Printable View
Ironically, this is why I like McCain....
[youtube]Kf6YKOkfFsE[/youtube]
From the horse's mouth...he cuts some of the bullshit (that he helped start, however) and does it for all to see.
The crowd obviously didn't like him not going along with the mob mentality.
The last lady was a racist.
Reminds me of The Daily Show.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
I wonder if you could find me an example of Foxnews employing the "harpy" technique to go after Obama, O'Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Emmanuel...anybody at all, on the Dem side.
To paraphrase you dems, "she hasn't been convicted of /indicted for anything at all".
Why, btw, would you deny Palin the "legal" deniablity you so willingly extend to the like of Bill Clinton, et al, and which you will soon (no doubt) grant to Florida democrat Tim Mahoney, who is embroiled in a sex scandal far worse than the one which took down his predecessor, Mark Foley?
I hear Nancy Pelosi herself has been counselling Mahoney about how to keep this from negatively affecting his re-election campaign, in which (this is really hilarious) he touts himself as a paragon of ethical behavior.
In the meantime, tattoo this on your brains:
Sarah Palin is INNOCENT. :whistling
I'm not fond of tattoos, especially misleading ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
BTW, Mahoney is an excellent diversionary tactic but I'm not biting...this thread is ostensibly about Palin.
Also, from now on, every time you drag Bill-fucking-Clinton into a conversation about today's election, I'm going to raise the ghost of Richard Nixon and throw him around.
Let's try 'er out then:
BILL CLINTON!!! :whistling
Actually, my point is as stated-
She's as innocent as any democrat who's slid under the wire, at a minimum.
Leave the names out of it if you prefer, but she's innocent; more innocent (for example) than Bill Clinton.
As a practical matter, it certainly won't cost McCain any conservative votes, and it won't cost him any liberal votes he might have gotten.
It is also doubtful he'd have gotten any ACORN votes.
Bottom line, it's a wash, and the libs can't hurt McCain with it.
No harm, no foul.
"No harm, no foul",eh?
Fine with me.
If you think a no-nothing, ethically compromised, delusional low brow is the best representative of your political values and aspirations, then have at her.
After her loss on Nov. 4th, Palin will snowmobile back up to Juneau, never to be heard from again.
The Republicans will grieve the fall of a rising star and the Dems will miss the comedy gold.
Should Obama be elected do you not think she has ambitions to run in 2012?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Her ambitions will be irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
The McCain/Palin campaign has become such a trainwreck that anyone associated with it will be anathema to the party's power elite, consigned to political oblivion.
Palin has neither the intellect nor the stamina to assemble and manage the infrastructure necessary to mount a campaign of her own in four years, much less the more likely eight years before the Repubs have a prayer of regaining power.
The entire Republican base since Regan has been the unlikely bedfellow coupling of evangelical Christians and far right conservatives- an amalgam that is coming apart at the seams this cycle and is unlikely to be rejoined.
Palin was/is an obvious sop to the evangelicals but they will be a mere splinter group in 2012 and even then would be far happier with a male candidate.
So no, I don't believe that Palin will be a factor in anyone's future (except her family's and the unfortunate citizens of Alaska) beyond Nov. 4.
The question was raised on your prediction about never being heard from again. Not on the likelihood of her actually being chosen as the candidate.
Oh.
I have no idea what Mrs. Palin will aspire to following her defeat.
I'm guessing that the experience will be bruising enough to give her pause and lack of support from the establishment (remember, she's a "maverick" and promising to piss on everybody's shoes) will make obscurity look welcoming.