Jay Bookman

By hillbilly ragger

September 11, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

Are her 15 minutes of fame up, yet?

By Wackoman

September 11, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

The “people” you describe in your last paragraph are the liberals of this country.

By Mike

September 11, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

Definitely fair comment on the disparity between the rhetoric and reality.

Two things:

First, more time would be spent on real examination of Palin’s record if the public spent less time on “uppity” or “sambo” diversions. In this, all of our media has failed. What is ironic is that Obama supporters like Bookman continue to steer the conversation towards partisan nonsense and little time is spent on anything substantive.

Second, Bookman’s (or Hannity’s) criticisms would carry much more weight if they were not exclusively directed at the opposite side of the political spectrum. There are pundits who do this (Nick Kristof, David Brooks). It is unfortunate that the AJC has no interest in such intellectually honest voices.

By sunshine and thunder

September 11, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

JAY

You were wrong before and here you come again. It was you who accused Sarah of lying about killing the “bridge to nowhere”.

Turns out she did indeed kill it but your heroes Barack Obama and Joe Biden both VOTED FOR IT. LOL!!

By Paul

September 11, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

Jay,

Do I understand your position is once a politician has engaged in a course of conduct it is not possible to change?

Or, having announced a change in belief, they are to be mistrusted?

Rather seems the choice on the earmark issue is:

McCain/Palin - one of whom has significant earmark involvement, yet the team announces they will do away with earmarks, or

Obama/Biden - both of whom have significant earmark and who have not (as far as I can tell) announced they will do away with earmarks.

So the ‘no change’ ticket promises change and the ‘change’ ticket accepts no change.

So it’s either the possibility of change or the assurance of no change. Let’s see, which one is the ‘change’ candidate?

By Greg

September 11, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

jay, You forgot to mention the rapid decrease of earmark requests from Alaska in the time Palin has been in office. I am sure that was oversight on your part.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

black is white???

Jay’s going to have to put himself on his list. <—JUST KIDDING

Jay B.,

The last time you trotted out this “more per capita” argument you linked to a column that said this.

But earmarks have never been a dirty word in Alaska, a huge state dotted with small communities that have enormous dollar needs for sewers, roads and other projects.

Kind of makes your “per capita” argument look ridiculous.

I’m just guessing here, but I think oil may be the biggest part of the Alaskan economy and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that fishing was second. It might come in handy to learn about the sea creatures.

By Dennis

September 11, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

For you to write this tripe as an indictment of two people and one party is just par for the course you have chosen.

For any thinking and aware person to buy into it would require “a willing suspension of disbelief”.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

I kind of think the the anti-lobbyist candidate that has a running mate with tremendous ties to lobbyists including a son that’s a lobbyist and that the anti-lobbyist candidate has procured earmarks for is a lot worse than the anti-earmark candidate whose running mate asked for some earmaks while Governor of a huge state dotted with small communities that have enormous dollar needs for sewers, roads and other projects.

By jasper

September 11, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

Jay - you’re just going to have to chaulk up her appeal to the same resiliency that zer0’s supporters have had that carried them throught the storms of Ayers, Rezko, and Wrong. I realize the battle is for the heart of the independent. I just doubt there’s many of those blogging in here, nor susceptible to what is now your 3rd attempt at this angle. What’s that definition of crazy again?

By "The Corporal"

September 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

Jay

You need to come up with better topics. I think you are just a little obsessed with this and it’s not good for you.

Plus it is getting old.

By Taxpayer

September 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

Jay, please.

You can’t put that lipstick on any thicker than it already is without making a toupee for McCain out of Palin. I wonder if she has tried to comment on his thinning hair, just to test out those unsubstantiated rumors.

By ByteMe

September 11, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

Care to provide a listing of lobbyists in senior positions of each candidate’s senatorial and campaign staffs, RW? I’m sure you’ll impress everyone with your fair-handed assessment of which candidate has “tremendous ties to lobbyists” if you could provide a list to back up the claim.

By Copyleft

September 11, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

And again Corporal tries desperately to change the subject.

Keep up the good work, Jay! You’re getting to the neo-nuts!

By Taxpayer

September 11, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

ByteMe,

Please stop with the “fair-handed” crap from the Republicans that frequent this blog. I almost spewed again.

By Deliverance

September 11, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

I’m with you Jay. More lipstick on that pig please! Suweeeeeeeeee!!

By ByteMe

September 11, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

Oh, right, sorry. No fair-handed Republicans. Got it.

Also, means your full of crap when you make a claim you can’t substantiate.

By ByteMe

September 11, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

Argh! double apologies RW. I misread Taxpayer’s post. That’ll teach me to work and comment at the same time. Just disregard.

By Bosch

September 11, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

“Madonna as champion of chastity”

HA! That’s a good one Jay. Did you read that somewhere or make that up? That’s funny.

Anywho. With earmarks, one must ask the age old question:

“WHY?” It’s the “why” she needed the know the DNA or harbor seals and crab mating. It could be tied to fishing.

But, I think McCain is going to want her to shut up a bit about being a champion reformer of earmarks - she’s just setting herself up to fail when she starts meeting with the press. Or rather IF she meets with the press.

That’s odd, don’t you think? Her not giving interviews.

Jay, I think you need to look into that.

By getalife

September 11, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

TPM

Its all bs until the legal bribery system is banned and K Street shut down.

By Bosch

September 11, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

RW,

And how many lobbyist - or rather former lobbyists - are McCain’s top advisors?

Oh, and BTW, we also agree that Heroes is a good show. See, that’s actually two.

By ByteMe

September 11, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

Bosch: we all know she’s over her head. Why else do what they’re doing.

And McCain claimed today that she had “several” interviews lined up. Of course, none of the networks or media channels are saying anything about it, so maybe he was just talking about multiple talks with Charlie Gibson. Or maybe she’s talking to People magazine again.

By "The Corporal"

September 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

To my conservative blogger friends

Just so you know, Jay keeps censoring the list of Obama’s Lies I keep trying to post (and he may censor this). Free speech is a tentative thing.

I guess I’m not surprised ………… :o)

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

If Sarah Palin “killed” the bridge to nowhere, then the coroner kills somebody everytime he shows up to declare the body dead. That’s all she did. Congress killed the bridge, and she made it official.

And the thing is, you guys know it.

By Dusty

September 11, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

I can’t believe it. On the day we remember 9/11, Bookman writes THREE derogatory pieces about the administration that has kept this country safe since that terrible disaster.

Now he is doing it with more tripe about Sarah Palin, a Republican of course.

His last sentence is wrong just like the rest of his piece. He wrote * [People] won’t even resent you for treating them as if they are stupid*.

We do resent being covered with “stupid”, Bookman, the kind you give us everyday. Yep, distorting facts, making assumptions, refusing the truth and expecting us to believe such tripe. Stupid is right. And it is YOU.

You better get started. Maybe you can squeeze in another propaganda piece before 9/11 is over. Something like “We don’t need no mo of that ‘America stuff’” Sounds like the usual Bookie Obama bit to me.

By N-GA

September 11, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

This is so typical. Some people cannot simply stay on point. Jay, your observation that the GOP/Mccain are presenting Palin as a reformist while the truth lies elsewhere is spot-on. They want to be able to present their ticket in a least two different versions.

When they want to appeal to the voters who appreciate “experience” and “sacrifice”, they trot out McCain. Then when they need to talk about “diversity” and “change” and “youth”, here comes Palin.

McCain/Palin isn’t a complementary ticket, it is a contrasting ticket.

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 11, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

Corporal Squawker, if you post more than one or two links the software immediately rejects it as spam.

I’ve seen your list. It’s not worth censoring.

By Taxpayer

September 11, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

The Republicans just keep tossing out the crap in hopes that something will stick so they can latch on to it and get some fresh, uninitiated meat to the polls. Their latest efforts seem to be focused on “earmarks”. Ah yes, earmarks — the candy used to satisfy a politician’s sweet tooth, the heroin for their next fix. There may actually be a few Republicans out there that never became addicted to the earmark — the Ron Pauls. There aren’t many Ron Pauls out there though. Otherwise, Phil Gramm would not have been looking for, well, Ron Paul’s endorsement of McCain. Now, all the earmark addicts in the Republican party claim that they, and only they, can kick the nasty habit but as soon as you turn your back, there they are again trying to cut another deal for another earmark. Some play games, like the smokers that say that they will swith to “lights” or cut back from three packs a day to one pack and then quit. Others just change from cigarettes to cigars or chewing tobacco and proudly claim to have kicked the nasty habit…For me, actions speak louder than words. Yet, Republicans have yet to deliver anything other than words — promises of change. I’ll be better, I promise. We all tried those little gimmicks as children. We are not children any more.

By Bosch

September 11, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

ByteMe,

Or what’s that magazine that gives the millions for celebrity baby pictures? Maybe that one too.

Yeah, Corporal, I’m sure they are all lies. Maybe he’s trying to keep heresay (?sp) and crap off his blog.

By Midori

September 11, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

I can’t believe it. On the day we remember 9/11, Bookman writes THREE derogatory pieces about the administration that has kept this country safe since that terrible disaster.

appears someone is afflicted with “must-read-and-post-on-bookmanitis”.

don’t like it? why come here?

Marge Simpson, is that you?

By "The Corporal"

September 11, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

Enjoy

To the ventor whinning about Republican women, Democrat candidates seldom appear with younger attractive women because they are so hard to find in that party.

“Oinkbama” is going to make a lot of women voters angry with that “pig” thing.

Private G.I. Obama thought about going into the Army; “Hup, two, three four, I’d join up but there ain’t no war” !

Sorry folks, but normal people look up to heroes more than they do community organizers.

By Bosch

September 11, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Shouldn’t you be outside somewhere waving a flag? Don’t you have a memorial service somewhere to go to?

I mean, you’re really missing some good quality patritoic American time here today.

Shoo now.

By DS

September 11, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

Wackoman: The people Bookman describes in his last paragraph are American citizens, too.

By "The Corporal"

September 11, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

To Bosch

Since it is so great to live in this free country, don’t you think you should have the right to debate and determine their validity ?

By Midori

September 11, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

LOL, Bosch - good one :)

Corporal - Democrat candidates seldom appear with younger attractive women because they are so hard to find in that party.

I can’t believe you are that stupid.

By Bosch

September 11, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

Corporal,

Only stupid women who don’t have enough sense to know that he didn’t call her a pig.

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 11, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

Midori, it’s funny — kind of.

Palin’s critics are often accused of being sexist, when in fact it’s her admirers who are most guilty.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

LOL….It sounds like Jay B is going to stomp his feet and hold his breath until we say Sarah didn’t kill the bridge project that she killed.

ByteMe & Bosch,

I’m not against lobbyists and don’t look now but they’re protected in the first amendment. My 2:46 just illustrates that Jay is putting lipstick on the wrong pig.

By Bosch

September 11, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

Um, Corporal,

I think Jay answered your question, and no I think Jay has every right to not put up crap that he deems as…..crap.

It’s his blog dude.

By ByteMe

September 11, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

You made the claim that the Obama camp had “tremendous ties” to lobbyists and were “a lot worse than the anti-earmark” porker and considering that both sides are likely guilty of having lobbyist connections, but one might be more guilty, I’d like to see a list that backs your claim of “tremendous ties” compared to the other side… since you brought it up.

By N-GA

September 11, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

When are you going to say that she supported the bridge to nowhere, then scuttled the project when the funds were restricted by the US Congress.

It gets really interesting when you realize (and acknowledge) that she didn’t refuse the “diverted” funds. She kept them. Is that consistent with her reformist image?

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

ByteMe,

If you could read you would know I said Biden had those ties, although David Axelrod comes to mind on the Obama side of the ticket.

Biden’s son is a lobbyist that Obama has secured at least one earmark for. That really should tell you enough but here’s a little more for you.

Biden Rakes In Lobbyist Cash Obama Decries

I even took you to one of your sites.

By N-GA

September 11, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

that 3:50 post was for RW……

By "The Corporal"

September 11, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

To Midori and Bosch, et al

1) Let me just say I worked in person at national and local Republican and Democrat events for 27 years. It was common knowledge (and the single guys were they most adept at this) that at the Republican events there would be “mucho hotties” and at the Democrat events there would be “very, very few”.

You can believe it or not - it’s true.

2) Yes, it is Jay’s blog (I assume the AJC sees it that way). He has the right to censor and be as one sided as he chooses. There are many other countries in the world where this is a matter of state policy so he has much company.

3) Read my lipstick !

By Bosch

September 11, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

RW,

Don’t you think your assertion that lobbyists are protected under the First Amendment is a little stretch?

The right to petition the government with grievances is not the same as the right to bribe them.

Assuming that’s the part of the 1st Amendment you meant.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

Using funds that were allocated for infrastructure on more important infrastructure sounds like good stewardship to me.

By ByteMe

September 11, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

Yes, I know what you said and I know what you tried to imply as well. However, it sounds like you can’t back up your statement with real data, so ok. I understand.

Oh, and… One of “my sites”?? You have no idea what I read….

By Bosch

September 11, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

Corporal,

That’s very dishonest to say that Jay censors people unless they are posting really irrelevant and crude material. You know that’s not true.

And, I’m sorry, but I’m not getting into a conversation without you about “Republican women are hotter,” that’s very juvenile. How old are you? 12?

By T

September 11, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

I don’t think lobbyists or earmarks are going anywhere. As long as someone is giving away money, there is going to be someone there to take it.

By Taxpayer

September 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

Sounds like someone keeps getting their “funds” confused with their “earmarks”. I’m sure it’s a deliberate thing, meant to deceive, conceal, avoid the truth. Same ole Republican mantra.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

I never said they had a Constitutional right to bribe them, only to lobby them. And no, I don’t think it’s a stretch at all.

By Chris Salzmann

September 11, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

I found this great site which helps one play around with electoral votes between the states.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008/pick-your-president/

For those of you who think McCain is in an envious position, take a good look. Its pretty clear why the McCain campaign is resorting to Karl Rowe tactics. This map doesn’t look very promising for McCain even AFTER taking into account recent state polls. Last I heard, the McCain campaign is Push Polling in Ohio, similar to the one the Bush Campaign did against McCain pushing the notion that he fathered a “Black” child out of wedlock during the Republican Primary in 2000.

Play around with the numbers and you will see why OH, PA, VA and to some extent, CO are so important to the McCain campaign.

Lastly, lets remember that pollsters ONLY call land lines to take polls (they aren’t allowed to call cells). Most of the newly registered voters in all these battle ground states including VA are Democrats, many in the 18-35 age range. They usually don’t have land line phones and rely exclusively on cell phones. Therefore, this is an entire segment of the population that are never even called. My wild guess is that most of these polls discount Obama’s numbers by at least 3%-5% percent for this very reason.

Which is why, in-spite of all the spin that is being spun out there, Obama’s in very good shape. Almost every political analyst (not the spin meisters Hannity, Olbermann, Mathews, etc) state that the electoral map still favors Obama. This negative campaigning by the McCain campaign is really a sign of desperation on their part because they know this too.

Do the numbers, and figure it out yourselves.

By jasper

September 11, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

Jay - what’s sexist about appreciating an attactive woman, regardless of her position, pardon the pun. My wife has more qualifications to run for pres. than zer0 does, and everytime I see her I want to jump her bones and when we’re done, I’d go to war if she sent me.

By ByteMe

September 11, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this

T is on the money, pun semi-intended.

And any candidate running for head of the executive branch should know that they can’t do a damn thing about it either, since it’s up to the legislative branch to do something about itself.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

ByteMe,

I provided you with data. It’s your choice to remain ignorant and there’s nothing I can do to fix that.

By marko

September 11, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

Jay that was a real cheap shot you took on Madonna, she has as much a right to fornicate for chastity as we do to fight for peace. As for lip stick on a pig, we aint seen nothing yet. Wait till Grandpa Munster pulls out Willie Horton and the Swift boat boys.

By Taxpayer

September 11, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

ByteMe,

I didn’t mean to confuse you earlier. You just almost made me spew a mouthful when I saw you described one of the resident Republicans as fair about something — unless it was “fair” skinned, that is.

By Dusty

September 11, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

Oh my, bosch baby, you did seem to realize it was 9/11 today.(Memorial!) How about that?? Congratulations! I bet your children brought home an American flag so you would know what it looked like.

But have a few more cold ones, boschi. Midori will soon come to tell you that you are the greatest thing since George Washington. (You’ve heard of George Washington, haven’t you?)

Bookman DOES has every right to remove “crap”, as has been said. Why he leaves yours here I do not know. Maybe he has pity for children, puppy dogs and the pitiful.

By "The Corporal"

September 11, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

To Bosch

Continue to debate me or not - I don’t care.

1) A list of Obama’s lies is very relevant to this discussion of Palin’s so-called lies. It’s also Jay’s prerogative to censor that list.

2) Regarding the visage of Republican vs. Democrat women the truth hurts you I’m sure but that’s the way it is. By the way, are there more blacks in the Republican or Democrat party? You know the answer and there is a reason for it just as there is a reason regarding the women. I won’t get into that or I might disturb you even further ……. :o)

3) Someone earlier indicated my remarks were sexist - which means “discrimination based on gender”. Stating which party most of the attractive women belong to is hardly that.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-repvsdemwomen.htm

By ScrutinizingVoter

September 11, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

Wow. It looks like the RNC “plant” machine has invaded. Do you guys actually expect real people to believe that you’re just ‘concerned’ citizens angry at the columnist? I’d love to see AJC’s server logs and see where you’re REALLY posting from.

By Swami Dave

September 11, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

Bosch:

With all due respect, there is no limitation to the First Amendment that limits it to grievances. You have an equal right to petition government to enact legislation that you feel / think / perceive as right as much as you do for things that you assess as wrong.

Personally, I support more tranparency of the political campaign contribution process (aka. who gives what to whom) than I am for limiting what can be contributed.

If you want to contribute millions to Senator WhatsItSo and “buy him off”, then let’s just make sure that it is public knowledge what he is. Make it public knowledge that he has transferred one of the world’s oldest professions for the other!

-Swami Dave

By GOPs got to go

September 11, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

Musty, You forgot to mention trains, mamma, prison, getting drunk, rain, pickup trucks…ect

Darlin’ Musty, our very own David Allen Coe of blogs.

By professional skeptic

September 11, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

Obama and every one of his staffers needs to go back and watch the movie “Bush’s Brain.” The lipstick-on-a-pig issue stinks to high heaven of Rovian-style election year political shenanigans, and as marko @ 4:21 pm said, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

By Bosch

September 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Goodness. You shouldn’t miss out on such a patriotic day wasting your time blogging here. So many flags to wave, so little time.

I actually share the same birthday with George Washington - we are a few years apart though.

By GOPs got to go

September 11, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this

Well Corporal, Being one of the Hotties you mentioned , I bet money you struck out at both conventions

By T

September 11, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

By “The Corporal”

Cute. On the lines of fairness, they did seem to leave out Barbra Bush. Quite the looker.

By Dusty

September 11, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this

Anybody know Musty? Must be the mommy of GOP’s gotta Go. And David Coe? I never heard of him.

bosch baby, U R wrong as usual. I was in a meeting a good part of this day. More DTs?? Hallucinations? Too much alcohol can do that.

So you are older than George Washington? Hang in there, buddy!!

By jasper

September 11, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

Scrutinizer - you find from the logs, that we’re all down here in College Park as community organizers. You know, trying to keep the vote from getting out. Delivering the non-vote at 20 bucks a pop.

By GodHatesTrash

September 11, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this

Hey L-o-l-a!

Jesus Christ was a community organizer.

Pontius Pilate was a governor.

Oink!

By Darren

September 11, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman,

Do you have the numbers comparing earmark spending against the ten billion a month it costs us to occupy Iraq?

Thanks, Darren

By Truth

September 11, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

Please tell me you didnt just use the Jesus Pontius Pilate comparason. Unbelievable…

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this

September 22, 2007

Gov. Sarah Palin ordered state transportation officials to abandon the ”bridge to nowhere” project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.

The New York Times via the AP.

By Bosch

September 11, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Now your just being silly. I’d be dead if I were older than George Washington! He’s got about 236 years on me.

I guess compared to you, I am a child at 40 - but you hang in there too old girl!

By Truth

September 11, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this

Jay… you should have left GodHatesTrash’s last comment up so everyone can see what trash he/she actually is…

By TW

September 11, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this

RW - Does using the money on other stuff disqualify it as pork?

By jasper

September 11, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this

What about Joe Lieberman and Pork. That’s not kosher, right?

By Taxpayer

September 11, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this

Gov. Palin endorsed the multimillion dollar “bridge to nowhere” project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. She took part in stopping the project ONLY after it became a national SCANDAL. Then again, what do you expect from an opportunistic panderer. She never returned the federal money — she kept it and spent it. She spent every penny of that PORK, that EARMARK — just not on the “bridge to nowhere”. Thanks, but no thanks to the Republican lies, deceit and obfuscation.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 5:43 PM | Link to this

I thought the kids were off limits?

Track Palin joined the Army a year ago and is headed to Iraq any minute now. So what’s The New Republic write about?

Some of the comments about thinking the first word in the title was a verb are pretty funny though.

I thought BDS was bad. Who knew PDS would dwarf it?

By AJC/DNC Management

September 11, 2008 5:51 PM | Link to this

As governor of Alaska, Palin has asked Congress for more than $200 million in earmarks for 2009, more per capita than any state in the country.-Kookman

Which was $505 million less than Alaska got in 2005, before waste cutting Sarah took office.

Don’t bother much with them pertinent facts, do we Jay?

By Taxpayer

September 11, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this

Kids are not off limits. I hear they have to be trained to serve a noble role in the holy wars or something like that. Perhaps Palin can provide some clarification on such missions from God.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this

TW,

I don’t really know, but I don’t think the argument is for the federal government to cut off all funding to the states. I guess whether it’s pork or not kind of depends on what it was used for and if those things would have been funded by the federal government and now that new federal money wasn’t needed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Look at Charlie Gibson trying to pull a fast one.

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

No Charlie those weren’t her exactt words. Here’s what she really said.

“Pray for our military. He’s [Palin’s son Track] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country—that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

I find it hard to believe that Anderson Cooper does not understand the difference between praying for something you hope is true and stating that it is true. Is praying for peace throughout the world the same as saying that there is peace throughout the world?

By "The Corporal"

September 11, 2008 5:58 PM | Link to this

To GOP’s got to go

Nope - I was happily (and still am) married.

To Bosch, et al

Here is some additional information I know that may disturb you (I doubt it) but I feel compelled to share it with you in addition to the Republican vs. Democrat Beauty Pageant discussion. By the way, I personally think that Michelle Obama is very attractive. She (and a few others like the blonde liberal on Fox they searched long and hard for) is the exception that proves the rule. Unfortunately, there is nothing they can do for Susan Ethredge but alas I digress ………..

Again, as above, these situations were generally true (90%) and there were always of course - exceptions (10%).

That said:

Here are the differences when Republican and Democrat staff advance teams come to town to set up events ……

Democrats - stay only in union hotels. Republicans - stay in union or non-union hotels depending on event location.

Democrats - Artsy/Education types, often young and inexperienced, sandals, jeans, etc. Republicans - Business/Engineering types, middle age, business suit, sport coat, etc.

Democrats - Usually late, condescending with local staff and local law enforcement, unorganized, multiple schedule changes right up to the visit. Republicans - Punctual, professional, respectful, very organized.

Democrat official - Late arriving, late from event to event, inconsiderate of waiting public (heat, cold, rain, etc.)late departing. Republican official - On time, fluid from event to event, on time departure.

I could go on and on but you get the gist ………….

By TW

September 11, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this

Palin says tonight that she doesn’t know anything about God’s will. Clearly, tonight will be a continuation of the ruse.

Will Palin defferentiate herself from any run of the mill stripper you might throw into a suit and tell to lie her backside off?

Nope. Still just a pig.

By jasper

September 11, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this

Ok Libbies we concede. Palin = Pork, and Obama = your brain on pork.

See, she was using the pork while Obama was trafficking in it. Now she’s gone cold turkey and wants to shut down the supply. Oh the hypocrisy of you Haters, that would attempt to hold her usage against her as she now crusades against the source, all the while zerO is out on the corner handing out samples. We’ll be seeing him soon starring in an Intervention episode titled, Pork - the other white powder.

By TW

September 11, 2008 6:12 PM | Link to this

RW - that seems to be a very liberal explanation you’ve provided on the identification of pork.

She’s gonna have to man up to all this God stuff, bud - live by the sword… I’m not saying it’s a bad play - look at the numbers she’s brought in because of it. However, she’s gonna end up taking the bad with the good. When they Reverand Wright her with her own preacher’s comments about Isreal and terrorist attcks is probably when the rubber will hit the road on all that.

Being that you told me once that Obama for four would be the best thing for the right, are you gonna go Barr/Paul if it shakes out that way?

By AJC/DNC Management

September 11, 2008 6:19 PM | Link to this

Question for Charlie Gibson- We’re you squirming in your chair because of the powerful, straight forward and intelligent answers you didn’t expect to receive from Sarah or we’re you just trying to keep people from noticing that you were happy to see her?

Or did you have a mouse in your pocket?

By Paul

September 11, 2008 6:20 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original) 5:56

Do you think Gibson rises to the the bar necessary to be called a liar? Jay?

Scanning through today’s posts, it may be a bridge to nowhere but it sure is a bridge that never ends.

I believe Jay’s point is that Palin was never against the bridge and earmarks until it became politically expedient and to say otherwise makes her a liar.

Others have pointed out (Factcheck source) that she technically killed it even though it was about dead in Congress.

This still strikes me as following the Rule of Thumb: if it happened on your watch and it’s good, you get the credit. If it happened on your watch and it’s bad, you take the hit. Pres Bush and 9-11 is a good example from the Left. Didn’t matter he was Pres for a few months. It was his watch. Same with Pres Clinton and the economy. Some may cite economic lag time from Bush the Elder, but hit happened on his watch, so he gets the credit.

Can she be said not to be a reformer based solely on earmarks? I think not. Judging actions, she went up against two powerful Republican families (Stevens and Murkowski) and won. She also took on the Republican attorney general and the Republican state chairman.

But can she claim to be a reformer if she did mislead? Does this case permanently disqualify her? There are similar cases of politicians with long and distinguished careers who had similar situations early on. Sen Byrd said repeatedly he joined the KKK not for racist reasons but because it was anti-Communist. Problem is, it was 1943, Russia was our WWII ally and the Red Scare was a few years away. Was this a lie of the same magnitude? Does this pass the Common Sense Test? Still, he went on to a long and illustrious career.

I still come back to my earlier questions: what are the history or actual reforms worked by any of the candidates? They all have some - rack’em and stack’em. If earmarks is the issue (which it isn’t as Jay has phrased it - it’s honesty - a tricky test for a politician) then who has come on line for a permanent ban?

By Dusty

September 11, 2008 6:25 PM | Link to this

Dear RW-(the original)

Are liberals REALLY trying to pick Palin’s prayers apart? Has the leftist media gone completely beserk? Is there not one liberal producer or Democrat that says THAT IS TOO MUCH!!

I don’t expect such ideals from liberal bloggers here and they never disappoint. But TV? And I will say that Bookman has made an ittty bitty effort to clean up this blog but he is outnumbered by lesser characters.

Now, I must tell boschi how happy I am that he is a few days younger than George Washington!!And I do agree, like he said, that he is a child at forty. Keep it up, buddy, and have one on me.

By T

September 11, 2008 6:26 PM | Link to this

By RW-(the original)

I call you on that one. From my understanding of what you just posted, the statement is still there.

“Pray for our military. He’s [Palin’s son Track] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country—that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

However, in the light of her VP slot, I personally do not think he should go. It could pose a threat to him and his company.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 6:33 PM | Link to this

TW,

I can’t support Bob Barr because he insists on denigrating out troops. Ron Paul has a lot of ideas I like, but then he goes a little too kooky for me. I don’t even know who the current Libertarian VP is, but I saw him yesterday hoping to be replaced. Biden was out there acting like he wanted to be replaced yesterday too.

Sarah’Cuda! Change that already has then scrambling for cover!

I’ll support the McCain/Palin, but I’ll probably just write in Palin for President. Four years of Obama might have been better for the right in my previous analysis because while he was bumbling around we could find new blood. The dynamic has changed though, because the new blood has arrived.

Paul,

I don’t know if Gibson was lying or if he was just unprepared. The exact words remark bothers me though. I would hope if a reporter wasn’t 100% sure they were right about the quote they might have said words to that effect. or something like that.

By sunshine and thunder

September 11, 2008 6:38 PM | Link to this

Jay wrote:

If Sarah Palin “killed” the bridge to nowhere, then the coroner kills somebody everytime he shows up to declare the body dead. That’s all she did. Congress killed the bridge, and she made it official.

OKAY. You want to use metaphors? How about Jay is the myna bird who keeps repeating that Sarah Palin loves earmarks? BRAAAACCKKK!!

This is turning into a joke.

READ my lips: Sarah Palin killed the bridge to nowhere (among other earmarks) while your two status quo senators voted for the bridge to nowhere AND other little goodies.

“Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.”

Sara cut her state’s earmark requests in half last year. More than just about any governor out there. Considering that Alaska’s governor has more concentrated power than any governor of any state except for Massachusettes she could have certainly delivered what she wanted to.

Sorry Jay. It is you who wants to keep beating that dead horse. Oops! metaphor alert.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 6:43 PM | Link to this

T,

You really need to take your bolding back a few words.

Pray for, with respect to military men and women….

and

Pray that our leaders…..

but in either case it’s not my analysis of the words and I provided a link to the analysis that was done at the web site. Frankly, Governor Palin gives Charlie Gibson a better answer anyway. If you’re in the local Atlanta TV market it’s on at 7.

By jasper

September 11, 2008 6:48 PM | Link to this

You can bet the mainstream will pick up this prayer, embellish or obfuscate it, and beat it to death. It was already being brought up on Medved yesterday.

The attempt will simply be to cast her as a religous zealot to put her in the awkward position of downplaying her faith. And thus the beginning of her Rev. Wright phase. I believe we’ve been going through the Rezko phase with the bridge.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 6:52 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

There may be one liberal that won’t go to those other stories and he’s our very own blog host. He’s on a crusade to make us say Sarah didn’t kill the bridge she killed and no amount of wasted newsprint will curtail his mission.

We won’t cave of course, so look forward to seeing this very same article worded differently a few dozen times over the next few days.

By Paul

September 11, 2008 6:56 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original) 6:33

Time for a little parsing. Gov Palin asked if it was an exact quote. Gibson said “exact words.

Based on that slipshod out, here’s Jay’s exact words today in his column:

““I got an early start. I’m wrong, not a vague resemblance to reality. You can tell people – black – white – they’re stupid.”

By "The Corporal"

September 11, 2008 6:56 PM | Link to this

Let’s look at it this way:

1) God is 100% Holy and good beyond our comprehension.

2) There is absolute evil in the world (like when someone breaks into your home and kidnapps your little girl and after molesting her buries her alive or when Muslim terrorists behead an innocent person they have kidnapped).

3) God hates evil and will someday ban it from His creation.

4) In the meantime, we are to fight evil with education, money, politically, spiritually and sometimes even physically.

5) Therefore, when U.S. troops go to Iraq to help rid absolute evil from their land are they doing God’s will?

I for one say praise the Lord and pass the ammunition ………

There, is everyone clear on that now ?

By Taxpayer

September 11, 2008 7:00 PM | Link to this

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan,” said Palin.

NOT Bush’s plan, not a plan made by humans to kill humans. No. That just would not do. It must be God’s plan that we send our soldiers and Hessians over to Iraq to kill. Thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed along with Iraqi soldiers and relatively few Islamic terrorists since we first shocked and awed Saddam in 2003. The invasion of Iraq was not followed up with any deck of cards to look out for Islamic terrorists though. No. There were only Iraqis on that deck of cards. There was not even a photo of Osama, the master-mind of 9/11. Imagine that. We invaded Iraq and we were not even looking for the mastermind behind 9/11. We did not go in there because it was the central front in any war against Islamic terrorists.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 7:01 PM | Link to this

jaspar,

I almost can’t wait for them to beat over the head with a quasi over the top religious statement.

That’s when Jeremiah Wright and his twenty years of mentoring Obama make their returns and now the whole country is paying attention.

Alaskans talk differently anyway.

There’s a book that can get you up to speed

By Paul

September 11, 2008 7:12 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer 7:00

That’s one interpretation. Another is based upon the belief of many religions/churches that citizens are answerable to their leaders (the ‘render to Caesar render to God’ thing). So in embarking on a war it is not they who are answerable to God - it is the leaders who started it.

I believe it was just the other day Sen Obama said attacking another’s religion, let alone bringing it into the political scene, breeds the kind of intolerance that leads to killing people over religion.

But I’m afraid many here - even Obama supporters who Sen Obama is unable to change - will continue.

By T

September 11, 2008 7:13 PM | Link to this

Gotta admit she’s pretty good. Still a little slippery. Too bad her and the Republican parties core veiws differ from mine. I would be tempted.

By jasper

September 11, 2008 7:14 PM | Link to this

RW - Left will package this differently. zerO was never labled an evangelical, moreover it was the lack of authentic Christianity that was apparrent in his issue. With Palin the attempt at scandal will be to make her look like an absolutist, Bibilical innerrant, world is 4000 years old. They’ll compare her to Huckabee and make him look like an atheist.

The story is the story not the facts. Same methodology as Jay’s 3 attempts with this bridge crap. The more negatives, the more the independent voter is affected. Thanks for the link.

By RW-(the original)

September 11, 2008 7:18 PM | Link to this

Gibson is pulling a mini O’Reilly on us. We get half the interview up front and have to stick with this pathetic ABC news broadcast to get to the other half sometime later in the broadcast.

I wish she would have said, “Charlie, why don’t you get some bifocals so you don’t have to look so stupid looking over the top of your glasses?”

So far Jay’s burning question hasn’t come up yet. Maybe tomorrow we’ll get a story about Bridgegate, The Question That Went Unasked.

By getalife "whiners"

September 11, 2008 7:18 PM | Link to this

General Petraeus: I “Don’t Know” That I’ll Ever Say “Victory” For Iraq.

When asked about war with Russia, the anti Clinton spews “perhaps”.

Poor John at Crooks and Liars had the audacity to post this:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/11/biden-hillary-might-have-been-better-vp-pick/

Too funny. The Obamites hate the Clintons more than the gop.

What a crazy cycle.

By Ray

September 11, 2008 7:34 PM | Link to this

Camera shifts to the Reverend, beating his fist on the lectern and shouting to his receptive congregation that America is damned and that black America cannot be duped into thinking that any progress has been made in the racial struggle in this country. Camera again shifts to the congregation in the wings who jump up and down and clap, shout and dance around like a bunch of lemmings who would apparently believe whatever their Reverend says, despite evidence to the contrary that they have not taken time to study or might even not care to see. Camera again shifts to the Reverend who praises James Cone and “Black Liberal Theology” and the struggle which is not over against the evil white man. No one can be trusted in the white community. They are all against the black man and we are to keep them in contempt or they will continue to keep us in bondage.
Mr Wonderful didn’t see this coming. Yeah, right. Mr. Wonderful didn’t have anything to do with Wright except the baptism of his kids, being the minister at their wedding and his preacher for 20 TWENTY, years.
White America should not be upset about Wright and all his rantings. Right. He is black and he gets a free ride. Right. He is black and you cannot say that he is an idiot unless you are accused of being a racist. Right. Mr. Wonderful didn’t have a clue. Right. How stupid do you think we are? Even when hit in the head with the truth, the libs continue to support this empty suit. Are you really Americans or something from another planet? What does it take?

By getalife "whiners"

September 11, 2008 7:34 PM | Link to this

Sorry RW,

I have to agree with my girl

By TW

September 11, 2008 7:34 PM | Link to this

OMG!

Ssomebody please tell me that crazy chick did not say nook-YOO-ler?!!!

By AJC/DNC Management

September 11, 2008 7:35 PM | Link to this

Yes!

She’s a wingnut and a neokkkon too!

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia

Bombs away, Ivan.

May the biggest and most powerful country in the world win, bozos

By RW-(the original)