The real test will be when she gets out there on her own and starts going through the circuit. I have a feeling she will do well on her own but there will be a lot of pressure and attacks.
The real problem is that the press didn't see this coming and the pick was so outside of the box that they are left upset because they weren't informed of this. This is where politics and the press really start getting messy.
But I am all for her, I hope she does well. Would love to see a strong woman like that succeed, we need that in today's America. It will be historic no matter what.
No question, the road gets tougher from here. I agree with your point the press wasn't ready for this. They seem to have an entitlement mentality when it comes to any potential picks. They're entitled to these picks being raked through the coals and throughly examined first. They had nothing on her, therefore they feel slighted.
I'm sure you've seen me ranting about her. My problem has nothing to do with her in terms of the things she does... if anything, I think you're correct about the fact that she embodies all the things "we" look for in a strong woman (although I think there are plenty of women in Alaska, Michigan, North/South Dakota, Washington state, etc. who will say they do the same stuff). My problem has to do with her bringing her ideological stances to politics. If SHE wants to have a fifth child with a disorder, kudos to her, but don't tell me what I can't and can't do with my body and then justify it with religious beliefs. Even Republicans seem to be miffed by her record of voting on certain issues and not voting on others. And if there is an ounce of truth to the fact that McCain met her ONCE before he chose her??... I just have a hard time swallowing that pill. Add in the fact that he gets all over Obama about not having experience, yet this woman has been in office for two years and been a local figure for a few years beyond that.
That said, I'm not even making my arguments in the sense that I'm trying to be pro-Democrat or pro-Obama or even pro-Hillary. It's not that I'm being anti-Republican or Anti-McCain. It's that I seriously cannot believe some of the stuff I'm reading and hearing about her as a politician... I still have to watch her speech from last night, but what little I saw of her first speech did nothing but leave me shaking my head and wondering what the hell is going on behind the scenes.
Edited at 2008-09-05 01:19 am (UTC)
I know where you're coming from on the abortion thing, but it's really a benign issue in the grand scheme of things. It's been an overrated issue for decades by both sides of the aisle. The main argument is not for banning abortion, but for making it a national issue vs. a states' rights issue. Some want to ban it, yes. I'm not aware of where Palin has made statements *banning* abortion nationwide, though she is clearly pro-life, and that's her opinion. Even if she did advocate banning it nationwide, the SCOTUS would never do anything other than make it a states' rights issue. Abortion will forever be a basis for debate, because there will never be agreement as to when life begins. Myself, I believe if it's not in the Constitution, it's inherently a states' rights issue.
From what I read, McCain met Palin in February. He then went over her qualifications with his advisors before he called her on the phone to gauge her interest and do an interview with her. She then did an interview with a lawyer for the campaign, where she filled out 70 pages of disclosure forms. McCain and his staff went over the disclosures, did extensive background checks, talked to Alaska's senators, and then invited her to Arizona where they discussed some questions. He then offered her the postion, where she went over it one last time with her family, and then accepted. There's no question that there was extensive networking done to determine what kind of candidate Palin was.
On the experience angle, that has been misleading. Some say experience is experience in Washington, whether one is an executive, a legislator, a first lady, or the White House chef. She has more executive experience than not only Obama, but also Joe Biden and John McCain for that matter. She will be a big help on administrative matters, budgets, and will be forced to make decisions (as will whomever gets elected). These three have never been forced to decide on anything and simply make laws as part of a large group.
And Obama's choice of Joe Biden is questionable itself, because Obama criticized McCain as being a Washington good ol' boy and politics as usual. Obama then chooses a guy who has been a senator for 35 years. They're pretty much even now in that regard.
As you've stated it, I agree it's benign -- I used that more as an example of HOW far right she is, and I just have a problem with that the same way I have a problem with people in power being too far left. I just have a hard time seeing how that benefits the greater public, but that might be my inexperience of looking at politics.
As for that... yeah, I still have a problem with it. Extensive networking or not, how can you nominate someone to run with you when you barely know them? That is what seems to grate me so much and make this smack of gimmick. They don't want this to be an issue of sexism, but I just can't believe that they made this move without looking at her sex and using it as a tactical move. Again, I don't know much about politics, but I can't believe that there wasn't anyone else in the entire Republican party that didn't have better qualifications all around. Ultimately, that's what gets my goat -- and maybe *I'm* being close-minded, but I can't seem to break that thought.
If that's the truth re: her executive experience, then that's great. I guess my question then is what kind of executive experience? And, will that executive experience be of use to her if/when she's faced with national and international issues? It's a great thing that the pop. of Wasilla has doubled to 10k since she's been in office there, but we're not talking about making decisions for 10k people. And that's not to suggest that someone else would be better simply because they've made decisions for a town of 1mil, but... meh.
As for Biden, I agree. I was a little peeved when I saw that nomination. (I would have loved an Obama/Hillary ticket as much as the next but 1. they had to fight each other too hard, and 2. they'd lose all the corporate white male votes by running a ticket with a black man and woman ;P. *sarcasm intended*) The argument I have understood, however, is that Biden carries the international experience that Obama has been so heavily criticized for not having. So Obama answers the questions about his experience with that and McCain answers what questions by bringing in Palin? That's what perplexes me.
I guess the thing is that with this election, everyone will be able to find flawed logic and arguments in most things that either party says. But the Palin thing?... I'm just having a really hard time with it. The more I read about her the more I feel like she's a tactical pawn whose staunch belief system just makes me squeemish. :\
When it comes to picking a VP, I think that there is a lot of grey area as to whom is the best to be #2. There are so many people you could go with depending on what you are looking for. If you're a Senator, you might want a Governor from a swing state who isn't a "Washington Insider". If you're a Governor, you may want someone who is a Washington Insider. Sometimes people pick someone from a swing state. Sometimes they pick someone to balance the ticket on an area they are weak on or a demographic they are weak on.
Seeing her speech last night, it looks like she is effective and knows what she is doing and what she is talking about. I wish she was a second term governor, but it looks like she has done a pretty good job in her first term by doing things like cutting wasteful spending.
By the way, you're discussing with someone who doesn't know much about politics and the political environment, because it's just out of my area of interest. This election has gotten my attention more than most, and the Palin thing has become sticky because I've been reading and seeing things from a wide variety of sources that make me scratch my head.
That said, the reasoning for picking a Veep isn't something I'm knowledgable about. That's why I asked.
As for the speech... One speech doesn't cut anything for me. That could mean she's a great public speaker, and her background in sports reporting doesn't help that cause. It's the same thing about Obama -- people think he's charismatic, but I don't care how well you talk, I want to know what their stances are on certain issues. So far I have seen reports that in her first term she has both cut wasteful spending AND increased it, and she's wasted a lot of time looking for funding that borders on pork-barrelling. She can be a fantastic speaker, but if she's just as underhanded as the next guy, I'm skeptical.
(Which, I guess is the major problem... I'm skeptical of all of them. She just happens to have my radar on high-alert.)
I see. I hope I didn't sound like a schmuck saying that. I think it was late when I wrote it.
I believe she cut $500 million in earmarks out of the budget in Alaska and made a lot of members of the state legislature mad that she cut their pork projects. You have to consider that when you're Mayor or Governor, you're trying to do whatever is best for the place you're representing. You're going to try to get as much money as you can so you can do more and try to claim it. If she's Governor, she is probably going to try to get as much money for her state as she can because at that point, she is responsible for Alaska and has to do whatever she can to make Alaska better. But if she is President or Vice President, she's going to be thinking from a point of view of trying to help the whole country since she is responsible for the whole country as opposed to a state. At any job, any person is going to try to lobby to make their department get as much funding and resources as possible so their departments looks like the best and is the most successful, but if they get moved to another department, they're going to try to make that department the most successful and get resources for that dept.
As for comparing her to Obama. Obama has been a state legislator for 7 years and a Senator for 3. I think he has only sponsored two pieces of legislation in the Senate and one of them was to name a post office. I can't remember the other one at the top of my head. As a state Senator, Obama voted "Present" 132 times! He didn't even bother to give a "yes" or "no" answer on these bills. As President, he is going to have to give "yes or "no" answers on a regular basis. He can't just say, "I'm Here!" Gov. Palin was a mayor of a city for 6 years, was in charge of Alaska's Department of Oil and Gas (can't remember the exact name) where she outted corrupt people and got them fined, and quit soon after because she couldn't stand the corruption in that dept. As Governor, she has done alot of the same things and cleaned house there.
As for McCain, I think everyone knows that he is an accomplished Senator with a reputation for going against his party and President when he disagrees with them and he works with Democrats when he thinks they have a good idea.
As far as getting to know someone before bringing them aboard, this is why McCain has advisers. He did know her to some extent and certainly knew of her in his time in the US Senate and her time as governor. He only knew Mitt Romney, the VP front-runner (thank DOG he didn't get it) from debates. Same with Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and even Charlie Crist. It was a virtual certainty he was going to hire someone he hadn't known that long. This is just a small example of how things are dealt with by presidential candidates and actual presidents. McCain is only going to be able to do so much. He is going to have to delegate a lot of stuff to others. And that may seem impersonal and that may seem out of touch, but that's the way it has to be. I'd say the Secretary of State pick is even more important in many ways, because they will be sent to talk to people with whom the United States may have had a bad relationship in the past (an example would be Ghadafi in Libya). They'll spend even more time with international allies.
I have no problem with someone with a staunch belief system. It does help as to whether I agree or disagree with the bulk of her opinions. Hillary Clinton has as staunch a belief system as anyone (Hillary was the idealogue and Bill was the politician), but the problem is I don't agree with her and she will try to rewrite the Constitution. She's said many times the Constitution is a "living, breathing document." Effectively, this means taking power away from the states and giving it to Washington. This was never meant to be.
To clarify: Huckabee he knew from debates. Crist and Jindal he knew from a barbeque they attended at McCain's house in Arizona.
It was a virtual certainty he was going to hire someone he hadn't known that long.
Fair enough. I can honestly say I don't understand that process, so that clarifies it quite a bit.
Also, I don't have a problem with a staunch belief system -- we all have one. I guess I should say I have a problem when someone in a decision-making position has a staunch, religiously-based belief system that is then imposed upon mass groups of people.
With that said, I guess we can agree to disagree about the Constitution. I am of the belief that it's a living, breathing document as well... but not in the sense that it is meant to take powers away from states and put power into Washington. I think it's living, breathing in terms of interpretation. The founding fathers expressed as much, acknowledging that as time passes, culture changes, science evolves, etc, interpretation is what will keep the document as the foundation of the way the country is run. If it wasn't that way, I can't see how it would have survived, and continues to survive, as it does. Maybe Hillary wants to put more power in Washington, and I'm sure that on a case-by-case basis I would both agree and disagree with the kind of change that needs to be made. I do believe the Constitution is not meant to be read literally, however. :)
"I do believe the Constitution is not meant to be read literally, however. :)"
I take the Constitution very seriously. Having said that, there is need for clarification in the document--always has been--which is the reason for the Supreme Court. The problem is there are justices over the years who have taken their roles from one where they interpret the Constitution to one where they interpret law.
Yep. And if you ask me, that is reflective of those who are in office, and those who have had the power to nominate justices when there has been a need for it.
Instead of guidance for this country, the last eight years have smacked of rulership (not dictator, just "ruling"). That's ultimately why I don't want someone like Palin near the White House... because she screams of rulership, and I can't help but feel like we'd have to endure more of the same crap. And, admittedly, I probably have no way to validate or explain why I feel that way, but I do. *shrug*
Anyway, it's been fun, but I am politely ducking out of this conversation. I think I've hit my political discussion threshold for the next month. :P :) Thanks, though! It's been neat to hear other opinions and explanations, and I do appreciate it. :)
My problem has to do with her bringing her ideological stances to politics DOesn't everyone bring their ideological stances to politics? Obama is anti-war and thinks that we should have redistribution of wealth. That's an ideology.
Let me clarify, then... religiously-based beliefs.
I have always operated a certain way, and when it comes to politics I especially hope this is true -- separation of church and state, correct? If you have a belief about something, be it about war, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, education, whatever, of course you're going to bring your personal beliefs to the table. But the minute that the argument becomes something akin to, "I believe X because of my religious beliefs," I have a cow. If this country is supposed to be a "melting pot," (although "tossed salad" is more appropriate), then the last thing we should have is lawmakers making decisions based on what they think a bible interprets. At that point they need to put aside their personal beliefs and attend to the situation or issue as a leader of many people and decide what is best for everyone, not people who conform to their personal belief system.
I realize that's a pipedream, but the reality of it is that there needs to be a balance. I haven't seen anything about Obama suggesting that we're currently in or need to be out of this war because it's god's will... Palin on the other hand?
I'm not sold on her.
Tossed salad. lol. That reminds me of a joke by Chris Rock.
As for religious beliefs. Have you heard of Obama's church and pastor? His church's magazine gave Louis Farrahkan (sp?) a "Lifetime Achievement Award" and his pastor has said that 9-11 was "our chickens have come home to roost". His pastor has also called Israel "that dirty word". You can look this up on youtube to see the full video in its context. I don't want someone in teh WHite House whose spiritual leader, as he has referred to this pastor, says those things on a weekly basis. Obama is also associated with Bill Ayers who was a domestic terrorist in the 1960's who has actually said that he wishes he killed more people and made more bombs. He gave him his first fundraiser, I believe for the Senate.
Oh, I've heard/seen/read about Obama's minister... scares the crap out of me, to be certain. But, I guess the reason I am not up in arms about it is because I have yet to see or notice (and please correct me if I'm wrong) where Obama has taken the advice of his spiritual leader and applied it to the changes he suggests should be made. That is where Palin scares the crap out of me. She has claimed that the war is of God's will. Say what?! (My first question is whose God?! But that's another story.) She has inquired into how to ban books, and, as a writer and researcher, I have a HUGE problem with that. To ban what? Stuff that opposes her religious beliefs? Stuff that she personally disagrees with? It doesn't matter to me who a person is, what their race, faith, whatever is... that's just absurd. In my opinion, I can't see it as anything other than a fundamental violation of the First Amendment.
If I were to see things like that coming out of the Obama camp, I'd be voicing the same concerns. Admittedly, maybe I've turned a blind eye to it because of my inexperience with following politics and personal beliefs, yadda yadda... But having a spiritual leader with certain beliefs is different than coming out and voicing certain beliefs and then looking to make laws or changes based on them. Obama has not utilized his religion as a platform for radical change, and in my eyes that's what makes him a different case than Palin.
This is from factcheck.org She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
The thing that scares me with Obama and his pastor is that Obama is going to be running our foreign policy. If he goes to a church where the pastor is saying that he thinks that we deserved to get hit on 9-11, I'm afriad he isn't going to work in America's best interest on the international stage. It makes me think he's going to do things like sign bad trade agreements or agree to things that aren't in our best interest.
I know she didn't demand. She inquired (as I think I said previously). In my opinion, inquiring is just as threatening 'cause it means that for some reason the thought has crossed her mind. I have a big, big problem with that. Call it my own ideology. :)
I guess my thinking is this... just 'cause a pastor said something doesn't mean it's going to be Obama's opinion. If his pastor is close-minded and radical, that's different than Obama being close-minded and radical. Obama has yet to say or do anything publicly that sets those warning flares off for me. And, the nomination of Biden... isn't that supposed to ease the nerves in terms of his lack of international experience? (Again, my lack of political knowledge comes in, so this is just the impression I have gathered.)
Truthfully, Obama's "lack" of international experience is precisely what makes me think he might be the kind of person needed to deal with the absolute mess that the Bush administration has created. If he's willing to go into negotiations with an open mind, and create a sense of change that even foreign nationals can see, maybe there would be a chance for dealings, relationships, etc to be improved.
Besides everything, with the way things are messed up here on the home front, I'd be happy to have someone in office who wants to focus on domestic issues... the idea of McCain following in Bush's footsteps and simply continuing down the path that has been laid is far more terrifying to me than the notion that Obama might have some crazy people in his history. Frankly, we all do. But if he knows how to be a leader of many people and separate his beliefs and do what's best for people (not himself), I'm far more willing to take a chance on his international inexperience. That's just me. :)
There is a differece between inquiring and actually taking action.
If Obama didn't believe in what his Pastor was saying, then why did he refer to him as his "spiritual leader" in his book? And why did he go to his church for 20 years? If someone said something like that or something equally offensive, I would leave the church immediately. I would not continue going to a church where hate speech is a weekly occurrence.
As for Biden. He may have a lot of experience, but he has a lot of experience being wrong dating way back to the 1980's. He was against Ronald Reagan's handling of the old Soviet UNion. He was against the surge in Iraq. He voted to send troops in Iraq and now he is trying to take that vote back and say that Iraq was a bad idea.
Obama wants to meet with the leader of Iran, Ahmadinejad who says that he wants to blow Israel off the face of the earth and who is a Holocaust denier. He wants to meet with him without preconditions. Even Hillary Clinton said that that was a bad idea. After that, he tried to distance himself from that statement. You can't reason with someone who wants to blow up a whole country and a kill a whole group of people and who is actually a Holocaust denier. Europe tried to do that back in the 1930's with Hitler and millions of people died that didn't have to die because Europe tried to appease a dictator like Hitler.
McCain is very different from Bush. He has differed from him in everything from taxes to the handling of the Iraq War, to the handling of prisoners at Gitmo to name a few. Kerry almost wanted McCain to be his VP pick back in 2004. I don't think Kerry would pick someone who was just like Bush to be his VP.
Look at what people in Obama's own party have said about him. Hillary said he's not ready to be President. Joe Biden, his own VP Pick, said that Obama wasn't ready to be President. He was given an opportunity at a debate to take back those word and Biden wouldn't.
Inquiring is the first step towards taking action. That's cause for concern.
As for Obama... All I'm saying is that I'm hoping he can put aside his own feelings and run a platform that is NOT based on his religious beliefs. If he does, then he sucks just as much as everyone else. :P
Meeting without preconditions... if all he's doing is trying to meet the guy, that's better than pretending he doesn't exist. The guy might be a lunatic, but that doesn't mean he should be ignored. Ignoring and not acknowledging an international leader like that is just as stupid as trying to appease one.
If that's true about McCain, then fantastic. 'Cause things I have heard do not indicate that he's going to actually be about change, which seems like a cause for concern.
Maybe he's not ready. When did those people say that, though? When they were running against him?? I thought people from ALL parties say that other people can't lead because THEY themselves are trying to gain the candidacy. Am I that naive?
Either way, it is what it is. I've just spoken about politics way more than I ever intended to. I should have just kept my admittedly underinformed mouth shut. :P
No matter how much people say their beliefs won't effect how they will govern, it does. People think about their values when they are making decisions.
If you are going to meet with someone like Ahamdinehad, leaders generally have people under them meet with their people and talk things over before you have someone ranked as highly as a Secy. of State or President meet with them. If you have a President meet with someone right away, especially someone like Ahmadinejad who has said the things he has said, it allows them to try to claim legitimacy as a leader. I personally would not trust someone who is a Holocaust denier who says he wants to blow up a whole country and kill a whole group of people.
As for Obama. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden said those comments during debates during the primaries which would have been early this year and later last year. Joe Biden, has in the past, actually said that he would feel good with McCain as President. McCain used that in an attack ad against the Obama-Biden ticket. During those debates no one else really questioned anyone else's experience to govern. No one questioned Hillary's epxerience, Biden's experience, etc. The only candidate whose experience was questioned was Obama.
Also, re: international dealings... ANYONE in office is going to make mistakes, or make decisions or agreements that maybe aren't in the country's best interest. I think he would make less mistakes than McCain, who for all intents and purposes appears to be content to follow in Bush's footsteps... Considering the bad agreements that have been made in the previous eight years, I can't see how bringing in an inexperienced candidate like Obama could make things any worse.
Actually McCain had been complaining about the handling of the Iraq War as early as 2004. He complained about the way that Rumsfeld was handling the war even back then. McCain wanted more troops in Iraq then because the war was going badly. It took Bush 2 years when the Republicans lost the House and Senate before Bush finally listened to him. Bush should have been listening to McCain back in 2004.
What bad international agreements has Bush agreed to in the last 8 years? Clinton tried to sign the Kyoto Treaty which would have made even more people in Michigan and Ohio lose jobs, but the Senate voted against it 99-0.
I had not been given that impression, re: McCain's stance on the war (although I can't understand how needing MORE troops is necessary, but that's another debate altogether, and one that I know I am not equipped to join). My apologies in that regard. But this isn't just about the war... there are a lot of other issues, and my understanding is that McCain does not sway as far from Bush as he suggests. I could be wrong or misled. Again, I'm not much into politics. :)
Off the top of my head, I admit don't know what agreements Bush may or may not have signed. However, I will argue that international dealings go beyond simply signing agreements. It's also about HOW international neighbors are dealt with. Bush has pretty much destroyed U.S. foreign relations in his eight years in office... that's not exactly a great track record.
As for Clinton and the Kyoto Treaty... since Bush has been in office this country has seen more companies outsource departments than any time I can remember. Unemployment is the highest it has been in years, and people in Michigan, Ohio and other states are losing jobs anyway. Everything is getting more expensive, but it's not as though we're all getting pay raises. So Clinton may have been misguided in trying to sign the Kyoto Treaty, and I can't think of any Bush agreement examples off the top of my head, but with my limited knowledge of politics I can't see how on the domestic front we're in a better situation than when Clinton was in office.
(Sorry about all the typos, etc. I've been reading all evening and am getting tired. ;P)
Edited at 2008-09-10 05:27 am (UTC)
Back in 2004, Iraq was getting out of hand and hard to control because of the insurgents and because terrorists from terrorist sponsored states like Iran were coming into Iraq to fight American sodliers since they were in Iraq and those people, the islamic fundamentialists, want to kill as many Americans as possible. These people think that if they kill themselves, they will go to Heaven and get 72 virgins. McCain was saying that we needed to send more troops into Iraq in order to get the situation under control. We started doing that around early 2007 and the situation in Iraq has greatly improved. Obama even said so on Bill O'Reilly's show and Obama was originally against the surge.
Actually, the unemployment rate under Bush, for most of his term, I believe has been the lowest since the 1960's. In most of Bush's term, unemployment has been in the high 4% and low 5% mark. I believe in most of CLinton's term it was around 6%. Under Carter, it was about 12%.
One thing that's a knock on both parties is I think they both support trade agreements where countries like China get the better end of the deal. There is really no difference between both parties when it comes to trade agreements, except more midwestern Republicans and Democrats are usually against trade agreements but that's because they are thikning more about their area as opposed to their party.
As for Republicans vs Democrats in foreign policy, I generally prefer Republicans because I see them as standing up for America's sovereignty and America's rights more than Democrats. Bill Clinton wanted to sign a bad agreement where America would lose jobs to China and India in the name of cleaning the environment, but China and India wouldn't have to make any sacrafices and clean up their act. I'm also apprehensive about how Democrats seem to put a lot of trust in the corrupt United Nations. Kerry said back in 2004 that he wouldn't start a war to defend the country unless the UN agreed with it. I want a President who will stnad up for what's right for America and who isn't going to ask the UN permission before he or she acts. If the UN wants to support us, then that's great. But if someone is a threat to our country, I want the President to act on it before Americans get hurt. I support Democrat who think "America First" like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.
2008-09-10 10:57 am (UTC)
Re: Banning Books?
Many of Jeremiah Wright's comments never hit the mainstream media other than the Sunday morning talk shows (they've been played on radio for 6 months), therefore many still have next to no knowledge about him. The banning books story, did make it to the media, which is irresponsible because the source was questionable and the story was and still is totally uncorroborated.
My understanding is that the story has been corroborated and that people are just declining comment all over the place.
And, really, don't people always argue that where there's smoke, there's fire? I'm not saying she went and had books banned, or tried to aggressively push for it. She apparently inquired. But to me, even inquiring, whether it's by bringing it up at a community function or deciding to privately approach a librarian, is enough to offend me. This is not China. I would hope people would be outraged that she's even consider looking into something like that. But, that's just my overblown opinion... and certainly not the only reason Palin gives me the heebie-jeebies. :)
2008-09-11 02:30 am (UTC)
Re: Banning Books?
People declining comment is very vague. Maybe they just refuse the fuel the fire. Maybe there was nobody that could provide comment. It sounds to me like this is the work of a person who lost to her in an election and hasn't gotten over it.
And Sarah Palin isn't the first politician who has been accused of this. Many have been accused of this and few of these instances, if any, have ever been proven. And they never have to be proven, because they invoke images of Nazi Germany in the eyes of many, and that's really the goal of the detractors. The damage has already been done.
Of course, the media is going to give more attention to a story that hasn't been prove that makes a Republican look bad as opposed to a story that is absolutely true that makes a Democrat look bad. Most of the people in the media support Obama over McCain and they are going to do whatever they can in order to make it so Obama wins. They are going to overloook things about Obama while pouncing on anything by McCain. I heard some more of Rev Wright's comments on, I think, Savage's webpage, and that guy really sounds crazy. He said things like Jesus was really a black man and that the Romans were white European Italians. This Rev. Wright, seems like he has a thing against Italians along with being an anti-Semite. Is there anyway you could find more crazy things Rev. Wright has said on youtube?
2008-09-11 02:22 am (UTC)
Re: Banning Books?
I'm sure there's quite a few things on youtube that didn't make it to the ears of very many. I heard something yesterday about how he said the America has a conspiracy against Christians, Jews, and Muslims around the world. Schnitt had the actual byte, but I'm not sure if that particular one is on youtube or what. I think it was part of the God damn America stuff.
I think I pretty much agree with everything that you are saying....
I actually heard about this on Schnitt yesterday afternoon. I knew the radical leftists in Heart wouldn't like this. Those two women are the prime example of the feminists who have been attacking Palin for a week just because of the letter next to her name.