A Lady by the name of...

[j2k4]

Then there's no need to reply to you, given you and clocker are of the "hive" mind.

Insofar as there are (as always) more of you than there are of me, the more effective application of the word hive would be in reference to you and your ilk.

No original thoughts for you, eh?

I actually had John McCain as my pick until the Palin announcement. My thoughts were that McCain has been spouting off at the mouth with his alignment with Bush to appease folks like yourself and then once in office he'd actually be "sensible".

This Palin pick was pure pandering to disgruntled Hilary supporters and to the Republican base....a base that never really liked McCain in the first place.

Now McCain will have a person that wouldn't have an ass chance in hell of being President through an electorate, succeeding him if he falls terribly ill or....dead.

A McCain pick is now easily off the table. Then again, a pick of Romney or Giuliani pick would've sucked just as much but for different reasons. I guess I was looking for a surprise of different proportions and not of epically stupid proportions.

It's a smart pick only in the that people are epically stupid. People that pick McCain for the "OMGSHE'Z UHH WOMIN!!11!1" are fucking stupid. She's low on sensibility and high on ability to deliver zingers in speeches. It's damn good entertainment though.

Cries of sexism from the McCain camp actually go against Palin's own talk of whiney women.

A VP pick is supposed to be someone that can lead the country if the President can't. Wtf advice will she have for McCain about Iraq? Iran? Russia....oh that's right, she's an expert cuz she's up there next to it.

You had McCain as your pick?

Don't make me laugh.

Actually, your saying that is a pretty good example of pandering, come to think of it.

It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .

I agree, I'm just wondering where exactly the boundaries are, Which is why I didn't comment on her comment

@J2K4 Apart from it being a tired old method of avoiding answering the question actually asked I fail to see any connection.

Okay-

To answer your question, no, I think if you want to rip her, you should go ahead and rip her; I've said it before - if you go out and get your puss on TV advocating your husband/father/what-have-you, you ought to be ready for what comes after.

Now, hows about you answer my question, which I have emboldened for you.

BTW-

I hope you'll pardon my saying so, but relying on others to define the boundaries of your commentary is kind of chickenshit, but, as I have just given you carte blanche, please (please) fire away.

I think what MSNBC did was excellent, actually.

That would be like having Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh serving as anchor although Olberman and Mathews aren't that bad.

You conveniently overlook the fact neither O'Reilly nor Limbaugh is, was or ever will serve as an anchor, which they would have had to do for your post to make the slightest sense.

Your point has no point.

[Busyman]

I actually had John McCain as my pick until the Palin announcement. My thoughts were that McCain has been spouting off at the mouth with his alignment with Bush to appease folks like yourself and then once in office he'd actually be "sensible".

This Palin pick was pure pandering to disgruntled Hilary supporters and to the Republican base....a base that never really liked McCain in the first place.

Now McCain will have a person that wouldn't have an ass chance in hell of being President through an electorate, succeeding him if he falls terribly ill or....dead.

A McCain pick is now easily off the table. Then again, a Romney or Giuliani pick would've sucked just as much but for different reasons. I guess I was looking for a surprise of different proportions and not of epically stupid proportions.

It's a smart pick only in the that people are epically stupid. People that pick McCain for the "OMGSHE'Z UHH WOMIN!!11!1" are fucking stupid. She's low on sensibility and high on ability to deliver zingers in speeches. It's damn good entertainment though.

Cries of sexism from the McCain camp actually go against Palin's own talk of whiney women.

A VP pick is supposed to be someone that can lead the country if the President can't. Wtf advice will she have for McCain about Iraq? Iran? Russia....oh that's right, she's an expert cuz she's up there next to it.

You had McCain as your pick?

Don't make me laugh.

Actually, your saying that is a pretty good example of pandering, come to think of it.

Pandering to whom? You?

Don't make me laugh. I pander to no one. I've had my mother and countless others at my ear for months.

You surely don't come close to anyone that has any sway over my decisions or someone I'd change a response in order to pander.

I viewed McCain as a person closer to the middle than Obama. His ability to piss folks like yourself off, appealled to me.

Salin Palin as second in command is the dumbest choice I have ever seen but an excellent choice ftw.

It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .

I agree, I'm just wondering where exactly the boundaries are, Which is why I didn't comment on her comment

@J2K4 Apart from it being a tired old method of avoiding answering the question actually asked I fail to see any connection.

Okay-

To answer your question, no, I think if you want to rip her, you should go ahead and rip her; I've said it before - if you go out and get your puss on TV advocating your husband/father/what-have-you, you ought to be ready for what comes after.

Now, hows about you answer my question, which I have emboldened for you.

BTW-

I hope you'll pardon my saying so, but relying on others to define the boundaries of your commentary is kind of chickenshit, but, as I have just given you carte blanche, please (please) fire away.

I think what MSNBC did was excellent, actually.

That would be like having Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh serving as anchor although Olberman and Mathews aren't that bad.

You conveniently overlook the fact neither O'Reilly nor Limbaugh is, was or ever will serve as an anchor, which they would have had to do for your post to make the slightest sense.

Your point has no point.

Wrong. It solidified my point.

[devilsadvocate]

Okay, just so that I have no false impressions here-

You think it's more important to discuss a political commentator than the potential VP?

I'll discuss either or both.

Seems you are determined to be selective; you had no trouble talking up Matthews a short while back, but the going has gotten a bit rougher on that front, precluding you from further comment.

Apparently multitasking is beyond you.

I gave you my answer

I've already given you my assessment of the two in question.

Any further discussion would just be repetition as my opinion on the two has not changed.

So to recap, you started a thread about Sarah Palin and asked for opinions, then when opinions and questions about her start flowing you want to change the subject to a tv personality then seem to suggest I have some sort of bias or agenda because I am more likely to comment about Sarah Paling IN THE SARAH PALIN THREAD than Chris Mathews.

I don't care about Mathews-- get over it

[j2k4]

I think what MSNBC did was excellent, actually.

That would be like having Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh serving as anchor although Olberman and Mathews aren't that bad.

You conveniently overlook the fact neither O'Reilly nor Limbaugh is, was or ever will serve as an anchor, which they would have had to do for your post to make the slightest sense.

Your point has no point.

Wrong. It solidified my point.

Afraid not.

To compare Limbaugh and O'Reilly to Matthews and Olbermann and then say one is more biased than the other would be logical.

To compare Limbaugh and O'Reilly the pundits/commentators to Matthews and Olbermann the anchors is utterly illogical; one might even say, desperate.

Sorry, it doesn't wash - I suspect even your mom would tell you that.

I'll discuss either or both.

Seems you are determined to be selective; you had no trouble talking up Matthews a short while back, but the going has gotten a bit rougher on that front, precluding you from further comment.

Apparently multitasking is beyond you.

I gave you my answer

I've already given you my assessment of the two in question.

Any further discussion would just be repetition as my opinion on the two has not changed.

So to recap, you started a thread about Sarah Palin and asked for opinions, then when opinions and questions about her start flowing you want to change the subject to a tv personality then seem to suggest I have some sort of bias or agenda because I am more likely to comment about Sarah Paling IN THE SARAH PALIN THREAD than Chris Mathews.

I don't care about Mathews-- get over it

Yes, but you used to, and, since he's one of your boys, I'll keep reminding you of the fact.

You're on the hook - get over it.

[devilsadvocate]

Yes, but you used to, and, since he's one of your boys, I'll keep reminding you of the fact.

You're on the hook - get over it.

[clocker]

I see that yesterday Palin polished off that old Bush administration turd and linked the war in Iraq with 9/11.
That line probably still plays well with the brain dead- Palin's core constituancy.

[clocker]

From the AP-
John McCain continued to laud his running mate, Sarah Palin, as a budget cutter on Friday, this time erroneously asserting that as governor of Alaska she had not sought congressional earmarks for her state.

Appearing on the ABC television show “The View,” McCain was pressed on her record of seeking such targeted money for Alaska. “Not as governor she didn’t,” McCain said.

Under her leadership the state this year asked for almost $300 per person in requests for pet projects...That's more than any other state received, per person, from Congress for this budget year, and runs counter to the reformer image that Palin and the McCain campaign are pushing. Other states got just $34 worth of local projects per person this year, on average, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group in Washington.

Her first year in office, the state's earmarks averaged almost $800 per person, so technically I suppose, Palin could be seen as a "reformer".
I would argue however that going from 24 times the national average to just 10 times more than everyone else just makes her a less egregious offender and not a crusader.

Keep in mind that Alaska reaps an ocean of money from oil taxes...

Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from the new tax during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. That helped push the state's total oil revenue — from new and existing taxes, as well as royalties — to more than $10 billion, double the amount received last year.

While many other states are confronting big budget deficits because of the troubled economy, Alaska officials are in the enviable position of exploring new ways to spend the state's multibillion-dollar budget surplus.

Some of that new cash will end up in the wallets of Alaska's residents.

Palin's administration last week gained legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help cope with gas prices, which are among the highest in the country.

That check will come on top of the annual dividend of about $2,000 that each resident could receive this year from an oil-wealth savings account.

So how is it that a state that rakes in so much cash still finds it necessary to apply for so much federal money?
If they wanted to build the Gravina Island bridge, why not fund it themselves?

[Biggles]

I personally think Palin is a bit of a gamble on McCain's part. He only met her a couple of times before the pick. Her somewhat fundamentalist (of the Pat Buchanan variety) views I think might be worrisome to middle of the road Republicans. I suppose it really depends if anything untoward creeps out of the woodwork. The daughter could, of her own volition, throw a spanner in the works.

It may be a gamble that pays off or it may not. I think when the dust settles Democrats might be glad it is not Romney or Rudi - I quite like the latter.

I feel a bit sorry for the son heading off to Iraq - talk about painting a target on someone's arse.

Would you draw out the Buchanan parallel a bit, Les.

Sorry for the delay, I am sure I read that pat Buchanan said she had been one of his supporters in a previous election and that she had certain sympathies with his religious views. To be fair I have no idea how popular or unpopular Pat Buchanan is with the religious right nor whether he would make such a claim mischievously.

[clocker]

Palin-Buchanan.

[j2k4]

Palin-Buchanan.

And from this we are supposed to gather...what, precisely?