McCain's VP:

When Richard Nixon annihilated George McGovern in 1972, Pauline Kael of the New York Times, (in)famously, remarked: "How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon!"

Of course you're surprised.

It doesn't occur to you that people can support the War in Iraq without believing that God played a role in it, or withdrawing that support because some politicians do.

It also doesn't occur to you that voters might not base their decision entirely on their own personal situation, nor blame the current administration for all of their woes.

This is the typical though pattern of the mind of a Democrat:

If things go bad in your life, blame the Republican government.

If things go good in your life, thank the Democratic government.

Obviously anyone who has prospered over the last eight years has done so in spite of the Bush Administration's attempts to beggar us all. More likely though, the prosperous have only prospered because they benefited from the Bush policy travesties and were only too glad to step on the necks of their fellow (black) Americans.

When Obama loses in November we will hear:

"It was racism that did him in. How else can his loss be explained?"

'How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon!"

Ask the New Yorker.

Of course you have.

What are your most accessed sources for news about America?

CNN?
MSNBC?
NY TIMES?
WASHINGTON POST?

Have you learned anything about Obama's speechwriter?

Have you learned anything about

Ted Sorenson
Richard Goodwin
William Safire or Ben Stein
Hendrik Hertzberg
Peggy Noonan
David Kusnet
Michael Gerson

Not only "lost it," but gone rooting in the mud to find it.

Lincoln.

Alice could easily travel through the Looking Glass and find herself in a world of 2008 Liberals.

For a second there I thought that DrewDad morphed into a Neanderthal Right-Winger, but then I realized he was all too willing to sublimate any previously real or feigned feminist notions to advance the attack against Sarah Palin.

A Liberal trying to tell us that demographics trump social norms.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Indeed.

And they are very protective of their power.

Why did Palin suffer their slings and arrows?

In large part because they are hoplessly biased towards The Left, but also because the McCain campaign had the nerve to select a VP candidate without giving the Media time to "vett" her.

Since they didn't play their usual role in the vetting process, the story had to be that McCain was sorely lacking in his.

Poor Tom Brokaw, wizened lion of NBC news, he had to sit on the sidelines while watching Keith Olberman anchor the convention coverage, and now and then calling upon Tom for a pithy observation.

After Romney, Huckabee, Guilanni, and Sarah Palin gave their speeches, Tom just had to focus on Guilianni's calling the Media Left-Wing. (Clearly the most important comment made in all 4 speeches!)

Tom wryly noted that when the Media was pronouncing him The American Hero after 9/11 he didn't hear Rudy call the them Left-Wing.

And so Brokow legitimized NBC's decision to put him out to pasture.

In my estimation, Tom was always a pretty objective journalist, but here he is in 2008 trying to defend his profession (based on his personal virtues) while having had to give way to a "anchor" who has built his fame on being as outrageously liberal as Limbaugh is outrageously conservative.

Olberman, the objective journalist, afterall is the guy who famously told the president of the US to shut the hell up.

Olberman has O'Reilly to thank for his current position. He was clever enough to realize that there was an audience for someone to dump on O'Reilly. In fact he (or at least his agent) admits to as much.

Olberman is the left-wing version of O'Reilly.

And yet FOX doesn't have the pompous idiot O'Reilly as the anchor for their convention coverage while MSNBC has awarded this plum to Olberman.

Tells us something, doesn't it?

Must be wry irony here.

How else to explain Diest criticizing anyone for immaturity?

[quoteO'really? smooching Obama's bum.
][/quote]

Yep.

The only reason he drilled Obama on his position on The Surge was because the night before the interview, Dennis Miller called him out on being tough on Obama.

At the time O'Reilly dodged Miller for all he was worth, and the next day he pushed the issue with Obama.

Just when he had Obama on the ropes however, he let him go free.

Typical of modern day journalists (whether perceived as Liberals or Conservatives). Their interviews are conducted with the concern that the FAMOUS GUY might not come back to their show if they are too tough.

O'Reilly pushed Obama, almost to the edge, but then backed off with a stupid
endorsement of Obama's diversionary arguments about getting the Iraqi's to help pay for the war.

O'Reilly is an arrogant ass. The only people he is tough on are no-name proles who he can bully.

Thoughful Liberals will no more cite O'Reilly as a paragon of the Right then they might cite Michael Moore as a paragon of the Left.

Perhaps.

The National Enquirer has been right before.

So, I'm sure you bought their expose on John Edwards. Right?

Another true believer in the journalistic integrity of the Enquirer!

Uness I'm mistaken, you are someone who religiously argues that Bill Clinton's affairs in the White House are immaterial.

Yet the allegation of an infamous tabloid concerning a Palin affair is "interesting" and worth repeating in this forum.

For those Liberals who are on a fanatic hunt for hypocrisy...search no more.

Excellent!

Thus we can count on your absence from this thread?

But Lash, don't you realize that the Dems are only trying to respond in kind to THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK MACHINE?

Clearly, there is no Dem Attack Machine and so we should look hard to find the legitimate reasons for them to bring up the fact that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, or that Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant but not married.

Here it is! Anything and everything is fair game if it can be connected in some way to Republican Hypocrisy!

Cheney endorsed the notion that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, and therefore the fact he loves his lesbian daughter proves he is a hypocrite!

Palin endorsed the notion that children should be taught that abstinence is the preferable course to follow, but her daughter had sex and got pregnant and therefore she is a hypocrite!

When is someone going to point out the hypocrisy involved with moral relativists dumping on someone who qualifies for "sinner" in a worldview they disdain?

Really?

Having your kids by your side in one of the biggest moments of your life is clearly a cynical attempt at merchandizing?

And if one of these cynical bastard have the nerve to exploit their children then were are, morally, free to rip the little shits to shreds?

Because they were right about Edwards?

I'm sure you gave their reporting credence before the scumbag fessed up.

Sorry for the deluge, but this is the result of coming to late to the party when there are so many "interesting" folks in attendence.

A Republican!

And yet you are only too ready to assume that the questions arising from the Palin family must have answers that suggest she is unqualified to be VP.

One of Biden's golden haired sons is involved in litgation that is based upon fraud. (Did you know this? If not why didn't the Media inform you as a member of the Public?).

The fact that someone is suing him for fraud has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he is a fraud. And yet, can you really represent that you would not draw conclusions around litigation directed at members of the Palin family?

Liberals like to believe that "hypocrisy" is their bullet-proof argument, and yet clearly that is nonsense.

If innuendo is enough to disqualify Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for VP, then Obama, Biden, and McCain need to resign.

Frankly spoken: Cut the ****.

Argue instead why we should tax the **** out of "the rich" to support the do-nothing poor. Argue why we should retreat from Iraq despite Obama admitting that the Surge exceeded our wildest expectations. Argue why we we need a president who, at best, will be the chief executive of the USA for 8 years to reverse geological timed weather patterns that, even assuming humanity has effed the stuff up, will not impact the earth for at least another 100 years.

Let me anticipate your argument:

"We have to start curtailing carbon emissions now if we are to have any hope for combating the future ill effects of global warming!"

Reasonable, and therefore so is:

"We need to start drilling off shore and in Alaska now if we are to have any hope of weaning ourselves from foreign oil."

Agreed?

guess i never found telling an adolescent girl that she was ugly that pleasurable.

must be a personal failing on my part.

dunno about palin's speech, but when i saw him interviewed on the floor after the convention, his opinion of mccain's speech was not very high.