Sorry, folks, but not only was it impossible to see Sarah, it was difficult to hear her as well. And as soon as I got home—I left early, since there seemed no point in staying in a venue where I could neither see nor hear the person I came to see—I was called to work on something important at my paying job. I’ve had no time to go through my pictures and videos and see if there’s anything worth posting.
But I will tell you this: I feel like I wasted my time going today. That wasn’t what the McCain campaign was looking for. And I wasn’t the only one.
Evidently, she could hear as well.
I managed to be right by the stage. Brush with greatness, &tc. She was physically impressive, not just in terms of handsomeness, but in carriage a look of high-energy.
The speech was less than I hoped for, mainly because she gave it already elsewhere, I read it yeaterday–, and there was nothing new for Richmond. The “tailoring” was limited to annoying nascar metaphors.
THe wall street greed portion is not the seller they think it is. Very meh. And not a hint of Ayers.
There was a red hot hippie alert in my section. Two vibrantly and very excessivley tie dyed floppy-hatted visitors glowered and sulked at the attendees who did double-takes. But there was not trouble.
A couple of the more elderly matrons in my section found it all too much and had to be carted away on stretchers. I saw one go round back on her stretcher and she was recovered enough to be sitting upright and giving energetic instructions to her bearers.
THe Secret Servicemen were really quite Hollywood.
They lined up on the plalform leading up to the dais
and I have to say observing them was as interesting to me as anything else that went on at this very vanilla rally.
I wonder if Palin supporters here would share their thoughts about her reaction, today, at the conclusions of Alaska’s Legislative Council that she was in violations of the state’s ethics code?
“Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda,” the report states.
Yet Palin today claims that the report vindicates her.
How do you guys explain that?
Palin is walking a really thin line with respect to the Branchflower report, but these word games seem to be what politicians do these days.
There were basically two findings in the report. The main focus of the investigation was supposed to be whether she acted improperly in firing former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. And the findings were that she didn’t.
The secondary focus, because there was little or no overt action on her part, was whether she abused her power in trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. On that one, they found that she did in that she didn’t act to prevent other people associated with her from pressuring officials to get him fired. As far as I can tell (and I haven’t finished reading all the way through the report yet), there wasn’t a finding that she was behind the pressure or that she was even aware of it, but rather that she should have been aware of it and done something to stop it.
So when she says that she was cleared of any unethical activity on her part, I believe that’s the rationale she’s using. Are most people just going to come away with the impression that she’s lying? Probably. IMO, it wasn’t the best approach for her to take.
OTOH, the report is so deeply biased and the “impartiality” of the “independent investigator” so compromised that the whole thing is pretty much a joke.
Lynn, I don’t know how biased the report is. All I know is that if finds that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
And then she turns around and claims that the report vindicates her.
So, therefore, Palin was lying.
But, really, the thing of it is for me is that I cannot imagine putting this woman in the position of potentially becoming the President of the United States.
She represents a particular right-wing brand of politics that I find particularly distasteful. It’s the “culture war” garbage that I hoped we had moved beyond. She’s all about God, Gays, and Guns, essentially. That’s the tradition that she comes out of… George W. Bush’s political tradition of faux-populism. She’s the contemporary version of Pappy “Pass the Biscuits” O’Daniel.
I simply do not trust her.
I’d like to know how the report is biased considering it was thee commission was made up of 8-10 Republicans and 4 Democrats? Honestly, I want to know.
Karmafish, you don’t trust her, but you trust Obama? Even after his wife’s salary was increased by $200,000 after he became a Senator? Funny coincidence, that earmark going to her place of employment.
Meryl, part of the reason that I am reading and posting here is, aside from my disgust with left anti-Zionism, because this place seems to have a political perspective quite different from my usual haunts.
It does seem rather fishy (heh) that Michelle Obama received that promotion shortly after Barack became Senator. However, it’s impossible for me to make any real judgments on the matter without actual evidence of wrongdoing.
In any case, as I say, I am a liberal and a Democrat and I have many of the biases of liberals and Democrats. Therefore, when I look at the two parties, and at the candidates from the two parties, it is clear to me that Barack is more likely to end the Iraq war and less likely to attack Iran
Thus he has my support.
You say that like it’s a good thing.
First of all, the Iraq war is all but over. We won. Obama wanted to withdraw American troops regardless of the effect that would have on Iraq. He and the New York Times were perfectly content to let thousands more Iraqis die from terrorism and sectarian violence.
As for attacking Iran, well, it’s pretty clear to me that we’re not going to do that. The world is too fragile financially to risk shutting down Middle Eastern oil. And after all, the world didn’t stop Europe from nearly destroying all of its Jews. Really, no matter what American politicians say, I don’t believe America is going to risk American lives to stop Iran from destroying Israel. Israel is on her own.
So let’s put aside those two issues and tell me who you think will recover the economy better, and why.
I’ll answer the economy question. Neither. It is a myth that the President has anything to do with the overall health and recovery of the economy. What I do believe is that floundering around from one economic policy to another does have a negative effect and that is where I believe Obama has it over McCain. McCain has changed his economic policy so many times these past few weeks, it is unintelligiable and the market would not be able to anticipate his next move. Obama has been pretty consistent which the market can deal with whether they like it or not.
Karmafish: and in 1939, Britons felt that Neville Chamberlain was much less likely to start a war with Germany. Look how that turned out.
Jeff,
Surely you realize that formulating national policy in a crisis while conducting a (non-incumbent) presidential campaign is tricky at best. Neither McCain nor Obama has had the time nor the energy to develop a coherent economic policy while running for the White House. The difference between them is that McCain has, as you say, been floundering around trying to come up with a coherent strategy. Obama has largely sat on the sidelines, as is his MO, waiting to see which way the wind blows.
Neither candidate has impressed me much with his response, so I look to who appears to have the better record in terms of judgment and temperment in appointing qualified advisors and in making sober and rational decisions when their attention is focused on the job. Obama doesn’t come out on top. Your mileage may vary.
I think that you guys are terrific. This is not only an intelligent blog, but it seems to be politically diverse, as well.
Good.
Meryl, I believe the Iraq war was over within weeks of March ’03. What we’ve had since is an occupation. And there is no “winning” an occupation. But, you’re right. If we leave there will be slaughter… of course there is slaughter as we stay, as well.
It’s a catastrophe.
But it’s a catastrophe created by the Republican right and enabled by centrist Democrats.
As for Israel, you’re goddamn right she’s on her own.
The reason that I found this place is because of my participation on dKos and some of the other left liberal blogs. I definitely see hatred toward Israel being constructed by the left anti-Zionist movement in the liberal blogs. They believe Israel represents a unique evil and they spout classic anti-Semitic themes, such as Israel (or Zionists or Jews) control the US media or government.
There numbers are still small, thankfully, and most liberals definitely do not share their obsession with Israel, but I worry about their influence.
LynnB,
Sorry, I would take Robert Rubin and William Donaldson among others over Carly Fiorina and Phil Gramm.