A Dirty Election??

Gekko71 · Post by **Gekko71** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:28 am

I had to shake my head in wonder when I saw this story

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=653318

I am assuming ( I HAVE to assume) that the journalists in question have misrepresented Palin.

...is it my imagination, or is this the dirtiest American election in living memory in terms of the mud that's being slung (by the media, by special interest groups, by the two parties etc...)?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:53 am

I saw the interview, to call what that article say a misrepresentation of what was said a stretch would be giving it too much justice. we are talking about MSNBC here.
There have been MANY dirty campaigns throughout history. read up on the JQ Adams / Andrew Jackson election for starters

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:32 am

I think we just tend to remember the more recent ones. And I still havn't seen anything on the level of the Swift Boats.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:12 am

It was a simple question. Why didn't she answer it?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:35 am

It WAS a simple question that should have been YES.

terrorist is a term with many definitions that usually involve violence against civilians for the advancement of a political view or religious belief.

But obviously, if you look at the video, she doesn't quite place bombing an abortion clinic to be on the same level of importance as classifying Obama as a domestic terrorist having terrorist ties which has already been dismissed by non biased groups.

The good thing about all this is that she's making the McCain/Palin team look more arrogant and foolish with each passing day.

Bee

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:06 am

Bet51987 wrote:The good thing about all this is that she's making the McCain/Palin team look more arrogant and foolish with each passing day.

Bee

.....To you.... Others don't agree.

Women are their own worst enemies. The REAL funny thing is that if all women in this country banded together with a unified voice, it wouldn't matter who I voted for. There just aren't enough boys to overcome that power in the vote. And yet, you've had the power to vote for almost 100 years and still no females in the front office.......

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:29 am

Maybe since she didn’t pal around with any abortion clinic bombers, she didn’t feel the need to answer such a divisive question.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:50 am

Hostile wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:The good thing about all this is that she's making the McCain/Palin team look more arrogant and foolish with each passing day.

Bee
.....To you.... Others don't agree.

I understand completely how you feel, Hostile. I also feel it is a bad thing that Palin comes across as an arrogant fool. It's bad for our nation and it's bad for the political process itself.

I find it indefensible to assert that abortion clinic bombings are not acts of terror. They are acts that have targeted civilians and resulted in their death or maiming. They are designed to intimidate others or induce fear in them. They are acts that are politically motivated. They are committed by persons seeking to bring about change in governmental policy and in the medical profession. If this is not terrorism then the term itself has no meaning. Incidentally, it would fit the U.S. government definition...

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism.[23] In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping...

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:01 am

I don’t think for one minute anyone, even the bombers would deny that it’s terrorism. The idea here is the connotation of not anwering a question. I think the arrogance may be in those assuming to know how she would have answered. Maybe she’s just tired of loaded questions, maybe she was appalled that someone would actually ask such a dumb question. But if you guys have an inside track into someones thinking, then never mind.

Oh, and as most of you already know, I don’t make it a habit of defending politicians, and that is not what I’m doing here. What I’m doing here is turning the crooked little finger around and pointing right back.

She prolly should have answered the question.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:12 pm

I think Spidey has nailed it. Considering how the media has tried repeatedly to set her up as recently as a few days ago by totally lying to her about something someone had supposedly said about her then asking her to respond to it she's more than a little gun shy giving an answer that could be used against her.
Frankly the arrogance in the questioners she faces has outweighed any she has shown by a few tons.

Palin, specifically the whacko they try to make her has become the distraction the media and team Obama have wielded like a shield as often as they can to keep the spotlight at bay.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:46 pm

Brian Williams wasn't arrogant in the least Will nor did he seem like he was trapping her. Since she constantly invokes the \"terrorist\" word when speaking of Obama it was a legitimate question to find out where her line was drawn.

I couldn't believe she stumbled on that answer that anyone in America would have said yes to. Maybe she wasn't programmed to answer that one.

Bee

Praetorian · Post by **Praetorian** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:34 pm

Gooberman wrote:I think we just tend to remember the more recent ones. And I still havn't seen anything on the level of the Swift Boats.

The Swift Boats!

You mean the former military personnel that served with John Kerry on swift boats who believed he should not be president because he was unfit to command. They were not part of the campaign but brought to light information the majority of us were too young to know about at the time it occurred. John Kerry, kinda like Hanoi Jane. I bet that motivated the military to vote in numbers not seen since Regan swatting Carter.

Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip

The Book- Unfit for Command
Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry

Gekko71 · Post by **Gekko71** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:17 am

Will Robinson wrote:I think Spidey has nailed it. Considering how the media has tried repeatedly to set her up as recently as a few days ago by totally lying to her about something someone had supposedly said about her then asking her to respond to it she's more than a little gun shy giving an answer that could be used against her.

A fair point Will - but if Ms Palin has trouble dealing with a journalist trying to trap her, how would she go against an antagonistic head of state trying to do the same thing?

I know Palin has her supporters here - and I mean them no disrespect - but I just don't see her as a serious candidate for the Presidency (and unless one can guarantee that John McCain's health and sanity will not fail in the face of advancing age, that is how she should be regarded).

I don't doubt her obvious intellegence or enormous passion for her country...

...but as a world leader?
As a true representative of her country's wishes?
With probity beyond all reproach?
A pivotal figure in restoring the world's finances?
A competent and trustworthy cusdodian of the world's most advanced nucular arsenal?
Someone who can deal with China skillfully and tactfully with no-one losing face?
Someone I should trust as an ally and provider of regional security?
The world's most powerful individual?

...Sorry, no disrespect but I don't buy it.

I don't get to vote in this election. But the decisions of those who do will have resounding repercussions for not just your country, but mine and othes as well.

...Please choose carefully folks. As recent events testify, you're not just choosing a leader for yourselves anymore.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:37 am

Gekko71 wrote: A fair point Will - but if Ms Palin has trouble dealing with a journalist trying to trap her, how would she go against an antagonistic head of state trying to do the same thing?....

I think if you ask her she would be able to identify those leaders you worry about as antagonistic and not be trusted. She's just now learning that her own countries media is also in that category...something I'm sure she wouldn't have believed until she was ambushed by them a few times.

I watch that answer and my instinct is her thought was Uh oh! Here they go again....I better tread lightly while I examine the ulterior motive to use the answer they are trying to get from me...
So she gave the standard politicians vague answer of not disagreeing with the suggested conclusion without adopting the exact verbiage. It makes it harder to use your answer as a soundbite against you later. I seriously doubt, as some seem to imply, that she hesitated because she doesn't think bombing an abortion clinic is wrong!

Ask yourself this, do you really think she would lose the support of anti-abortion voters if she calls abortion clinic bombers terrorists?!? Do you think she feels she would lose their support?!?

I don't know what kind of stereotype some people have of voters who are anti-abortion but I can tell you I've never met one who thought bombing clinics was justified the way so many on the left are willing to say Ayers and his bombing the police and government in protest of the Viet Nam war was justified.

Gekko71 · Post by **Gekko71** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:08 am

Will Robinson wrote:
Gekko71 wrote: A fair point Will - but if Ms Palin has trouble dealing with a journalist trying to trap her, how would she go against an antagonistic head of state trying to do the same thing?....
I think if you ask her she would be able to identify those leaders you worry about as antagonistic and not be trusted. She's just now learning that her own countries media is also in that category...something I'm sure she wouldn't have believed until she was ambushed by them a few times.

I watch that answer and my instinct is her thought was Uh oh! Here they go again....I better tread lightly while I examine the ulterior motive to use the answer they are trying to get from me...
So she gave the standard politicians vague answer of not disagreeing with the suggested conclusion without adopting the exact verbiage. It makes it harder to use your answer as a soundbite against you later. I seriously doubt, as some seem to imply, that she hesitated because she doesn't think bombing an abortion clinic is wrong!

Ask yourself this, do you really think she would lose the support of anti-abortion voters if she calls abortion clinic bombers terrorists?!? Do you think she feels she would lose their support?!?

I don't know what kind of stereotype some people have of voters who are anti-abortion but I can tell you I've never met one who thought bombing clinics was justified the way so many on the left are willing to say Ayers and his bombing the police and government in protest of the Viet Nam war was justified.

Without wishing to open the can of worms that is abortion, I assume that Ms Palin's objections to the practice are on the judeo-christian grounds of murder's moral indefensability. If that assumption is correct, she would be able to espouse her view (while keeping her pro-life support) by saying murder is murder, no matter who conducts it or for what reason.

I believe there should have been some politically sincere way for her to express her pro-life views *without* being seen (through omission or vagueness) to covertly support extreme acts like bombing medical facilities. To express her views this way would not (to my way of thinking) have jeapordiesd her pro-life support.

I found her answer vague at best, disturbing at worst. It probably *was* an honest mis-step in the face of a loaded question Will. And yes, she has been asked plenty of those by the American media.

...but this is still the Presidency we're talking about. Loaded questions and character assassination in the press should be the least of her worries. (It's only a problem when the media's treatment of the candidates is one-sided.) Anyone who enters politics in a democracy should expect these things to some degree, and Palin is not a total newcomer to public office. Frankly I would be very surprised if this were the first time she has been asked such a question - (though I concede it's still possible).

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:28 am

I doubt it's the first time she's been asked and she probably has answered it candidly before but in these closing weeks she has been such a target that her every word has to be measured so closely that she just smelled danger and got defensive. Defensive in her job means vague answer needed...

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:43 pm

I agree to an extent Will....

But next time Obama makes a similar gaff, feel free to put away the shoe string and toss him one of those epic lifelines you got there!

Praetorian wrote:
Gooberman wrote:I think we just tend to remember the more recent ones. And I still havn't seen anything on the level of the Swift Boats.
The Swift Boats!

You mean the former military personnel that served with John Kerry on swift boats who believed he should not be president because he was unfit to command. They were not part of the campaign but brought to light information the majority of us were too young to know about at the time it occurred. John Kerry, kinda like Hanoi Jane. I bet that motivated the military to vote in numbers not seen since Regan swatting Carter.

Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip

The Book- Unfit for Command
Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry

I do like the contrast Obama has been able to bring...

Two Vietnam Vets:

Kerry's boat was hit with an RPG, shrapnel goes into his left thigh. Republicans mock him and wear bandaids on their face with purple hearts on them.

Obama's convention: every speaker, even the ones whose job it is to tear him down, praise his service and call him an American Hero.

I can respect people who hate Kerry's policies and even hate him for his post war protests....

....but don't mock the man's service.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:49 pm

Praetorian wrote:The Swift Boats!

You mean the former military personnel blah blah blah Hanoi Jane. I bet that motivated the military to vote in numbers not seen since Regan swatting Carter.

Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip

The Book- Unfit for Command
Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry

*COUGH*
Kerry sucked, but I have a firm stance against total bulls**t.

Praetorian · Post by **Praetorian** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:21 pm

Gooberman wrote:I think we just tend to remember the more recent ones. And I still havn't seen anything on the level of the Swift Boats.

I do believe the above was the quote regarding Swift Boats I responded to. The former military personnel that served with John Kerry. I did not mention the crap some Republican Party members did.

Don't talk to me about mocking service, I have 20 active and 10 reserve years of Naval Service. You have members of congress who have and have not served that mock our troops. John Kerry was the reason I registered early to keep him out of the oval office. To top it off the Democratic party turned me into an Independent.

A small sample:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 1219.shtml

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:33 pm

If the media would only look into the Ayers / ACORN connection with half the curiosity they looked at the Swift Boaters claims I'd be happy! If they would only look into it with the same curiosity they have for Joe the Plumbers background or Palins expense accounts from her term as Mayor and then Governor I'd be happy.

You can bet on one thing, the reason they don't is because the story they know is there is one they don't want to tell!

If McCain was the lawyer for ACORN that sued Citi-Bank to make them give high risk mortgages to people who couldn't qualify do you think for one minute we wouldn't have heard it countless times by now from Sam Donaldson,Cokie Roberts, Dan Rather, Brian Williams, Chris Mathews, Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, Kieth Olberman, etc. etc.?!?
Or would those \"journalists\" let McCain say he only helped them with the Motor Voter bill the way they let Obama get away with that lie?

Gekko71 · Post by **Gekko71** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:58 pm

Will Robinson wrote:I doubt it's the first time she's been asked and she probably has answered it candidly before but in these closing weeks she has been such a target that her every word has to be measured so closely that she just smelled danger and got defensive. Defensive in her job means vague answer needed...

Defensive answers from a politician in an election campaign? Absolutely Will - I would expect that from both sides as it's typical behaviour and often in their best interests.

I would *not* however personally expect a vague answer on the question she was asked. Abortion is a connotatively loaded, emotional and morally murky issue yes - but vagueness on militant reaction by extremeists aimed at medical personell? ...I personally expect NO vagueness on that particular subject from soneone desiring national and international leadership.

It was a misstep no doubt - but a politically isolating one nonetheless. If I had a vote - she would have lost mine right there.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:30 pm

Don't worry Gekko71, we've got people making sure your vote is counted.

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:43 pm

Gekko71 wrote:I know Palin has her supporters here - and I mean them no disrespect - but I just don't see her as a serious candidate for the Presidency (and unless one can guarantee that John McCain's health and sanity will not fail in the face of advancing age, that is how she should be regarded).

I don't doubt her obvious intellegence or enormous passion for her country...

...but as a world leader?
As a true representative of her country's wishes?
With probity beyond all reproach?
A pivotal figure in restoring the world's finances?
A competent and trustworthy cusdodian of the world's most advanced nucular arsenal?
Someone who can deal with China skillfully and tactfully with no-one losing face?
Someone I should trust as an ally and provider of regional security?
The world's most powerful individual?

...Sorry, no disrespect but I don't buy it.

I don't get to vote in this election. But the decisions of those who do will have resounding repercussions for not just your country, but mine and othes as well.

...Please choose carefully folks. As recent events testify, you're not just choosing a leader for yourselves anymore.

I know Obama has his supporters here - and I mean them no disrespect - but I just don't see him as a serious candidate for the Presidency (and unless one can guarantee that Barack Obama's health and sanity will not fail in the face of a bigotted sniper, that is how he should be regarded).

I don't doubt his obvious intellegence or enormous passion for his country...

...but as a world leader?
As a true representative of his country's wishes?
With probity beyond all reproach?
A pivotal figure in restoring the world's finances?
A competent and trustworthy cusdodian of the world's most advanced nuclear(fixed from original) arsenal?
Someone who can deal with China skillfully and tactfully with no-one losing face?
Someone I should trust as an ally and provider of regional security?
The world's most powerful individual?

...Sorry, no disrespect but I don't buy it.

I do get to vote in this election. And the same argument can be made for the top of the democratic ticket.... Not #2, #1,. And our elections always have a profound effect on world matters.

...Please choose carefully folks. As recent events testify, you're looking down the barrel of 44 magnum socialism and it will never be overcome if it advances any further.

I can see the elections of the future where our new and failing national healthcare system is bankrupting our economy and the common argument will be "You want to take health care away from children!!!? How dare you, you dirty conservative dog!" You only need to look at social security, a measure that was meant to be a TEMPORARY program for our senior citizens during the depression for that argument. We still have it 80 years later. And it is the biggest governmentally sanctioned crime in the history of the United States.

Palzon wrote:I understand completely how you feel, Hostile. I also feel it is a bad thing that Palin comes across as an arrogant fool. It's bad for our nation and it's bad for the political process itself.

And as evidenced by our many conversations over the past few months about this election.... you have no ★■◆●ing idea how I feel. You may feel it is a bad thing that Palin comes across TO YOU as an arrogant fool. I feel that Obama doesn't just come across as a socialist, he IS a socialist and a left leaning one at that. It's bad for our nation and it's bad for the political process itself. (It being socialism in case you misinterpret my meaning)

San Dimas High School Football RULES!!!!

Gekko71 · Post by **Gekko71** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:22 pm

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - ...please don't flatter my posts Hostile

I see your point, though I believe you've made it with something of a heavy hand. For the record I never suggested that Obama was perfect, and I have stated on these boards before that some of his policies I find disturbingly populist.

And you're right, the criticisms I raise on Ms Palin can also be levelled at other candidates. No candidate should be above suspicion or close examination, granted.

Back to my original point: Ms Palin made a political misstep on somthing I personally believe should be a no-brainer. And while I have question marks over the #1 and #2 choices for both parties, I have the most question marks over Ms Palin. No offense but I still perceive her to be the weakest link of the four by far.

One man's opinion.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:14 pm

Gekko71 wrote:...Back to my original point: Ms Palin made a political misstep on somthing I personally believe should be a no-brainer. And while I have question marks over the #1 and #2 choices for both parties, I have the most question marks over Ms Palin. No offense but I still perceive her to be the weakest link of the four by far.

One man's opinion.

Well, look at it this way, she's trying for position #2. If her vague answer is reason to not vote for her ticket then consider Joe Biden just a few months ago was telling all of us that Obama wasn't qualified to be President, that the job wasn't suited for on the job training.

To me Bidens remarks are more worrisome than Palins vague answer...whether you believe him now or then...
There was nothing vague or unclear of his meaning so when did he lie and why?

Or how about just a few days ago he was asked if he was embarrassed by ACORNs activities and he said "No, I'm not embarrassed. We are not tied to them. We have not paid them one single penny to register a single solitary voter…. We register the voters ourselves, and so there is no relationship.”

The truth is the Obama campaign paid them over $800,000 this year to get out the vote! Not only that but initially they lied about what that money was for and the Federal Election Commission called them on it and they had to change their report to show it was in fact voter registration and not for polling and event staging as they had first filed....

So, no, Biden didn't go vague. He went complete bald faced lie!
To bad Palin didn't say it because then it might make the news cycle for a few days straight

A Dirty Election??

A Dirty Election??

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: