Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Republican National Committee staff swallowed hard, wiped away a tear and got to work on trying to come up with a reason why Virginians should not elect state Senator Creigh Deeds as their next governor.
The RNC had been planning to pour all its energy into defeating former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe in the off-year contest. And the project might have succeeded.
McAuliffe had only a tenuous tie to Virginia -- few knew he lived in the state before he entered the Democratic primary to replace outgoing Governor Tim Kaine. On the other hand, he was firmly tied to just about everything Americans dislike about politics -- big money, situational ethics, the wheeling and dealing of the Clinton years.
But the Republicans didn't get McAuliffe who, despite big money and name recognition, barely pulled a quarter of the vote in Tuesday's primary.
Deeds, who came within a whisker of winning a statewide race for attorney general four years ago and who this year benefited from an enthusiastic endorsement by the Washington Post, which circulates widely in the Democratic counties of northern Virginia, swept the race with 50 percent.
(The remainder of the vote went to Brian Moran, the brother of Congressman Jim Moran, whose campaign to rally Democratic voters in the vote-rich suburbs of Washington took a blow when the Post backed Deeds.)
The Deeds win was bad, bad news for a Grand Old Party that has not been having a grand time at the polls in recent election cycles.
Deeds, a moderate Democrat with a rural base and more than 15 years experience in the state legislature, has a track record as a reformer that will position him as a strong contender in November.
How strong?
All the Republicans could come up with to attack him with Tuesday night was a limp release lampooning the Democratic nominee in one of two gubernatorial races that will take place this fall -- the other is in New Jersey -- as "Creigh Who?"
Whew!
What a body blow!
Presumably the next RNC statement will offer a witty pun: "Deeds Not Words" or, perhaps, "Bad Deeds."
Even by the low standards of a party tha is struggling to identify themes -- and to hold on in Virginia, a state that has been trending Democratic for more than a decade -- this is weak material.
That hardly means that Virginia's race is finished. The fractured state party's nominee, Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell, is the guy who beat Deeds four years ago -- by 323 votes in a contested election. The McDonnell-Deeds race will be intense -- especially if Republicans get their message act together.
But there can be no question that for the Virginia (and national) Democrats -- even those Democrats who don't know Deeds all that well, or who don't agree with him on all the issues -- the fact that they won't have to spend this election season trying to make excuses for Terry McAuliffe can only be read as good news.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
May the Clintonite pols -- and the Clintons -- fade away quickly, never to return. Feverishly self-seeking, they've done the Dem party & We the People very few favors & much harm. Good riddance.
Posted by sloper at 06/09/2009 @ 10:54pm
Former AT&T Chief to Be GM Chairman
Edward Whitacre Jr., who turned AT&T Corp. into the world's largest telecommunications company, will become chairman of General Motors Corp. when the company leaves bankruptcy, putting the government's stamp even more firmly on the car maker.
Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA
(CBS/AP) - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., issued a statement in support of the House's update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but said he would try to strip a provision granting immunity to telecommunication companies when the bill comes to a vote in the Senate next week.
Obama flip-flops on telecom immunity
Sen. Barack Obama is taking heat from liberal supporters for changing his position on granting phone companies involved in President Bush's domestic spying program retroactive immunity for breaking federal laws.
(02-26) 19:20 PST -- The Obama administration has asked a federal judge in San Francisco to uphold a law aimed at dismissing suits against telecommunications companies that cooperated with President George W. Bush's wiretapping program.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 07:28am
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 07:28am
Maybe Gary Trudeau can dust off his image of the "waffle" he used for Daddy Bush and recycle it for change.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2009 @ 07:37am
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 07:28am
Maybe Gary Trudeau can dust off his image of the "waffle" he used for Clinton and recycle it for change.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2009 @ 07:38am
oops, early, no caffeine. My apologies.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2009 @ 07:39am
"The McDonnell-Deeds race will be intense -- especially if Republicans get their message act together."
Yeah...that's the dubious part.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 07:42am
Another Clinton type bites the dust.
Thank God
Posted by YEH-LIU-TA-SHIH at 06/10/2009 @ 09:14am
Mr. Nichols says,
"........On the other hand, he was firmly tied to just about everything Americans dislike about politics -- big money, situational ethics, the wheeling and dealing of the Clinton years......"
Comments:
1. It seems for quite a while, until the coming of Barack Obama, that for most Democrats at least, anything Clinton-wise was just find, no real concern about what Mr. Nichols says above. It seems that Democrats only recently (last year) have come to a change of mind about Clinton people.
2. NOTE THAT IN THE ABOVE I SAID "Democrat"..... I DO NOT PROFESS TO PLACE THIS CONCLUSION ON "The Left" in general OR on contributors to or bloggers on The Nation.
I have only been blogging here for a couple of years and thus do not know what the mood of "The Nation" (it's staff or it's bloggers) were during the Clinton years.
I knew I would have to qualify my first comment because I know that had I not done so, bloggers including Mask would have called me on it.
3. There is another danger, however. McAuliffe has failed in Virginia. Hopefully this will not mean at some point he will go back home to Syracuse and practice politics there.
Syracuse does not need Clinton people any more than Virginia did. Syracuse has had too much of Clinton people in recent years, with Hillary as Secretary of State now hopefully Syracuse is free of Clinton people, whether they grew up in Syracuse (McAuliffe) or whether they just came there to work or visit ("Bill" and "Hill").
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 10:00am
Typo above,
"just find" should be "just fine"
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 10:02am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 10:00am
Gee, SJCHER...what are you ditto-heads going to do without some Clintons to obsess on?
I mean, sure you've got The Dark Queen at State...but that's more ceremonial and Obama "is to blame" for foreign policy.
And Bill's palling around with Dubya.
My Gosh! Do you realize if Ahmadinejad loses in Iran...you guys will be left with few "boogeymen" to hide in your closets???
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 11:09am
Mask,
A few facts:
1. The last thing I want to think about is Clinton people.
2. This article on this thread concerned an election result involving a Clinton person.
3. Mr. Nichols made the comment ".....On the other hand, he was firmly tied to just about everything Americans dislike about politics -- big money, situational ethics, the wheeling and dealing of the Clinton years. ....."
4. Although I do not know what Mr. Nichols' opinion ever was about the Clintons, I do know that until last year among most Democrats the sentiment about the Clintons was not what he described in item 3...... in fact among many of them (the Democrats) the Clintons could do no wrong.
5. As you know.... had Barack Obama not appeared on the scene most Democrats would not be of the sentiment Mr. Nichols expresses, even though a lot of them are now.
6. Thus, among others, such as myself, the sentiment expressed by Mr. Nichols is amusing and hilarious.
7. As you know, there is nothing prohibiting McAuliffe from seeking office elsewhere, or Hillary for that matter. Thus we do not know if your implication that the Clintons are a done deal, no real impact on politics in this country any more, is true or not.
8. No, Mask, I am not going to bet you on that.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 12:21pm
1. The last thing I want to think about is Clinton people.---Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 12:21pm
That's not true, SJ.
Rush made a career on the Clintons. Got guys like you riled up at every turn on their "antics".
Rush saw an opportunity. Either to claim credit for destroying Clinton in one term...or keeping you guys on fire for 8 years.
And when Clinton wouldn't be destroyed in 1996, after Newt took Congress...he had to be destroyed by impeachemnt...but he STILL survived.
Now Rush was happy either way, but you guys were left on "High Boil" and had become so entrenched with Clinton hatred that EVEN DURING DUBYA, Rush had to keep the fire alive. (Thank Goo, he likely thought, SHE's became a Senator!)
2008- "Operation: Chaos"...wasn't about hurting Obama, but trying to keep her in it and boosting those sagging ratings.
And even now, he has to work in SOME mention of her or Bill or McAuliffe, because you guys need your red meat...
especially when the history books show Clinton gave us peace, prospeirty, and surpluses...and Dubya took them all away.
(BTW, here's where your knee can jerk and you can mention the 1st WTC bombing (where the suspects were actually caught) and Monica Lewinsky giving Bill oral sex....LOL)
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 1:05pm
Mask,
1. What does Rush Limbaugh have to do with this?
2. I do believe it was listening to Slick Willie give a talk where I worked in 1995, insulting my intelligence while doing that...that started my "high boil" about the Clintons.
3. I think some things like Slick Willie allowing Loral Space to sell missile technology to China (otherwise prohibited but OK with a presidential waiver), giving the Chinese missiles the ability to reach the US west coast, that continued my "high boil". Especially when the CEO of Loral Space was a friend of Bill Clintons. (according to Loral publicity to it's employees about the CEO - thus not information framed by politics).
4. Clinton did not give us peace. We had been attacked several times, (USS Cole, etc) and Clinton's justice dept. built the "wall" between intelligence and law enforcement that resulted in no dots surfacing later on that had they surfaced they may have been connected and then perhaps 9/11 could have been prevented.
5. Clinton caught the suspects in the first bombing at the World Trade Center. They were tried in a court of law. Since they were at war with us, whey were they tried as criminal suspects, instead of being held as POWS along with further action to kill others like them before they tried and succeeded to kill us.
6. Clinton "prosperity" was due to the "dot com" boom. The economy was going into a recession at the end of Clintons term.
7. Clinton's impeachment was because after being sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment and with the Whitewater investigations going on also, Slick Willie began lying and obstructing. It was only then that the Monica Lewinsky stuff even came to light. Clinton was not impeached because of sex.
to be continued
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 1:21pm
Mask,
As you can see, my angst about the Clintons has to do with many things, things which are documented facts in the public domain and two of which have a personal connection.
The original subject of this thread was about the election in Virginia and one of the people running for office was a Clinton person. That is the reason for the comments I made.
Where exactly does Rush Limbaugh fit into all of this?
I KNOW where it fits in....YOU are obsessed with Rush Limbaugh......no matter what the subject is you ultimately find a way to interject Rush into the subject.....
You of course still owe me the answer on why WXYZ television in Detroit is biased in their coverage of Israel, or more specifically you owe me concrete examples.
Let me phrase the question over, in a way that maybe you will respond:
Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show today, stated EMPHATICALLY and with ABSOLUTE CERTAINY that WXYZ television in Detroit is not in any way biased towards Israel, NEVER has been, and HE DEFIES and CHALLENGES ANYBODY ANYWHERE to find an example of when it ever was.
And I ABOSOLUTELY AGREE with Rush on this.
What do you have to say about it now?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 1:28pm
Rush Limbaugh is a childless three time marital loser and former junkie who makes, what, 30 million dollars a year for spewing poorly vetted "facts" and outright lies.
I am a middle-aged, midwestern wife, mom and grandma who does a ton of volunteer work and makes a salary that wouldn't cover his donut habit. I am also a "Feminazi"-I guess because I am the opposite of what Rush likes in a woman- praise God for small favors.
Rush, Newt and all the other right wing adulterers and commitmentophobes can babble about Monica all they want, but they must know in their heart that they are total hypocrites no honest person takes seriously.
McAuliffe is a complete wad though. Always has been near as I could tell. Congratulations Mr. Deeds.
Posted by Pogge at 06/10/2009 @ 2:00pm
Pogge,
I agree with you about McAuliffe.
I disagree with you about Rush.
However, either your opinion or my opinion about Rush doesn't really matter on this particular thread, since Rush was not the subject of Nichols' article.
It WOULD be interesting if you could manage to get a straight answer from Mask about why Mask keeps bringing up the subject of Rush Limbaugh.
However, I do not think it is possible to get a straight answer from Mask about anything, whether it is about Rush Limbaugh or anything else.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 2:18pm
Rush Limbaugh is the face and voice of the Republican Party. According to the latest Gallup Poll-if I'm not mistaken-his only competitors for the title are Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich, at least in the hearts and minds of "Conservatives" (and considering how radical these guys are the term "Conservative" is a stretch). When Terry McAuliffe acts like one of them and loses big, darn tootin' it's relevant.
Why do you disagree with me regarding Rush? His divorces, drug habit and definition of Feminazis as well as his lack of fact checking are all well documented. He said it himself-he isn't a journalist, he's just an entertainer though I find him about as entertaining as watching bait rot on a hot August day.
He feels he shouldn't be held to the same standard as the news people. Maybe as a college drop-out he doesn't understand how ethically problematic this is, but then I dropped out too and it seems pretty plain to me. Ah, well, to each their own.
Posted by Pogge at 06/10/2009 @ 2:36pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 1:28pm
No, SJCHER, I'm not "obsessed with Rush".
I merely use the chief motivator and "mentor" you use against you.
See, you think you're "just another right-winger"...like MAASCH or Larry/antisoc or twillie or PONTIFICUS...
but it is quite clear from the Clinton attacks (still obsessing with oral sex?)....your other subject matter...your talking points...your "history snippets"...your throwaway lines, etc. that you are a regular ditto-head and follow Rush's lead.
Plus, nobody but a ditto-head would CARE so much when Rush is besmirched. Most conservatives use the "I don't even listen to him, he's an entertainer"...even though they do.
YOU admitted you "read his website every day".
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 2:37pm
Not bailing sjchermak. Got to get to work. Sorry
Nice to see read you again Mask. I've been out of the loop for about a year.
Posted by Pogge at 06/10/2009 @ 2:47pm
Posted by Pogge at 06/10/2009 @ 2:47pm
Glad you're back Pogge.
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 3:44pm
It seems to me that Rush is the epitome of the American Dream. And even if you hate him, his impact is impressive. A non-college grad who for raised a the talk AM radio medium into a force.
Pogge's bitter ranting validate those facts.
Though Rush certainly doesnt need to me to defend him, he has an outlet and those who are constantly belittling him, i think do so out of jealously. MSNBC ratings are, what few viewers they have, are kept afloat by Rush bashing. And yet Rush has more than 10 times the audience that MSNBC has is there any more of a damning indictment of a cable NEWs network for that to be true?
Posted by CPT at 06/10/2009 @ 4:10pm
Mask,
1. You didn't necessarily "besmirch" Rush.... I didn't claim you did... you just keep bringing him up no matter what the subject.....the obsession YOU have.... that is what I was discussing.
2. I "read" Rush's website every day. It is worthwhile stuff to read.....He is right about a lot of things....
3. You know as well as I do that every post I make is not driven by or consists of parroting whatever Rush thinks....and that I do not mention him in each and every post I make......You just keep bringing him up because you like being a pest... you like trying to get other people's goats, and you enjoy being a devil's advocate. Going back and forth with you can be amusing and entertaining....until it gets tiresome and then I quit for the evening.
4. You are a master at taking people's statements and flipping them around and construing they mean something else. With the subject being Clinton people, you mentioned I was in a "high boil"...and of course one of the things about Clinton and the impeachment was that it had nothing to do with sex, the Monica Lewinsky stuff was only tabloid material and only came out because of Slick's lying and obstructing which is what got him into trouble to begin with.
Despite this, libs have falsely portrayed that poor little innocent and wonderful (until last year, of course) Slick Willie was impeached by the vengeful hypocrite Republicans because of sex.
That is what I was commenting on, so of course you come back and say I am still obsessing with oral sex!
5. It is obvious you are just doing this stuff for amusement - and it is funny - because if you were really trying to prove a point your attempts fall flat because the whole thread and all the comments are there for all to see, your remarks do not stand alone!
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 4:22pm
Pogge,
Rush does not profess to be a journalist. He is not telling people what is supposedly straight news but is really news that has been biased by his viewpoint.
Most of the mainstream media does present news with a biased viewpoint, news that is supposedly straight news. This happens for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways, as Bernard Golberg has chronicled in his book Bias.
You say not being held to the same standard as news people is ethically problematic. But a talk show host and a news person are two different things....why should they be held to the same benchmark or standard, whatever it is that your standard happens to be?
When one listens to Rush or other talk show hosts, whether they agree with the host or not, they KNOW what the host believes and what the tone and substance of the show is, and why. There is no attempt by the host to cover that up.
The reason he has become a "face" and "voice", if he really has, is because he has been successful in articulating the Conservative viewpoint to a larger audience than obviously any current Republican politican has.
He may be part "entertainer" but that is part of his success. Dull, dry, boring political talk, even of the Conservative viewpoint, would not have garnered for him the success and audience he has. Sometimes somebody in his position does have to "entertain" to make the show interesting and catch fire with the public.
I believe in the American past there have been others such as Mark Twain or Will Rogers who were "pundits" with opinions but also mixed with satire that entertained people and helped them get their point across.
As far as your other comments about Rush, they are just reflective of your political ideology, we have to agree to disagree on those.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 4:33pm
Pogge,
One other thing - you said that the only contenders (other than Rush) for the face and voice of the Republican Party are Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich, at least in the hearts and minds of Conservatives.
Uh, you left somebody out....I betcha you did!
Like the next-President of the United States for example.
And she is not a "contender" for the title, she already IS the face and voice in the minds of many Conservatives.
Mask knows who I am talking about, it is the person who got mocked about being able to "see Russia from Alaska".
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 4:41pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 4:41pm
Actually, SJCHER I mock her for not being able to name ONE newspaper or magazine she reads. But that was a Katie Couric "gotcha" question....the kind that Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il surely wouldn't ask her as President...right?
BTW...her first problem may be in ...ALASKA-
Posted: May 6, 2009 - 5:29 pm
From Sean Cockerham in Anchorage ---
"Take this for what you will, since it is the only poll of Sarah Palin I've seen in weeks and no other pollster has reported numbers dropping this low for the governor. But a new poll from Hays Research in Anchorage says Palin now has 54 percent positive and 41. 6 percent negative approval ratings in Alaska.
If true, it's a dramatic change from the 86 percent positive and just 9 percent negative Hays reported in a poll on Palin almost exactly a year ago."
www.adn.com
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 7:29pm
If CHERMAK was standing in the woods talking to himself and there wasn't a liberal there to hear him, would he still be wrong?
You betcha.
(I cannot seriously consider Sarah Palin being commander in chief of the United States Military. Come on. She has a hard enough time figuring out where she is in Alaska. Her list of things we should shoot from the air would be enormous).
Ooops. Off topic. My bad.
Posted by ficheye at 06/10/2009 @ 7:31pm
Mask,
I have to admit, you are really flying off of the handle or something now.....you say (about questions to Sarah Palin): "............the kind that Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il surely wouldn't ask her as President...right?....."
Huh?
You are just inventing things quick and fast and on the fly now, just like Joe Biden does!
Why would the fanatic murder and low life scum Ahmadinejad or the wingnut murderer Kim Jong-Il care about what a President of the U.S. reads or doesn't read?
What they care about more is, when they "push the envelope" and test things by doing stuff that everybody agrees is not good but nobody seems to be able to stop, will they get away with it or not?
Right now, with Obama as president, the answer is Yes, they will get away with it.
With George W. Bush (and Tony Blair) when Saddam pushed things, the answer was NO, Saddam did not get away with it.
Yes, Mask, President Bush didn't bomb Iran. You know why - 1) after stopping Saddam, President Bush received daily crucifixion from libs - 2) Some National Intelligence Estimate came out saying Iran is not developing a nuke, limiting President Bush's ability to do something about stopping Iran from developing a nuke that everybody except some libs on this website and the people that made the NIE know is happening - 3) because of item 1 and the first part of Item 2, if President Bush had done anything Dennis Kucinich would have literally sprinted up to Capitol Hill to file articles of impeachment.
So right now the relevant issue is that the answer from Obama is YES, Iran and North Korea will get away with stuff.
When President Palin takes office, regardless of what she does or doesn't read, the answer will be NO, they won't get away with stuff.
That's if we haven't all been obliterated by then.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 7:43pm
ficheye,
What timing! I was just thinking of you - haven't heard from you in a while, and I was going to post in to you anyway, and then after I posted my remark I see you got in ahead of me!
The reason that I thought of you was because I was going to bring up something from the past.
I wanted to let you know that in my post to Mask a few moments ago, I used up all of my words!
I was exactly at the word limit, I had no "Characters left", that number was zero (0)!
You had commented on the length of my posts before, how I should be brief in what I say.
As a result, I make every effort now to be as expansive and wordy as I possibly can, and belabor my points to the maximum extent possible.
Just like how President Bush believed in "No Child left behind"....... I firmly believe in the principle "No words left behind".
You say you have a hard time considering Sarah Palin as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military.
That is wonderful, but it will be funny when you wake up one day, let's say January 20, 2013, and you look at the newspaper and I betcha you will be remarking "lookie here, guess who is being inaugurated President of the United States today"!
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 7:55pm
Rush does not profess to be a journalist.
You have a point.
The bigger point is he's a chameleon. A liar's liar. Endless masks. Endless bogeymen. Endless ad hominem. The ultimate propagandist. Terribly skilled.
1- "EIB Network" as he says about 30 times/day 'excellence in broadcasting'. Broadcasting, as in what? Broadcast journalism? Broadcast commentating? Broadcast opinionating? Broadcast entertaining?
2- Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, as he says about 31 times/day, as in being a scholar - who only pontificates, never debates, never publishes in peer reviewed journals.
He gave you red meaters Cheney-Bush, Iraq, Lehman and the cascade... Enjoy.
Posted by winyahn at 06/10/2009 @ 8:14pm
It seems to me that Rush is the epitome of the American Dream.
Posted by CPT at 06/10/2009 @ 4:10pm
yep.
an over-weight, drug-addicted adulterer.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 9:01pm
hi pogge.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 9:03pm
I make every effort now to be as expansive and wordy as I possibly can, and belabor my points to the maximum extent possible.
Posted by sjCHERMAK at 06/10/2009 @ 7:55pm
Yes, that much is clear.
As far as your yearning for Caribou Barbie to be POTUS...
It's true. The Mayans, as well as many other mystics and followers of the occult think that something TERRIBLE is going to happen in the year 2012.
Is it possible that 'The Palin' will rise to the top of that strange political ladder just in time for the world to be destroyed? It would be the perfect time.
Or will she be the architect of disaster herself, losing her pretty little temper over a butt pinch administered by Kim Jung Il? Will she personally shoot him from the air, and then mount the skin in her lodge? Or will she just remove his forearm and collect the bounty?
Stay tuned for the next exciting shopping trip... er... adventure of 'SARAH PALIN - WARRIOR PRINCESS OF GOD'.
Posted by ficheye at 06/10/2009 @ 9:10pm
Ooops.
Kim Jong Il.
Oh, the shame...
Posted by ficheye at 06/10/2009 @ 9:13pm
i wonder if the "jung" error was freudian....
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 9:21pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 7:43pm
Perhaps the point was too subtle for you...I know you guys don't get into "subtle" that much.
My point is this....Sarah Palin was stumped by a "gotcha" question from Katie Couric...
so, what happens when it's a crises moment, maybe an attack or war, and the ones stumping her are Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il or any guy you want to pick?
If "What magazines and newspapers do you read" is too much for her in a minute or two...what will
"Madam President, we need a decision in the next 30 seconds or we may lose a million people!!!!" going to do to her?
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 9:25pm
i wonder if the "jung" error was freudian.... Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 9:21pm
Now THAT was funny! Thank you.
Posted by ficheye at 06/10/2009 @ 9:46pm
Mask,
And you of course seemed to miss my point, apparently too subtle for you as well.
In crisis moments that matter, she will not be stumped.
And maybe the crisis moments will be prevented to begin with by pro-active or pre-emptive attention to potential problems.
And my point also is how Obama, as well as other countries in the world, will just be continually rolling over and letting North Korea and Iran get away with "pushing the envelope" farther and farther.
And with Obama, we may arrive at a crisis moment that was unnecessary to begin with, had North Korea and/or Iran not been allowed to get away with "pushing the envelope".
And, since I know fully well you will be posting in with "How come Dubya didn't stop North Korea?" ...you do realize that that North Korea and Iran are unfortunately two different situations.......North Korea has a nuke..... and thus we have limits on what action could be taken......
......but that is all the more reason to prevent Iran from getting a nuke, any way we can and doing what we have to do including military action if need be.......
......something Obama will never agree to do, and something Obama will try to prevent Israel from doing
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 10:42pm
And, since I know fully well you will be posting in with "How come Dubya didn't stop North Korea?" ...you do realize that that North Korea and Iran are unfortunately two different situations.......North Korea has a nuke..... and thus we have limits on what action could be taken......
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 10:42pm
hmmm....
OFF TOPIC ALERT!
"On the issue about what to do with the budget surplus, Gore should also come out ahead. Here is what Bush said: "And I think you're going to find the difference reflected in our budgets. I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security, one-quarter of the surplus for important projects and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills. I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut."
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 11:40pm
Madam President, we need a decision in the next 30 seconds or we may lose a million people!!!!" going to do to her?
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 9:25pm
She'll just ask herself..."What would Bo and Luke do?"
Posted by koroviev at 06/11/2009 @ 12:15am
CHERMAK just seems to open himself up to abuse on a regular basis. It's a lot of fun, but his time may be better spent working on the 'Elect Palin for POTUS' committee.
He may actually make a friend, or be assigned 'donut duty'. Rush May be vying for that position, but if CHERMAK and Rush go head to head for a jelly donut, well, CHERMAK may have his work cut out for him.
"What a wonderful world...."
Posted by ficheye at 06/11/2009 @ 02:10am
I just read this online from the Philidelphia Daily News...
In Austin, TX, a 4'11", 72 year old grandmother was tasered by a Travis County Sheriff's Deputy.
She became unruly and verbally abusive during a traffic stop.
Who says we don't torture in America.
This cop deserves a citation for bravery.
He would probably wet himself if he had to arrest a real criminal.
Posted by koroviev at 06/11/2009 @ 02:41am
I just saw the video of the 72 year old battle ax.. the cop should have used his service revolver. And been given a medal.
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/11/2009 @ 07:27am
In crisis moments that matter, she will not be stumped. --Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 10:42pm
Based on what evidence do you make that assumption?
Again, we have seen how a simple interview question trips her up....
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 08:15am
Mask,
Evidence such as this, where next President Palin demonstrates the ability to see the real problems and what is wrong with the Obama view of the world.
"....Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it....." http://portal.gopconvention2008.com /speech/details.aspx?id=38
(note: "he" in the quote above refers to Obama, this quote is a comment by Sarah Palin about Obama)
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 6:02pm