Nick Coleman is dazed and confused (I purchased that sentence from the Department of Redundancy Department).
Nick thinks Sarah Palin winked at him, and his “male” readers. It’s either an attempt at humor (stick to being a broken bat Nick, humor is above your pay grade) or a view into Nick’s psyche; certainly not Sarah Palin’s.
Sarah Palin winked at me during her debate with Joe Biden. She winked at the camera, and I think it was meant for me. There is a connection between us that goes back to that tear-gassy September night in St. Paul, when she gave her acceptance speech and I was up in the balcony, taking notes.
Sarah Palin’s wink was not a come-on, and most certainly not directed to Nick Coleman.
As if.
Now Nick, if you see Sarah lift her middle finger…
Sarah Palin’s was a wink of encouragement to all working Americans. It was a wink to the Democrats “We’ve got your number; you don’t have the answers.” It was a wink of confidence…and it was a wink to her father sitting in the audience during the debate.
I would make a good First Dude.
Silly Nick. A pandering liberal soon-to-be-unemployed columnist for a failing paper vs. a real man in The Deadliest Catch business, who races snow machines and lives off the land in the Alaskan frontier?
Nick, you couldn’t iron her shirt.
…and for your enjoyment, I give you Mariah Carey.
Oh, when you walk by every night
Talking sweet and looking fine
I get kinda hectic inside
Mmm, baby I’m so into you
Darling, if you only knew
All the things that flow through my mind(But it’s just a) sweet, sweet fantasy, baby
When I close my eyes
You come and you take me
(On and on and on)
So deep in my daydreams
But it’s just a sweet, sweet fantasy, baby
Nick goes on in his column (blah blah blah) and I think he actually says some nice things about Sarah Palin and acknowledges the political clout of soccer moms (blah blah blah) but I lost interest.
To be fair to Lord Coleman, Rich Lowry at NRO also got a tingle….
Mitch, people liked Palin, but DID, in fact, see through her folksy personality to the fact that she didn’t answer questions, and mostly regurgitated soundbites.
BTW, care to make your prediciton again about the outcome of this race being either a. McCain close or b. McCain big? Such a tight prediction, but still, you stand by that today, right?
Maligma, you talkin’ to me?
We know you can’t write.
…can’t read either?
“Didn’t answer questions, mostly regurgitated soundbites”
I would like to hear Obama answer questions about his record in public service, but he doesn’t get asked those questions. I would like to hear Biden explain his remarks about how a drunk driver killed his wife, but he doesn’t get asked those questions.
Palin has appointed judges, submitted state budgets, and negotiated oil leases. She gets asked about how many countries’ stamps are on her passport, or questions designed to get her to contradict something McCain has said.
Oh, boohoo. Save your alibis for the day after the election, why don’t you?
The one good thing about Palin is you wingnuts finally have a pin-up girl. Must suck to have to limit yourselves to Lynndie England, Maggie Thatcher and Condoleeza Rice for sexual fantasy material.
And you guys have Sandra Bernhardt, Rosie O’Donnell, and this pyramid of luscious ladies to gaze at while you play ‘yank my doodle, it’s a dandy’. I don’t feel so deprived.
Again we see that when the clown can’t counter an argument, hegoes for snark. As in:
“Clinton was a perjurer. He was found to be a perjurer in a court of law.”
“Yeah? Well that judge was an ugly Bitch!”
You’re so silly, Terry. Angryclown has said many times that Clinton is a convicted perjurer and should have resigned the presidency in shame. And Angryclown only stoops to argue with you kooks when he can’t come up with a funny line.
Palin is the least qualified person to run for national office, um, ever. Who has to go to five crappy colleges to score a communications degree? Jaysus, your average Division I football player does better than that.
Sure Obama’s underqualified, but at least he’s intelligent. Angryclown forgets – that’s not a positive quality for you guys is it?
Palin is the least qualified person to run for national office, um, ever.
Umm. Not quite. There is one exception. Barack Obama.
Name one thing that Obama has accomplished or a position he has held that makes him more qualified than Governor Palin.
One.
Now.
Do it.
Now.
Just one.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry4502414.shtml
Ugly, cult-based politics, desparation.. 3 words to describe the state of McCain’s campaign. You sit and phumper about cultishness, but THAT comment by Palin isn’t about issues, it’s about building charicatures, your hypocrisy is infinite.
So much for changing the tone, I guess McCain’s claims that Obama’s campaign where Obama complains about the Bush administration as being “exactly what’s wrong in Washington” meaning, what’s wrong is the hyper-partisan nature of the rhetoric, well, I guess, that was just words. Now he has his chief lieutenant out attacking Obama personally about someone he barely knew hosting something at his house…
Yeah, that’s THE important stuff. It sure is changing the tone, change SURE is coming with McCain – change just like the craven nature of Dick Cheney and George Bush. He’s a uniter (Bush), not a divider.. McCain is a uniter too – that sort of rhetoric will ensure that should McCain win, he will be hated by about 50% of the populace, not for his party, but for his conduct. Good leadership there, really, really good, you betcha.
OK, Peev, I’ll broaden Roosh’s challenge (since Angryclown doesn’t answer questions any more than Peev does). Name anything Obama’s done that’d make him more qualified than Palin.
Good luck with that.
Yeah, that’s THE important stuff.
As opposed to your 20,000th straight post full of huffing and puffing about BushCo?
You have nineteen fingers and toes pointing back at you. Or whatever it is you say.
Not dropping the terminal “g” from words. There’s one. Also first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, instead of Miss Congeniality. Oh, and he’s authored legislation in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois legislature. And got some Dems to support the Wall Street bailout, instead of calling the debates off, then back on, while other people did the real work. But this is why Angryclown doesn’t bother arguing with you kooks. If you think an aging snowbunny trophy veep has the same qualifications as Obama, there’s really not anything to talk about. Some of you kooks even make the case that Caribou Barbie’s got more experience than Joe Biden, cause she’s got *executive* experience. So where’s the argument? If Angryclown wants to argue, he’ll confine himself to people who live on the same planet.
Angryclown is here to laugh at you.
To take a just one of your points, AC, being the first black president of HLR (not merely an editor — that benchmark was achieved back in the 20’s, I believe) doesn’t mean that much. As I’ve written on SITD before, who can name the previous or current president of HLR? The presidency of HLR is something of an honorarium. The other editors choose him or her based on whatever criteria they’ve decided to follow as individuals. It’s not like he had the highest LSAT score, the highest GPA, the most published articles or whatever.
Although he undoubtedly did a lot of editing at HLR — and no one claims that Obama can’t write — he seems to have left Harvard without doing a lot of scholarly work. Ditto for his tenure at Chicago.
The claim that being the president of HLR qualifies Obama to be president is a dead end. It doesn’t lead you to his fabulous reputation as a lawyer or as a legal scholar because he doesn’t have either of those. No president of Harvard Law Review has ever gone on to become president (though several have become Supreme Court Justices).
And the “dropping the ‘g’ from the end of words” is pure bigotry, as in having a strong opinion on based on ignorance or poor reasoning. Obama’s mother was from Kansas & his father was from Kenya. What the hell do you think they sounded like?
“what’s wrong is the hyper-partisan nature of the rhetoric”
Peev, please give an example of Bush using “hyper-partisan rhetoric”. Something akin to Pelosi blaming all the evils of the world on Republicans as she did the other day. Before asking them for their vote.
Mitch,
He won the endorsement of a major party for the most important positon in the world. Sarah Palin did not. He also was President of the Harvard Law review – Sarah Palin barely graduated from college. Now, being someone who took a damned long time myself, I can forgive her – but being President of the Harvard Law review is actually pretty dang prestigious. He also
a. worked to find jobs for unemployed, laid-off workers
b. worked to keep people in their homes when they faced eviction
c. went into dangerous areas of Chicago to seek ways to find reconciliation between agrieved neighborhoods and the city.
I know, all that doesn’t much matter, the whole christian charity aspect of it doesn’t matter – except of course it does, as I’m sure you’ll agree.
As far as hypocrisy goes, I don’t recall EVER having said that Democrats shouldn’t be just as dirty as Republicans. Your complaint is found wanting, sorry. However, I wasn’t talking about you specifically, I was talking about the complaints of cultishness and the comments of wanting to ‘put partisan politics aside’ of the neo-cons and McCain, respectively.
Terry-
The comment “If you aren’t for us, you’re against us” is hyper-partisan. Saying you are giving “aid and comfort to the enemy” by dissenting, is hyper-partisan. The examples of Bush’s overreaching comments are beyond count. How about when Cheney walked up to Harry Reid and said “FuXX you”. Would you consider that constructive? However, that’s hardly the point, whether Bush used hyperpartisan comments (which he so very clearly did) or pursued hyperpartisan tactics (like outing Valerie Wilson and then claiming not to be aware of the act), the point was MCCAIN makes one complaint, and then sicks his attack dogs on his opponent. It’s what BushCo did in South Carolina to McCain, and what McCain SWORE he’d never do, but now has.
By the way Mitch,
First, you are, I believe, wilfully creating something from nothing. Coleman was mocking Palin, as he was mocking the right. He was satirizing her, and her folksey-ness – and I’m quite sure you know that. Yet, you present the story above as if you believed him to be sincere. Was that merely satire back? If so, why? Your readers wouldn’t know better unless they get the StarTribune, so it would appear you attempted to deceive them about the nature of the story. Or is it that you truly didn’t grasp he was mocking Palin? I don’t think it was though, I think it was that the rest of the story in fact showed it, but you left it out because it would have made Coleman look clever, and your complaint hollow?
As far as answering your responses to my comments, when you consistently speak to the point of the comment, without simply ignoring the parts you’d rather not have to address, in short, when you decide to engage in discussion – well, then all the better for us both. Until then – as you probably understand – I will not normally read more than the first sentence in order to determine whether you’re being genuine, or, like the story above, whether you’re being something other than genuine. Case in point, was this ENTIRE store about Obama at all? No, it was about the fakery of Palin and McCain. Considering you didn’t address my comment, I’m not quite so sure, Mr. 19 toes, why you should anticipate I’d address yours?
Peev-
I see you haven’t been able to come up with a hyper-partisan Bush quote.
“If you aren’t for us, you’re against us”.
A misquote. Here’s the real one: “Over time it’s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity,” he said. “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/
Obviously the contest is international. Bush was talking to the people who run other countries, not Democrats.
For the life of me I don’t know why you think that Bush said that dissent=”aid and comfort to the enemy”. That must be another misquote.
You say that Bush’s “over-arching” comments are “beyond count” yet you can’t seem to actually find any.
When did “Fuck you” become partisan? Has any Democrat ever said it to a GOP politician without being hyper-partisan?
Bush did not “out” Valerie Plame. Armitage outed Plame. That’s on the record. Armitage was loyal to Clayton Powell, not Bush-Cheney. I doubt Armitage even knew she was a Democrat.
You finish by saying that bush used “hyper-partisan tactics”. What the heck does that even mean? He’s a Republican. Is he supposed to encourage his side to lose a political contest out of a sense of fairness?
You finish by darkly hinting that ‘Bushco’ did dirt to McCain in SC. First, McCain is a Republican. No “hyper-partisanship” there. Second, evidence please. I’ve demolished lefties on this in the past. There is no evidence connecting Bush to any of the push-polling or ugly rumors about McCain in SC. None. Zero. Zipp-o. Even McCain’s campaign manager didn’t accuse Bush of being behind the ugliness.
McCain pissed off some very influential Republicans in SC. Bush didn’t have to do anything to encourage them to target McCain.
First, you are, I believe, wilfully creating something from nothing. Coleman was mocking Palin, as he was mocking the right. He was satirizing her, and her folksey-ness – and I’m quite sure you know that. Yet, you present the story above as if you believed him to be sincere.
Fer God’s sake peev, JRoosh wrote the post, not Mitch.
So in edition being chief editor of his student-run law school magazine, Obama:
Pathetic. These are qualifications to become a social worker or a grant writer.
The _only_ reason the Chicago machine picked Obama out of a crowd of dozens or hundreds like him is that he was able to register 200K new voters.
Btw Mitch (and Terry) – please describe the exceptionalism of Palin?
And Terry – if you don’t get how unique being President of the Harvard Law review is.. I’m sorry for you. It’s the most prestigious law school in the nation, and it’s probably the most prestigious student position at the school.
And Terry, sorry, Mitch has a thing for Coleman, my mistake, apologies to Mitch, but I doubt very much God has any interest in your complaints, or my foibles, about this article. So then, I suppose it was Roosh who was wilfully deceptive? I guess that makes it better somehow.
No Terry, actually, it’s not that I CAN’T find any, it’s that I don’t care to exert the effort or time, and YOU are changing the subject.
Teh context of his quote about being for us or against us is immaterial, it’s the height of conceit and of totalitarianism to say it. It was NOT solely intended internationally, that would be your naivete’ speaking to suggest that he didn’t have a domestic audience as well.
For goodness sake Terry, are you serious that you think Bush has been anything but hyper-partisan in his time in office? Really? News flash for you bub, the vast majority of the country doesn’t agree, and candidly HE IS RESPONSIBLE fo the conduct of his administration. Seeking cover behind the fact that he PERSONALLY didn’t say it, is BS. Let’s try this one on for size –
“President George W. Bush is getting mileage out of saying there were people who wanted to sit down with Hitler.
Well, according to Alex Koppelman of Salon.com, the person in question praised Hitler…and he was a Republican!
Let’s see Bush explain this one!
“By the way, the quote Bush used about talking to Hitler was from Sen. William Borah, a Republican from Idaho. It has come into vogue recently, at least in part because of its use by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who has employed it often over the past 20 years in writing about several other countries he saw as the next Nazi Germany; he used it, for example, to describe China in 1989 and North Korea in 1994. It’s also stripped from some relevant context — Borah wasn’t saying that solely out of naiveté, as Bush, Krauthammer and others have implied. He was a prominent isolationist and an admirer of Hitler. In 1938, speaking of the German dictator, Borah said, “There are so many great sides to him.” After Hitler occupied the Sudetenland, Borah said, “Gad, what a chance Hitler has! If he only moderates his religious and racial intolerance, he would take his place beside Charlemagne. He has taken Europe without firing a shot.”
Roland S. Martin http://www.rolandsmartin.com CNN Contributor”
You see Terry, he equates anyone who suggests talking to Ahmadenijad as an ‘appeaser’, or as you all like to call folks – pro-defeat.
That’s certainly NOT hyper partisan- no sir.
Peev-
I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that Palin is an example of ‘exceptionalism’. I suspect that she is more of a Reagan Republican than McCain is. She has a lot of ‘firsts’ — first female VP on a GOP presidential ticket, first Alaska governor on a presidential ticket, etc. You won’t find any Palin worship in me (or in Mitch or JRoosh, I suspect).
She is plain-spoken and ‘folksy’ in a way that McCain, Obama, and Biden are not. I think that is a good thing. If McCain wins I hope she can keep that aspect of her personality public.
In order:
I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier in response to AC:
being the first black president of HLR (not merely an editor — that benchmark was achieved back in the 20’s, I believe) doesn’t mean that much. As I’ve written on SITD before, who can name the previous or current president of HLR? The presidency of HLR is something of an honorarium. The other editors choose him or her based on whatever criteria they’ve decided to follow as individuals. It’s not like he had the highest LSAT score, the highest GPA, the most published articles or whatever.
Although he undoubtedly did a lot of editing at HLR — and no one claims that Obama can’t write — he seems to have left Harvard without doing a lot of scholarly work. Ditto for his tenure at Chicago.
The claim that being the president of HLR qualifies Obama to be president is a dead end. It doesn’t lead you to his fabulous reputation as a lawyer or as a legal scholar because he doesn’t have either of those. No president of Harvard Law Review has ever gone on to become president (though several have become Supreme Court Justices).
To which I’ll add that in the last 20 years HLR has allowed prospective editors to submit an essay in place of a GPA. This was done to satisfy the demands of affirmative action — excuse me, to ‘increase diversity’. No one seems to know if Obama was made an editor (a qualification for president, obviously) on the strength of his grades or by a written essay. We should know, but nobody in the media seems to care. (aside: I wonder how many of these media types wanted to go to Harvard law & had to settle for journalism when there LSAT scores put them in the bottom tier of applicants. Bottom of Harvard Law or top of Columbia School of Journalism! No contest.).
And peev, you have to learn to do a close reading of an opponent’s argument before you respond to it. I know, your head is full of words and you are sure that you are right, but I think you often mistake the argument someone else is making for the argument they wish they were making because it looks sort of familiar and you want to argue against it.
No more comments for me tonight. Here in Volcano it is mostly cloudy, moderate winds, and it’s about 58 deg on the lanai. It’s early twilite as I write this (five hours later than MN this time of year, four hours later when you all go back to standard time) I’m watching the old Disney ‘Ichabod’ cartoon on DVD, followed by the first part of Lord of the Rings. The wife is off to a makahiki planning meeting so I’m batching it tonight. Umm! Chili burrito here I come!
This is why I laugh at you kooks instead of arguing.
The same reason you laugh at grizzlies instead of wrestling them?
“He won the endorsement of a major party for the most important positon in the world.”
That’s very accomplished. 😆
For the record, Cheney told Patrick Leahy to “f*** off” or “go f*** yourself” after Leahy made an incorrect jibe at Cheney, accusing him of calling Leahy a “bad catholic” since he did not support the confirmation of William Pryor to the federal judiciary. This came after Leahy scolded Cheney for profiting from Halliburton and the war, when in fact by this time, Cheney had severed all financial ties to Halliburton. TECHNICALLY since the senate was in session, Cheney didn’t violate any floor rules. All he did was make himself not look so good.
This had nothing to do with Reid.
(BTW, a simple google of “cheney f*** off” brought up oodles of hits to verify the details of this)
So when did Mitch add J Roosh? Great addition and complete vindication of the Anti-Strib business model. The Anti-Strib crue was at Troc’s too bad we missed you.
Over a month ago, I think. Maybe two.
So when did Mitch add J Roosh? Great addition and complete vindication of the Anti-Strib business model. The Anti-Strib crue was at Troc’s too bad we missed you.
It was July. Thanks for noticing 😕
Mitch being the huge celebrity that he is at the Trocadero’s event didn’t have time to show me off.
…either that or he wanted me to meet more important people.
I met Ed, John and Chad for after all. 😉
I will be at the event on the evening of the 15th as well. Please ask around for me, I’d love to meet you and your Posse.