Why I still believe in Sarah Palin

[Danny White]

I wrote this the other day in response to a question I received from another poster here asking if I was concerned at all about Palin given the shaky performances she's had in some of her early interviews.

Long story short, I'm just as excited about her now as I ever was... here's why:

I don't know how much of a polished politician Sarah Palin is at this point. Clearly with a few more years on the national stage under her belt, she will be much better.

All that's a double-edged sword, however. The longer she's in office, the greater the chance that she'll be corrupted by the system. That's one of the beauties about her right now. She hasn't been around long enough to really sell out. It's almost unprecedented for a politician to reach the pinnacle of their career without having to sell their souls multiple times, and she's right there now and relatively pure in that respect. It's a unique situation.

I think in four years she'll have a lot more polish and will not get tripped up as much in these interviews... but she has to get there first.

Right now she doesn't have the luxury of getting used to the spotlight. She's under the glare and the media will be doing all they can to trip her up and expose her.

There's still a decent chance that they get their wish and can succeed in painting her as a bumpkin or an idiot beauty queen. But I hope she does well enough from here on out to keep that from happening. She's done well enough so far despite every word she says being parsed and every idiosyncrasy of her's being over-analyzed. If she can keep from being defined by her ideological enemies, then I think she is poised to be a leader of the party in 4-8 years.

If you're asking if I think she's "smart" ... or "smarter than she looks in these interviews" ... I don't really know.

I don't mean to sound flip, but I really don't care so much about that.

Her instincts are rock-solid, and she really believes in conservative, limited government... that much I'm convinced about.

And that's good enough (actually more than good enough) for me. I don't need my President to be an Ivy League PhD. I'd much rather have them have solid values, a good compass, and the wisdom to surround themselves with the right people.

Liberals make fun of Ronald Reagan's intellect, and I'm sure he wasn't the most intelligent guy we've ever had in office... but he was the best President we've had in a very long time. He had great instincts and great values. And that's far more important than having someone with a flawless grasp on the issues (as strange as that may sound).

When it comes to having the right instincts, Palin is really one of the best I have seen in a very long time... I think probably since Reagan. You can just tell by listening to her. In fact, when she's talking about something where you can tell she's not completely well-versed on the issue, you can see that while her grasp of the details is (sometimes embarrassingly) imperfect, her instincts are good. It's in many of those instances where she inadvertently disagrees with stated McCain policy. :p:

As a conservative, I think we're really lucky to have her. She just has to make it through this next month. And as a fellow conservative, I'm going to defend her as much as I can, when I think she's being attacked... because she truly is the potentially the best defender of our values that we have had on the national scene for a very long time. And when you get right down to it, that's WHY she's being attacked. She's not being attacked because the liberals think she's not prepared, they attack her because of her values and because of what she believes in.

So I refuse to fall into the trap that is being set, letting the liberals set our expectations for us (the same trap that some conservatives like that columnist Parker have fallen for). We don't need a President who can ace a pop quiz on foreign policy or the intricacies of budgetary minutiae. We need a leader... not a professor. And don't let them fool you... Obama, Biden, Pelosi... none of those politicians would satisfy the snob politics that they are trying to apply to Palin.

So far, nothing that I've seen or heard from her has given me pause. I still think she has the potential to be one of the best we've had on the national scene in a very long time.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Nice read...She could indeed wind up being the best Politician/President in our near future and be held up in the future with the likes of Reagan and what we are seeing in these current interviews is just inexp and nerves that will fade away in time.

On the other hand she could wind up being viewed as a Dan Quayle for the rest of her political, or non political life and what we are seeing in these interviews is actually what she is like.

However I think you like her because she is Republican not named W or McCain.

[vlad]

I just wanted to say kudos on articulating your position without the bickering/name calling we usually see here.

Do I agree with your position? No.
Do I respectfully hear your position? Yes.
Do I now understand why you like your positiion? Yes.

That's how it all should be, but now its like the republicans are the Longhorns and the democrats are OU and you have to profess your undying devotion to either side without using your brain.

Its no small coicendence that BrainPaint responded in like, I've noticed he takes a pretty objective view on everything as well.

Anyway...just wanted to give you props. I personally think a president should be all of the above...it can't be that hard to find someone intellectually gifted who can also lead, can it? I think her nomination had zero to do with her, rather it had to do with how she could be used, which I think is ultimately a disservice to her and puts her in these awkward situations.

[Danny White]

I personally think a president should be all of the above...it can't be that hard to find someone intellectually gifted who can also lead, can it? I think her nomination had zero to do with her, rather it had to do with how she could be used, which I think is ultimately a disservice to her and puts her in these awkward situations.

Thanks for the kind words.

Just for the record, I'm not ceding the ground on whether or not she's "smart." I said I don't know at this point if she is or isn't based on what I've seen so far.

She may be very smart... and at the least she is probably much smarter than the wits at SNL are parodying her to be.

What's clear is that in this past month, she hasn't gotten completely up to speed yet on every aspect of McCain's record and every aspect of domestic and foreign policy. And really, that shouldn't be too surprising for someone who truly is inexperienced at national politics. She's not a national policy wonk and it would be surprising if someone in her position (a relative newcomer to politics) was. But that doesn't mean she's stupid or incapable of learning the issues... and I don't think that it disqualifies her from running for high national office.

When she does learn them, I have faith that her instincts of what to do on those issues will be better than most. And that's what's really important to me.

[trickblue]

That's how it all should be, but now its like the republicans are the Longhorns and the democrats are OU

Oh oh... NOW you've done it... Danny is an OU fan... :D

[trickblue]

I'd much rather have them have solid values, a good compass, and the wisdom to surround themselves with the right people.

These are the key factors to a good leader. Jimmy Carter was highly intelligent but he didn't surround himself with the right people. He attempted to micromanage everything himself and the scope of the job is just too great for one person to handle in toto. I don't care who you are...

Surrounding yourself with the right people is, I think, the most important thing you can do to achieve your goals in any organization...

[Danny White]

Oh oh... NOW you've done it... Danny is an OU fan... :D

I was going to let that one slide... he meant well. :p:

Although if you're going to compare Norman to Austin, it's clear which ones are the Republicans and which ones are the Democrats.

[theebs]

She may be very smart... and at the least she is probably much smarter than the wits at SNL are parodying her to be.[

Does it really bother you that SNL parodies her? I mean come on, really?

They make fun of everyone.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Does it really bother you that SNL parodies her? I mean come on, really?

They make fun of everyone.

Do you have to ask?

[theebs]

Do you have to ask?


I know, I should already know the answer. SNL is in NY. I need to go back to the fan zone asap.

[trickblue]

I was going to let that one slide... he meant well. :p:

Although if you're going to compare Norman to Austin, it's clear which ones are the Republicans and which ones are the Democrats.

Ain't that the truth... and I'm about to move there... Berkley East as many call it... :D

I've always said they need all of the conservatives they can get in Austin, I just had no idea it was going to be me... ;)

[ScipioCowboy]

Does it really bother you that SNL parodies her? I mean come on, really?

They make fun of everyone.

Do you have to ask?

Could it be that he was citing a specific example to illustrate a point?

[ScipioCowboy]

Ain't that the truth... and I'm about to move there... Berkley East as many call it... :D

I've always said they need all of the conservatives they can get in Austin, I just had no idea it was going to be me... ;)

And me. I received my undergraduate degree from UT.:D

[Danny White]

Does it really bother you that SNL parodies her? I mean come on, really?

They make fun of everyone.


They can do whatever they want... it doesn't bother me in the least. I'm just saying that she's probably smarter than her critics would have you believe.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Could it be that he was citing a specific example to illustrate a point?

Could be, but it would be a pretty poor attempt at it since SNL has being doing it for a number of politicians over many years.

Maybe he would be better served using Jim Cafferty (I think that is his name) as an example.

JMO since you asked.:cool:

[Danny White]

Could be, but it would be a pretty poor attempt at it since SNL has being doing it for a number of politicians over many years.

Maybe he would be better served using Jim Cafferty (I think that is his name) as an example.

JMO since you asked.:cool:

I could have used Jack Cafferty as an example, but no one really knows who he is, and I didn't even know he had attacked Palin's intelligence until about 2 minutes ago when I googled him to see what you were talking about.

Meanwhile, everyone and their dog knows that Tina Fey has been doing her "bimbo" shtick on SNL for the past couple of weeks.

Again, I don't care what SNL does... it was obvious from the moment you saw Palin's picture that they'd get Tina Fey to play her, and Fey, being a big liberal, was going to portray her unflatteringly. There's absolutely nothing surprising about that. That's been an SNL staple for decades, portraying the Republican as a bumbling idiot.

The funny thing is, my main point is that I don't care whether or not she's a genius. I would be concerned if I thought she was a complete idiot, but I don't think that's the case... I simply think that's the caricature that her opponents are trying to use against her.

[ScipioCowboy]

Could be, but it would be a pretty poor attempt at it since SNL has being doing it for a number of politicians over many years.

Maybe he would be better served using Jim Cafferty (I think that is his name) as an example.

JMO since you asked.:cool:

And out of that "number of politicians," how many were as intellectually incompetent as SNL portrayed them to be?

Exactly.

Sarah Palin is just one more in a long line--hence why the example served to clarify his initial point.

JMO, since you cared enough to respond.:D

[BrAinPaiNt]

And out of that "number of politicians," how many were as intellectually incompetent as SNL portrayed them to be?

Exactly.

Sarah Palin is just one more in a long line--hence why the example served to clarify his initial point.

JMO, since you cared enough to respond.:D

So is Danny making the argument that they are just picking on her intelligence and it's not fair because of it...I took it that way.

Where they have been doing it for all of them and to further state they are in it for COMEDY AND PARODY. As opposed to people who are in the political business who speak of politics in a serious manner and not as comedy and parody. It is part of their job description to portray politicians as dumb in one form or another. I mean using that example is kind of silly since that is what they are supposed to be doing.
And does anyone in their right mind think they are not making exaggerations through comedy and parody and in that case anybody with a brain would know that they candidate/politician is not as dumb as what they portray so it should never be used as an example...kind of a DUH.

Hence my reason that it was a poor example and mccafferty was a better example.

JMO.

[Danny White]

So is Danny making the argument that they are just picking on her intelligence and it's not fair because of it...I took it that way.


As I've said before, I don't care about SNL. It's a joke... I get it. They can go many ways with their parody of her, but they go with "clueless bimbo." Why? Because that's the image that the liberals want to pin on her. Fey, SNL, of course they're liberals... but they're certainly not alone. Cafferty, whoever else you want to throw in there.

I'm saying "I don't care" if she's not a Rhodes Scholar... but I don't think she's a dolt either.

[Viper]

Excellent thread Danny, I enjoyed hearing your thoughts...of course I agree with you. I would like to see us with a watch dog in Washington, some of these Congressmen have been in power longer than they should have been. Palin seems like she has common sense, she has a history of fighting against the same olé same olé.

[Heisenberg]

I'm not sure why intelligence and the other values you outline are mutually exclusive.

Personally, give me all of the above. :D

What annoys me is that intelligence is actually looked down on in this country by quite a few people. I'll never understand that.

[Danny White]

I'm not sure why intelligence and the other values you outline are mutually exclusive.

Personally, give me all of the above. :D

What annoys me is that intelligence is actually looked down on in this country by quite a few people. I'll never understand that.

If that's what you think I'm arguing, then you need to read it again.

I'm not saying anything of the sort.

But if I were prioritizing values I look for in a Presidential candidate, IQ and polish are not numbers 1 and 2.

I'm not a person who eschews book smarts, either... far from it. I just don't think it's the most important thing to look for in a candidate.

[Maikeru-sama]

As I stated before, I doubt Sarah Palin is stupid as some would like to speculate but I have never met her.

However, she has been very ill-prepared for interviews.

What also annoys me about Sarah Palin is that alot of the questions Katie Couric quizzed her on were very easy and on some of them she should have blown Couric's arse out of the water. I am still shaking my head at her bumbled and confusing response when Couric asked her about someone in the McCain camp taking Freddie/Fannie money when Barack Obama and his staff have been linked to them as well.

To come out and say that you still have confidence in her at this point is somewhat odd.

[ZeroClub]

I'm genuinely curious how she'll perform in the debate.

Palin is almost certainly going to exceed expectations, given how remarkably low those expectations are.

I'd guess that nearly half of the viewers are expecting to see a train wreck ... to see her implode.

I doubt that will happen - mostly because of the debate's format.

[ConcordCowboy]

Well you're loyal to her...I'll give you that.

Tonights debate is it.

She HAS to show something tonight and not just one liners...or hey look I'm Joe Sixpack.

She has to show she knows what she's talking about.

If she does well and she might...then we move on.

If she doesn't and has a bad night...it's going to be very tough for McCain to recover from.

Honestly...I think she'll be fine tonight.

Not that I'm happy about that. :p:

[Sasquatch]

Honestly...I think she'll be fine tonight.

She better pray that Gwen Ifill doesn't ask her what newspapers she reads. :cool:

[ConcordCowboy]

She better pray that Gwen Ifill doesn't ask her what newspapers she reads. :cool:

Honestly for the life of me...I don't know how she couldn't have just thrown out one...ANY one...hell like people were saying she could have gave a shout out to her local papers.

This was something so easy to do, and she could have avoided this whole mess.

But I'm glad she didn't. ;)

[Sasquatch]

Honestly for the life of me...I don't know how she couldn't have just thrown out one...ANY one...hell like people were saying she could have gave a shout out to her local papers.

This was something so easy to do, and she could have avoided this whole mess.

But I'm glad she didn't. ;)

It was a very peculiar non response. Quite frankly, I don't know what to think of her at this point. She was a puzzling choice to begin with and remains something of an enigma.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Magazines or various publications often sponser candidates. It is not so hard to understand why Palin would not answer this question. If she names a certain magazine or Newspaper, she runs the risk of inviting other publications or Newspapers to indorse her opponent or find reason to publish editorials that are not favorable to her party. This is not a big deal really. Katie knows this, which is why she asked the question. Think about it. Why would Katie be interested in where Palin reads articles from? It's already known that she is a concervative so what could possibly be relative about where she reads here info from? The information is going to be Pro Conserv and that's what is really important to the campaign. Where do you stand. In this case, Repub or Conservative. The question, IMO, was an attempt to get Palin to take a false step. Ingenoius really. If she answers, she invites backlash. If she doesn't answer, she is thought of as a fool.

Many here will read what I've posted and say that I am just defending my guy, or girl in this case. That may be true but it doesn't mean that the question was not a deliberate attempt by Couric to ambush Palin. Pretty ingenious actually.

[ZeroClub]

Love is blind.

[ConcordCowboy]

Love is blind.

....:D

[ABQCOWBOY]

Love is blind.


So too is stupidity Zero. The problem is that if a person is either in Love or Stupid, they have no idea that they are not seeing the total picture.

It's a relative thing.

[ABQCOWBOY]

....:D


So then, may I assume you are declairing?

:D


(just yanking on your chain CC)

[Sasquatch]

Many here will read what I've posted and say that I am just defending my guy, or girl in this case. That may be true but it doesn't mean that the question was not a deliberate attempt by Couric to ambush Palin. Pretty ingenious actually.

Quite possibly the flimsiest defense in the history of the political zone.

Couric "ambushed" Palin by asking what newspapers she's read lately? Utterly preposterous.

[ConcordCowboy]

I'm not sure why intelligence and the other values you outline are mutually exclusive.

Personally, give me all of the above. :D

What annoys me is that intelligence is actually looked down on in this country by quite a few people. I'll never understand that.

Me too.

People won't vote for you because they think you're and "Elitist" and have a great education but are OK with Joe Sixpack?

Not me.

I will never get that.

When people say you know I'd vote for so and so...because I feel like I can sit down and have a beer with them...I just go holy frickin moly.

All the Joe Sixpacks I see, I don't anywhere near the White House.

[ConcordCowboy]

So then, may I assume you are declairing?

:D


(just yanking on your chain CC)

:laugh2:

I think you know the answer to that.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Quite possibly the flimsiest defense in the history of the political zone.

Couric "ambushed" Palin by asking what newspapers she's read lately? Utterly preposterous.


The question, if I understand it, was what sources she is reading from. There is a difference and I'm pretty certain that you know this. However, if you must preserve the appearnce of, No Dog In This Race, I understand the posturing.

I am voting for McCain and Palin. I make no secret of that. I find it to be a much more honest approach.

[ConcordCowboy]

Many here will read what I've posted and say that I am just defending my guy, or girl in this case. That may be true but it doesn't mean that the question was not a deliberate attempt by Couric to ambush Palin. Pretty ingenious actually.

WOW.

Come on.

[ConcordCowboy]

The question, if I understand it, was what sources she is reading from. There is a difference and I'm pretty certain that you know this. However, if you must preserve the appearnce of, No Dog In This Race, I understand the posturing.

I am voting for McCain and Palin. I make no secret of that. I find it to be a much more honest approach.

Good lord...now you're splitting hairs on Newspaper/Sources.

What Palin doesn't know that Newspapers are considered sources?

Unbelievable.

That's right out of the McCain playbook.

Good one.

[vlad]

Thanks for the kind words.

Just for the record, I'm not ceding the ground on whether or not she's "smart." I said I don't know at this point if she is or isn't based on what I've seen so far.

She may be very smart... and at the least she is probably much smarter than the wits at SNL are parodying her to be.

What's clear is that in this past month, she hasn't gotten completely up to speed yet on every aspect of McCain's record and every aspect of domestic and foreign policy. And really, that shouldn't be too surprising for someone who truly is inexperienced at national politics. She's not a national policy wonk and it would be surprising if someone in her position (a relative newcomer to politics) was. But that doesn't mean she's stupid or incapable of learning the issues... and I don't think that it disqualifies her from running for high national office.

When she does learn them, I have faith that her instincts of what to do on those issues will be better than most. And that's what's really important to me.

Yeah, to me the question isn't intelligence (well ultimately it is) but the glaring problem for me is one of ignorance with her, and then overall the way the McCain camp has basically blunted her from the American public (not the democratic or liberal public, all of us). To me that is the biggest insult and combined with the rapid move to the right McCain has made to bolster his chance to get elected...I find it all disheartening.

Plus I'm a big advocate of work with people rather than bully them around...which is what we've been doing for a few years now. I see that coming out of the Obama camp a lot more, and I see a respect and admiration for America back in play if that happens. I just want a fresh perspective. Do I agree with all of his policies? No way, I'm more libertarian than anything, but then I also take that seriously and want to see all church in school gone (it has no place there, let's try to teach them math first), I'd like to see church in politics gone (how many civilizations have to crumble because of it before we make it a in-house private issue?), and I'd like to see a movement of people admitting what they are.

There has been this "patriotic" charade going on that being born American entitles you to be better than anyone else, which is exactly what drags us down. Its the us vs them mentality I see Palin throw out..and McCain but to a lesser degree. What makes us great is trying our hardest to live like an American...but we are just a big entitlement state now.

Look around your city/town/suburb...how many people have new cars in new houses with new HDTVs and fat men or women who can't even get themeselves in shape spend hundreds of dollars on grooming and clothes...that's not America. That's some glamour obsessed nonsense. When I go home to Bedford I am shocked at what I see, everyone living WAY outside of our means. I feel Obama is pointing that out, while the other side is just spouting out the nonsense of "you're american, god loves you, you will have the best because you ARE"

anyway, i could go on...but debates like this are what we should see. CajunCowboy I believe it was had a similar talk with me once, and now I read his posts with special attention because of it. I'll make sure to keep an eye out on yours (though I post infrequently)

[vlad]

I was going to let that one slide... he meant well. :p:

Although if you're going to compare Norman to Austin, it's clear which ones are the Republicans and which ones are the Democrats.


True true, I was just using it as an analogy of this nonsensical ra-ra party system that has brainwashed most of the public (you see "those damn Libs doing xyz" or those damn republicans doing...)

But yes, I should have switched it around, Austin is a pretty liberal place.

[Sasquatch]

The question, if I understand it, was what sources she is reading from. There is a difference and I'm pretty certain that you know this. However, if you must preserve the appearnce of, No Dog In This Race, I understand the posturing.

I am voting for McCain and Palin. I make no secret of that. I find it to be a much more honest approach.

It was a perfectly fair and legitimate question about which newspapers and magazines inform Palin's worldview. Your constant attempts to make the conversation about me will not alter the fact that Palin couldn't handle a very straightforward question for whatever reason.

Your strange excuse making on her behalf, worthy of Stretch Armstrong, only confirms the idea hat she is an extremely weak and flawed candidate who is becoming a major liability for the McCain campaign.

[ABQCOWBOY]

WOW.

Come on.

I'm not throwing stones here. I'm saying that Couric is trying to create a story. They all do it. Of what possible relivance could the question, what magazines/papers are you reading from, be? Seriously. I did not see the whole interview but that question, IMO, is not very relivant. If your asking what information she is reading, OK. That's not what was being asked. Katie was trying to pin down Palin naming publications, which is irrelivant. The question was asked, Palin answer. She said all of them. Why take it further then that unless your driving something?

[ZeroClub]

So too is stupidity Zero. The problem is that if a person is either in Love or Stupid, they have no idea that they are not seeing the total picture.

It's a relative thing.

If she mentioned her local Anchorage paper and a couple of other papers that she occasionally reads, she'd have been golden. No backlash.

But if you appear to be just making things up -or- appear as if you are so ill informed that you are unable to name three newspapers (or Supreme Court decisions), then you get backlash.

There isn't anything ingenious about the question "So what particular newspapers do you read?" It isn't a crafty question.

The fact that this simple question became a stumper .... well, let's just go with the euphemistic "lacks polish."

[ABQCOWBOY]

Good lord...now you're splitting hairs on Newspaper/Sources.

What Palin doesn't know that Newspapers are considered sources?

Unbelievable.

That's right out of the McCain playbook.

Good one.

She answered the question. She said all of them. A large variety of them. That's enough. There is no reason to name specific publications unless your talking about a specific article or issue.

[ABQCOWBOY]

If she mentioned her local Anchorage paper and a couple of other papers that she occasionally reads, she'd have been golden. No backlash.

But if you appear to be just making things up -or- appear as if you are so ill informed that you are unable to name three newspapers (or Supreme Court decisions), then you get backlash.

There isn't anything ingenious about the question "So what particular newspapers do you read?" It isn't a crafty question.

The fact that this simple question became a stumper .... well, let's just go with the euphemistic "lacks polish."


I disagree. If you name your local papers, then you get, "She's not qualified. She lives in a little backwater town in the middle of Alaska. How can she be qualified to be VP? "

See what I mean?

[heavyg]

That's how it all should be, but now its like the republicans are the Longhorns and the democrats are OU and you have to profess your undying devotion to either side without using your brain.



Wait a minute. Why does OU have to be the dems? LOL

[ABQCOWBOY]

It was a perfectly fair and legitimate question about which newspapers and magazines inform Palin's worldview. Your constant attempts to make the conversation about me will not alter the fact that Palin couldn't handle a very straightforward question for whatever reason.
Your strange excuse making on her behalf, worthy of Stretch Armstrong, only confirms the idea hat she is an extremely weak and flawed candidate who is becoming a major liability for the McCain campaign.

Forgive me but I must laugh at this. You claim to be on the fence, that your preference to a Presidential Choice is not offered yet you slam Conservatives at every opportunity. I'm not complaining mind you. I know what to expect from you. I'm just saying, you should not expect avoidence of that central fact.

A lagitamet question? Perhaps, but to serve what perpose? The question was answered. It just wasn't answered in the way Couric wanted it to be.

[Sasquatch]

I disagree. If you name your local papers, then you get, "She's not qualified. She lives in a little backwater town in the middle of Alaska. How can she be qualified to be VP? "

See what I mean?

You're paranoid. She could have mentioned the Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Affairs, Washington Times, the Economist, Washington Post and a host of other publications and the segment wouldn't have attracted the slightest interest. But she couldn't name one and you claim it's because she was tactfully avoiding a trap laid by the crafty and malicious Katie Couric.

Ladies and gentleman, the zealot has revealed his true colors.

[ConcordCowboy]

I'm not throwing stones here. I'm saying that Couric is trying to create a story. They all do it. Of what possible relivance could the question, what magazines/papers are you reading from, be? Seriously. I did not see the whole interview but that question, IMO, is not very relivant. If your asking what information she is reading, OK. That's not what was being asked. Katie was trying to pin down Palin naming publications, which is irrelivant. The question was asked, Palin answer. She said all of them. Why take it further then that unless your driving something?

She answered the question. She said all of them. A large variety of them. That's enough. There is no reason to name specific publications unless your talking about a specific article or issue.


Sorry man...I'm still trying to stop laughing.

As Sasquatch said Utterly Preposterous.

Look you're voting for her and that's fine.

But your defense of her here is just so weak...that probably McCain would laugh at it...but appreciate the effort.

:laugh2:

[ABQCOWBOY]

You're paranoid. She could have mentioned the Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Affairs, Washington Times, the Economist, Washington Post and a host of other publications and the segment wouldn't have attracted the slightest interest. But she couldn't name one and you claim it's because she was tactfully avoiding a trap laid by the crafty and malicious Katie Couric.

Ladies and gentleman, the zealot has revealed his true colors.

Your in error here. The "zealot" announced his ture colors long ago. They are whatever colors have been attached to the McCain/Palin ticket. I know that doesn't have the ring to it that your interpritation of the facts carries but none the less, it's factual.

Perhaps I am paranoid. She could have said any number of things. She could have mentioned some of your favorites, unlikely I grant you, but possible. At the end of the day, a Liberal view sees this as confirmation that she is stupid, unprepaired or whatever the Palin Catch Phrase of the day is, but the right sees why she may elect to avoid naming specific publications.

The truth of the matter is that the Democratic Party has been searching for ways to discredit Palin since the announcement of her selection. The strategy employeed has been to paint her as Stupid, to put it bluntly. There is nothing else for them to use against her. We will see if it works. I don't believe it will but I've been wrong before.

[Sasquatch]

Forgive me but I must laugh at this. You claim to be on the fence, that your preference to a Presidential Choice is not offered yet you slam Conservatives at every opportunity. I'm not complaining mind you. I know what to expect from you. I'm just saying, you should not expect avoidence of that central fact.

A lagitamet question? Perhaps, but to serve what perpose? The question was answered. It just wasn't answered in the way Couric wanted it to be.

You act as if I conceal my ideological inclinations. I've said more than once that I will not vote for Obama because he's not liberal enough or McCain because he subscribes to an archaic and discredited ideology. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which of the two candidates is closer to me on the political spectrum. I routinely post articles form MotherJones, the Atlantic, and the Nation for Pete's sake, as has been noted by several posters. You're insistence that this is an issue is as puzzling as your defense of Palin in this thread.

Couric's question was a legitimate attempt to understand the worldview of a relatively unknown political figure by identifying the sources from which she derives her news. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Sorry man...I'm still trying to stop laughing.

As Sasquatch said Utterly Preposterous.

Look you're voting for her and that's fine.

But your defense of her here is just so weak...that probably McCain would laugh at it...but appreciate the effort.

:laugh2:

One Liberal view I suppose.

Artie's Link on this whole economic mess we are in, would you say that you support what the actual video clearly states? It's retorical, we both know the answer to that question.

Point being, to me, any defense against that is "weak" yet, you still defend it. I assume you defend this because your view of it differs from mine. It this a factual statement?

[ABQCOWBOY]

You act as if I conceal my ideological inclinations. I've said more than once that I will not vote for Obama because he's not liberal enough or McCain because he subscribes to an archaic and discredited ideology. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which of the two candidates is closer to me on the political spectrum. I routinely post articles form MotherJones, the Atlantic, and the Nation for Pete's sake, as has been noted by several posters. You're insistence that this is an issue is as puzzling as your defense of Palin in this thread.

Couric's question was a legitimate attempt to understand the worldview of a relatively unknown political figure by identifying the sources from which she derives her news. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

In your opinion, it was lagitimate. Again, your view of things is, by your own discription, way left. Why is it so hard for you to understand that I don't agree with your view? Apparently, there are no genius minds currently posting in this thread, wouldn't you say?

[ConcordCowboy]

One Liberal view I suppose.

Artie's Link on this whole economic mess we are in, would you say that you support what the actual video clearly states? It's retorical, we both know the answer to that question.

Point being, to me, any defense against that is "weak" yet, you still defend it. I assume you defend this because your view of it differs from mine. It this a factual statement?


See here's where you are totally wrong.

There are plenty of people on the right saying the same kind of things as me.

Have you seen me in Artie's thread defending anything?

No.

Don't assume anything.

[Sasquatch]

In your opinion, it was lagitimate. Again, your view of things is, by your own discription, way left. Why is it so hard for you to understand that I don't agree with your view? Apparently, there are no genius minds currently posting in this thread, wouldn't you say?

Because despite my political inclinations, I like to think that I can be somewhat objective when assessing a candidate's performance. For example, I thought McCain acquitted himself very well during the presidential debate. I would have preferred him to flounder hopelessly, but he didn't, and it causes me no psychological anguish to admit it.

You'll note that I was similarly laudatory about Palin's speech at the GOP convention.

[ABQCOWBOY]

See here's where you are totally wrong.

There are plenty of people on the right saying the same kind of things as me.

Have you seen me in Artie's thread defending anything?

No.

Don't assume anything.


Fair enough. Then lets ask. In light of that video, in light of Obama's connection to these individuals, how can you support him as President?

[Sasquatch]

Fair enough. Then lets ask. In light of that video, in light of Obama's connection to these individuals, how can you support him as President?

What has that got to do with Sarah Palin? You're always trying to change the conversation so as to avoid confronting the uncomfortable reality that John McCain may have made a major blunder in choosing Palin as his running mate.

[ZeroClub]

I disagree. If you name your local papers, then you get, "She's not qualified. She lives in a little backwater town in the middle of Alaska. How can she be qualified to be VP? "

See what I mean?

I gotta believe everybody in the U.S. of A. expects that a Governor of a state reads at least one paper from his or her own state. She couldn't be nailed for this.

What she (and any other state politician who is a candidate for national office) could get nailed on is being ill informed about the rest of the country and/or world.

Which is why mentioning something like the NY or LA Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. would be important ... particularly if she wishes to show that she isn't some unqualified hick from a backwater town.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Because despite my political inclinations, I like to think that I can be somewhat objective when assessing a candidate's performance. For example, I thought McCain acquitted himself very well during the presidential debate. I would have preferred him to flounder hopelessly, but he didn't, and it causes me no psychological anguish to admit it.

You'll note that I was similarly laudatory about Palin's speech at the GOP convention.


That's the issue right, you would like to think that you are "somewhat" objective. We all like to think this but what is and what we sometimes like to think are two very different things.

Listen, I'm not saying you don't have the right to believe and even state what you think. I'm saying that you can't have it both ways. I would like to think that I am objective as well but I'm certain that there are more then just a few who would color me otherwise (Concord, you out there? :laugh2: ).


The problem here is that you want me, and every other conservative on this board to come out and say, "yeah she's an idiot and not qualified to be VP". The fact that you refuse to even consider the fact that there may be valid reasoning behind Palin's reluctance to name a publication confirms this. The problem, of course is that you are not going to get that because I don't believe it. My view is different but of course, that's not going to be satifactory so you will continue to beat the drum. It's OK. I choose to be involved in this forum so it's not a big deal.

[ABQCOWBOY]

What has that got to do with Sarah Palin? You're always trying to change the conversation so as to avoid confronting the uncomfortable reality that John McCain may have made a major blunder in choosing Palin as his running mate.


I'm sorry, this question was directed towards CC.

If you take a moment, you may see that I've already asked you a specific question. If you like, you can answer that one.

[Sasquatch]

The problem here is that you want me, and every other conservative on this board to come out and say, "yeah she's an idiot and not qualified to be VP". The fact that you refuse to even consider the fact that there may be valid reasoning behind Palin's reluctance to name a publication confirms this. The problem, of course is that you are not going to get that because I don't believe it. My view is different but of course, that's not going to be satifactory so you will continue to beat the drum. It's OK. I choose to be involved in this forum so it's not a big deal.

Not in the least but it certainly wouldn't kill you to acknowledge, "yeah, that didn't look particularly good" and then continue to support her for various other reasons that people have mentioned on this board at one time or another.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or belittling. I honestly think that your rationale is absurd with respect to this particular question.

You'll notice that I did post the entire interview after the clip on the newspapers with the observation that Palin conducted herself competently with the exception of that one moment.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I gotta believe everybody in the U.S. of A. expects that a Governor of a state reads at least one paper from his or her own state. She couldn't be nailed for this.

What she (and any other state politician who is a candidate for national office) could get nailed on is being ill informed about the rest of the country and/or world.

Which is why mentioning something like the NY or LA Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. would be important ... particularly if she wishes to show that she isn't some unqualified hick from a backwater town.


Of course that's true Zero. What's more, I think it's cool if she does that. The problem here is spin. Politics discust me because a persons honesty will always be used against them through spin. If she only names her own local paper, she's classified as small town. If she names other sources, she runs the risk of inviting other publications to favor support for Obama. Surely, you don't believe that she is stupid to the point of not knowing some of these sources you name? However, if she names NY Times, the what does the Post do? See what I mean? I'm just saying there are two sides to everything. It's a mistake to jump at one without considering both. If in the end, you decide she is, in fact, that stupid, then there is nothing I can do about that. It's your own personal choice.

[ConcordCowboy]

Fair enough. Then lets ask. In light of that video, in light of Obama's connection to these individuals, how can you support him as President?

I didn't watch all of it...just a minute or so and that was it.

But I'd imagine that I would dismiss it like you do things with Palin.

McCain is not clean here...for Gods sake Rick Davis was getting money through his lobbying firm from Freddie Mac what only a month or two ago and one of the people from Freddie Mac said that they used Davis as a way to get McCain's ear...which is not surprising...since he did work for the lobbying firm, and was getting payed by Freddie Mac.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Not in the least but it certainly wouldn't kill you to acknowledge, "yeah, that didn't look particularly good" and then continue to support her for various other reasons that people have mentioned on this board at one time or another.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or belittling. I honestly think that your rationale is absurd with respect to this particular question.

You'll notice that I did post the entire interview after the clip on the newspapers with the observation that Palin conducted herself competently with the exception of that one moment.


I watched the entire clip. Would it surprise you to know that I thought it was a very good interview? You made comment of the fact that you too thought it was superior to the first interview, that is not lost on me. You did not go so far as to say good but that's not unusual considering your political views.

The fact is, she answered the question. She said all of them. Clearly there was a reason she did not want to name specific publications. Even the strongest Left Wing supporter can not believe that Palin could not have named a few high profile publications, if she had wanted to do so.

Her job is not to win this race, although I know many who might argue this point with me. Essentially, her job is to not hurt McCain. Historically, that's about the most you can ask for from a VP Candidate. To me, that's probably the reason she answered in the way she did.

Of cousre, there is going to be a segment of people who would rather believe she is just that stupid and incapable. I am not won of those. Is that really so hard to believe?

[ABQCOWBOY]

I didn't watch all of it...just a minute or so and that was it.

But I'd imagine that I would dismiss it like you do things with Palin.

McCain is not clean here...for Gods sake Rick Davis was getting money through his lobbying firm from Freddie Mac what only a month or two ago and one of the people from Freddie Mac said that they used Davis as a way to get McCain's ear...which is not surprising...since he did work for the lobbying firm, and was getting payed by Freddie Mac.

So then, from your response, may I assume that your view of that situation is different from my own?

It's a matter of perception CC. I do not take you for a fool. I do not agree with your political views but that's a very different thing then believe you are stupid. Your view is different then my own. You see things differently so your oppinions of certain things are slanted in a different direction. That's the point I'm trying to make to you. The link is of no consiquence in this thread, other then to try and drive a point. I don't view that clip and Palin's unwillingness to name publications in the same manner you do because I see things differently. I would like to think that I too have a certain level of intelligence and because I see this differently, I am not automatically diverted to the Idiot Catagory by default.

[Sasquatch]

You made comment of the fact that you too thought it was superior to the first interview, that is not lost on me. You did not go so far as to say good but that's not unusual considering your political views.

Nothing is good enough for you, is it? :p:

[ScipioCowboy]

Last Night, Dick Morris was on the O'Reilly Factor, and gave his impression of Palin's performance during the interviews.

He stated that Palin does quite well in her first answer to the vast majority of questions; however, most interviewers ask virtually the same question in three different ways. When confronted with the second and third versions of a particular question, Palin tends to repeat elements of her first answer, which makes her sound repetitive and even discombobulated.

For instance, when asked about the bailout and its relation to health care, Palin provided a very incoherent answer, in which she seemed to be trying to pull together various aspects of the McCain platform. She failed miserably even though her meaning was obvious: If we don't first address the bailout, people will lose jobs and the nation's health care problems will only be magnified.

Morris went on to explain that, during his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton knew very little about foreign policy and was often stumped by the same three question format. So, Morris gave Clinton three possible answers for any one question. Morris then taped each answer, played them before an audience, and assessed audience reaction to each answer.

[Sasquatch]

Is that really so hard to believe?

No, not hard to believe, but your defense is implausible given her recent inability to name an occasion when John McCain advocated regulating the financial industry or another supreme court decision with which she strongly disagreed. This is just one in a series of Palin's mental blanks when asked to name specifics.

[ABQCOWBOY]

No, not hard to believe, but your defense is implausible given her recent inability to name an occasion when John McCain advocated regulating the financial industry or another supreme court decision with which she strongly disagreed. This is just one in a series of Palin's mental blanks when asked to name specifics.

I think you have to agree that answering the question outlined above, and coming up with LA Times are two very different problems.

The failure to name John McCain's specific political views or opinions on the subject was, in my opinion, a case of being unprepaired. Not answering Katie's "So, what tabloids are you getting your info from" question is something all together different IMO.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Last Night, Dick Morris was on the O'Reilly Factor, and gave his impression of Palin's performance during the interviews.

He stated that Palin does quite well in her first answer to the vast majority of questions; however, most interviewers ask virtually the same question in three different ways. When confronted with the second and third versions of a particular question, Palin tends to repeat elements of her first answer, which makes her sound repetitive and even discombobulated.

For instance, when asked about the bailout and its relation to health care, Palin provided a very incoherent answer, in which she seemed to be trying to pull together various aspects of the McCain platform. She failed miserably even though her meaning was obvious: If we don't first address the bailout, people will lose jobs and the nation's health care problems will only be magnified.

Morris went on to explain that, during his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton knew very little about foreign policy and was often stumped by the same three question format. So, Morris gave Clinton three possible answers for any one question. Morris then taped each answer, played them before an audience, and assessed audience reaction to each answer.


That's interesting! I did not know that. Thank you for posting.

[Sasquatch]

"So, what tabloids are you getting your info from" question is something all together different IMO.

She did not use the condescending term "tabloids." She evenhandedly inquired about the newspapers and magazines that inform Palin's worldview. No trickery there except for the compulsively defensive and paranoid. It seems to me that given the unflattering narrative that the political opposition is constructing about her lack of worldliness and intelligence it would be far more damaging to leave the question unanswered.

[ABQCOWBOY]

She did not use the condescending term "tabloids." She evenhandedly inquired about the newspapers and magazines that inform Palin's worldview. No trickery there except for the compulsively defensive and paranoid. It seems to me that given the unflattering narrative that the political opposition is constructing about her lack of worldliness and intelligence it would be far more damaging to leave the question unanswered.


A matter of opinion. As I said, we two do not share simular views where this is concerned.

Do you like apples or do you like oranges? If I say apples, you will undoubtedly say oranges. It is the nature of the beast I suppose.

[Sasquatch]

A matter of opinion. As I said, we two do not share simular views where this is concerned.

Do you like apples or do you like oranges? If I say apples, you will undoubtedly say oranges. It is the nature of the beast I suppose.

It's not merely a matter of opinion. It's a question of which explanation is more plausible given the context.

I bet that if you surveyed this board prior to this incident with Palin as to the fairness of inquiring into a candidate's reading habits there would have been few if any objections, including you.

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's not merely a matter of opinion. It's a question of which explanation is more plausible given the context.

I bet that if you surveyed this board prior to this incident with Palin as to the fairness of inquiring into a candidate's reading habits there would have been few if any objections, including you.


Supposition.

I dare say, you would lose that bet. However, now we will never know will we?

Still, you managed to get it out there so perhaps that's the mark this was intended for.

[ConcordCowboy]

So then, from your response, may I assume that your view of that situation is different from my own?

It's a matter of perception CC. I do not take you for a fool. I do not agree with your political views but that's a very different thing then believe you are stupid. Your view is different then my own. You see things differently so your oppinions of certain things are slanted in a different direction. That's the point I'm trying to make to you. The link is of no consiquence in this thread, other then to try and drive a point. I don't view that clip and Palin's unwillingness to name publications in the same manner you do because I see things differently. I would like to think that I too have a certain level of intelligence and because I see this differently, I am not automatically diverted to the Idiot Catagory by default.

I don't think you're an idiot...I just was laughing at the excuses.

That's all.

That's been one of my huge issues since she was nominated...it's ALWAYS something...

Gotcha questions.

Sexism.

The liberal media...blah..blah..blah.

Can't we once just say hey...that answer was ridiculous and move on.

Because when people try to defend things like this it just keeps it going.

People...Obama...Biden...McCain and Palin ALL say stupid things from time to time.

She's going to get more scrutiny at this moment because, Obama, Biden, and McCain have all been out there for over a year...she was just nominated a little over a month ago and people basically know nothing about her and she has had minuscule exposure to the media so far...because it seems right or wrong that McCains camp has been hiding her for some reason and then she comes out and gives answers like she has and people and the media go...Ahh that's why they're hiding her.

I blame McCain's camp for not getting her out there more and learning.

Since you were talking about Fannie and Freddie...to me they both are involved with people that had something to do with or contributed to it...or was involved in it in some way.

Does that necessarily mean that we should automatically blame either one?

Not to me.

Hell if we got rid of people who were somehow someway linked to Freddie and Fanny...Washington would probably be a ghost town.

So to me this issue is a wash...people will blame McCain or Obama...obviously depending on who's side you're on.

I vote for Obama because he thinks and want to enact (hopefully) the things that I want and McCain does not...not even close.

It's really that simple.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think you're an idiot...I just was laughing at the excuses.

That's all.

That's been one of my huge issues since she was nominated...it's ALWAYS something...

Gotcha questions.

Sexism.

The liberal media...blah..blah..blah.

Can't we once just say hey...that answer was ridiculous and move on.

Because when people try to defend things like this it just keeps it going.

People...Obama...Biden...McCain and Palin ALL say stupid things from time to time.

She's going to get more scrutiny at this moment because, Obama, Biden, and McCain have all been out there for over a year...she was just nominated a little over a month ago and people basically know nothing about her and she has had minuscule exposure to the media so far...because it seems right or wrong that McCains camp has been hiding her for some reason and then she comes out and gives answers like she has and people and the media go...Ahh that's why they're hiding her.

I blame McCain's camp for not getting her out there more and learning.

Since you were talking about Fannie and Freddie...to me they both are involved with people that had something to do with or contributed to it...or was involved in it in some way.

Does that necessarily mean that we should automatically blame either one?

Not to me.

Hell if we got rid of people who were somehow someway linked to Freddie and Fanny...Washington would probably be a ghost town.

So to me this issue is a wash...people will blame McCain or Obama...obviously depending on who's side you're on.

I vote for Obama because he thinks and want to enact (hopefully) the things that I want and McCain does not...not even close.

It's really that simple.

If your asking me, absolutly it does. If proof is found that McCain is involved directly with this Banking debacle, yes, it means that I would not vote for him.

I believe that proof has been presented that Obama was linked very closely to this whole thing. The primary reason, BTW, I will not be voting for him.

Perhaps you have a point. The defense of Sarah Palin may be over board by some. However, it pales in comparison to the defense of Obama, even by you CC. It's a bit one sided to call out the defense of Palin when the defense of Obama, IMO, is much more pronounced.

[ConcordCowboy]

If your asking me, absolutly it does. If proof is found that McCain is involved directly with this Banking debacle, yes, it means that I would not vote for him.

I believe that proof has been presented that Obama was linked very closely to this whole thing. The primary reason, BTW, I will not be voting for him.

Perhaps you have a point. The defense of Sarah Palin may be over board by some. However, it pales in comparison to the defense of Obama, even by you CC. It's a bit one sided to call out the defense of Palin when the defense of Obama, IMO, is much more pronounced.

Oh come on...you were NEVER going to vote for him, even if there had never been a Feddie, Fannie meltdown.

Lets be honest now.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Oh come on...you were NEVER going to vote for him, even if there had never been a Feddie, Fannie meltdown.

Lets be honest now.

I am not in love with McCain. I do like what Palin may someday represent but I am not voting for McCain on the strength of Palin. Perhaps this year more then ever, I am searching for options.

Obama is not who I am voting for but it is not because I am straight ticket Republican. It is also not a race issue for me. I have concerns about his backround but that is not what swayed me. It is his link to this whole Mortgage and Lending business and who he is closely associated with.

You can choose to believe that or not. I'm saying that this, more then any other year, I was willing to be convinced. I am left with, what I would characterize as, the best option available to me.

[ConcordCowboy]

I am not in love with McCain. I do like what Palin may someday represent but I am not voting for McCain on the strength of Palin. Perhaps this year more then ever, I am searching for options.

Obama is not who I am voting for but it is not because I am straight ticket Republican. It is also not a race issue for me. I have concerns about his backround but that is not what swayed me. It is his link to this whole Mortgage and Lending business and who he is closely associated with.

You can choose to believe that or not. I'm saying that this, more then any other year, I was willing to be convinced. I am left with, what I would characterize as, the best option available to me.


:ralph:

[ABQCOWBOY]

:ralph:


:laugh2:

Is that for me or the choices we are ultimatly left with?

lol.........

[ConcordCowboy]

:laugh2:

Is that for me or the choices we are ultimatly left with?

lol.........

Your choices...:D McCain/Palin

Not mine...:p: Obama/Biden

[ABQCOWBOY]

Your choices...:D McCain/Palin

Not mine...:p: Obama/Biden

That's the thing right? It's all about Choice.

I, however, will not electronically puke on your choice of Obama/Biden. I have a feeling that it will get unappealing enough, all on it's own.

:D

[Viper]

Honestly, I wish Palin just said...why Katie, I only listen to you hon...

[ABQCOWBOY]

Honestly, I wish Palin just said...why Katie, I only listen to you hon...


LOL........

Yep. Perhaps you, Viper, would have been the better choice in retrospect.

;)

[Danny White]

I still believe! :)

[trickblue]

I still believe! :)

She did a good job... so did Biden...

Let's wait for the MSM... of course we know where that goes...

[CanadianCowboysFan]

someone should tell that girl to wear dark panty hose at night

her obsession with light panty hose ruins the outfits she wears

come on girl, black panty hose after Labour Day, everyone knows that rule

[Danny White]

someone should tell that girl to wear dark panty hose at night

her obsession with light panty hose ruins the outfits she wears

come on girl, black panty hose after Labour Day, everyone knows that rule

Are you female?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Are you female?

I'm in touch with my feminine side and have a wife who is a clothes' fashion hound, and watch America's next top model, so I know clothes

[BrAinPaiNt]

I'm in touch with my feminine side and have a wife who is a clothes' fashion hound, and watch America's next top model, so I know clothes

So you are not a woman but you are gay.

JUST KIDDING

[Danny White]

I'm in touch with my feminine side and have a wife who is a clothes' fashion hound, and watch America's next top model, so I know clothes

I wasn't trying to rag on you... it's just that typically, this being a sports forum, I find myself assuming that pretty much everyone here is a guy (unless they put "girl" or "chick" in their username :p: .


That was a very "female" kind of comment, so I was just curious. Personally, I don't know any guys who know the rules of wearing pantyhose.

As far as her clothes went, though, I thought she looked sharp.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I wasn't trying to rag on you... it's just that typically, this being a sports forum, I find myself assuming that pretty much everyone here is a guy (unless they put "girl" or "chick" in their username :p: .


That was a very "female" kind of comment, so I was just curious. Personally, I don't know any guys who know the rules of wearing pantyhose.

As far as her clothes went, though, I thought she looked sharp.

The naughty librarian look was working.

Excuse me miss - Could you help me, I am having trouble with the Dewey decimal system?

~cue adult movie music~

:p:

[trickblue]

That's the thing right? It's all about Choice.

I, however, will not electronically puke on your choice of Obama/Biden. I have a feeling that it will get unappealing enough, all on it's own.

:D

Choice didn't even get a carry in the last two games...

How can it be about Choice?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Choice didn't even get a carry in the last two games...

How can it be about Choice?


At 11 carries total, perhaps it's better if Choice is left out of this discussion.

:D