15 thoughts on “Poor Word Choice”

  2. This is all about Obama’s lack of experience and almost complete absence of a paper trail…I mean really, did he think that we were going to buy a pig in a poke?

  3. At least he didn’t write “snorting and oinking with delight”. You knOw how treacherous those suBconscious and unexAmined Memes cAn be. IdeaS leave trAces in our minds. Just for the rEcoRd, I Knew this story would have legs.

  6. Gee, I think you have to be a little deranged, or perhaps just stupid, to think that the YouTube clip of Governor Palin being asked about “the Bush Doctrine” is a poor exhibit on her part.

    I mean, in the first place, WTF is “The Bush Doctrine?” I don’t recall the President or any other serious person using the phrase. I don’t remember any documents coming out of the White House with “The Bush Doctrine” at the top. Even Wikipedia — a pretty passionate hater of all things Bush — can’t quite agree on what “The Bush Doctrine” actually is. Maybe it’s like “community organizer,” huh? No one can really say exactly what it means.

    Furthermore, after hearing Charlie Gibson describe his idea of what it is (“the right to pre-emptively attack a nation that we believe is preparing to attack us”), I’m flabbergasted. How is this the Bush Doctrine? Can anyone name a President, from Washington on down, who did not believe he had the right — indeed the duty — to prevent an attack on the United States that he knew was coming, by whatever means necessary, up to and including military force? WTF was John Kennedy doing during the Cuban Missile Crisis, eh? Was he wrong to tell the Soviets that they’d best get those missiles out of Cuba or else, with the “or else” going right up to nuclear war? Maybe he should have just waited until the first missile landed before taking action, huh?

    I dunno. I thought these journalist guys did a little homework, read up on their US history or something, before they did these interviews. But Charlie Gibson seemed unusually clueless in this interview, kind of flopping around. Maybe they were rushed and couldn’t do a good job of it. Pity.

  8. Some conservatives get it…Not here though…

    Well, since I’m not a conservative, I’m not sure what your point is.

  11. Anonymous wrote:
    You should recognize a liar for what a liar is.

    How about that?

    Yes, we recognize you very well even though you’re too cowardly to use your name. How many things have you breathlessly posted here about Palin that – when examined – turned out to be lies? Just about all of them. And yet you continue and call others liars. Typical.

    It’s said that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while somehow hoping for a different outcome. By that definition, you may well be insane. What you’re doing isn’t working, yet you keep doing it. If you can’t say positive things about your guy, all you have left is a desperate attempt to tear down the other side. Hardly impressive and unconvincing. The fact of the matter is that the more you attack Palin, the more entrenched her supporters become. And yet you keep doing it. Pathetic.

  12. > You should recognize a liar for what a liar is.

    Is anonymous really suggesting that Palin is the only “liar” in the race? How about her opponent, Obama?

    Did Palin always do the right thing in AK? Probably not, although she clearly did better than her opponents suggest.

    But, what about the “community organizer”? We never hear about the results, although we do know that Team Obama doesn’t want anyone looking into his partnership with a terrorist that the police didn’t deal with. (Funny that – Obama thinks that we should always send in the police.)

    Palin is in the arena. Obama votes present and lies.

  14. I like that comment about my lies.

    I’m not running for Vice President. Palin IS.

    I challenge you to find any LIES on the order of magnitude such as those made by Palin in Obama’s record.

    She is either an incorrigible LIAR or she has an extraordinarily LOW opinion of the American people and their capacity to determine the facts or she has fully SURRENDERED her powers of judgement to the McCain campaign staff who have forced fed her statements that she now spits out.

    All of these options are completely unacceptable. The most charitable choice is the third option; and if that is so she has destroyed her own credibility.

  15. You know, strangely cocooned anonymous silly mouse, even if Governor Palin had flat out truly lied about some major issue, instead of, as here, at worst merely bullshitted a little by way of boast on the campaign stump — much like Obama boasting about how he (with a little help from Richard Lugar) was responsible for the legislation aimed at bottling up the former Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons, ho ho ho — I can’t see how that would change anybody’s mind about the McCain/Palin ticket.

    I mean, politicians boast and bullshit a little during a campaign? Whoa! Stop the presses! Who knew??!

    Geez, don’t be such a high-school doofus. Anyone over the age of 25, say, finds this stuff one big yawn. The really important stuff about character and judgment is demonstrated by your life choices, what you’ve actually done with your allotted four score and ten years so far.

    So there’s McCain (soldier, POW with honor, Senator with — like ’em or not — major pieces of legislation to his name) and Palin (mayor, councilwoman, reformist governor, businesswoman, mother of five). Then there’s Obama (dweller in the academic hothouse, student until age 30, lives in an academic microscosm (Hyde Park), part-time law professor, never held a profit-making productive job in his life, legislative accomplishments zip) and Biden (Senator and perennial losing candidate for President, big talker, legislative accomplishments the contemptible pork factory Violence Against Women Act, chairmanship of the disgraceful Bork and Thomas SCOTUS confirmation hearings, helped create the “Drug Tsar” position, and author of the proposal to partition Iraq, pretty much a guy who’s mastered the art of doing the dumb and wrong thing for admirable reasons).

    And then there’s folks like me, who wouldn’t vote the Democratic ticket if they nominated Santa Claus, because, however nice and well-meaning the guy at the top, the party that we’re talking about is morally corrupt and sick through and through with the foolish Stalinist ideology that everyone usually abandons after his 20th birthday, and which could throttle the United States, send it right back to the evil pathetic 1970s. Who needs that crap? I’m looking forward to retiring in a mere 20 years, and I’ve got kids who will be needing good well-paying productive careers in less than 10. I need an America with a roaring, innovative, free economy, not a hunkered-down anemic-growth navel-gazing moralizing post-modernist basket case. I don’t want “vision” or “change,” I want the ruling party to leave me and everyone else the hell alone, so we can get on with our lives free of well-intentioned but monumentally stupid meddling by a bunch of careerist blowhards and lawyers in Washington.

    Glenn Reynolds observed that on the Democratic side this year you have, for the first time, two law professors running to head the Executive Branch, while on the Republican side, McCain and Palin don’t even have law degrees. That, all by itself, is enough to make me pull the switch labeled R.

Comments are closed.