“But why are Mac’s handlers keeping Palin away from the media? Hah! Evidence that she’s not ready for prime time!”
Interesting theory.
Now, reality: They’re bypassing the mainstream media and going directly to the voters.
In fact they are allowing her message to be absorbed without the skepticism of the old gatekeepers interposed between Palin and voters. The enormous crowds validate the approach and at the same time further diminish the MSM’s old guard who just can’t seem to grasp that their disapproval just doesn’t matter to most of America.
It worked for Reagan. And given the froth that the MSM and the Obama campaign (pardon the redundancy) have worked themselves into, I think it’s working now.
When I was a spry youngster, I went with my older brother to see Bush 41 campaign for Tommy Thompson in 1986. After GHWB got done speaking, I thought “geesh, he’s nothing like he is portrayed in Big Media. Totally different person.”
Also recall that big brother said the anti-Bush/anti-Thompson protest was organized by a college professor at UW-Eau Claire…the instructored organized during his class time. That was the first time I realized what douchebags college professors can be, and that any looney tune can occupy a seat in the soft majors.
Hugh Hewitt is a visionary genius. If he says the Palin breakout is continuing, well, I’m sure she’s going to paint the map red. Maybe she’ll pick Romney as her VP, and then we’ll get a Mormon in the White House after all.
It is interesting, PeterH, that you make it sound like Hugh Hewitt wrote (in the referenced titles) predictions that failed to come to pass.
Did you read these books? It doesn’t seem so, and in fact it looks like you didn’t even read the whole titles:
* “Painting the Map Red: The Fight to Create a Permanent Republican Majority”
* “A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney”
Now, those don’t sound like predictions at all. I am thinking that either:
1) you misleading me, or
2) you don’t know what you’re talking about.
McCain’s people have figured out — correctly — that Palin will never, ever get fair shake from the media.
We’re talking about a press that sent an army reporters to Alaska to find out that she bought a tanning bed with her own money and aired the ‘trig-is-really-Bristol’s-bay’ rumor.
The same press has been remarkably incurious about investigating Obama’s past. Example:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
Yet another case of hammering a point to effect public opinion regardless of the truth:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
Forget the media who might remember (or have access to publicly available information) and could question historical information…
The enormous crowds validate the approach
So she’s a celebrity? Big crowds validate a candidate?
I’ll let you finish off this thought for me.
We’re talking about a press that sent an army reporters to Alaska to find out that she bought a tanning bed with her own money
Or maybe this:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=25861
Looks like she’s buying good PR. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer…..
I’ll let you finish off this thought for me.
OK. I will. “Rumors that the ‘honeymoon’ is over would seem to be exaggerated.
I love the “run against the VP” approach.
afoaofa-
Conspiracy sites abound on the internet. You should learn to recognize them before you begin to suffer from Daily Dish Dementia.
Conspiracy sites abound on the internet
Are my facts wrong?
If not, how would you explain the sudden turn around of the ANG general in his comments about Gov. Palin?
Conspiracy sites abound on the internet
My comment about buying PR was no one else’s idea but my own. Is that a conspiracy?
A PR firm? To create smears? The Obambi campaign should try that.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php
Change, Hope and Lies we can believe in.
Articles like:
The Century of the Self
The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
Are the dreams of conspiracy-mongers.
I think the rosicrucians are looking for new members. Check them out: http://www.rosicrucian.org/
“Big crowds validate a candidate?”
They do if they vote. We call it democracy, stool; very good stuff.
A PR firm? To create smears?
I note the distinct lack of rebuttal to my specific point of the ANG General changing his mind under questionable circumstances. Deflect, deflect, deflect….
Are the dreams of conspiracy-mongers
Ummm. when a significant number of people believe(d) that crap from Dubya, then, yeah, the tactic was successful in my mind:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544
“Big crowds validate a candidate?”
They do if they vote.
So now being a celebrity is a good thing…. Boy how things change quickly….
Mitch,
“take it to the people” – sure, except for where she grants nothing but soft-ball interviews, like the one with Hannity?
She’s got warts on her warts – say what you like – she may sell to someone who doesn’t read anything past the headline – but she CLEARLY sought funding for the ‘Bridge to Nowhere”, is CLEARLY standing in front of a lawful investigation (or rather – McCain’s handlers are doing that for her), and CLEARLY has some issues fielding real questions – she was a stupid choice except for her appeal to the right-wing base, which says a LOT about the right-wing base.
And Mitch, Afoaofa has it right- people have some short memories, but as soon as she looks like another Dumbya, she’s done for.
and peeve wades out into his intellectual shallow waters, once again.
“She’s got warts on her warts” and never mentions anything, She also CLEARLY killed it. I would love to peeve’s head explode should Obama have to face an investigation run by someone buried in McCains camp. It would still be a lawful investigation, right? She was a fantastic pick for those of us who figured we would have to hold our noses while voting this time out.
afoaofa & peev. Great minds think alike!
Hey, peev, waddya think of Obama’s visit to Pakistan? Do you think he passed as Muslim while he was there? Should it be of as much interest to the media as, say, Sarah Palin’s tanning bed?
Soft ball interviews? Peev CLEARLY didn’t see the one I did with The One and Steve Croft on 80 Minutes last night.
Hard hitting stuff.
She was a fantastic pick…
That is rather insulting to the likes of Olympia Snowe or Kay Hutchinson. Gov. Palin’s pick was clearly an effort to win the election at any cost – sort of like Election First vs. Country First.
I still can’t figure out this ticket. Gov. Palin clearly has very conservative social values, and that appears to be her strongest point on the GOP ticket. But, will Sen. McCain change his social agenda because of his VP pick?
That is rather insulting to the likes of Olympia Snowe or Kay Hutchinson.
Actually, the notion that either of them should have been considered was a slap to all Republicans, and as corrosively sexist a statement as has ever existed.
Neither Snowe nor Hutchison brought anything to the ticket. At all. They are both “moderates” at best – and Mac’s never had trouble reaching to that constituency on his own.
The only thing either has to recommend them as a practical, political matter was X Chromosomes. Nothing else.
Gov. Palin’s pick was clearly an effort to win the election at any cost – sort of like Election First vs. Country First.
Nope. It was an effort to energize the base and re-group the Reagan Coalition. Early indicators are good!
I still can’t figure out this ticket. Gov. Palin clearly has very conservative social values, and that appears to be her strongest point on the GOP ticket. But, will Sen. McCain change his social agenda because of his VP pick?
Why would he?
Should it be of as much interest to the media as, say, Sarah Palin’s tanning bed
Well, ah, when we’ve heard a significant amount of spittle about Obama’s elitist comments and being out of touch with common folk, then yeah, seems just a bit hypocritical…..
Owning a tanning bed is elitist? In friggin’ Alaska? This is what the free press investigates when Obama has admitted to having a flat-mate who was a drug-dealing illegal alien from Pakistan?
Gimme a break.
and as corrosively sexist a statement as has ever existed.”
No Mitch, that goes to the McCain campaign for lying through it’s teeth by suggesting that ‘lipstick on a pig’ was a sexist comment.
Buzz – ‘She clearly closed” – what? What did she clearly close? That she backed the bridge to nowhere until it became politically unpalitable? Hardly. That the investigation into her husband’s conduct and Troopergate are the same old stonewalling we saw under Dumbya? Hardly.
Stay in the shallow end bud, it’s all you got.
Terry – I couldn’t give a crap about her owning a tanning bed, own 4 for all I care. However, not having a full-time job until you are 36, and then after 7.5 years of a holding a full-time job, suggesting such person is ready to be the leader of the free world, is asinine. You all would NEVER have conciened it – and to your mind didn’t – in a Democratic candidate – witness your claptrap about Obama. Obama was 5 times more qualified than Palin. And please, save your vitriole about beinga ‘full time mommy’ – first, there are 50,000,000 full time mommys and daddys, it’s not an adequate qualification to be President – and second, hadn’t we ought to look for ‘the best and the brightest’ rather than some chuckle head from Texas? We saw what that got us after all.
The irony of you nutjobs backing Palin is hilarious! You spend 3 months bitching about the religious associations of Obama, about the wackiness of some of his ‘friends’, about his lack of experience, yet as compared to Palin, Obama is the epitome’ of experience. Palin is everything you wrongly claim about Obama – she’s a sop to the extreme right – a barely qualified Governor, let alone Veep – who panders to the most extreme of views. Since when should the rest of the people in the country be satisfied with someone who so obviously doesn’t give a damn about what ANY point of view other than her narrow, exptremist viewpoint?
Say what you like Mitch, but she is CLEARLY being ‘managed’ and kept away from the Media – you say it’s because they’re doing ‘an end run’, I say Bullshit – it’s because they’re afraid of what she’ll say – just as she did with Charles Gibson. If they can’t keep her on message, they think she’ll blow it, and if she were strong enough, capable enough, experienced enough, she’d BE in front of 60 minutes – if this was about skipping the MSM, then McCain would be doing it to.
afoaofa said:
“I note the distinct lack of rebuttal to my specific point”
Wow. That really makes the argument. Ahahaha!
You link to a site that has “Welcome to the final stages of the coup…” as it’s “Breaking News”, and the link itself sources “Daily Kos”. And you have the endorsement of penigma.
Hmm, well, we should probably take this pretty seriously then. Ahahaha!
That really makes the argument
I’ve made my point. Where’s your rebuttal of the facts?
Anyone who refers to a guy as “Dumbya” deserves everything he gets… and from what we’ve seen, we know he’s not getting any respect.
Justice is served. 😀
Just to take one of your misbegotten points, peev:
When has Obama ever won a hard-fought election? Or lost one, for that matter.
Where’s your rebuttal of the facts?
What “facts”? That Palin’s partisan opponents in the AK legislature have complaints about her?
Nothing to “rebut” so much as to observe.
What other “facts” are in question here?
Afoaofa seems to share the same lack of debating skills of so many lefty trolls.
It his his job to convince others of what he believes. His point is not proven by default. A link to a conspiracy site is not a rebuttable argument.
Here’s a link to a guy who thinks that a killer planet will strike the Earth in 2012. Because it’s the end of the Mayan calendar! Rebutt that fact, if you can!
What other “facts” are in question here?
Ah, thank you. No attack on the messenger; a simple statement. Not exactly what I was looking for, but I’ll take it.
I do like a true argument now and again. It is true that Gov. Palin’s opponents have complaints about her, as you mention. And I wouldn’t think any/many people here would say “Man, what a terrible choice.”
But when Gov. Palin was paraded out at the RNC and then elevated to celebrity status, of course one would expect people to be very discriminating of her past and her method of governance.
And now being sheltered from the media really plays into the question of her ability to handle tough situations. That’s my point.
DEREGULATE! YAY!
DEREGULATE! THAT’S THE WAY
DEREGULATE YAY!
Markets close 270 points lower today on fears the Fed won’t save a bunch of myopic ‘freemouseketeers’ from themselves.
DEREGULATE – YAY!
What’s that you say, the markets are collapsing.. Oh.. wait.
Bottom line, what you nutcups don’t get – is that oversight has it’s place, always has, always will. The market follows the herd, it doesn’t have visionary leaders behind it, it has seek the most profit in the shortest time behind it – and a failure to oversee it leads to catastrophe – not jobs, not growth in middle-class afluence.
Funny how the ones looking out for the public trust here are the Democrats.
Terry – whatever Afoafa’s skills are or aren’t complaints about Trolls, on this website, are tautologies of epic proportions.
Badda, you wouldn’t know just if it bit you in the ass, just as you don’t know topics, relevant detail, information, or the idea of actually being a constructive participant in anything meaningful.
Dumbya is as Dumbya does Badda, justice is that his epic failure is coming home to roost on his doorstep. Justice would see the middle class not getting screwed by this President – except that 51% voted for him out of fear – justice is the repudiation of supply-side stupidity.
Care to argue THOSE facts? Or are you telling me that after 8 years of ‘The Business President” and massive tax give aways to the rich that in FACT the economy is sound, the deficit shrunk, and we have MORE high-paying jobs? Justice is indeed served.
Actually, peev, I would argue that only an idiot claims that you invite catastrophe by voting for the other guys’ partyand then accuses the other guys’ voters of being driven by fear.
Ah, Peev once again blows a gasket in usual fashion.
“…that 51% voted for him out of fear – justice is the repudiation of supply-side stupidity.
Care to argue THOSE facts?”
What facts? Please substantiate voting out of fear.
(Crickets)
Terry,
So it’s idiotic to suggest American voters voted for Bush in 2004 on fear?
Really??!! Wow, then I guess Mary Kiffmeyer’s attempts to extole fear at the voting booths by putting up signs saying ‘Be wary of suspicious activity’ at the FREAKING POLLING BOOTHS! was the move of an idiot.. right?
And all the pundits who’ve said the same thing, they’re all idiots too, right? I mean, all of them who’ve said openly that Bush ran on anti-terrorism in 2004 – a threat that we are coming to see is remote at best – which is why all first responders (for example) had all of their nerve agent kits left unrenewed because the threat of that kind of attack is seen as extraordinarily unlikely – yet we remain at ‘Orange” threat levels.. yeah Terry, we’re all idiots for thinking that Bush played the fear card in 2004 – yep.
OR
He did – he used terror as a political tool – I mean, he’d NEVER DO THAT NO!!!! – not like he did with DOJ, or with releasing intel information about Pakistan which our own intel group AND THE PAKISTANIS thought was a gross misuse of information which dramatically HURT intelligence operations worldwide, I mean, no reason at all to think Bush would be THAT craven, yep.
Once again, you all want to focus on the messenger, because you can’t argue the message. This economy is screwed, WAS SCREWED, by your cherished supply-sideism – by handing the money up – because they didn’t see enough GOOD investments on-shore (read, they didn’t want to invest in paying decent wages ON SHORE) and so they pursued BAD, risky investments, and didn’t worry about whether joe average could pay his bills – even though the warning signs were out there for 5 years or more – and now, chaos.
Terry, I appreciate that you are one of the few – VERY FEW – people who comment in support of this blog’s general position – who responds with genuine intent to engage – that’s refreshing, but let’s stay on point. Bush ran in 2004 with terrorism as his key note – while many people warned him about excess deficits (you know, the ones which were supposed to go away with the tax cuts due to increased tax revenues???) warned him about people raiding 401ks, warned him about ARMS and HELOCS being used to refinance homes JUST TO PAY BASIC BILLS, and he fiddled, he didn’t care a whit (or at least didn’t act) about flat wages, about skyrocketing energy costs, he just wanted to win. He employed a man (Karl Rove) who aspoused “Everything is politics” and then went out and used things like Swift Boat Liars – but we shouldn’t think he worked the fear angle? Get real.
Running on terrorism isn’t quite the same as voters voting out of fear, Peev.
If you believe that… that’s fine, but you’d have to support it with PROOF.
(Crickets)
You just know that Peev is absolutely frothing when he uses words like “nutcups” and “Dumbya”.
😆
Peev, you should make one point, make it as well as you can, then move on. Throwing out a hundred disputed opinions isn’t really arguing, it’s venting.
Viz: In my last comment I made a single point:
You haven’t bothered to respond to my noting the irony of your claim that a vote for the GOP is a vote for ‘catastrophe’ while in the same comment you claim that the voters for the other side are driven by fear. Maybe you don’t see it?
I also made a single point in my earlier response to your claim that “Obama was 5 times more qualified than Palin”. I asked you if Obama had ever won a hard-fought election (Palin has). You didn’t bother to respond.
Look, Peev, I’ve got plenty of problems with the McCain/Palin ticket. I expect most conservatives do. The only reason I can muster some enthusiasm about voting in November is because the Palin VP selection signals a return to something like Reagan’s vision of the GOP.
Obama reached the pinnacle of his talent as a state assemblyman. The only qualification he had for that job was that he had demonstrated to the Illinois political machine a certain skill at registering voters. He won his senate seat more or less by forfeit. There is nothing in Obama’s resume that demonstrates that he has the skills to lead the executive branch of the United States in a political calm, let alone when the country is divided nearly equally along partisan lines.
No Terry, I don’t see it – what irony is that – I claimed that those who voted for Bush, voted out of fear. Perhaps you were thinking I was claiming those who voted for Democrats voted out of fear – I wasn’t. If that wasn’t clear – apologies.
As for Obama’s talent – he was President of the Harvard Law review, meaning, at the BEST law school in the country according to most ratings, he was seen as one of the brightest and best, that’s not small potatoes.
While I don’t claim he’s long on experience, neither was GWB – and Obama certainly has more to his resume’ than Bush did or does even now – considering the catastrohpe he created, yet I suspect you support/supported Bush.
I’d rather, candidly, it were another candidate, my choices were John Edwards, for which I’m thoroughly embarrassed given the evidence of his adultery during his wife’s illness, and Bill Richardson. I once like McCain, but he’s become a tool of the extreme right, and Palin proves it.
The ONLY reason I see to support Obama is that his WORDS indicate a desire for a true shift in paradigm away from making the rich richer in the hopeless belief that it will ‘trickle down’. That hasn’t worked, not even close.
PB
And Terry, I make a lot of points, normally because there is so much material, it provides evidence of the silliness of debating the other side.
BTW, this evening, for the 3rd time in 6 business days, I’ve spent my evening working out the details of having yet another insitutuion fail to wire funds to settle accounts as they should have. In short, I’m mired in this chaos – pretending this is about ‘greed on Wall Street and corruption in Washington’ – well, that’s only true if we’re talking about the fascistic cooperation between Washington and investment houses – but the reality is that at it’s core, it’s about a failure to adequately pay workers and deal with their escalating costs. Sub-Prime was about risks and idiocy – certainly – but this is FAR larger than sub-prime business, as one large investment house estimated – perhaps has high as 70% of it’s HELOC holders with FICO’s over may forfiet on those loans. This is an epic time – make no mistake – and that ‘epic’ isn’t a good one, it’s a bad one.. It’s not 1929, but it’s not far from it, and it’s only due to the oversight neo-cons eschew that it ISN’T 1929.
should have said ‘FICO’s over 720’ – got a phone call – sorry.
No Terry, I don’t see it – what irony is that – I claimed that those who voted for Bush, voted out of fear.
You see, I can focus on one point of absurdity. Let me throw aout a few names.
Bali
Madrid
London
Theo Van Gough
al Qeada in Iraq
Amhadinejad.
Now for the juxtapostion.
John Kerry.
See, I did that in under one hundred words.
Jeezum H. Christmas. If this is what Peev is ejaculating from his keyboard in the fall, can you freakin’ imagine what the winter has in store?
Well, PB, I’m not an economist but I do know that the term “trickle down economics” refers to the idea that the richer getting more money helps the less well off. I don’t know it is true or not but I do know that many people on the left use the term interchangeably with “supply side economics”, which is wrong on its face and an attempt to make a pejorative out of what is a fact of economics — incentivising people with with money makes them more productive.
I don’t know of any conservative who uses the term “trickle down economics” to describe their idea of what our economic policy should be. In any case we are not talking about the Wolves of Wall Street vs selfless Government regulators. There is no perfect capitalist system any more than there is a perfect socialist system. We are talking about degrees of regulation and government involvement in markets and finance, not absolutes.
One of the problems I have with free-marketeers is that they have vastly increased the transportability of capital while labor is (by necessity) less able to sell its services to the highest bidder. If I’m a millionaire & the demand for housing in China increases I can move my money into Chinese construction with a phone call; if I’m an underemployed carpenter moving to China would be out of the question.
Despite what you may read on liberal blogs this is an issue of some concern & controversy on the right. Liberal blogs mostly ignore this because it suits their polemics to fuse all conservatives into a mass & stick the label “global capitalists” or “free marketeers” on them.
What you won’t read about on the lefty blogs is how the much admired, heavily regulated economy’s of the world’s semi-socialists states have consistent problems with high employment and anemic economic growth.
By far the most complete, easy-to-understand narrtive of how we got into this mess:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22514/pub_detail.asp
Note that the article — which laments the failure of congress to toughen regulations on Fannie & Freddie — was published in May of 2005 & holds both Democrats & Republicans responsible for failing to deal with accounting & collateralization problems with F&F that they knew existed.
Peev, I believe, thinks McCain is part of the crew that is responsible for the current mess because until recently Phil Gramm was McCain’s economic adviser. 1999’s Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (that reduced barriers between traditional mortgage-lending banks & investment banks) is often fingered by liberals as tehederegulation that led to the current crisis.
It turns out that Leach is Republican for Obama. He gave a speech endorsing Obama at the D convention: http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/08/25/full-text-former-us-rep-jim-leach-speech-to-democratic-national-convention/
“Buzz – ‘She clearly closed” – what? What did she clearly close? That she backed the bridge to nowhere until it became politically unpalitable?”
Talk to the democrats up there. They’re the ones that gave her credit for killing the bridge to no where. You calling them liars? They had her on they’re webpage giving her credit right up to the point McCain picked her.
afoaofa said:
“And now being sheltered from the media really plays into the question of her ability to handle tough situations. That’s my point.”
My point: your point was poorly made (if “That’s my point” is true), it isn’t based on much experience/time (she became VP when?), and your support for the point isn’t very credible.
I think she has a debate scheduled in October, so I guess we shall see how she handles that.