Palin Article Reignites Feud

42 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  wheels on July 01 at 10:29 a.m.

  Forget the ‘family values’ platform, avoid Palin(and certainly McCain)and nominate a Pres candidate who can actually win.The GOP was doomed for failure after Bush.The country wanted ‘change’ in any form.So far the change we got isn’t what was envisioned IMO.Without positive ‘change’ Obama is one and done.

• 

  Kage_Mann on July 01 at 10:37 a.m.

  Palin went from state to national politics OVERNIGHT so it’s unfair to harshly judge her.Now that she has some experience
  on the national scene, she won’t make the same mistakes.Hell,
  everybody makes mistakes, just look at Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi; they’re the gifts that keep on giving.

• 

  Sisyphus on July 01 at 10:39 a.m.

  Come up with viable counter proposals. Their response to the budget was to trim 1%. Their response to the economic crisis was more of the same. Indeed they went so far as to advocate that TARP recipients should be able to safeguard obscene executive pay. They deny the existence of global warming so they’re not much help there. At least when Minnick disagrees he tells you why and what he’d do instead.

• 

  spokelooneh on July 01 at 10:44 a.m.

  Well, don’t count on Joe the Plumber. Seems, at this point, God doesn’t want him to run for office:

  “”Americans in general have a short memory,” Wurzelbacher said. “After Sept. 11 happened, we were patriots for six months, and then half of them fell off. Now there’s a very real threat to our country. I don’t believe any one nation can take us out, but I definitely think we can take ourselves out.”
  
  Asked if he has plans to run for public office, he replied, “I hope not. You know, I talked to God about that and he was like, ‘No.’”
  
  He continued, “I believe he’s gotten me on this grassroots movement. If I can encourage leaders to step up, that’s what I would like to do. That’s a heavy role. That’s something I don’t know if I am prepared to do yet.”
  
  But Wurzelbacher said he will keep that door open if God ever calls him to be that leader.
  
  “I just know whenever I fall off his path, things get really hard,” he said. “So I just stick with what God tells me to do.”
  …”
  http://www.examiner.com/x-5697-Grassroots-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d1-Will-Joe-the-Plumber-run-for-office-I-talked-to-God-about-that-and-he-was-like-No

• 

  Aliasjax on July 01 at 10:57 a.m.

  This is an easy one, DFO…the Rs just need to be out of power for a while and wait for the masses to become dissatisfied with the Ds…it’ll come in due course. Then, after the Rs have regained power they, like the Ds, will screw it up and the pendulum will swing back. Anybody who thinks that the Ds lock on power is permanent, or that the Rs irrelevancy is permanent, isn’t paying attention or is blinded by ideology.

• 

  jreighley on July 01 at 11:04 a.m.

  I am pretty sure the Dems won’t live up to their billing, and they will lose based on merit, not based on some superstar charismatic figure beating them…

  I doubt Palin will be in the mix. She is in a role where she collects the trash for the next 3 years until a real candidate emerges. Kinda like Hillary Clinton last year.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on July 01 at 11:10 a.m.

  Some pretty good insight on this thread already.

  How can the R’s win. Stop trying to be democrats. They have years more experience at being liberal for big government. The GOP will never be able to outdo the Dems on their turf. Small government, responsible leadership and give up the lip service to traditional values. Ya gotta live it before you can preach it.

• 

  idawa on July 01 at 11:15 a.m.

  I generally agree with the previous comments, I remember after the 2004 election several of the conservatives who used to frequent this site (and now have probably run off to more friendly digital pastures) were crowing about how the Democratic party was dead, there would never be another Democratic administration, etc… But look at thing now.

  I do, however, think the R problem seem to be bigger than what can be solved in a single 4 year term or even the problems the Democrats faced - most notable is the huge demographic shift in the voting base (decrease in older, white males compared with increases in young minorities and women voters) that is more problematic to the Rs than the lack of a strong personality to lead the party.

  For sure, the Democratic party will loose the majority in the future, but I wouldn’t be surprise if it was a to a new party formed out of the rubble of the GOP - History shows us the parties come and go, and I don’t think the R’s are any exception.

• 

  sue on July 01 at 11:25 a.m.

  From cb: How can the R’s win. Stop trying to be democrats. Pardon me, but I don’t recall dems starting unnecessary wars, cutting taxes to the uber wealthy creating massive deficits. Democrats are the party of fairness and equality; cornerstones of our democracy. Democrats are the party of clean air, not subsidizing polluting corporations. R’s are getting their just desserts for years of corruption and lies.

• 

  hmoffsuite on July 01 at 11:27 a.m.

  A few short years ago, the democrats were as fragmented as the republicans currently are. Nobody had ever heard of this Obama kid and he came out of the blue. I think it likely that the republicans will produce a candidate or two in the future that can rise as quickly as Obama did in the democrat ranks. Over time, things change and Obama mania may wane if his policies prove ineffective. Right now, imo, there is nothing the republicans can do. It is all up to Obama. If his administration turns things around, improves unemployment and the economy in general, he and the democrats will be in control for quite some time. If he fails, the tide will turn rapidly. Not unlike the Jimmy Carter presidency.

• 

  Kage_Mann on July 01 at 11:31 a.m.

  They deny the existence of global warming so they’re not much help there.Sisyphus on July 01 at 10:39 a.m.

  I think global warming is a way for the democrats to make money.Big AL’s company has made millions off of it.Up here in North Idaho we just came off two consecutive record winters and yet they want to keep their moneymaker alive and thriving.The earth goes through periodic warming and cooling trends and is a natural occuring thing IMO.

• 

  spokelooneh on July 01 at 11:49 a.m.

  hmosuite is pretty spot on.

  Yes, there tends to be a sort of normal yin-yang going back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats, however, what’s different today is that we face a financial crises that’s been 30 years in the making, and “solving” it is not going to be easy, may not even be possible.

  Vast numbers of people have essentially been financially wiped out, their retirement accounts decimated, and their biggest asset, their house, has plummeted in value, is still going down, and may not start appreciating again for a couple of years.

  Minick’s right, we’re in for at least another year of severe recession, and beyond that, nobody really knows what’s going to happen, as these are conditions that haven’t existed since the Great Depression.

• 

  toadman on July 01 at 11:53 a.m.

  sue - I Ioves you nice lady, but you might be forgetting the sordid past that the democratic party has.. the party of the Vietnam war(?)…the party of segregation (in the south, at least).. etc.. the dems are just as dirty as the ‘pubs as far as history goes.

  The ideological pendulum swings, and if a party grabs on at the right time, they can swing into power…the other party is seen as curmudgeonry and old fashioned, until people start complaining about “well this ain’t how we did it in the olden days!”

  I’m a liberal. I don’t register a party affiliation. That way I just vote the way I want, without having to worry which party is the liberal party this week.

• 

  toadman on July 01 at 12:02 p.m.

  “..here in North Idaho we just came off two consecutive record winters and yet they want to keep their moneymaker alive and thriving.The earth goes through periodic warming and cooling trends and is a natural occuring thing IMO.” - Kage

  You can’t use weather to predict climate change, Kage. Weather is only a product of climate, not a predictor.

  Besides, your logic is off. If we WERE to use the last two winters as a symptom of anything, it still would be a symptom of global warming. Why? Precipitation. Global warming means more precipitation (for one). When it’s cold, and we get precipitation, not surprisingly, it turns into these little fluffy white ice crystals…you may have seen them around these parts from time to time….they tend to pile up…

  Also.. were the temps the last two winters above, or below, average? You know, we can still get a hell of a lot of snow at above average temps in Jan./Feb.

  Just sayin…

  Now.. having said that, you’re correct in your statement that the earth goes through periodic warming and cooling trends.. and it’s true, we’re still warming up since the last ice age. The alarming thing is, it’s speeding up. While it’s true that there can still be some debate about it being the fault of mankind, the only real thing that’s changed since the last warm up is, well, us, and all that we do. So, the assumption is, it’s us that’s causing the unnatural speed-up.

  In my own opinion, it’s too late to prevent runaway global warming, the damage has already been done. It’s just a matter of dealing with it now.

• 

  Charles_Dixon on July 01 at 12:04 p.m.

  “Pardon me, but I don’t recall dems starting unnecessary wars, cutting taxes to the uber wealthy creating massive deficits. Democrats are the party of fairness and equality; cornerstones of our democracy. Democrats are the party of clean air, not subsidizing polluting corporations. R’s are getting their just desserts for years of corruption and lies.”

  Boy, oh boy. Toad, thank you for injecting some sanity into this sentiment. Yes, Vietnam was started by JFK and LBJ. Clinton had Kosovo, Somalia, and his cruise missle distractions. And massive deficits? Are you serious? Bush’s 400billion debt was nothing compared to the 1.6trillion projected for Obama’s first year alone. Even throw in the first 700billion TARP/stimulus in Bush’s corner (which a Democratic Congress passed) and Obama still beats him hands down. Add in health care and that amount will likely double at least. Dems have no ground to stand on in criticizing deficit spending. Good grief.

  Dems as the party of fairness and equity. That’s a concept that is taking on interesting new shapes and colors in the Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime. Fairness and equity for whom? Certainly not everyone. That’s like saying the GOP is for family values these days. It means something maybe in principle, but certainly not in application.

• 

  toadman on July 01 at 12:16 p.m.

  You’re welcome Charles…but I’m still a liberal…and to me, money is imaginary except for the goods and services it provides. So all that deficit stuff..well, I just glaze over.

  I’ll take Obama’s social agenda (with the exception of his overlooking the gay and lesbian community) over Bush’s any day. Fiscally, I’m mixed. I still question Obama’s decision to bail out GM…but I backed the first stimulus package wholeheartedly. Also, I’m not a huge fan of Pelosi/Reid, who, by the way, are also not Obama’s biggest fans either.

  As for his foreign policy, I’m optimistic. When people overseas, in general, LIKE our president, that makes me happy. To me, it means we’re doing something right. Mark my words, Barack Obama will be a force in domestic and international politics until the day he dies, many many years from now…unless, of course, the unthinkable happens.

• 

  hmoffsuite on July 01 at 12:31 p.m.

  >>> Barack Obama will be a force in domestic and international politics until the day he dies, many many years from now…

  Perhaps just like Jimmy Carter. Who, btw, does more harm than good, imo.

• 

  Charles_Dixon on July 01 at 12:34 p.m.

  Toad, I won’t take your agreement with me on a few points to mean you agree with me on everything.

  I thought the first TARP was right but question the stimulus bill because it seemed there was no rhyme or reason to where the money was being thrown—except for earmark favors (on both the left and right). I think GM should be allowed to fail and see what happens to it. I don’t like much of Obama’s social agenda, but apparently neither does Obama depending on what he says/does on any given day (e.g. he wants to repeal DOMA but has his justice department file a brief that is a total defense of it).

  As for Obama’s foreign policy, the jury is still out and will be for some time. Of course, I also think the jury is still out on Bush Jr. as a president, and may be for some time. The aftermath of 9/11 (including the Iraq war) needs to be viewed in the context of some significant post-event history before we can really say what the effect of his decisions were. And I think it says something very positive about Bush that he’s willing to let his legacy be determined by the long run, not the short term. My problem with Obama is that too many people are declaring him to be a great president before he’s actually done anything.

• 

  Sisyphus on July 01 at 12:46 p.m.

  “The aftermath of 9/11 (including the Iraq war) needs to be viewed in the context of some significant post-event history before we can really say what the effect of his decisions were.”—I really don’t need much historical context for identifying the obvious failings of his nearly unilateral preemptive invasion, or giving Pakistan a pass for massive nuclear proliferation, or deliberately planting false information to urge the country to go to war, or the wisdom of authorizing extraordinary rendition, or spending billions in Africa on abstinence only sex education.

  I don’t see people saying what a great president Obama is, yet. Just how refreshing he is after the last administration.

• 

  hereinidaho on July 01 at 1:06 p.m.

  I suggest they change their name and stifle a lot of their leaders.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on July 01 at 1:20 p.m.

  Sue,
  I was speaking about the GOP, not the Democrats. They are currently in power. And from the looks of it, they haven’t changed their predilection towards gathering power, growing government and paying off those that got them there. Not unlike the core values of the GOP.

  If you think that the Democratic party doesn’t have corruption, lies and all that rot, then you are in for a rude awakening in 2-6 years.

• 

  spokelooneh on July 01 at 1:30 p.m.

  “Boy, oh boy. Toad, thank you for injecting some sanity into this sentiment. Yes, Vietnam was started by JFK and LBJ. Clinton had Kosovo, Somalia, and his cruise missle distractions.”

  -Charles Dixon

  Sanity? How about some truthiness?

  The Vietnam war had been going on since the end of WWII, Truman wanted France to grant independence to Vietnam, but France refused. Still, we backed the French in Vietnam with direct aid, military hardware, and by 1954, the US was paying for 80% of the cost.

  Through the 50’s and early 60’s, we backed a series inept, corrupt governments, usually Catholic in a majority Buddhist country. This DROVE even the people into supporting Ho Chi Minh, about whom Ike said would have been elected by an 80% majority of ALL the Vietnamese people in ‘54.

  Then in ‘64, the Pentagon ginned up a false attack on US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin, resulting in the certainly unconstitutional Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and from there on, yeah, it got REAL bloody for the US, but FAR bloodier for the Vietnamese.

  Lied into war, a familiar pattern.

  Oh, and Bush the Elder started up the fiasco in Somalia, not Clinton, who had to try and deal with that steaming pile of dog doo.

  Truthiness.

  Get some.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S06nIz4scvI

• 

  DFO on July 01 at 1:39 p.m.

  @ Spokalooneh; I realize that R’s can do no right and D’s can do no wrong, as far as you’re concerned … but are you trying to gloss over the fact that 2 Demo presidents were at the helm when the major escalation of the Vietnam War took place? Seriously? Republican Richard Nixon, for all his warts, was the one who brought an inglorious end to it. It seems to me that Harry S Truman, another Demo, was in place during the Korean War, er, police action. Which ended in a draw. Neither party can claim clean hands when it comes to questionable war actions.

• 

  Sisyphus on July 01 at 1:58 p.m.

  Dave how nice of you to engage. Actually Nixon was long gone when the war ended in 1975 but not before he had tried to bomb them into the stone age and his program of Cambodiazation. LBJ didn’t run for re-election precisely because Vietnam was so unpopular and Nixon ran twice on the platform to get us out. Frankly it was the Democratic Congress that pulled the plug. looneh has his facts straight. But your point is taken. I see you chose not to list WWI or II.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on July 01 at 2:05 p.m.

  “I was for it before I was agin’ it.”

  Heck, I have been against pretty much all the wars since 1812.

• 

  spokelooneh on July 01 at 2:11 p.m.

  DFO, I didn’t say, nor did I mean to imply that the Dems hands were clean in this war business. But saying LBJ started the war in Vietnam is far too simplistic. It was US policy going back to the end of WWII that led to the conditions that caused that war to escalate, which had gone on long before LBJ’s time, under Dem and Repub. presidents.

  If you read the Pentagon Papers and other documents, you realize LBJ and nearly everybody else was duped. In short, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the first attack on Aug. 2 probably did happen. The second supposed attack, on Aug. 4, and main reason for the passing of the Resolution, NEVER happened. The NSA lied about it. LBJ was up for election in a few months, and hey, being a war president is almost always an advantage at the ballot box.

  “The Hanyok article stated that intelligence information was presented to the Johnson administration “in such a manner as to preclude responsible decision makers in the Johnson administration from having the complete and objective narrative of events.” Instead, “only information that supported the claim that the communists had attacked the two destroyers was given to Johnson administration officials.”[4]

  With regard to why this happened, Hanyok wrote:

  As much as anything else, it was an awareness that President Johnson would brook no uncertainty that could undermine his position. Faced with this attitude, Ray Cline was quoted as saying “… we knew it was bum dope that we were getting from Seventh Fleet, but we were told only to give facts with no elaboration on the nature of the evidence. Everyone know how volatile LBJ was. He did not like to deal with uncertainties.”“
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

  And Ike did end the Korean “Conflict”, though some might think today he shouldn’t have, given the grief N. Korea gives us. I happen to believe Ike was right to end it given the military/political situation at the time, just as Truman was right to stand up N. Korea when they attacked S. Korea.

• 

  Sisyphus on July 01 at 2:19 p.m.

  “And Ike did end the Korean “Conflict”,”—this last vestige of the cold war ain’t over. I can’t think of another place outside the middle east where so many multinational forces are amassed on a border.

• 

  DFO on July 01 at 2:23 p.m.

  @ Sisyphus; the war was winding down before Nixon resigned in August 1974. U.S. troops were withdrawn by March 1973 but the bombing continued. Congress cut off funds for the war. It was all over but the shouting by the time Nixon pulled the plug. But you’re missing the bigger issue re: who’s more to blame for wars. Neither side can claim higher ground. By your post, you seem to insinuate that Demos deserve kudos for helping win the good wars, WWI and WWII, because Woodrow Wilson and FDR were at the helm. Toss those in, and you have to add a “holy war” that a Repub president presided over, Abraham Lincoln. As I said, anyone who thinks one political party or the other has clean hands when it comes to war — or is morally superior — is flat silly. (at this point, I’ll disengage again — and let you guys argue.)

• 

  DFO on July 01 at 2:36 p.m.

  <reingage to=”” correct=”” one=”“ point=”“>

  >2 Demo presidents were at the helm when the major escalation of the Vietnam War took place — DFO<

  @ Spokalooneh; where did I say that LBJ started the Vietnam War. Gracious, man, I came of age during the Vietnam War. I don’t have to read a history book to know that we began got involved in the eventual quagmire in the 1950s under the guise of sending “advisers” over under Ike because we were afraid more dominoes were going to fall in that part of the world as a result of the Korean stalemate. JFK began the escalation and LBJ took it to the peak. “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many boys have you killed today?” It’ll be interesting to see what scrapes the current president will get us involved in during his tenure.

• 

  Charles_Dixon on July 01 at 2:45 p.m.

  This debate highlights the ridiculous lengths Sisyphus and kind will go to in trying to paint the Democratic party as the pooping chocolate sauce, to borrow an expression. The involvement of the U.S. prior to JFK and LBJ was largely bloodless in terms of the US involvement. Political, sure, but the US has been involved in Iraq politically for decades through administrations of both parties. But only the two Bushes get credit/criticism for any war action there. JFK started sending advisors to Vietnam and LBJ got the wholesale troop involvement going full-scale. It was a war started by Democrats. Stop making excuses.

  Why can’t you just admit that there is no higher ground politically in war for either party, not in the last 25 years or the last 200. You post here as if the Democrats have always been right on any and every issue under the sun, and it comes across as just plain ridiculous. Get over yourselves.

• 

  Sisyphus on July 01 at 2:50 p.m.

  Take a deep breath there buddy. Nobody’s arguing with you. I think that point was made on looneh’s discussion of the Gulf of Tonkin. But it was an action Republicans wholeheartedly advocated and consistent with established foreign policy. Bush made a radical change in American foreign policy to get us into Iraq.

  The current president is escalating Afghanistan. Certainly the cause is just, but whether its in our immediate interests, or is even winnable, are very open questions.

• 

  Aliasjax on July 01 at 2:56 p.m.

  Charles_Dixon is so correct…I can’t believe how anybody can argue for either party uncritically. It’s laughable to read partisans who write, supposedly with a straight face, that their party is morally justified, while the other is morally rehensible. Give me a break!

  Mencken said it best (paraphrasing): “Every honest man should be ashamed of his government” to which I’ll add, “and his own party.”

• 

  Sisyphus on July 01 at 2:59 p.m.

  Oops sorry the last post was directed at Dave not Charlie.

  “Why can’t you just admit that there is no higher ground politically in war for either party, not in the last 25 years or the last 200. You post here as if the Democrats have always been right on any and every issue under the sun, and it comes across as just plain ridiculous.”—is this directed at me? I posted no such thesis. I do have much to say on Bush’s change in foreign policy however and how it was entirely inconsistent with anything either party had previously posited and that this militarization was most likely in response, in significant part, to the massive budget cuts in military spending under Clinton’s watch.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on July 01 at 3:02 p.m.

  I will have to remember that quote Aliasjax. How true.

• 

  Sisyphus on July 01 at 3:02 p.m.

  I do think you guys are building a strawman and making sweeping generalizations regarding what has been said. Its not like we can’t just go back up the thread.

• 

  BlueinIdaho on July 01 at 3:07 p.m.

  I thought we were to support our government no matter what or be branded a traitor — “you’re either with us or against us”. Isn’t that what we were told the last eight years? I guess now we’re supposed to be ashamed….when did the rule change? Never mind, it was rhetorical.

• 

  spokelooneh on July 01 at 3:16 p.m.

  “the fact that 2 Demo presidents were at the helm when the major escalation of the Vietnam War took place? ”

  2 Demo presidents?

  You mean Kennedy? (already stipulate to Johnson)

  Kennedy believed counter-insurgency special ops troops were key in Vietnam, and he increased the number of advisors (generally trainers) from 800 to 16,000. American troops were generally not “on point” during this time, however they were fully integrated into the SVA forces, and 186 American troops were killed during his presidency.

  In ‘62 and early ‘63, it appeared that the SV forces were gaining the upperhand, then our boy Diem started cracking down on the Buddhists and doing other dictatorial stuff, and again, that DROVE people to support the communists.

  There’s compelling evidence that in Oct. of ‘63 Kennedy had already approved a (secret) phased withdrawal for Vietnam, starting with 1000 advisors by the end of 1963, however there’s contradictory evidence as well, and the plan was predicated on SVA military and political success that would allow a full withdrawal by 1965.

• 

  Charles_Dixon on July 01 at 3:26 p.m.

  ” thought we were to support our government no matter what or be branded a traitor — “you’re either with us or against us”. Isn’t that what we were told the last eight years? I guess now we’re supposed to be ashamed….when did the rule change? Never mind, it was rhetorical.”

  All sorts of rules changed the day Obama won the election.

  Such as:

  Old rule: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
  New Rule: Dissent makes you a traitor.

  Old rule: You shouldn’t call anyone a traitor.
  New rule: Anyone who disagrees with the president is a traitor.

  Old rule: It is the job of the press to keep the government honest.
  New rule: It is the job of the press to help the president accomplish his agenda (from Chris Matthew’s own mouth).

  Old rule: National debt is bad.
  New rule: National debt is great.

  Old rule: Iraq is a failure.
  New rule: Iraq is a success.

  Old rule: Waterboarding is torture, and no one should ever be allowed to do it.
  New rule: Waterboarding is torture, but it’s OK if the president retains that option for when he may really need it.

  Old rule: Transparency in government is paramount.
  New rule: Transparency in government isn’t a big deal.

  Old rule: Discrimination against women and treating them badly is wrong.
  New rule: Discrimination against women and treating them badly is OK if they have conservative views.

  Old rule: Signing statements by the president are an improper way to make law.
  New rule: Signing statements by the president are perfectly legitimate.

  Old rule: Voter intimidation is wrong.
  New rule: Voter intimidation is fine.

  Old rule: Firing government overseers to protect political friends is bad.
  New rule: Firing government overseers to protect political friends is no big deal.

  And so on…..

• 

  Sisyphus on July 01 at 3:44 p.m.

  Wow, pony up examples Charlie. But thanks for providing several for 1) making sweeping unsupported generalizations; 2)setting up strawmen that you can knock down. Is that the only way you can come out on top?

  I am struck by two criticisms that might have some merit, Obama’s parsing on transparency and his waffling on the torture debate. He’s receiving much criticism inside his party on these actions. I recall no such dissension in the ranks with Bush even when he broke from longstanding Republican tenets.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on July 01 at 4:01 p.m.

  You don’t recall because you weren’t there. Or didn’t care.

  I know there was dissension among the ranks regarding many of Bush’s policies. Spending, police actions, more spending, unwarranted wiretapping, torture…

  Yeah Sis, you know those straw men quite well.

• 

  Charles_Dixon on July 01 at 4:02 p.m.

  I don’t think the whole strawman characterization means exactly what you think it means, Sis. You use it a lot, I know, but that doesn’t mean you know what it means.

  Do you really need examples? Are you not that up on current events? Or are you simply trying to discredit my post by saying I didn’t spell it all out for everyone.

  I cited to Chris Matthews’ statement (“I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work”).

  How about Paul Krugman calling those who oppose the cap and trade bill “traitors to the planet.”

  And we also have Sarah Palin, the Black Panthers in Philadelphia, and Obama firing Gerald Walpin and other Inspector Generals (in violation of the very law he co-sponsored).

• 

  Sisyphus on July 01 at 4:25 p.m.

  A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. And you are quite guilty unless you get your news from Fox in which case you delusions are understandable.

  “traitor to the planet” seems quite different than a traitor to my country which is how Ann Coulter referred to Democrats. Even with talk of secession you don’t see Senator’s wagging their fingers on the lack of patriotism.

  I assume Mathews comments are somewhat in response to Rush’s who says he’ll do everything to make sure this president fails.

  Sarah Palin? What about her? Any criticism I have for her is with regard to her status as a politician, not as a woman. She isn’t immune from criticism cause she’s a woman. And given her dearth of experience and education I’m at a loss why she is continuously lauded as the savior for Republicans starved for leadership.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic