Tuesday, September 02, 2008

The Best Attacks on Palin?

Some of the criticisms that have been leveled at John McCain for picking Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President have alternated between insane and laughable. I thought I would devote a few sentences to rebutting those I have found the most humorous.

She doesn't have any experience. This is lobbed at the McCain camp from Democrats supporting Obama for President. She has executive experience, which neither Biden, Obama, nor McCain have. I saw Mayor Rudy Giuliani on Fox News tonight shoot the best holes in this complaint. He pointed out that Biden and Obama have never run a city, have never run a state, have never administered a budget, and have never been responsible for making a decision. Mayor Giuliani points out that she had more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined after her first day in office as mayor. On her second day in office she had twice as much.

She doesn't have any foreign policy experience. I am really expecting this to be hit out of the ball park by either McCain or Palin. As Governor of a state sandwiched between two foreign nations, I think she has some foreign policy experience. Remember one of those nations is one hostile to the United States. As Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard, I am going to guess she has had to run through a few "What if" scenarios.

McCain is just pandering to Clinton supporters. McCain is just pandering to the fair right / Limbaugh parts of the party. Surely we call all agree that he can't possibly be doing both of these things at the same time. Do Democrats really expect us to believe that women will vote for someone simply because they are a woman? Exactly which party is sexist?

She is embattled in scandal in her home state over a State Trooper. This remains to be seen. She is undergoing an ethics investigation. The details haven't been released, but it appears that a State Trooper her sister was married to threatened to kill their father. The question is whether or not she used her office to force his firing. A member of the investigating committee said that Mrs. Palin's office was cooperating fully. We will see where this goes, but I don't think it is going to resonate with the public.

She laughed when the President of the State Senate was called the "b" word. Really? This is your attack on a Vice Presidential candidate? Not that her issues are wrong, but she laughed when someone else used the "b" word? I did some looking into this one. Anonymous provided a link to the Huffington Post article that talked about this. If you have about twenty minutes to kill, go read the article, and listen to the full audio clip. Then read this article written at the time of the "incident" that goes into a little more detail. I am not sure I disapprove of the use of this word in this context.

And while we are on the Huffington Post, how about another article by them critical of Mrs. Palin. Why? Because she isn't what a feminist is suppose to be. Sarah Seltzer writes, "When I saw that John McCain had picked Sarah Palin as his running mate this morning, I was on the elliptical trainer, and my rage propelled me to the most furious workout I've had in a while." It amazes me that the writer would describe her "rage" at the Republican pick. I think William Kristol of the Weekly Standard captured what really scares liberals about Mrs. Palin:

A spectre is haunting the liberal elites of New York and Washington--the spectre of a young, attractive, unapologetic conservatism, rising out of the American countryside, free of the taint (fair or unfair) of the Bush administration and the recent Republican Congress, able to invigorate a McCain administration and to govern beyond it.


Brandon said...

"As Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard, I am going to guess she has had to run through a few "What if" scenarios."

Andy, it is a myth, propagated I would suspect by the governors themselves, that governors have military oversight over the National Guard units of the Army and Air Force in their states. Governors can call up the guard to deal with civil disturbances or weather disasters, that is it.

Only the U.S. government, specifically the President of the United States, would be able to call up the National Guard in the event that either Canada or Russia invades.

BunGirl said...

Read through all the comments on your last post and this one and it seems that the experience issue has come up time and time again. Here's my take...

While it's certainly true that Sarah Palin has more executive experience than any of the three candidates, that's not what excites me the most about her. To me it's far more interesting to note the experience she doesn't have. She doesn't have the experience of having lived a lifetime in the political world, so much so that she has lost touch with the "average American". She hasn't been handed the world on a silver spoon by parents who groomed her for this opportunity. She is where she is today on her own merit. So yes, the dems can say she doesn't have the experience necessary to run a country, but the way I look at it, she has the experience necessary to represent the people of this great nation, and isn't that refreshing?

Anonymous said...


Sarah Palin relates to "average americans" because she *is* as an average american.

I want an extraordinary American to be President. I've got plenty of average americans all around me.

John McCain is extraordinary. I just don't agree with his politics, and don't trust his judgment.

Barack Obama is extraordinary. He was raised by a single mother and became President of the Harvard Law Review. He has been community organizer, state senator, u.s. senator, and had more votes cast for him than any candidate in primary history.

And, yes, Obama has less "executive" experience than my local mayor. Unless you count the campaign staff that he has supervised. But he has exactly the same amount of executive experience as John McCain, and, more notably, John Kennedy. I don't think you can use the "executive experience" argument against Obama and then *not* use it against McCain.

And Palin didn't command any troops so stop lying about it. Republicans ridiculed Bill Clinton as the "commander in chief of the Arkansas National Guard," but now you'd have us salute Commander Palin.

I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

The real issue on Palin is McCain's judgment. He could choose anybody in America and Sarah Palin is the one person in America he would choose to be President if he dies?

That's so incredibly reckless. And he's either going to pull her name out, or he's going to lose for sure. (And he's probably going to lose anyway...) He's toast.

Andy D said...

As far as the Commander in Chief of the National Guard, this is what one local Guardsman had to say here in Georgia:

"The Consitution of the US mandates that each state maintain an army. The
Governor is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the National Guard. The GOVERNOR of
the state decides when to ALLOW their soldiers to be deployed out of their
state. If the President asks for troops, the GOVERNOR decides to send them
or not."

I am not arguing that this experience makes her a master at world politics, only that she does have some foreign policy experience. I would also imagine she has had to have some sort of relationship with her counterparts in the neighboring countries.

I don't know what was and wasn't said about Clinton as a Commander in Chief of the AR Guard. In my wife's job, she is constantly surrounded by guardsmen (and women). I have learned a new respect by being around them and hearing her stories of them. While I don't agree with Clinton's politics, I will not mock his leading the Guard.

And I am not lying, as a Governor, she does have to command the guard. The State has a wide range of responsibility when it comes to controlling, staffing, and funding the guard.

pack04 said...

I agree with bungirl, she seems to be someone who is in touch with people.
The other think I like from listening to her talk on Friday was that she sounds like my Mother and not as in she has the same voice and talks the same way. It is more of the way she says things, the tone of voice, the caring but demanding. My mom looks out for the best interest of her family. At the same time she also demands the best out of us. She treats us fairly. She makes decisions we do not like and decisions we do like. She does not do it for the glory but she does it because she loves us.
That type of person in a power position in our county is a good thing.

I do not believe she is the second coming like Obama's believers believe he is but rather a good person who will do the best for her family, regardless if that is her family in her house, her town, her state or her country.

Andy D said...

I think both Bun Girl and Pack have had excellent comments here. The more I read about Mrs. Palin the more I am impressed with her. The people of Alaska have been pretty impressed with her. Don' t forget, they gave her an 80 % approval rating.

Brandon said...


The National Guardsman who you talked to is wrong, members of the National/Air National Guard are members of the United States military, a governor cannot decide whether or not he or she will allow members of their state's guard to participate in a war.

Now, perhaps they can control whether or not to send guardsmen to other states for humanitarian relief, but that is it. The commander of Alaska's national guard has been quoted that Palin has no ability to actually command troops.

Andy D said...

Brandon, I am going to have to defer to what I have heard from Guardsman here. I don't serve in either the military or the Guard so I can't answer it from personal experience.

I do know from personal experience that there are other logistical efforts that surround the Guard that the state is responsible for. These efforts are overseen by the Governor.

I would imagine that she has been briefed on certain "What If" scenarios. If there was a military attack in Alaska, she would have to lead some sort of response before the Federal government could arrive, whether it was using guard members or not. All Governors have to have relations with neighboring states. I would think Alaska is no different, except those neighbors are foreign countries.

Once again, I don't think her role as Commander in Chief makes her an expert on world affairs. However, like other duties of a Governor, it is a case where she was responsible for making decisions that neither Biden nor Obama had to face.

Anonymous said...


I want *MY MOM* for president!

Anonymous said...

From an AP story:

"Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard... said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations."

Andy D said...

Here is I think the most fair reporting I have seen of her activity as the Commander in Chief.

Anon, be careful with your comments. I read your latest comment to Pack as pushing the line. There is a chance you didn't mean it as an attack which is why I posted it.

Anonymous said...

1) Andy, good link on Palin's "commanding." You might want to comment on it, b/c it's devastating to the argument that she's got a lot of military command experience.

2) I have no idea how you'd see the "mom" comment as an attack. I'm just pointing out that many of the "qualifications" the right is pointing to about Palin are qualifications that a number of people in my family or at my church have. I love 'em, but I don't want them to be president because they sound like my mom.

3) OK, and if you want to see a few reasons--beyond our thinking that Palin is simply a catastrophically bad choice for president--that those of us in the center and on the left are wigging out about this whole Palin choice, watch this clip. And, c'mon, you ought to be able to appreciate the humor, even if you like Palin. This is ridiculous and hilarious, and I'd laugh, too, if the jokes were on my people. I'd trust y'all a little more if you could own up to some of this.

Anonymous said...

BTW, Karl Rove calls Wasilla the second largest city in Alaska.

Why let facts get in the way?

The current 2nd largest city in Alaska is Fairbanks (pop 31,142). As of today, Wasilla is, believe it or not, the fourth largest city in Alaska (pop 9,236). But when Palin was mayor, the population was only 5,469.

Rove mocked Tim Kaine for having been the mayor of Richmond which had a population of over 200,000 people.

Rove, Pres. Bush's most trusted advisor and an advisor to McCain, is simply a liar and a hypocrite.

Andy D said...


I keep saying that I am not arguing that she has a tremendous amount of foreign policy experience. My argument is that her critics charge that she has NO foreign policy experience. Just as you are citing statistics with Karl Rove and Jon Stewart, I don' think the facts line up behind that attack. I put a link to the article because it points out that the only time she is in charge of the Guard is when it is used in Alaska. If the Guard is called up for overseas duty, or even in other areas of the US, she simply gives her permission and that is the end of her (or any Governor's) involvement.

Secondly, because you referred specifically to Pack when you made the MOM reference, it started to smell like a personal attack to me. As you are posting under anonymous, it is hard for me to have any historical contexts for your posts. I went ahead with it, and the warning, because I wasn't sure it was an attack.

Next up, I really don't like Jon Stewart. I have seen him engage in his own hypocrisy, so I don't see any value in him calling others hypocrites. However, anyone that wants to go view the clip is welcome too. I also have to say that I am starting to feel a little dirty with the number of links you have put on here to the huffington post...

Finally, I am not sure if Wasilla is the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 10th largest city in Alaska. She was mayor of Wasilla and Governor of Alaska (all cities within Alaska included). Karl Rove is now a Fox News analyst. He is welcome to say what he wants, but I have been more disturbed with the coverage other media elites have given Mrs. Palin. If you are going to call Rove to task for getting his facts wrong, please do the same for those members of the media who are bringing up her husbands DUI when it happened 22 years ago.

Anonymous said...

Andy's comment, boiled down:

Palin has *more than zero* foreign policy experience, but Andy doesn't name it.

Andy doesn't like John Stewart, so he won't comment on the eye-popping, got-it-on-tape, double-standards being employed by the McCain campaign.

He can't tell if Karl Rove is telling the truth about how big a town Wasilla is. But somebody somewhere is talking about Palin's husband's drunk driving arrest from a long time ago, and that's relevant to how big Wasilla is.


It doesn't seem that hard to admit the truth:

Palin has some foreign experience. She visited Kuwait and Germany once, and refueled in Ireland, on her first passport that she got in 2007. Not much more foreign policy experience than that.

The McCain campaign is defending Palin sometimes using clear double standards.

Karl Rove is not telling the truth about the size of the town of Wasilla.

These facts don't mean that she can't be a fine president. They just happen to be clearly true facts, and some of us are fascinated by how y'all won't admit these basic things. You know, a simple: "yeah, you're right."

chell12376 said...

Yeah! You are right!

I can't believe that Rove told that insidious lie! My G@D! How could he do that to us!

Now, could we get back to the issues, like taxes, energy, the economy, and GWOT?

Andy D said...

Anon, you have really gone all over the ball park here.

First, I have only been discussing her role as Commander in Chief to illustrate she has some foreign policy experience. I could care less when she got a passport.

Second, Jon Stewart hardly qualifies as a news source. Typically, his material is edited and taken out of context. I really could care less what he says or thinks about something. No, strike that, I couldn't care less what he thinks.

It looks like Wasilla is either the fourth or fifth largest city in Alaska depending on the year you are talking about. If it makes you feel better, you are right about that. It looks like Karl Rove called it the second largest city. Do you think perhaps he was simply mistaken? Surely you don't think he thought he could just put out there it was the 2nd largest, and no one would fact check him. Remember, a lie is an intentional misleading. Rove might simply be mistaken. Either way, he isn't on McCain or Palin's staff. I brought up the DUI because the way the MSM is reporting it could just as easily be considered malicious and has about as much relevance to our original discussion as what Rove said.

And if we are going to attack double standards, isn't your side just as guilty? I thought Democrats were the party of feminist. Shouldn't they be excited about seeing a woman with a stay at home husband being picked to run for Vice President? And where is the outcry from the feminist on the Democratic side when reporters question if she has enough time to be a Vice President and run a family? I thought that was sexual harassment. Where is NOW!

pack04 said...

C. in C. of National Guard I would say gives her some experience as a C. in C. She has to have been briefed on what she can and can not do with them. Gone over a couple of "what ifs." That has to count for something.
What C. in C. experience does Obama or Biden have? What experience does any American have at being C. in C. of the US? There are 4 people who do and only 2 of them, Carter and Bush Sr., can be president.
Come to think of it what qualifications do any of the 4 have to execute education decisions? None of them are teachers. Or how about how to run the national health care system? None of them are doctors.
So this leads to experience in general. None of them really have the all the experience needed to run every part of our extremely large government. She has advisers and is responsible for the final decision that directly effect peoples lives. Not a yes, no or present vote that has to be agreed upon by a majority of others to have a chance at having an effect. With that in mind I believe her to have more executive experience then the rest of them even with them having run campaign staffs and her only being Governor for 2 years and mayor of a small city in Alaska.

As for the "*MY MOM*" and then explanation comments, I am guessing you did not read my comment or could not understand them. I said "not as in she has the same voice and talks the same way." So when you say you want your mom and then explain it as "I don't want them to be president because they sound like my mom" seems to look like you are mocking me and shows your ignorance towards reading and understanding other people's comments. Do you just see who is writing it see a key word and assume what we are saying? Which makes me wonder how serious are you about admitting when somebody else is correct or makes a valid point or gives facts?

Anonymous said...

If you want to see condemnation of how the press talks about stay-at-home moms and dads, nobody does it better than your people, Andy.

Anonymous said...

Hey, is Pr. Hagee going to show up here? He had something he wanted to say about working moms...

Andy D said...

Anon, you do understand the difference between a Stay at home Mom or Dad, and a lazy good for nothing spouse that lays on the couch all day and sponges off their better half, right?

Anonymous said...

I'm not the one saying that stay-at-home dads are going to hell (whether they're lazy or not).

That's just the sermon topic for McCain's buddy, Pr. Haggee.

I've seen you pull this before, Andy: criticize the left for *not* condemning something somewhere.

All I'm saying: that's a silly game, b/c I could ask a similar (foolish) question: "Why hasn't the Republican party risen up to condemn Pr. Haggee and all those who criticize stay at home dads? Where is the outrage?!"

Or I could ask a good question: "Why don't republicans support equal pay for equal work legislation?"

Andy D said...

Sorry Anon, I watched your clip. The criticism in the clip is being leveled specifically against stay at home spouses who sponge off their better half. I don't see anything in the clip that is being leveled at a stay at home parent who is actively taking care of children or even the home.

Secondly, I think Haggee has been criticized by commentators on the right. I think McCain has even disassociated himself from Haggee. Personally, I don't know much about the guy one way or the other. I don't listen to him or watch his program so I don't know if he is wrong or right.

I am not sure which of my criticism's of the left you are upset about. I think it is the NOW remark earlier. If so, I think it is a fair point. Many on the left are asking if Palin can be a mom and serve as VP. If I asked a perspective employee if they had the time to work for me and raise kids, I would probably find myself in court. If I used the fact that a woman had had children to keep from hiring here, I am sure I would land in court.

As far as equal pay, I am not a big fan of the government regulating pay or benefits in a work place. I don't like unions either because they take away my ability to negotiate with my employer. I believe how much a company pays an employee should be between two people: the company and the employee. Government should keep out of it.

Anonymous said...

OK, now that Chell admitted that Rove isn't telling the truth, how about y'all admitting that some central claims from McCain's and Palin's stump speeches are simply lies. (i.e. we can assume that Palin knows the truth about her own record and so misstating it is intentional.)

Here's the rub. From the not-very-liberal wall street journal.

In short: she was a champion of the "bridge to nowhere" and ended up keeping the money for it anyway, and she has *the largest per capita earmark request in the nation.*

I don't really know if Sarah Palin is a "maverick." I do now know that she is a liar.

And she's lying about stuff that is *central* to who she says she is.

pack04 said...

So Obama is better because he does not lie? How can you lie or tell the truth when you say nothing at all?
Again I say the Republican party does not have the monopoly on being lairs.
You seem to be hitting the Republicans hard because they claim to not lie and then do lie. So is it okay for the Democrats to lie because they do not claim to not lie?

A serious question for you because I do not understand your statement and I do not wish to make foolish comments on things I do not understand. I want some more information on this statement "she has *the largest per capita earmark request in the nation.*"
Who is she requesting the earmarks from?
Just a quick numbers thing. Ohio has 11.5 million people. If they request $11 million that is less than a dollar a person but still $11 million. Alaska has 0.7 million people. If Alaska asks for $1 million, that is more than a dollar a person. That would make them have a higher per capita than Ohio. They only wanted a million rather than 11 million. It is just a numbers game that can be played either way. Alaska has the most per person but Ohio has the most over all.

How about the lie of Obama being Senator. He said Palin is new to the compaign trail but he had been at it for 18 months. Should he not have been being a senator at some point for the last 18 months rather than running for president as he took an oath to do?

Andy D said...

Anon, if you are really worried about Earmarks, you should be a Palin fan. She took on the Republican Senators who were trying to get the earmarks. If she was against them, and you are against earmarks, are you for Palin?

Anonymous said...

I'd be happy to tell you guys what I'm for and against regarding bridges and earmarks.

But first I'd like to know this. Simple yes or no:

Was Sarah Palin against the "Bridge to Nowhere"?

Was Sarah Palin against earmarks?

Simple yes or no, please. This should be easy, because she talks about these things in every speech she gives. Remember: simple yes or no.

Andy D said...

In my experience on this website, very few people actually hold up their end when they say ,"I'd be happy to tell you the answer to that question, but first you tell me this." But, in case you are one of the first, here is the answer:

From a piece written by Palin and McCain today:

In the first 100 days of our administration, we will look at every agency and department and expenditure of the federal government and ask this simple question: Is it serving the needs of the taxpayer? If it is not, we will reform it or shut it down, and we will spend money only on what is truly in the interest of the American people.

I would take that to mean that no matter what her initial position on earmarks or the Bridge to nowhere, she is against wasteful spending. While earmarks are sometimes useful, for the most part they aren't. I would think that today she is against both wasteful earmarks and spending federal funds on the Bridge to No where.

Anonymous said...

I can't tell if Andy is saying "yes" or "no" to those questions.

And I'm not asking about what she says she'll do in the future.

I'm asking a historical question. Was Palin for or against those things during her time in Alaska. This is something she talks [brags?] about in almost every speech, so it shouldn't be hard to answer.

Andy D said...

It looks like after she got in office, she was against federal funding of the Bridge to Nowhere. She still pursued having the bridge built, but felt like using federal money for the bridge wasn't a good idea for her state.

Anonymous said...

Andy says Palin was *for* the bridge to nowhere as a candidate. And against it as a governor.

That would be enough to make her repeated claims from the stump misleading at best.

But the truth is actually even worse:

After almost a year in office as governor, in September 2007, one month after John McCain blamed the Minneapolis bridge collapse on Congress' "Bridge to Nowhere" earmark, Palin canceled the bridge project, saying: "it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island." Palin blamed the cancellation on "spinmeisters" in the press and in politics who misrepresented the bridge project. Palin did, however, continue construction of a $25 million access road which was supposed to have linked to the bridge but now goes only to an empty beach--a road to nowhere. State officials said if the $25 million had not been spent, it would otherwise have been returned to the federal government. Alaska has not returned any of the original $454.4 million earmark to the federal government.

Clearly, Palin was for the bridge as a candidate and as a governor. She only turned against the bridge when it became clear that she couldn't get all of the money and when "spinmeisters" [i.e. most of the United States] had hotly criticized the project. And she kept all the money she could get for the bridge anyway.

So now she campaigns on having said "Thanks but no thanks" for the earmark? That is a lie. We need to call it like it is. John McCain chose and now supports someone who puts a lie front-and-center in his campaign.

John McCain has a truth problem.

Andy D said...

One key element you are missing here is the federal funding aspect. From what I can read, Gov. Palin wanted the bridge built the entire time she was in office. She is even campaigning now saying that if Alaskans wanted a bridge built, they would pay for it themselves. Gov. Palin dropped the push for federal funding for the bridge when it became a hot topic nationwide.

If we apply the same standards you are holding Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain to, we have to conclude that you are lying because you are not stating the case correctly. Sorry, what’s good for the goose and all…

However, I believe you may simply be mistaken or not 100% aware of the facts. I don’t jump to the conclusion that you are lying. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, which you are clearly not willing to give to Gov. Palin or Sen. McCain.

For the record, I asked you a number of posts back whether or not you were for or against Earmarks. You replied that you would be happy to say what you are for and against, but first you wanted me to answer a few questions, I have done that. I predicted you would be unwilling to answer those questions, and to date, you have proven me right.

pack04 said...

Come to think of it you have not answered any of my question either.

You want a direct answer from me? Here you go.
John McCain lies.
Sarah Palin lies.
I do believe that. I am not just appeasing you.

Now I want some answers from you. They are easy...yes or no, is all that is required.

Does Barack Obama lie?
Does Joe Biden lie?
Have they lied or changed their minds during any of their campaigns?

Is your sole reason for not liking Governor Palin because she is a liar?

Anonymous said...

Andy wrote: "Gov. Palin dropped the push for federal funding for the bridge when it became a hot topic nationwide."

I agree. It had nothing to do with some reform or anti-earmark crusade. She lost the battle, and then she tried to take credit for the victory. That's a lie.

I told Andy I'd answer his questions after he gave me a "yes" or "no" answer. He didn't give me a "yes" or "no" but that's partly the fault of his VP candidate, who is lying, trying to have it both ways.

But I'll respond anyway. Andy's original question:

"Anon, if you are really worried about Earmarks, you should be a Palin fan. She took on the Republican Senators who were trying to get the earmarks. If she was against them, and you are against earmarks, are you for Palin?"

I have the same problem Andy has in answering this question. Palin didn't take on the Republican Senators, and she is not "against earmarks"--or at least she wasn't a few weeks ago. But even if you added to her bio that she was a true anti-earmark crusader, no, I wouldn't support Palin.

I don't think all earmarks are bad. I think the earmark system should be reformed. It is too wasteful and full of pork. Neither party is innocent, but Democrats, as a matter of record, have done less earmarking than Republicans. But if you want me to point to wasteful spending, I'd direct you to the bottomless pit of Iraq. We've been building that $10-billion-a-month bridge to nowhere for a long time now.

What I've been pointing out here (on this thread devoted to PALIN, and not to earmarks) is that a central theme of PALIN'S bio--repeated daily--is a big fat lie. This "bridge" story is one of the very few things Americans "know" about Palin and it is simply not true.

Andy: what exactly is wrong with my account of Palin's stance on the "bridge"?


Thanks for the straight talk on lyin' Palin and McCain.

Show me something you think Obama or Biden is lying about and I'll tell you if I agree it's a lie or not.

Yes, both Biden and Obama change their minds. Most of the time, I think that's a good thing.

And, no, Palin lying about central themes of her bio is not the main reason I don't support her. She is opposed to almost everything I believe in. But she is also--according to most presidential historians--the least qualified nominee in over 100 years. That's why she's only giving scripted speeches and studying like crazy for her interviews and debates.

Sorry for the windy response. Slow day here.

Anonymous said...

Earmarks represent .6% of our federal budget.

pack04 said...

thank you for answering a few of my questions. You did not answer my questions about if Obama or Biden lie, just asked me to show you so you can tell me if it is a lie or not. I do not know who you think you are but you do not get to be the supreme judge on what are lies or not lies.

So you are mad that Palin is running a campaign stating she has done something now that is different from what she did in the past. Your words: "Palin was for the bridge as a candidate and as a governor. She only turned against the bridge when it became clear that she couldn't get all of the money..." So she changed her mind, which according to you is bad. However, again quoting you, "Yes, both Biden and Obama change their minds. Most of the time, I think that's a good thing." So changing your mind is okay. Can you see how your argument is slightly flawed?

Now to answer your request, lies from Obama. I went to the source, his official website.
Obama is for change. His plan for Iraq is "The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government." We are slowly removing troops as we speak and we with consultation with military commanders on the ground and with the Iraqi government have created a plan for phased withdrawal. So that is Bush's plan. It is also Obama's plan. That is not change that is more of the same. By the way was he not for a complete and immediate withdrawal of troops on his first day in office? That is right he is allowed to change his mind.

Again from his website, this time on civil rights...
"Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling..." How can a President over turn the Supreme Court's ruling? Maybe this is his stupidity rather than a lie. Of course it is a lie to the public to say you are going to do something you cannot possibly do. More from Civil Rights issue page..."Obama will sign into law his legislation that...provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote." So with the Supreme Court statement in mind he is going to break his own law. Additionally how does a President sign his own legislation. Is legislation not something that legislators do? A President does not legislate. Unless we are talking about a dictatorship but the USA is not one of those.

I call them lies but I cannot wait to see what you call them.

pack04 said...

Oh yeah, just to be an ass,
I would agree with those presidential historians that she does have the least experience in the last 100 years if she were indeed running for president but she is not. Give me the opinion of a vice-presidential historian and I might take it a little more seriously.

Actually I take that back, if she were running for president I would not agree with them. What factors were they looking at when determining experience. experience = age => JFK is/was a few months younger than her at this point in the game. So that is out. Executive experience? She has some as governor. Hoover had none, elected in 1928. Commander and Chief of Military, she has none (please leave the NG out of this. I don't want to bring that up again), Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, well every President except maybe Eisenhower had no Commander and Chief experience. Foreign Policy, what about Carter? I am sure he had lots of experience with those foreigners as Governor of Georgia.
I thought of one. She has no experience at being a father. As a counter point she is the only one with experience as a mother.

Come on, give me some thing that might actually make me think or have to do research! Try and stump me!

Andy D said...

The problem with your account is that you are accusing Gov. Palin of lying while being a little loose with your facts. Gov. Palin did support the Bridge project. She also turned against federal funding for the bridge after the federal funding became a national black eye.

You said, "...she now campaigns on having said,'Thanks but no thanks' for the earmark? That is a lie." That is not a lie. She decided not to pursue continued federal funding for the bridge. She did continue to support funding for the bridge using state money. I know it is splitting hairs, but if you are going to claim she lied, you have to get it right.

You seem to be very obsessed about Palin allegedy lying about the bridge. I think we can all agree that she changed her stance on portions of the bridge project as she became governor. That isn't the same thing as lying.

You have said a number of times you don't support Palin. I assume that means you support Obama. Are you as outraged by Obama's "changing positions". And why do Obama and Biden get the benefit of the doubt in your mind, but Palin must be lying?

Anonymous said...

If Palin said "No thanks," why did she keep the money?

The truth is, she said, "Yes, please."

She is a liar. And she's counting on people like you to back her up.

Andy D said...

Why did she keep the money? Because that is the job of a Governor, get federal funds for infrastructure and spend them.

If you count Mrs. Palin as a liar, you have to apply the same label to both Obama and Biden.

As a final vote, here is an article from Sen. DeMint on this very topic.

pack04 said...

I think you should check your own state for money that was appointed to them for one thing but used for something else. You might be surprise how often the money does not go back.

To be a complete anti-federal governmentist...why should they have to give money back to the federal government which they gave to them in the first place?

So to sum up what I am hearing...you don't like her because some historian said she has the least experience, which I am still waiting on a response to my response for, and she does what every other politian does...says one thing but does something different.

patiently waiting on your judgment of the lies I submitted as well.

Anonymous said...


There's nothing inherently wrong with changing your mind about something. When you lie about it, that's something else. In general, I don't care if Palin changes her mind. I do care that she lies about it.

Presidents sign legislation all the time. Look it up. Dude, that's pretty funny if you think that's a lie. But you're in good company: you should see Sarah Palin drawing a blank on "Bush Doctrine" tonight on ABC. But, brother Pack, even Gov. Palin has signed legislation.

Executives talk about overturning Supreme Court decisions. They do that through legislation and by appointing judges. McCain says he wants Roe v. Wade overturned.

I don't see any lies on the part of Obama or Biden here.

Anonymous said...

And, Pack, I don't like Palin first of all because she's against almost everything I believe in, and she's for almost everything I'm against.

Second, she's nobody I want as, say, the leader of the free world. She's a liar, she's woefully undereducated, and her worldview is anti-intellectual. But you may like that latter quality.

The earmark thing is just an example of her being both a hypocrite and a liar. As I wrote before, earmarks represent .6% of our budget. But things like Iraq are a friggin black hole.

Andy D said...

So I think I understand your position Anon:

You don't like Palin because of her view on the issues. I understand that, I feel the same way about both Obama and Biden.

You don't like Palin because she lies, but you believe Obama and Biden are both as pure as the wind driven snow.

Does that pretty much sum it up?

Anonymous said...

RE: Obama and Biden being "pure": Nobody is pure except somebody I pray to.

Even the greatest Presidents--Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Kennedy, FDR, etc.--had serious dark sides and demons to confront.

RE: what I don't like about Palin. Right about the two things you listed but also: I really don't like Palin's anti-intellectualism. Eight years of Bush creating his own reality--against the intelligence community and the military experts and the climate experts and environmental experts, etc.--has dug us into a deep hole.

Andy D said...

I don't know Anon, I think on a few of those issues, so called "intellectuals" have created their own reality.

Bush isn't perfect, nor is Palin, Obama, or anyone else, as you correctly point out. You seem very, very concerned about what you see as a lie coming from Palin. My point is that Obama and Biden have told whoppers in their careers too. I just don't see you holding them to the same standard.

Saint said...


Please give me a couple of examples of her "anti-intellectualism".

pack04 said...

I suppose McCain is a liar than too. Bottom line is that a President cannot over turn a Supreme Court decision. Legislators can make new laws, Presidents can appoint new Justices but that does not change a Supreme Court decision. Obama by saying it the way he did leads people to believe that if he does not like a ruling he will change it. Cannot happen.

Obama will sign into law legislation. The lie is that he will sign into law HIS legislation. How as president can he have legislation? A President cannot introduce legislation to Congress. From the US Constitution "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." So how as President does he have HIS legislation as President?
Dictionary.com on lie "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive."

By the way have you heard Obama speak with out a scripted speech in front of him? Not good.

Look at how much the curve ball McCain threw, in picking Palin, is giving Obama such trouble. How is he going to handle it when a real threat such as Ahmadinejad throws him a curve ball.

Anonymous said...


I'm pro-intellectual, so I'm going to let you do your own homework on anti-intellectualism.

Start by Googling "pointy-headed" or "egg-headed." Yes, that's what your team calls the former editor of the Harvard Law Review.

John McCain graduated 894th out of 899 in his class. Sarah Palin went to 5 not-selective schools in 6 years and graduated without any kind of distinction or leadership. There's nothing inherently wrong with people who are low-achievers in the academy. But I find it disgusting that McCain's team (like Bush) stokes other low-achiever's resentment by ridiculing the fact that Obama is smart and a successful academic.

Being smart doesn't necessarily qualify you to be president. But McCain and Bush act like its an asset to be dumb and get bad grades. I don't know. You may respect them for that. That's what they're after with all of this.

But I'm sick of people running our government who hate details and careful thought.

Senior Lady said...

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind about an issue -- except in politics -- because then you're a "flip flopper". So you tell a "lie by omission", i.e. "I was against the bridge to nowhere". You just leave out the part that you were for it at one time, but changed your mind.

I don't have as much a problem with these "lies" -- as many have pointed out, coming from both parties, as I do with the very misleading and negative campaign ads McCain's team has been putting out. It's getting him bad press, even from Republicans, and if it keeps up it's going to cost him.

Andy D said...


I think the problem many people have with "intellectuals" isn't there IQ, or their learning, but their arrogance. I happen to know that many of the people who comment on this site are well educated and very smart people. These well educated people are on both sides of the argument.

I don't like that those one the left assume everyone on the right is dumb, or not as smart as them. I am really tired of people assuming that President Bush is dumb. GO check out his GPA versus the Democratic nominee in 2004, John Kerry. I think you should read one of the books I have recommended on George Bush (shameless promotion). You might be surprised by the man.


Like Pack said, I think anything you want to claim is a lie by the McCain / Palin team can easily be found in the Obama / Biden team. Like you say, both parties are guilty of some lies.

I haven't seen any ads from McCain I would call very misleading. I have seen some that may sound negative, but if they do, I think it is only because they strike to close to home for team Obama's liking.

Anonymous said...

Andy wrote: "I haven't seen any ads from McCain I would call very misleading."

When McCain's ad said "Obama on Sarah Palin:" and then played a clip of Obama talking about putting lipstick on a pig, what was Obama actually talking about? Hint: if it wasn't about Palin, then McCain's ad is a flat-out lie.

And it's hilarious now to hear you guys turn into such fans of moral equivalence: "hey man, everybody lies, so its all good."

You were against moral equivalence before you were for it.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, my college professors had the arrogance to grade *my* papers! They acted like they were smarter than me.

That's the big problem I have with smart people.

It seems like the smarter they are, the smarter they sound, and that's just arrogance. And I resent it.

Anonymous said...

Here's an account of a number of conservatives saying that Palin and the enthusiasm she inspires is largely an unfortunate bunch of anti-experience and anti-intellectual resentment.

Saint said...

Looks more to me like an opinion article written by one person, and he mentions the names of 4 other people. Does 5 qualify as a bunch?

I'm starting to get the impression that your "anti-intellectualism" is really the fact that you don't like what school she went too and you disagree with her opinions on specific topics.

Anonymous said...

No, Saint. I just don't hold anybody's intelligence or academic success against them.

George H.W. Bush was a smart guy, Phi Beta Kappa, graduated in two-and-a-half years from Yale. I didn't agree with his policies as President, but I never held his intelligence or education against him.

Palin and McCain, however, are low achievers in academics, as is W. *That* I hold against them.

And it's pitiful that they get other low achievers to resent Obama for his intellect and success.

Andy D said...

To your first question, I think Obama’s comment was directed at Governor Palin. I’m not the only one. Many in the crowd did as well. So if I and Obama supporters think the comment was about Palin, does that make the ad accurate?

I wasn’t saying I think Palin and McCain were lying. I was saying if you want to look for something and make it into a lie, I can do the same thing for any number of comments by Obama and Biden.

It is one thing to have academic success. It is another thing to believe everyone is inferior to you because of your academic success. I don’t hold Obama’s time against him. It does make me question his world view because most people who spend a long time in a college, or teach at a college, tend to have a world view that I disagree with. You need to double check your facts on President George W. Bush. He graduated from both Harvard and Yale. Surely that rates some respect in your mind. You also criticize those who spent less time in college. That is the very attitude most people rail against when they attack “elites”.

Senior Lady said...

Andy: GPA is a number, that's all. I don't hold it against McCain that he graduated practically at the bottom of his class. Too many of us don't grasp the value of education/learning until we're a bit more mature than our early twenties.

How do you determine someone is intelligent? Maybe we all have different criteria. But when I listen to George Bush, when I see the way he behaves, when I see the results of his terms in office and some of the people he's appointed to various posts, it does not say to me "this is an intelligent man"...not even close.

Andy D said...

Anon, I was thinking of you while washing dishes tonight. I think I finally realized why you and I are going round and round on this issue of lying. It isn’t our failure to convince each other, it is a different world view.

For Example: You listen to George Bush talk about weapons of mass destruction and the threat that Saddam posed in Iraq. When we captured Saddam and there weren’t massive quantities of WMD’s, you figure George Bush must be lying.

I listen to Al Gore preach about Man Made Global Warming. I look at the evidence, and look at other research that says something different. I assume Gore must be wrong. He may or may not believe what he is saying, but I chose to believe he believes what he is saying, he is just wrong. You and I simply have different world views.


I agree with you about the GPA. I agree with the entire first paragraph of your comment. (Make sure that you tell Anon I admitted someone else was right). Intelligence is a tough thing to measure. President Bush has taken a lot of criticism for his mannerisms and his public speaking. However, if you pull Barack Obama off a teleprompter, he sounds the same way. In some ways, even worse. Some of the Presidents appointments have been pretty good, some have been pretty bad. I think some of the moves he has made show that he is clever, honorable, and I don’t think he could have gotten to where he is at without at decent amount of intelligence.

Senior Lady said...

Andy: I have both disagreed and agreed with you on various postings and points made on your blog, but I have never been so shocked (and disappointed) when you state you believe Senator Obama was referring to Palin in the pig statement. Come on, Andy, one thing Senator Obama isn't is stupid!

Andy D said...

One more thing, this post is now the most commented on post I have ever written. Thanks everyone for your comments. To those of you I disagree with and to those of you who I do agree with, I couldn't have done it without you. Thanks for the comments, and I hope I can keep you all engaged on my site.

Anonymous said...

Congrats on the comments, Andy.

Interesting thoughts on "worldview."

It is odd to me that you bring those two examples up:

1) I was with the experts about Iraq's WMDs (i.e. that they had little or no WMD). I was right.

2) I am with Gore and the IPCC, etc. about climate change. I am right.

On both issues you mention, the results are in, and you are wrong.

I don't doubt that we do have differences in our worldview, but surely there is an actual world out there... and in that world there were no WMDs in Iraq... and it is getting hotter in that world for reasons that are no mystery.

But maybe there's something I'm missing in what you're saying.

Andy D said...

He isn't stupid, Senior Lady. Obama is a word master. He realizes, maybe better than anyone else running, that words have an impact. Using that metaphor that close to a line that has helped catapult Palin into the spotlight isn't an accident. I am not shocked or outraged by it. But I do believe he knew exactly what he was saying, and watching the reaction of the crowd, I really believe they took the same meaning from it.

pack04 said...

Obama is stupid for making a comment that is so similar to a comment made by Palin and then believing that he can just explain it away as saying that is not what I meant. Or he is stupid for not realizing what he was saying. For somebody that is so concerned about the US world image and how our actions affect that image he made a poor case for him being able to do any better at it than is currently being done. He could not see far enough a head or predict that a comment about lipstick when talking about the other parties ideas for the future would cause a bad image on himself especially when the other party had somebody make a lipstick comment earlier. He probably was not talking about her or making fun of her but that seems like it would be an easier thing to predict than the Iraq War being bad.

If he does not have a speech written by somebody else right in front of him he has no idea what to do or say. Again I ask what is he going to do when he faces a real threat with out a canned speech in front of him?

pack04 said...

So getting "dumb" people to vote for them is a bad thing? What about creating a class war to get people to vote for you? Telling poor people it is big companies and rich peoples fault and that you are going to take all of the their money and give it to them and that will make their lives better.

So it really sounds like both sides are going for the "dumb" people.

pack04 said...

Why is nobody talking about Biden? Obama's own running mate does not even want to be VP. He does not believe he is the best choice for VP! So who is stupid? A person picking somebody who does not want to be VP and does not think he is the best? Or a person who does not want to be VP and does not think he is the best saying sure I'll run for VP?

Senior Lady said...

It's an expression that's been around for a long time..."you put lipstick on a ______(choose the animal), it's still a _____." Many have used it before and will again. Just because Sarah Palin used the word "lipstick", it's now off limits? How does lipstick, a soccer mom, and a pit bull relate to what Obama said? Now I guess he can't use the words soccer, mom, or pit bull either? It's absurd.

Andy D said...

Now wait, early in Obama's campaign, certain words became off limits. For example, his middle name. Anytime a Republican used Barack's (or as I like to say he who must not be mentioned by middle name ), they were accused of calling him a Muslim.

Palin made big news with her pitbull / lipstick line. Obama using a very similar line a few days later had to know people would make the jump.

pack04 said...

senior lady thank you for reading my comment. I said I did not believe he meant it to be a cut down. When you listen to just that quote it is fine and just a common quote that has been used and will be used again. However when you listen to the whole part of his talk you will see that he is talking about the other political parties plan. She is part of that other party and just used the lipstick line so of all the other lines to use out there it is odd that he picked that one. Again if the Iraq war being bad was so easy to pick up on from the begining then why could he have not figured this lipstick line out first. Therefore I have changed my mind. He meant what he said. He tried an underhanded cut down to rival what Palin had been doing and it back fired on him. Now he is trying to talk his way out of it.

How is he going to back out of the dumb things he says to the President of Iran?

Anonymous said...

Pack, that's rich.

Because Obama used a common folksy aphorism (used also by Senator McCain and many others), therefore he's unprepared to face the President of Iran.

When John McCain used the "lipstick on a pig" saying, he (unlike Obama) was actually talking about a woman: Hillary Clinton. So was he insulting *her*? He has said worse things about Clinton females before.

Guess he's unfit to face the President of Iran, huh?

But I wonder what double standard you'll use defend him this time.

Andy D said...


I really don't care about the McCain joke. I commented on the Obama gaff because you were accusing McCain of lying in his ad. I think the ad was accurate, and no joke McCain may or may not have told before changes that.

By the way...72 comments. Wow.

pack04 said...

Anon, you do not read what I write.

I am tired of discussing things with you when you do not read what I write and do not answer the questions I ask of you.

I am willing to read, understand and think about things you say and you have no intention of doing that.

It is really disappointing.

Senior Lady said...

Pack: I did read your comment and I did understand that (at that time) you didn't believe he was making fun of her or refering to her. But you said he was stupid not to realize that in talking about the other political party's plan, he shouldn't use the word "lipstick" and you and Andy both say it's so similar to what Palin said. I'm sorry; I really don't see the similarity when only one word was the same.

As for having to back out of saying dumb things to foreign allies or adversaries, I don't think it's going to be an issue.

Anonymous said...

Let me show you guys how this is done.

Obama is running Spanish-language radio ads that link McCain to Rush Limbaugh on immigration.

That's stupid and deceitful. McCain *has* moved rightward toward Limbaugh's positions on immigration, but he's been much more moderate than Limbaugh. And Limbaugh disagrees with him more often than not about immigration. And some of Limbaugh's quotes--though I find them ridiculous in almost any context--are taken out of context in the ads.

Obama's campaign should not do this. And it raises justifiable questions about how ethical a government he would run. Thus far, I've seen way more deceit on McCain's side, but it doesn't for a minute excuse Obama's lapse into deceit. I'm writing to complain to his campaign.

I hope those of you who support McCain will complain about his deceitful ads, too.

Andy D said...

Good for you Anon. I agree with your assessment of the Rush Limbaugh ad. We have gone round and round about the McCain lipstick ad. You believe it is a lie, I don’t. Is there another McCain add you believe is lying?

Anonymous said...

Where to begin?

Maybe here. Most Americans believe McCain's ads about Obama wanting to raise their taxes.

You tell me: is this true or false?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

OK I'll make this real easy.

Here's how to get a job lying for the McCain/Palin campaign.

And, btw, the McCain campaign doesn't dispute the story. They've only complained that the reporter didn't identify herself as a reporter... while she was writing lies on behalf of the campaign.

Still waiting for Andy to weigh in on two examples of the McCain campaign lying.

Anonymous said...

The link above gave you all the documents. Here's the narrative that tells the story of the lie-factory in the field office of the McCain campaign.

pack04 said...

anon still waiting on comments on my statements on Senator Obama lying.
Your only comment had really nothing to do with my accusations. Of course Presidents sign things into law. Still want to see how you will explain how President Obama "will sign into law his legislation." He did not say he will sign into law legislation. He used the word HIS. How does he plan on doing that? Or what action will he use to "over turn a Supreme Court decision?"

Of course people believe Obama will raise taxes. He said he will. Remember some people are not stupid. His plans for programs are going to cost money. More money than not fighting a war in Iraq will save, more money than a tax on the richest 1% of the population can bring in.

By the way it sure is nice of him to take a couple of days off to get ready for the debate while our country is in the middle of a huge financial crisis. That tells me he is more concerned with himself than me. Of course he does worry about me anyway. I am evil. I make money. If he does not help the rich out and they become poor who will he then tax?

I guess that will fall to me...

Just to be fair, Senator McCain is dumb for not going to the Senate to debate this issue. I believe he should be there for the same reason Senator Obama should be there. Their jobs are senators. If they are collecting a salary, paid by our taxes, to be a senator then they damn well better be working for me.

It is nice of Senator Obama to lay things like this at Senator McCain's feet. Think about this line if McCain canceled his campaign stops. "Sorry I could not make it today, I had to go back to the Capitol to help solve this financial issue that affects all of us. I am saddened that Senator Obama will not join me on the floor because he is too busy with his debate preparations."

Andy D said...

First: Pack, you should be pretty impressed with McCain today. I think suspending his campaign for a few days to work on the economic bailout is a pretty good move. I also think Obama is going to get some negatives from this. He is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to be a Senator, not to campaign for President. If we have a crisis, he needs to be doing his job.

Anon: Obama has said himself that he will raise taxes. His dispute with McCain is where he will raise those taxes. Obama plans on raising taxes on investments and stocks. That means mutual funds, 401(k)'s, pensions, and stock. Obama doesn't believe the majority of Americans are invested in the stock market. Most mutual funds, 401(k)s and pension funds are very heavily invested in the stock market. McCain says Obama will raise taxes. Obama says he will raise taxes. I think they are both telling the truth.

As far as your ghostwriting links, if you believe McCain is the only one employing writers like this, you are out of your mind. Obama's campaign has people doing the same thing. Most well funded political groups all sides of the political divide do this. That is why you can't trust letter's to the editor, or callers on talk shows. You never really know when you have someone telling the truth, or someone paid by a campaign.

I am not saying everyone does it so it is ok. It isn't illegal, but it sure doesn't pass the stink test either. Depending on how it is done, I might not have a problem with it.

pack04 said...

That is good to see McCain canceled his tour for a bit. I am sorry I guess I was not up to date on the lastest news.

Anonymous said...

You guys are sad.

Total political stunt: McCain just can't find the mental focus to have a 90 minute debate at 9 p.m. on a Friday night?

The senior citizen McCain won't be able to call "time out" if he's president and we have a crisis.

And, anyway, McCain is still running ads all over the place, and his surrogates are on T.V. Seems like he needs an excuse to answer even fewer questions from anybody other than hand-picked audiences.

He wants the Palin debate postponed, too, after the disastrous moose-in-the-headlights interviews she's given. I'm sure she'll be working hard on getting tax dollars to CEOs, too.

Yes, guys, great idea: let's suspend the democratic process for a while. The idea of democratic debate on the issues leading up to an election is actually just selfishness on the part of the candidates. They shouldn't talk to us and shouldn't run for office. They should rescue "fundamentally sound" economies. That's what candidates do, right?

Pack: now you're just being ridiculous. You're making up theories about what Obama will do, rather than reading his plan. I could do the same thing with McCain: I think McCain will make monkeys fly out of our butts.

And whose legislation was the Patriot Act? It was drafted by George W. Bush's Justice Department and was talked about as "Bush's legislation." He signed it into law. But maybe you already knew he was a liar, I guess...

You guys indulge in shameless moral equivalence: it's fine to lie, as long as you are a republican, because somebody else did too somewhere sometime. But the truth finds its way to the surface, and that's why McCain's campaign is headed the same direction as the Bush presidency. The truth, not lies, will make you free.

Anonymous said...

You guys watch this clip feel ok about it?

Just curious. Really.

Andy D said...

I am torn. I am proud of the 85 comments. But Anon, I really don't know what to say to you.

You, and others who believe like you, are very excited about the Palin clip. However, what do you think of Biden's last gaffe of the day? He asked a guy in a wheel chair to stand up, he thought FDR was President in 1929. He thought every American had a TV in their home in 1929. He thought Obama didn't approve of the ad he ran attacking McCains computer skills (even though Obama says he approved it). He thought Hilliary would have made a better VP (on that one he might be right).

You think I am saying it is ok for McCain and Obama to both lie. I haven't said that. I did say I thought Obama has lied. I do think most campaigns write the letters you talked about earlier, but I also said I didn't like it.

One final point. You said the McCain presidency is headed the same way as the Bush presidency. If by that you mean to a victory in November, I hope you are right.

Anonymous said...

Biden says some stupid stuff. Sho nuff. I agree with you there.

But he's smart. Knows his stuff. Can talk about foreign policy intelligently and confidently.

We see things very differently if you looked into Sarah Palin's eyes in that interview and saw a knowledgeable world leader.

That is probably the reason the McCain campaign is putting brakes on her debate. She's a total disaster.

Andy D said...

I have heard talk about tomorrow's debate being postponed, I haven't heard anything about the VP debate being postponed. I am looking forward to it more than any of the Presidential debates. I think Palin is really going to take it to Biden.

pack04 said...

Anon. I agree with your past statements that somebody who is a heartbeat away from being president should be experienced in foreign relations because they will have to deal with foreign leaders. That is something that Governor Palin is lacking.
I would ask that you think about your statement that Senator Biden "can talk about foreign policy intelligently and confidently." Does being able to "talk" about foreign policy give him the necessary experience in foreign relations to be a heartbeat way from being president? I am not asking for a comparison between him and Gov. Palin to see who is lacking the most. This is just a straight up question. Ask it to yourself this way. If you talk about a game plan for a football game from your couch does that mean you could be a head football coach?

There is a huge difference from knowing your stuff and being a leader. There is a huge difference between talking about things with 99 other people and being in a position where "the buck stops here." Each and everyone of these candidates will have to grow into the job.

Senior Lady said...

Well, what do you think of Palin after the Couric interview? I was so uncomfortable just watching her. I'm sorry, folks, but she is beginning to scare me. I was reminded of that Miss Teen whatever contest a year or so ago, when that young gal rambled on and on making no sense.

Andy D said...

90 comments...wow...

Senior Lady, stay tuned. I plan to answer your question in a new post.

Anonymous said...

Pack you ask odd questions.

You're saying: 1) talking and acting are different things. 2) Biden sounds like he knows what's talking about in foreign policy. 3) Therefore Biden must not be good at *acting out* foreign policy.

If that's the logic here, than Sarah Palin has got to be the best foreign policy action-oriented leader we've seen in a long time.

pack04 said...

I don't know how you came up with that from what I wrote but let me try again.

If you are talking with your friends while watching a football game and you say "they should run the ball" does that mean you could go and be the head football coach?

It was an analogy to point out that what you said might not be as important or make somebody as qualified as you think them to be.
You said Senator Biden "Can talk about foreign policy intelligently and confidently." Yes he can talk but when you are President or a heart beat away from being president it is a different game. All of the candidates are lacking the experience of being the one person who is the face of foreign policy/relations. There are very few people who have that experience in the US.

Senators Biden, Obama, McCain and Governor Palin will all have to grown into that roll and experience.

All I am asking of you is to think about the last point, the Senators/Governor will have to grow into the job, and that being able to talk about it is different than doing.

Do you agree with me on those statements or not? Yes or No.

Anonymous said...

Pack, yes, I agree there's a difference between armchair coaching and actual coaching. Same is true in foreign policy. We agree on that.

But that's a misleading response to my critique.

Just b/c talking and leading are different things doesn't mean that knowledge and intelligence *aren't necessary* in order to act.

Sarah Palin talks like the kid who got caught not studying for the foreign policy final exam. Well, not studying after cutting class all year.

Joe Biden knows his foreign policy, and he sounds like he knows it.

Biden could theoretically still suck at being a leader in foreign policy. But unless Sarah Palin is really, really, good at hiding her knowledge and intelligence, there's no way for her to be a good leader in foreign policy.

I suspect we'll see her recite (probably very well) some cliff notes foreign policy statements at the debate, but it will take a lot more than that to convince many of us that she knows jack about foreign policy.

Maybe somebody else will jump on this thread and we can get Andy up to 100 comments...?

pack04 said...

I see and understand what you are saying.

Senator Biden does have more experience in foreign policy matters. I still believe he will have to grow into a different side of experience in foreign policy if he becomes President. I believe the same is true for all of them.

As a side thought Senator Obama picked Senator Biden to help combat his lack of experience. People seem to be fine with the fact that a possible future president who does not have experience will get that needed experience from his Vice-President. However, a possible Vice-President is bad because of lack of experience even though she will have an experienced President.

I guess what I am saying is if a vice-president can give a president some experience then should a president not be able to give a vice-president experience?

Andy D said...

Wow...the 100 comment mark gets closer and closer...

Senator Biden has more experience, but it isn't necessarily good experience. He has voted against almost every use of military force while he was in the Senate. That includes the First Gulf War.

Anonymous said...

I'm much more comfortable with Obama's experience (including securing loose nukes in Russia) than Palin's experience (no, she's never "seen" Russia or dealt with any Russian incursions).

I'm way more comfortable with Obama's intelligence (President of Harvard Law Review) than with Palin's brain (5 low achieving schools in 6 years, no personal distinctions).

Today Palin couldn't name ONE news source that she reads. Not one! And she was a journalism major.

So Biden steps in if Obama can't serve. I'm not thrilled with that, but I'm ok. Palin filling in? That's an entirely different scenario.

What number are we on? Does #100 win a Fox News t-shirt or something?

pack04 said...

So what you are saying is that we have a guy who does not know how many houses he has with a woman who does not know what she reads running against the savior and a man that does not want to be running?

Damn glad I get to make a choice this November.

It is sad that she could not name one new paper but why was the question asked?
Is it important to know what papers she use to read but it is not important to ask Senator Obama questions about his past religions?

Of course what ever paper she did say would some how be turned into being the wrong paper. Is there ever really truly an answer that a politician could give to any question that would not be turned against them in a bad way some how by somebody? Not making excuses for her...she could have at least said the daily news paper in her home town.

By the way...Obama is smart. How about my claims at him not understanding the constitution as he should be able to as President of Harvard Law Review.

I made those claims and you never really answered them...still waiting to see how a president can OVERTURN a Supreme Court decision.

Anonymous said...


OK, I'll do this gently. Congress can vote to overturn supreme court decisions. Here's an example. It's called democracy, bro.

I won't rake you over the coals for being all worked up about something you had totally wrong.

I'll just urge you to think a little more, ask a few more questions, when you're so sure of yourself.

Andy D said...

Anon, I think Pack's point is that the President (whether it is Obama or McCain) can't overturn a Supreme Court decision. In your example, Congress is working to overturn the bill, not the President.


Anonymous said...

100! Congrats Andy.

But, Andy, if your generous interpretation of Pack is what he really means, then he is *really* confused. Presidents regularly talk about "passing a balanced budget" or "getting legislation passed" or "getting Congress to sign my law." Of course, Congress is involved, but the President takes initiative. Does Pack think that's all a bunch of lies?

Somebody here is really confused about all this. But it is clearly not Barack Obama.

But I won't make fun of Pack.

I simply ask: do a little more quiet thinking and research before throwing accusations around. That's what many of us have been asking since we invaded Iraq on clearly bogus claims that most Americans were too lazy to investigate.

pack04 said...

I do not think it is a lie that a President gets involved. They do. I know they do. They should, they are leaders. If it is something that is good for the country they should fight for it. As you pointed out and as I already knew Congress can over turn a Supreme Court decision. A President cannot. He can "rally the troops" so to speak. However, according to the US Constitution he has no more power to overturn a Supreme Court decision or get a bill passed then you or I do. We can ask that our representatives vote for a bill and he can to. He cannot make them. This is, as you pointed out, a democracy.

It is a flat out lie to say on HIS website that "As president, Obama will further raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011." Fair Labor Standards Act sets the minimum wage. It is an ACT therefore a decision of the Congress that is then approved by the President.
If he would have said "As President, I will work with Congress to get the minimum wage increased to $9.50" I would not say it is a lie. He did not say that. He said he will increase the minimum wage. Lie.

Yes, I do know that Presidents do talk about "passing legislation" or "balancing the budget" and I know the truth behind what they are saying. The problem is that millions of people think it true. They lay so much power at the feet of the President that should not be there.

Anonymous said...


You are making Andy's biggest post ever peter out into absurdity.

You suggest that b/c Obama said he'll "do" something rather than "work with congress" to "do" something, it's a big outrageous lie.

Is that the sort of thing you think we ought to be worrying about? Grammar?

If it is, then you'll have to pour out your anxiety on the McCain website, because they've got the same thing all over the place.

"Grammar First!"

The economy is in the toilet, we're screwing up two countries in the middle east, the earth is heating up, and you're worried about grammar (that's apparently only misleading to you) on websites.

Priorities, man. Priorities.

pack04 said...

Hey you are the one that asked for a lie.
I don't see that as a grammar issue. I see it as a lie. I guess we will just have to disagree on this.
Plus, I have never made the claim that Senator McCain does not lie. Actually as I recall that is what got this whole string started. I said Senator McCain lies and so does Senator Obama. You thanked me for saying Senator McCain lied and then asked me to show you a lie from Senator Obama.
I am not fired up about his lies or anybodies lies. I am rather fired up about you and your inability to see or want to see or even think about the other side. If you look back I have mentioned what I think are faults of people, regardless of political affiliation just like I have applauded both sides. You have not. I ask you this. Is it possible that you could ever admit a failure of Senator Obama? Is it possible that you ever admit a good thing that President Bush, Senator McCain or any republican for that matter has done? (or because I think I know what you might say I will rephrase that last part of to say "might do" rather than "has done.")

I have not forgot about the economy tanking or the earth warming up. Those things are important to me. I have even called my politicians on those subjects. Have you? Or is all just a bunch of 1's and 0's for you and your important issues?

Anonymous said...

Some fair points in that last comment Pack. Sure, I have plenty of differences with Obama: I don't agree with the death penalty in any circumstance; I wish he would work more to reduce the rate of abortion; I don't like his compromises on spying on Americans or offshore drilling. I believe his positions on those issues are at least minor failings.

To return to something from way back: here's a conservative talking about the Republican anti-intellectualism I mentioned. I think it's a very sharp set of insights.

pack04 said...

That is an interesting article. I personally think that Senator Obama has done his fair share of creating class warfare as well. He campaigns for the poor vote telling them it is others fault, by telling them he will raise taxes on the richest of people and promising a whole bunch of free stuff for them. Through out history the rise or trying to rise of poor people has scared the hell out of the rest of societies. That is creating a divide. Now as the article pointed out the GOP did/has done nothing to stop those fears and actually played on them. I did not see that point of view before but it is an interesting thought that I will have to think on more. It probably will end up with me believing even more strongly that our leaders from both parties are lacking and have forgotten their purpose as Andy has pointed out from his 3 day in Washington.

Here are some of my quick thoughts that the article has brought up in my mind on voting and the parties people like. Just my opinions.
Hollywood seems to be very liberal and as the article points out doctors, lawyers and bankers are giving to the Democratic at a high rate. Most of them are the ones are the ones making more than $250,000 a year. They are the ones the Democrats want to tax even more heavily. So I am just confused as why they would support somebody that wants to take more of their money. Unless of course they consider paying more taxes to be patriotic. To sum that up the rich and their voting habits confuse me.

The poor and their voting habits do not. They are going to vote for who ever promises to give them more.

Now the middle class is an interesting group. They sway their vote and it can be hard to predict where they will go before hand. They act like a bunch of cattle. Get a few in the group pointed in the right direction and the rest will follow for no other reason than it sounds like a good idea. The interesting thing about it is it is hard to predict who those few "leaders" are and which way they will go and it can vary from issue to issue.

Now another thing about the article I think needs a little counterpoint to is the whole thing about people in Raleigh-Durham, suburbs of NYC, etc. voting democrat because they are smart people. I have lived in some of those areas and I know some of those people. I think it is more kindness driven rather than intellectually driven. They have a good life. They have money for food, gas, vacation, health care, etc and believe others should have the same because it is the fair thing. I am not saying that Republicans are mean or do not think things should be fair, I just think that people who vote Republican might see the cost and effect of policies that try to make everybody in the US to have everything everybody else does. To put it simply, somebody has to haul the trash and they should not get paid $80,000 a year to do it. I do not think those "intellectuals" see that is what having everything fair would mean, a trash man making 80k a year.

Andy D said...

I agree with Pack, that is a very interesting article. I think the demographics he points out are interesting to think about, but I also think Mr. Brooks makes a few errors.

Palin's appeal to "Joe Sixpack" isn't a political strategy, it is who she is. She is straight from the working class. McCain may have picked her for that, or for her reputation of going against Republicans in Alaska and for her reputation on ethics reform.

I think many, many Republicans still admire Lincoln, but they haven't fought to keep him as a "Republican" president. I think Mr. Brooks would agree with me when I say today's Republican party needs to step back and look at the values of Lincoln and re-examine the values of the Republican party.

This was a bit of a ramble, but that was a good link Anon.