Jim Bennett writes that Sarah Palin is a much more savvy political operator than people are giving her credit for:
Far from being a reprise of Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Palin was a clear-eyed politician who, from the day she took office, knew exactly what she had to do and whose toes she would step on to do it.
The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska's energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes - the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers. This deal makes the charge of having "no international experience" particularly absurd.
In short, far from being a small-town mayor concerned with little more than traffic signs, she has been a major player in state politics for a decade, one who formulated an ambitious agenda and deftly implemented it against great odds.
Her sudden elevation to the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket shocked no one more than her enemies in Alaska, who have broken out into a cold sweat at the thought of Palin in Washington, guiding the Justice Department's anti-corruption teams through the labyrinths of Alaska's old-boy network.
It is no surprise that many of the charges laid against her have come from Alaska, as her enemies become more and more desperate to bring her down. John McCain was familiar with this track record and it is no doubt the principal reason that he chose her.
"In office for such a short time, but succeeded in each of her objectives." Sound like Barack Obama? Not really, unless you consider "attaining the next office" his "objective." Here's hoping that he fails in the current one.
That's not fair.
Obama got more money from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac in four years than Clinton got in eight. In fact, his four year total approaches what Dodd and Kerry got in 20 years.
The Change that Obama Believes in isn't small - it's 100s of billions, and he only wants a small cut for himself.
Even some in the dead tree press are beginning to point out how many of the claims against Palin are lies, such as this Newsweek article, Sliming Palin.
It just goes to show that anonomous moron's (AM) daily talking points are just lies. It's said that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over in hopes of a different outcome. Perhaps AM needs to see a shrink. Bush probably unhinged him but Palin has pushed him (and apparently many like him) over the edge.
If the vice president were ever called on to lead the country, there is no question in my mind that the experience and demonstrated judgment of Joe Biden is superior to that of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a plucky, exciting candidate, but when her record is examined, she fails miserably with respect to her views on the domestic issues that are so important to the people of the U.S., and to me. Frankly, it would scare me if she were to succeed John McCain in the presidency.
-Ed Koch
This is a guy who supported Bush over Kerry. Hopefully this view will be shared in the large Jewish community in Simberg's Florida.
Sarah Palin is unfit, thoroughly unfit, to be VP. And the main reason she is unfit is because she is a proven liar, in the manner in which she lied (and continues to lie) about the "Bridge to Nowhere," which she fully supported and only turned against once Congress had decided otherwise. I doubt the American people want to be lied to over and over again. It's up to the media and the Obama-Biden campaign to thoroughly expose McCain's lying pick. I do think it will happen.
"Sarah Palin is unfit, thoroughly unfit, to be VP. And the main reason she is unfit is because she is a proven liar, in the manner in which she lied (and continues to lie) about the "Bridge to Nowhere," which she fully supported and only turned against once Congress had decided otherwise. I doubt the American people want to be lied to over and over again. It's up to the media and the Obama-Biden campaign to thoroughly expose McCain's lying pick. I do think it will happen."
....with all the efficiency of Wile E. Coyote.
via www.powerlineblog.com
" don't know how it could be any clearer: as the McCain ad says, Palin killed the bridge. Indeed, the Alaska Democrats themselves say, on a web site attacking Senator Ted Stevens:
Gov. Palin recently cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge near Ketchikan that would have connected the Alaska mainland with Gravina Island (population: 50).
It is frankly ridiculous to deny that Palin killed the bridge, as the ad says. If the Democrats want to attack some other aspect of her record, fine. If they want to say that she (like all state officials) was generally happy to accept federal money when it was offered, fine. But to say that the simple statement that she killed the bridge is a "lie" is false and disingenuous."
And more on how she cut government waste over her predecessor:
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/09/sarah-palins-expenses-as-governor-scandalous/
Mr. Puckett, Here, Read:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
Still want to make your claim that SHE killed the Bridge?
Grasping At Straws In Panic,
We can all think of reasons why one candidate or another is unfit. The question is: who is most fit? (or least unfit?). No one fact (like "proven liar") can ever answer that question. Even if it came out that one of the candidates had did time for murder under a different name you'd still have to ask "OK, but does that make him worse than the other guy?"
FWIW, fact Check has quite a few Checks on Obama too.
Who is unfit or fit?
McCain is constitutionally unfit for the office of President. He is a man who is only confortable in his role as heroic martyr. I don't need to go very far to prove that even the majority of you who frequent this blog had exactly this same opinion during and before the Republican Primaries.
That Palin has zero Foreign policy experience is a fact. Your own commentators such as Krauthammer, Will, Brooks, Frum etc. say as much. The fact that she lied, and continues to lie repeatedly tells me that the country is in for another Clinton, and this time with no economic experience whatsoever. Whistle-Blowing for self promotion? Yes. Someone with the intellectual acumen for the Presidency in case McCain dies? Certainly not. Yes, I know the Republican party seems to value intellectual achievement less and less over time, but it is ridiculous to say that someone with Palin's qualifications is suited for the job.
Obama-Biden represents a more responsible choice for the future. Which is why Ed Koch said: Frankly, it would scare me if she were to ... assume the Presidency . As I mentioned earlier, I hope thoughtful Jews in Florida will wake up and smell the likelihood of a Palin Presidency and feel quite queasy. I'm hopeful that will be the case; in fact I think they will.
Anonymous Moron keeps spitting out his bile and it keeps getting swatted down. It's funny that he has the audacity to claim Palin is lying when he's the one shown to be lying time after time. Like I wrote above, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while hoping for a different outcome. By that definition, it's becoming apparent he's insane.
It isn't hard to understand why - his candidate is being shown to be an empty suit. No thanks. If I were interested in an empty suit, I'd go to a clothing store.
Obama has no experience for the job. He can't even speak all that well without a teleprompter. And to top it all off, his poll ratings are slipping as people not only see there's nothing there but that the relentless attacks on Palin are backfiring. If I'd drank the Koolaid, I'd probably be coming unglued as well. Oh, well. It must suck to be you.
Erm...Ed Koch is a Democratic former mayor of New York, the bluest of blue regions, which would vote something like 70-30 for the Democratic candidate even if the donks nominated a chocolate Labrador retriever for President. Which, come to think of it, they have, pretty much.
Exactly why do you think Ed Koch's endorsement matters to anyone except New Yahkers, who are already going to vote Obama in droves? You think Mayor Koch is going to convince a rural housewife in Ohio or a rancher on the Western Slope of Colorado to switch to Obama? Dream on, sailor.
This gives me a new idea: maybe the frenzied hate on the left, and among Rand's anonymous trolls, is plain sexual jealousy.
See, Sarah Palin is the hot-looking, athletic, poised and self-confident girl all these losers and momma's boys dreamed of, but couldn't get, in high school. Now, they've worked and worked at law school and risen up the ranks of the union, acquired the power to terrorize teenagers in schools or luckless homeowners askew HOA rule #666, and thought they left all that dick-shriveling humiliation behind.
But along comes Governor Palin with a breezy smile, holding out her hand to the other side, to those fucking Neanderthals, and, zap, once again they're stuttering out a garbled invitation to the senior that gets a possibly kind but unquestionably highly amused response, and they just want to kill her.
The tone-deaf genius man-child compares Governor Palin to a Pig:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_Lipstick_on_a_pig.html?showall
"Amie Parnes reports from Lebanon, VA:
Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin's new "change" mantra.
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."
"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."
"We've had enough of the same old thing.""
Sarah Palin is unfit, thoroughly unfit, to be VP. And the main reason she is unfit is because she is a proven liar, in the manner in which she lied (and continues to lie) about the "Bridge to Nowhere," which she fully supported and only turned against once Congress had decided otherwise. I doubt the American people want to be lied to over and over again. It's up to the media and the Obama-Biden campaign to thoroughly expose McCain's lying pick. I do think it will happen.
Hmmm
Actually I researched this extensively and you are wrong. The money for the bridge was spent on other things by Murkowski BEFORE Palin won the election. Here is a link to an article that I wrote on the subject.
http://wingod.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/07/1838917-tracking-down-the-palin-bridge-to-no-where-flip-flop
Actually, Wetting His Pants in Terror (love the replacements for Anonymous :-) had an interesting point, he just missed it a bit.
First, on the "your commentators" part, I think you will find that Rand is not a Republican. (Neither am I for that matter.)
Second, you are correct to the degree that many of us think that McCain is a poor choice for President. I still think that, even though I am going to vote for him. McCain is a poor choice because his good intentions on campaign finance override his presumed respect for the Constitution. Indeed, after McCain-Feingold, it's fair to say that his respect for the Constitution is conditional at best. Fred Thompson and Rudi Giuiliani would both have been better Presidents, in my opinion, than McCain, and either would have had my support and my vote immediately. Given that McCain was the Republican candidate, Hillary would have had my rhetorical support, and possibly my vote.
In an election, you are limited to either voting for one of the major party candidates, or a minor party candidate or write-in that is remarkably useless in terms of actually determining the next President. (Until, that is, we all decide to collectively wake up and realize that the guy with the most votes wins, and maybe that shouldn't be the guy from the major parties, necessarily.) Anyway, in terms of having an impact on the election, your choices are the two major party candidates. Normally, I don't have an impact on the election; I have voted for one major party candidate since I started voting in 1992 (Bush during his second run). This year, though, I am in a possible swing state (Virginia), and I really, really, really do not want to see Obama as President. In fact, I want to see him in office so little that he has overcome my normal aversion to McCain's big government conservatism, and I would have voted for McCain regardless.
That said, with McCain picking Palin, I'm now going to be voting for McCain without holding my nose. Minor point, I concede, but it is meaningful to me personally.
Carl, you asked about why Koch's endorsement would matter to someone in Ohio, but as Mr. or Ms. Grasping explained, you should ask instead why Koch's endorsement will matter in Palm Beach County, aka "the 6th borough of NY", where the 2000 presidential election was decided.
Since Koch endorsed Bush in 2004, and moreover, since Koch is *still* saying very nice things about Bush's historic legacy, Koch's endorsement wasn't a sure thing. Security-minded Jews who respect Koch's opinion weren't necessarily going to vote for Obama, so McCain's pick of Palin and Koch's subsequent endorsement of Obama might help Obama a bit with these voters.
It is hard to believe endorsements matter very much, but
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obama-418.html shows that the election is fairly close in Florida. Maybe the elderly voters of South Palm Beach will decide the whole thing once again.
Nah, I don't think so, Bob. I don't think McCain is worried about Florida, and I think he's quite right not to be. I can't see him losing Florida unless he's toast in the rest of the country. His RCP average +3% is pretty solid. Besides, he's almost certainly written off the urban Jewish Palm Beach vote, I'm guessing. They're not his natural constituency.
My impression is that McCain is working to keep the holds in the mixed rural/urban Northern/Southern states, like Virginia, Ohio, maybe North Carolina, and swinging real hard for critical Colorado, which is balanced on a razor's edge and has a very helpful 9 electoral votes. I think he's got a Western/rural-roots strategy in mind partly because that can give him his edge, because a lot of these places are balanced, with an older solidly red culture being overlaid by yuppie blue, and because he knows those people, being an Arizonan himself. This is, in addition to her "maverick" straight-talk personality, the fact that Cindy likes her (not to be overlooked), and the cachet of putting the first serious female candidate for President (in 2016) into play, why I think he went for Palin. Her western/rural-roots credentials are fantastic.
Besides, he's almost certainly written off the urban Jewish Palm Beach vote, I'm guessing. They're not his natural constituency.
I wouldn't bet on that. As a resident, I expect to see a lot of Joe Lieberman down here in the next few weeks...
If I were the McCain campaign, I'd also set up a personal meeting between Ed Koch and Sarah. His opinion seems to be based on a lot of the mud flung over the past week and a half.
I wouldn't bet on that
Oy, neither would I. If I knew better than the sharp operators apparently driving the Straight Talk Express, now barreling down a-hootin' and a-roarin' on Miz the erstwhile schoolmarm ("children, be good -- and think of others!") B. Obama, tied to the tracks squealing for help, I'd be running for President myself.