parent
    those republicans died with grant (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by sancho on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:39:03 PM EST
    and were reborn with ther hatred for earl warren, lbj and mlk. the republicans have been trying to secede from democratic american for some time now--at least since 1954.

    Parent
    She has her own Wright problem. See the Alaska (none / 0) (#105)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:48:28 PM EST
    Daily News article with links today about her ministers. We will now find out the degree to which the W issue was an opportunistic race thing when we see what they do with her minister, who is in the Pat Robertson 'God Destroyed New Orleans to punish it . . . " school. It's one thing to have those endorse you but we will now see what it means to go to that church, and announce that God's Will is being done in Iraq, or something like that. Her minister said those who voted for Kerry put their eternal souls at risk for doing it.

    Parent
    Yup ... (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:05:57 PM EST
    now we're gonna compare "extremist" friends.

    Legend says that Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

    Where's my fiddle?

    Dem extremests are already... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Thanin on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:28:23 PM EST
    going to be used by the republicans anyway.  Might as well have our own ammunition.

    Parent
    As a Hillary supporter... (2.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Thanin on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:36:01 AM EST
    I never ascribed to that.

    Parent
    *extremists (none / 0) (#64)
    by Thanin on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:29:28 PM EST
    Jeez Jeralyn (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by ineedalife on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:06:04 PM EST
    Palin has really got to you, hasn't she? For every six degrees of separation you can play with her you can play one degree with Obama. Wright, Ayers, Rezko. Do we really need to do that?

    It seems there is a desperate attempt to frame Governor Palin before she speaks at  the convention and America sees that she doesn't have two horns and a tail.

    In New York we have all sorts of political parties, some loony, but in the end most wind up endorsing some Democrats and some Republicans for major office. Myself I usually vote for the Democrat on the Working Family Party line. I don't give a darn, or even know, if the WFP are a bunch of loons. I just don't want the Dems to get too complacent. Some may call me a commie for that affiliation. I am sure Hillary and Chuck Schumer have been endorsed by some pretty embarrassing types in their time here. I think Hillary had to give back the Conservative Party endorsement last time.

    Your userid. . . (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:42:33 PM EST
    is ridiculous and transparent.

    Yeah, right a Clinton voter voting for McCain and Palin, voting down equal pay for equal work and enshrining Scaliaism on the Supreme Court.

    Try it somewhere else.  And just hope that Clinton doesn't get ahold of you.

    Parent

    I think that's selfish (none / 0) (#90)
    by elonepb on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:43:21 PM EST
    Sorry, but I do.

    Over 4,000 men and women have died in Iraq as a result of this completely unnecessary war.

    Obama and Clinton offered the opportunity to get out of that war, and start putting the money into our economy, and improve health care.

    To completely give up ALL the reasons I wanted Hillary to win would just be selfish of me. There are bigger things in this world than my personal feelings towards MSNBC and the Obama campaign.

    Obviously, it's only my opinion, but McCain and Palin is another 4 years of Bush and Bush economy. As much as I'd like to see a woman in the White House, I'm willing to wait for Hillary's next run.

    Parent

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:46:18 PM EST
    I guess I would just ask you, if you ever really believed in the values Hillary espoused throughout her campaign, or if it was all about gender for you?  Because McCain/Palin represent a continuation of the same values and ehtics taht so tried our nation these last 8 years.

    Parent
    Nothing on Faux News (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by elonepb on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:06:45 PM EST
    Is worth watching, or discussing how it will be good or not for B.O.

    Just like watching MSNBC was pointless as a Hillary supporter.

    Once these talking heads are in the tank for a candidate, forget getting any fair balance.

    FOX News being the worst of all offenders.

    Cited FOX News (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by elonepb on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:15:25 PM EST
    It didn't need any addressing after that.

    Parent
    McCain punishes CNN (none / 0) (#49)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:23:18 PM EST
    McCain was supposed to appear on Larry King Live tonight.  But he has cancelled the appearance in response to Campbell Brown's tough questioning of a McCain surrogate about Sarah Palin's "experience" as "commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard."

    This boosts my hitherto low regard for CNN.  If McCain is punishing you, you must be doing something right.

    Oops, spoke to soon.  Donna Brazile is on now....

    Parent

    Too bad (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:39:15 PM EST
    more democrats don't follow his example.

    Parent
    Haha yeah I saw that too (none / 0) (#57)
    by elonepb on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:25:53 PM EST
    Although we know this means CNN will back off the good tough questions we rarely see from political reporters, and go back to the softball lobs with no follow-up... just so they can maintain their access to him.

    Part of me wonders if the McCain campaign wouldn't have been so upset if Campbell wasn't a woman.

    Like they didn't expect a woman to ask tough questions or something.

    Parent

    Why would anyone expect (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:18:14 PM EST
    anyone in the media (but especially Brown) to ask tough questions of anyone, unless the name is Clinton?  See Primary Season 2008.

    It must be entirely coincidental, though, that the Media Darlings are men.

    Parent

    This Isn't The TalkLeft I Once Knew (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:37:03 PM EST
    (sigh) I miss the TalkLeft that had a wider variety of topics and a discourse that was focused, BUT fair.

    Now, it's Palin-Palin-Palin all day. This morning, I had to double-check to see if this site had been hijacked and the URL had been rerouted to the Daily Kos or Huffington Post. TL has really become an extension, albeit tamer, of DK and HP.

    Maybe I'm going to take BTD's lead and take a break from this site. I'm going to miss all the great viewpoints and fair comments of lots of folks here (you know who you are)

    Sorry, but this is a serious reach... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by skuld1 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:42:38 PM EST
    Please correct me if I am mistaken, but at first reading it seems like you are suggesting that Palin must share Vogel's vile views because she was 'affiliated' with that party.

    Would it then be fair to say that Barack Obama believes, among other things, that the government created AIDS to kill black people?  After all, that is what Rev. Wright believes, and Barack Obama was a member of that church for twenty years.

    I think it is a big mistake to pursue this... you are just giving Republicans an excuse to bring up Obama's questionable associations again.

    The AIP has a point (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:32:18 PM EST
    from what I've read about both it and Hawaii.  This country acted illegally, repeatedly, in our treatment of both.  More egregiously in the case of Hawaii, of course, in ousting its queen.  But in both cases, our government was greedy for their resources and catered to corporate interests.

    It always seems so convenient to cater to corporate interests in the cases of lands lived in by brown people.  We have officially apologized to Hawaiians.  We have not apologized to Alaskans.

    We ought to do so.

    Apologies by the government (none / 0) (#161)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 06:11:21 PM EST
    just get used to demand restitution.  It's important to work against racism and support racial equality, but making all citizens pay money to a few select ethnicities will simply entrench racial conflict.  In Hawaii, the demand for an apology resulted in using the one Clinton signed as evidence that restitution should be paid.  Now the State of HI spends millions of tax dollars every year on programs that benefit Kanaka maoli only ("native" Hawaiians).  But of course, there's nothing "native" about living in a million dollar house near the ocean with a big screen TV and SUV.  That's why need based programs are so much better IMO than ethnic or racially based entitlements.  If the State were to actually pay restitution, the cost is calculated to be in the billions.  The problem is that the five major families who benefited financially from the takeover and ousting of the Queen are not being sued.  Instead, Kanaka maoli groups are going after the State and US Govt, which means all the other citizens have to pay the bill, not the descendents or the recipients of the enormous trust funds from those five family lines.  So people from Samoa or the Philippines (or Japan, China, Maryland or elsewhere) whose ancestors weren't even Americans when the five families took power back in the 1800s end up paying the bill.  It's like demanding descendents of northerners who fought in the Civil War pay restitution to AAs.  Or asking people who worked for civil rights for blacks to now pay tax money to AAs regardless of their financial need.  Restitution isn't about need, it's about entitlement.  It would be better to go after the people living off trust funds established by slave owners.  I think our long term goal should be ensuring an equal playing field, of course, but that takes time and social change.  Poor kids from Appalachia are just as deserving of financial help for college as AA kids from NYC.  

    Sorry slightly O/T, I just feel strongly about finding solutions to our problems that don't create more entrenchment.  


    Parent

    Coverage so far seems (none / 0) (#1)
    by bjorn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:53:31 PM EST
    very positive for Repubs...Fox, CNN is being especially complimentary.

    Chuck Todd explained that McCain picked Palin in part to help him in VA and NC which are really in play.  Until now, he was not getting the evangelical vote in those two states.  It does seem like the McCain candidacy will now rise or fall on how Palin performs.  Although, I am of the belief Obama will still win this thing even if Palin performs well.

    Feh. (none / 0) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:11:01 PM EST
    CNN is being especially complimentary.

    The Times is reporting that McCain just canceled a Larry King interview because his campaign is so cheesed off about the coverage on CNN.  So I guess they, at least, don't think CNN is being particularly complimentary.

    Anyone else wonder why if it really makes sense to pass up the softball interview show of record?

    Parent

    maybe they are over compensating (none / 0) (#28)
    by bjorn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:12:34 PM EST
    now...maybe McCain really cancelled because he needs more time to prep to be able to answer some of the Palin questions.

    Parent
    Doubt it (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by americanincanada on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:16:41 PM EST
    He's doing World News, Nightline and Good Morning America. It's about CNN.

    Parent
    I saw the Campbell Brown interview (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by bjorn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:19:33 PM EST
    I thought she was great, but I also thought "I have never seen her go so hard at someone before."  She just needs to be consistent, we need these people to go hard at everyone.

    Parent
    Brown unfortunately (none / 0) (#79)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:36:27 PM EST
    shrieks. Notice the reinvention of Brown from the Today or GMA where ever she was, to field reporting to solo?  Seems a good anchor of the talk shows need
    to know how to shriek, #1 on job description.

    They are all cartoons.

    Parent

    It does (none / 0) (#37)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:16:59 PM EST
    Of course it makes sense--if you get something more valuable than the softball interview in return.  In this case, McCain gets to polish up his "maverick" cred one more time and further fire up the base.  This is just a different form of the Palin pick.

    McCain is basically betting his entire campaign on this "I'm a no-BS maverick, and I don't care who knows!" gambit.  If I had more faith in America voters I'd be less nervous right now.


    Parent

    Palin (none / 0) (#2)
    by billybugs on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:54:11 PM EST
    The experts will be studying this choice for years.
    It make very little sense .there must have been some one out there that was more qualified than Palin
    And there is no way this woman was vetted properly!
    This choice has pretty much sealed McCanes fate
    he's toast!!!!

    No so sure... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by k on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:01:16 PM EST
    I just saw an evangelical christian woman interviewed and she said she and her fellow travellers were thrilled with the Palin pick.

    McCain needed to shore up the religious right and I think that's just what he did.

    I don't know whether or not McCain is toast but I certainly know that this race is much tighter than I thought it would be.

    Parent

    Well ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by eustiscg on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:15:06 PM EST
    ... when we have a sizeable party registration advantage, it kind of is "all about us."  Or at least it's hardly at all about the Republican base.  This is not a base year for Republicans ...

    Parent
    No it is (none / 0) (#47)
    by airwon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:21:21 PM EST
    not a base year for the Repubs.  But without his base, he will surely loose.  Better to have an enthusiastic base then to not have one for McCain.

    Parent
    Well I urge any person (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:32:35 PM EST
    a Hillary supporter like myself, a libertarian, a moderate republican to google the Final Republican platform for 2008.  Just reading that ought to scare any one who believes in separation of church and state to NOT allow this party to keep control.

    Parent
    I wish (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:46:25 PM EST
    Obama would drop his support for the expansion of faith based initiatives. Why on earth would anyone want to make that a cabinet level position?

    Parent
    Believe me I agree with you (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:02:05 PM EST
    totally.

    But if you read the republican platform you will see that faith based initiatives can be more easily deat with, deleted, eliminated a long as we stop this republican run.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:18:35 PM EST
    the argument against them is more who they're going to appoint to positions ie. act like the Bush administration and appoint a crazy HHS person than the faith based initiatives. I think Obama may want to put more money into that than the GOP.

    Parent
    Yes, he secured the base (none / 0) (#78)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:36:04 PM EST
    Christie Whitman, a moderate former GOP governor of NJ with REAL executive experience, just gushed on MSNBC about how the Palin pick has energized the base -- a base that would never have accepted her as a running mate for Dubya in 2000, when she was being considered.

    But how does Palin assist in the outreach to the socially moderate independents and Democrats who twice voted for Christie Whitman, a pro-choice Republican, for NJ governor? The constant gushing  that "the base is thrilled with Palin" should doom any possibility that such voters will cross over and vote for McCain.

    Parent

    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:47:29 PM EST
    think that she necessarily does. The problem is that Obama is in danger of having them just sit home.

    Parent
    Of course they are thrilled (none / 0) (#81)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:38:37 PM EST
    they got the Life and they got a woman as vp.

    Parent
    The Religious Right (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by themomcat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:25:01 PM EST
    vetted her properly. That was all that was needed. McCain chose her to to solidify the vote of those voters who are voting family values. Palin isn't perfect and has had challenges in her life but she chose the "right path" and the "right" Churches and as far as the Right wing is concerned the "right" issues. Her name has been bounced around the blogs for months, this shouldn't be that much of a surprise considering Obama's VP choice.

    Parent
    The GE will determined if Palin was bad choice (none / 0) (#8)
    by Saul on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:01:04 PM EST
    If she inspires the base at the convention and brings in the votes is all that matters to McCain All the  negatives post  posted here against Palin will not matter one bit.   Getting the votes is everything and both sides will use any means to get them.

    Someone Help Me... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:01:44 PM EST
    Understand Republicans...  Are they at all conscious of the incredible lack of diversity here?  I mean, apart from the two adoptive daughters, I've seen I think one non-White person in the entire convention hall.

    There is no diversity (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:05:10 PM EST
    it's all mayonnaise. That's because Republicans have nothing to offer anyone else.

    Parent
    I Understand Why... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:09:15 PM EST
    There is no diversity to the crowd.  I'm just curious if anyone understands if the Republicans are even the least bit... aware of it?  

    Parent
    They (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:49:06 PM EST
    are aware of it but does it matter? Seems to me they've won a lot of elections without worring about "diversity".

    Parent
    Where is Ron Christie, (none / 0) (#94)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:44:41 PM EST
    the slightly cross-eyed African-American former Cheney aide who often appears on Tweety's "Softballs," when you need him?

    Parent
    Condi is not there (none / 0) (#96)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:45:35 PM EST
    because there is a great sale going on at Ferragamo's.

    Parent
    Has Condi endorsed McCain yet? (none / 0) (#125)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:03:58 PM EST
    I sense a possible surprise coming there.

    Parent
    Well, she didn't do one of (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:07:46 PM EST
    those "I'm a Republican" walk-ons at the DNC.  

    Parent
    I'm sure her Secret Service detail. . . (none / 0) (#129)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:16:27 PM EST
    would have ruled that out.  But I can imagine an endorsement down the road (whether it would help or hurt Obama is hard to figure out).

    Parent
    I think, in her case, silence (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:24:20 PM EST
    may mean alot.  Depends on whether she plans to work for the McCain admins. (if there is one) or run for public office herself.

    Parent
    What're they gonna do (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:08:41 PM EST
    hire people of color to sprinkle around the audience?  A few years ago, they tried to compensate by overloading the stage with African-American performers, but it just made them look even more ridiculous and nobody was fooled.

    Parent
    I've seen at least three (none / 0) (#30)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:14:51 PM EST
    African-Americans. Two men; one sort of the front of the stage and another stage left. And there is one African-American woman in the rafters sitting over the dark banner that says McCain/Palin and "Service" or something like that.

    Yes, I've been counting.

    ;0)

    Parent

    This... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:15:53 PM EST
    Would make a great drinking game.  ;)

    Parent
    *hiccup* (none / 0) (#39)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:17:20 PM EST
    Warning! (none / 0) (#100)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:46:42 PM EST
    Playing a GOP convention drinking game could lead to cirrhosis of liver by the time John McCain gives his acceptance speech.

    Parent
    lots of older people (none / 0) (#36)
    by bjorn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:16:58 PM EST
    and definitely a lot more men than women.  A very different look than the Democratic convention.

    Parent
    They're older (none / 0) (#44)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:20:44 PM EST
    but not that much different. The democratic convention looked pretty mayonnaise to me. Which I found surprising considering how much was made of the youth vote this year and that 12% of the delegates this year were Latino-the highest ever.

    I just saw one more African-American woman on the floor of the hall. She's wearing a brownish suit and has a bob haircut.

    Parent

    apparenetly you weren't there (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:10:30 PM EST
    it was definitely not mayonnaise and filled with people of color and women. Look up the stats on the delegates. Diversity is built into how they are awarded. No more falsehoods please.

    Parent
    You were there (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:24:51 PM EST
    I watched it on television. As a white woman you probably don't notice it because you've seen yourself represented on television your whole life. And I don't have to look up the stats because I know them. That's how I was able to quote the number of Latino delegates to the convention. And I didn't state a falsehood I stated my opinion. Two completely different things.

    Parent
    Any potential commander in chief (none / 0) (#11)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:03:34 PM EST
    who thinks we send out our soldiers to do God's will belongs in 15th century France, not 21st century America.

    John McCain has tethered himself to the religious right now.

    "I was against agents of intolerance before I was for them."

    It fits (none / 0) (#104)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:47:31 PM EST
    Sarah Palin was in favor of the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.

    Parent
    But after she was against it (none / 0) (#145)
    by themomcat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:45:35 PM EST
    She still wanted the money, just not earmarked. ;-)


    Parent
    GHW Bush I looks awful (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:06:49 PM EST
    I've never seen him look so fragile.  Barbara Bush looks the same as always.

    He's 85 years old and. . . (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:13:51 PM EST
    for 60 of those years W has been his son.  It would age you too!

    Parent
    I think he's been under really terrible (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:51:23 PM EST
    strain trying to support his idiot son both publicly and personally.  Wouldn't surprise me if he cries in bed at night.

    I have no fondness for the guy, though.  Chickens coming home to roost, early karma, whatever.  Tough.


    Parent

    Mom just said the same thing (none / 0) (#23)
    by Redshoes on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:09:54 PM EST
    he looks frail.  

    Parent
    how old is he now? (none / 0) (#24)
    by bjorn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:10:31 PM EST
    6-12-1924 (none / 0) (#31)
    by Redshoes on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:14:52 PM EST
    He's 84 (none / 0) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:17:01 PM EST
    I'll hate to see him go. (none / 0) (#61)
    by davnee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:28:46 PM EST
    Not that he was a great president.  And his son is a dolt.  But I've always had a soft spot for him.  Committed public servant.  Good American.  And I loved to watch him sky dive at 80+.

    Parent
    Among the many ifs I often wonder (none / 0) (#69)
    by Redshoes on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:32:24 PM EST
    is what if the Bush I administration hadn't been hijacked by the religious right.  Until Regan Bush was a moderate "country club" kind of republican.  

    Parent
    Noblesse Oblige (none / 0) (#120)
    by davnee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:57:02 PM EST
    That's the term I think of when it comes to country club Republicans.  But I'll take those old school moderate Republicans eight days a week over what we have now.

    Parent
    I hated back in the day too (none / 0) (#108)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:50:14 PM EST
    especially for Clarence Thomas.

    But now, Bush I looks positively Lincolnesque compared to his son.

    Of course, we now have a new reason to hate Bush I: he not only spawned Dubya, he facilitated his entry into politics and his run for the presidency, knowing that he was in incompetent dolt.

    Parent

    C'mon, that's a bit harsh (none / 0) (#155)
    by Valhalla on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:40:19 PM EST
    How many parents don't try to help their children however they can, regardless how idiotic they are?  For that matter, how many people can think about their kids with objectivity?

    Hate Bush I while he was president, but after II, I only wish the Republicans were Bush I-esque.  What a difference 8 years can make.

    Parent

    Do know which lawsuit? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Redshoes on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:08:15 PM EST

    Also not that I'm endorsing the AIP position but strong feelings against the "gubmint" vs. hating America.

    And if I recall shortly after the 2000 debacle the good folks in Vermont had talk of the same.

    Jeez Louise, what did Palin do to the AP? (none / 0) (#46)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:21:21 PM EST
    They're running what can only be considered a first class hit piece on her now.  Here's the link to piece at the Times website.

    Really, it's basically an enumeration of anti-Palin talking points.

    Better read it now before AP management explains to the writer that they're only allowed to run this kind of stuff against Democrats.

    Wow (none / 0) (#63)
    by elonepb on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:29:07 PM EST
    Considering the AP story from this morning, I was pretty sure they were ONLY for McCain.

    Maybe it's writer dependent?

    Parent

    No, I think. . . (none / 0) (#67)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:31:45 PM EST
    the media just really doesn't like the Palin pick.    I'm guessing they're kind of pissed off by the fairly transparent attempt to use media coverage of this "maverick" pick to juice the McCain campaign.

    Parent
    AP is like the print version of MSNBC (none / 0) (#156)
    by Valhalla on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:42:47 PM EST
    without the snark but with the faulty reporting.  They're even worse than the NYT with all their genericized sources -- staffers, advisors, dog-walkers close to the candidate, blah blah blah.

    Parent
    I've been doing some reading about Palin (none / 0) (#110)
    by Grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:50:29 PM EST
    She's been the target of smear campaigns pretty frequently.  

    Here's a link to her hometown paper and another one to something called Alaska Report.

    Regarding the fundraising corruption probe (VECO) that last link is to something about that.  

    Parent

    Jeralyn, forget extremist associates (none / 0) (#48)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:21:34 PM EST
    Huffpo has the video up of Palin talking at her former church.  Now some of it is innocuous, but there are other parts that I find just so disturbing.

    She urged students to pray "that our leaders -- that our national leaders -- are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God."

    She added, "That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."


    and
    "I can do my part in working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline, about a $30 billion project that's going to create a lot of jobs for Alaska. ... [but] I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said. "I can do my job there in developing our natural resources, in doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded. But really that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's hearts aren't right with God."

    I just don't recall any candidate ever talking quite this before.

    Pat Robertson. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:24:15 PM EST
    And W has come close.

    Parent
    W says God talks to him. (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:55:55 PM EST
    But maybe he's just been laying the groundwork so the blame falls elsewhere when he leaves office.

    Parent
    This sounds (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:31:34 PM EST
    more or less like the kind of stuff GW was saying in the early part of his term IMO.  Not that that isn't terrifying.  

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by k on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:35:56 PM EST
    There was this candidate:

    "I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."
    --George W. Bush commenting to Texas evangelist James Robinson in the run-up to his presidential campaign


    Parent
    Read the Republican Platform (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:34:51 PM EST
    for 2008.  I cannot imagine anyone who reads that ever voting republican if they are believers in separation of church and state.

    Parent
    And really (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:42:57 PM EST
    what else needs to be said?  This isn't about Palin, this is about a set of powerful people who want to force a restrictive, destructive P.O.V. and revision of the Constitution upon us.

    As B. Clinton said, history is on our side...

    Parent

    Dubya said that (none / 0) (#115)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:54:26 PM EST
    God told him to invade Iraq.

    But then again, I've never heard of a politician suggesting that new cop cars had to be obtained in accordance with the will of God.

    I also don't thin we've ever had a major party candidate who thought the public schools should teach creationism, or who opposed abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

    Parent

    Imagine it (none / 0) (#51)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:23:43 PM EST
    and you will see it....I think the Republicans are with this VP pick begging Dems to launch personal attacks so they can strike back with the trifecta of Ayers, Wright, and cocaine.  They're going to have a great laugh with all of this.  

    In other news, man this convention seems so boring...I guess that's what being a partisan entails!

    Environment (none / 0) (#52)
    by Gustavion on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:23:56 PM EST
    What really worries me about Palin is her environmental policies (especially in regards to drilling in the ANWR). Given the state of our environment these days I think it is evermore important for us, as consumers to support 'green business' that benefits the environment. For example, http://www.simplestop.net stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment.

    well (none / 0) (#53)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:24:05 PM EST
    Reverend Wright didnt suggest that they leave the USA and take Chicago with them.  Its kind of an additional layer of crazy.

    Also, Obama was hounded until he renounced the politics of Reverened Wright.  Will Palin do the same for the AIP? Whose founder cursed the United States and was buried in Canada so he wouldnt be buried under a flag he hated?

    Her husband, with 7 years of membership, will certainly get questions about it.   Obviously she can claim that her support of the group was as a loyal spouse, not as a participant.  The AIP seemed to be under the impression that she had been a member so any damage could come down to interviews regarding their behavior and statements from years earlier.

    Its certainly going to generate some ink.

    I know. (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:54:08 PM EST
    It's like a polar ice cap melting somewhere.

    Parent
    um (none / 0) (#124)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:02:42 PM EST
    I'm really unable to follow your train of thought.  So we shouldnt comment on her links to a seperatist group?  She basically gets a pass on everything?   Why is that exactly?

    I also think that, like many people here, you overestimate the importance of blogs and comment boards.  The media is driving this train, not you or I or talk left.  The media hounded them all at different times on different issues, fairly and unfairly, and as David Gergen said, the media gets to vet as well.

    Shes unknown nationally so all of her skeletons are tumbling out at once.  This too will pass.


    Parent

    the question she went after him on (none / 0) (#65)
    by bjorn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:30:17 PM EST
    was "name one decision she has made as cic of the AK national guard"  I thought that was fair.

    The question was absolutely fair (none / 0) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:43:53 PM EST
    and the McCain surrogate was totally unable to answer it.

    What was a total disgrace was Brown's merry laughter and smirking as she was pressing him on it.  I'm amazed he kept his cool.  I thought it was really offensive and thoroughly unprofessional.

    Parent

    Campbell slapped the guy silly: (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:18:16 PM EST
    Remember, at the end of the interview, Campbell mockingly said to him: "Well, I'll give it to you baby".

    We wuz slack-jawed here at chez Foxhole.

    Parent

    So as a Republican (none / 0) (#71)
    by elonepb on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:32:47 PM EST
    You think the AIP shouldn't be discussed?

    The Obama situation was absolutely discussed, and he made a fairly impressive speech on the situation to help diffuse it.

    And this probably isn't the place to be all Anti-Wright. Personally, he said a lot of things about how rich white men run the country and have unfairly treated women for decades that I thought was pretty spot on.

    But I imagine you only read those quotes you just posted?

    frankly, i think (none / 0) (#73)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:34:55 PM EST
    the "evangalist" vote is as overrated as the "youth" vote; depending on either of them will make you an also-ran.

    with regards to gov. palin, i'm far more intrigued by her claims of fiscal conservatism. that she supposedly (before she was even gov!) turned down the 450 mill. for the vaunted "bridge to nowhere". that's a flat out lie. further, the wp reports that, as mayor of wasilla, she, and a lobbying firm hired by the town, were responsible for getting 27 mill in fed. earmarks.

    so much for being against earmarks.

    as well, she claims to have used the increased tax revenues, from the oil & gas companies, due to their increased revenues, to give each alaskan a $1,200 rebate. what she failed to mention is that the increased tax revenues were primarily the consequence of her bill, increasing taxes on those same companies, not solely due to their increased revenues.

    sounds like socialism to me. :)

    these are legitimate issues to address to her, in any debate, and she should be put on the spot about her lies to the public.

    Regarding your first point (none / 0) (#111)
    by ineedalife on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:51:19 PM EST
    It's anecdotal, but my fundie, home-schooling sister-in-law and her hubby were going to sit this election out but now are going to vote McCain. But they are in a solid red state so no impact there. But I'm sure there must be plenty like them in other states too.

    Parent
    sorry to hear that (none / 0) (#74)
    by bjorn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:35:40 PM EST
    I guess I have to put campbell back on the sh!t list!  I only saw the part about the national guard.  So I guess McCain's decision wasn't because of the question confrontation as much as it was the tone of her coverage last night.

    Campbell did a great interview (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:19:21 PM EST
    of that guy. She wasn't buying his evasiveness. He couldn't name one decision she made as head of the National Guard. Campbell's laughter was after his ridiculous answer that she made decisions about supplies for the troops or something similar. The Pentagon does that. He was laughable and she called him on it. Go, Campbell.

    Parent
    Yeah, 'cuz encouraging mocking laughter (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Valhalla on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:57:18 PM EST
    is great for the credibility of the MSM, and the folks that support it.

    Do you really think no Obama surrogate ever screwed up an answer?  Would you be shouting yaay! if they got slapped by snidewoman?  Don't Democrats (and haven't Democrats) been on the warpath against Fox for well over a decade for just this sort of thing?

    When the MSM can't even approximate the manners of minimally well behaved teenagers, it just isn't good, no matter who they're shilling for.

    I remember learning in high school that the NYT's writing was aimed at being accessible for anyone who had at least a 6th-grade reading level.  But we've progressed now to where the media news is aimed at those with a 6th-grade maturity level.

    I didn't like it when it was Fox and I don't find it suddenly acceptable just because 'we're getting our own back ha ha ha'.

    Parent

    The report I read. . . (none / 0) (#75)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:35:51 PM EST
    talked only about the interviewers insistent attempt to get the McCain spokeshack to back up his claim that Palin's executive experience running the Alaska National Guard outweighs Obama's experience.

    When the spokeshack was clearly unprepared to cite even a single instance in which Palin had to make any executive decision regarding the Guard the interviewer was uncharacteristically stubborn about repeating the question.

    I have no problem with that.

    What the heck is a (none / 0) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:41:44 PM EST
    "spokeshack"?

    I mean, I know you're using that instead of "spokesperson" or surrogate, but I don't know what the word is supposed to imply.


    Parent

    Pronounced Spokes Hack. (none / 0) (#93)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:44:21 PM EST
    Meaning someone who exists simply to throw out talking points.

    Parent
    Oh, gotcha. (none / 0) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:56:44 PM EST
    Maybe a little hyphen in between spokes and hack would help?  I was trying to figure out what shacks had to do with anything...

    Parent
    She absolutely did not (none / 0) (#97)
    by elonepb on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:46:02 PM EST
    Stop spreading lies.

    Both Dr. Molly and AmericainCanada (none / 0) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:56:52 PM EST
    are now banned from commenting for violating my prohibition against referring to issues regarding Sarah Palin's family and children. I'm just going through today's comments now. I expect more commenters will be gone shortly.

    Parent
    How long are they banned for? (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:20:47 PM EST
    Did anyone see the (none / 0) (#109)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:50:26 PM EST
    Alaska delegate on PBS that got asked the question about her executive experience?

    He rattled off a bunch of impressive sounding stuff he says she was part of; including some specific negotiations with Russia and Canada. I was so floored that I forgot to make a note of the answers to fact check him. McCain should hire him in place of the guy you're all talking about.

    Freddie's Awake! (none / 0) (#128)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:16:16 PM EST
    He musta had a nap today {grin}

    Ok, John's mom looks D@MN good for 97! WOW.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#138)
    by domerdem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:28:44 PM EST
    you wonder where that energy was during his campaign.

    Parent
    He's still a bit clumsy reading his speech... (none / 0) (#141)
    by EL seattle on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:36:36 PM EST
    ... I think.  Not used to live TV.  Maybe he should have pushed Dick Wolf to do some Law & Order Live broadcasts, so he could get some practice in.

    Parent
    Yes! (none / 0) (#154)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:19:04 PM EST
    I was about to say that I hope I look that good at that age, but heck, I don't look that good now!  

    Parent
    Did Fred make reference (none / 0) (#140)
    by domerdem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:36:26 PM EST
    to the defensive line of the Green Bay Packers?

    Or was it the Pittsburgh Steelers?

    That may be an apocryphal story... (none / 0) (#143)
    by EL seattle on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:42:14 PM EST
    ...from McCain himself.  But I think I'd rather hear that story a few more times than learn new details about getting stabbed with a bayonet in the groin region.

    Parent
    Cringe factor (none / 0) (#144)
    by domerdem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:44:28 PM EST
    I heard it was the Packers (none / 0) (#152)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:09:34 PM EST
    The story has been told for decades.  I suspect that it is accurate since we heard lots of these stories during the Vietnam war.

    Parent
    Thompson is describing McCain's imprisonment: (none / 0) (#142)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:38:44 PM EST
    He's describing McCain's torture in gruesome detail and it sounds, uncannily, like what's being done now to the 'bad guys' in the war on terror.  

    It's hard to see how he can score points with this; in view of Abu Ghraib and McCain's flip-flop on torture legislation.

    This sociopathic hypocrisy could go into an Obama/Biden attack ad, but it won't.

    Thompson said that McCain: "knows about hope, because as a POW, hope was all he had". Ouch.

     

    To clarify: Obama/Biden could use (none / 0) (#147)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:53:05 PM EST
    Thompson's speech and highlight the contradictions and hypocrisy in a campaign ad against McCain. (Although, I doubt it'll happen.)

    Parent
    "Affliated with"!? (none / 0) (#150)
    by ks on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:05:01 PM EST
    Is that what we're down to now?  William Kunstler is rolling over in his grave.  Wow, just wow....

    NY Times (none / 0) (#151)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:08:19 PM EST
    Is now saying that their sources were wrong, Sarah Palin never belonged to that party.  The Times should check their sources better.

    This whole story was bogus (none / 0) (#153)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:17:39 PM EST
    Palin never belonged to this Independence group.

    NY Times link

    My post on the topic (none / 0) (#160)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 06:02:27 PM EST
    included those facts. We never said she was a member of the party and pointed out she was always a registered Republican. It's her association with the party and participation in its conventions and her husband's membership that makes it a topic for discussion.

    Parent
    The articles and blogs that (none / 0) (#159)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:43:02 PM EST
    compare Obama to Palin are just mirroring what people are already thinking.  Moderate Repubs and Indies don't want to think about Obama vs. McCain because they'd have to focus on their own candidate and their failed leaders and policies.  No one wants to hear McSame talk, many Repubs don't even want to vote for him.  But plenty of people will want to vote for Sarah Palin.  The lunatic fringe is already back on board with the Repub party, giving money, writing letters, being, well, engaged again.  Palin's speech will be viewed by millions, especially after this media circus.  They'll claim the interest in her is because so many Americans relate to her, she represents the common person, strong families, strong women... SCREECH, wait a minute, their platform doesn't support women's issues.  How come we're letting them frame the discussion again?

    The pundits will talk about how mean the lefties have been, and how Obama supporter's attacks have made common Americans rally to defend her...  SCREECH, wait a minute, what about the economy?  Have they talked about the economy at the Repub convention yet?  Did I miss it in Bush's speech?  No, he didn't even mention it.  And they have no intention of going there.  The GOP is the master of politics of distraction.

    The Repubs were dying a slow death, bored silly with McSame and realizing he'll give us more of the BuchCo's policies that are killing the country.  Now they've got the culture war back in play.  Those liberal elites and their exotic candidate vs. common folk who are willing to deal with the problems many Americans face, who'll stand by their daughter who got pregnant but made the right choice...  SCREECH, wait a minute, how the heck did they co-opt the word choice from our side?!  They don't believe in choice!  They're all about taking away choice!  

    Here we go, the Repubs get to define the conversation again.  They were losing the personality/culture war.  But Americans don't really want to have to vote on the issues.  They want to feel good about their side and their candidate.  Palin gives them that opportunity.  

    What can we do to take back control of the discussion and focus on the issues?  

    1)Don't watch their convention on TV, and suggest the same to others via any lists you're on.  It just gives them higher ratings and it'll all be on the Internet anyway.  Everything Palin is being prepped to say in her speech is already in their playbook.  So don't watch it on TV.  

    2) When you discuss this with friends and associates or online, don't get dragged into their deliberate personality/culture war.  "Palin is a lightweight. With Biden, the Dems have a competent, experienced VP. Palin was an impulsive pick by the GOP, and she's antithetical to our values and goals.  Okay that's enough about her.  Let's get back to discussing Obama vs. McCain on the Issues."