The Atlantic - Latest Comments in I try to not do this sort of thing

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

blighter — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:22:15 -0000

Quick question for all the folk saying that Obama and Biden couldn't vote against the bridge because it was part of a 500 page omnibus transportation bill...

How do you defend their votes against Coburn's amemdment to said bill which would have transferred the funding for this bridge and another Alaskan bridge to the rebuilding of a bridge in New Orleans?

When they voted against that (which is to say, voted for the money to be kept building the bridge to nowhere rather than rebuilding the damaged bridge to somewhere in N.O.) were they not explicitly and precisely voting for the bridge to nowhere?

Or am I missing some nuance?

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

MoeLarryAndJesus — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:38:34 -0000

John Richardson writes: "So I'm curious: why do you guys think the Alaska democratic party said on their website that Palin killed the bridge? Why did they decide to be part of the evil BushHitlerRove lie machine?

Palin changed her mind. I would guess that the bridge becoming unpopular was the motivation. She sure has a record of getting as much $$ for alaska as she can.

Are you all claiming that any politician who changes position and then touts the later one is lying? "A lie of omission?" Do you want me to lay out all the places Obama has changed and doesn't talk about his old position? Is he a liar for that, or does your standard only apply to Republicans? "

John, she's saying that she governed on a JUST SAY NO TO EARMARKS basis, which is a total lie. Remember, she KEPT THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE money.

She wants to be applauded for this? It's like a prostitute going to court and saying, "Yeah, I took $10 from that Vice cop for a blowjob, but I was only gonna give him a handjob," and expecting to get acquitted.

And yes, I just compared Sarah Palin to a $10 prostitute, but I didn't say anything about lipstick, so that's okay.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Tom — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:34:20 -0000

The point if you scratch past the surface is that she is campaigning heavily that she is a reformer and that she killed the bridge when in reality it was business as usual political motivation. Plus she may have killed the bridge but they kept the money.

So really its "thanks but no thanks to the bridge....and thanks and thanks again for the money that was to be used for the bridge."

You can change your mind all you want. You can even be a good representative of your state by wanting the bridge or keeping the money. But you cant keep the money and boldly proclaim across town that you are against earmarks after you keep it.

Well I guess you can .... but that would technically make you a hypocritical piece of crap.

And please send us your comprehensive list on similar Obama position changes as you seem to so readily have available. Im interested in hearing what they are.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

John Richardson — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:22:36 -0000

So I'm curious: why do you guys think the Alaska democratic party said on their website that Palin killed the bridge? Why did they decide to be part of the evil BushHitlerRove lie machine?

Palin changed her mind. I would guess that the bridge becoming unpopular was the motivation. She sure has a record of getting as much $$ for alaska as she can.

I know you guys are in a hysteria of hate here, but try to get some perspective on yourselves.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Tom — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:27:29 -0000

Fred,

I find it interesting that you picked only that one point on Energy Policy to counter her obvious lack of experience on issues that are important to the future of the United States. Im definitely willing to hear more.

I will admit you are correct in your statement that Palin has energy experience at face value. I therefore clarify and dig deeper by saying, as Deborah points out, that Palin has no experience or new ideas in energy policy that are truly relevant and applicable to solving the long term energy problems of the country. In Alaska all you have to worry about is how to get more oil and natural gas and revenues therefrom. More natural gas and even more drilling may be a small element of a comprehensive policy and the future action that solves our dependence problems (and the economic and security issues that obviously derive therefrom) but its only a very small piece and we dont need experience in old tired ideas like more gas and oil (we have been relying on oil and gas for years and we are heading backwards on energy independence). Now tell me how Palin tried to propose higher efficency standards in cars, used some of their oil and gas revenues to incentivize the development of alternative energy in Alaska, or anything that is not the obvious inadequate "gas and oil", then thats relevant and I would be glad to give her the credit for it.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

MoeLarryAndJesus — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:25:58 -0000

Leave it to GOP mouthpiece Fred to give credit to Palin where none is due. For a more balanced take on the pipeline and Palin's miniscule role in it, take a look:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/09/03/a-look-at-palins-role-in-alaskas-big-natural-gas-pipeline-project.html

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Fred — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:01:08 -0000

Deborah,

Expanding domestic energy production is as "new" an idea as Obama's plan to throw an extra $15 billion per year at Al Gore and other alternative energy venture capitalists. The difference is, Palin's idea will reduce our trade and fiscal deficits while creating lots of high-paying blue collar jobs of the sort that her husband had on the North Slope. That said, McCain-Palin haven't opposed throwing money at currently-unfeasible alternative sources of energy; on the contrary, they have explicitly proposed an "all of the above" approach. For the foreseeable future though, fossil fuels and nuclear are going to have to do the heavy lifting when it comes to our energy needs.

As for her dealings with Canada being limited to fishing issues, how the heck do you think that natural gas pipeline is going to get from Alaska to the Lower 48? You are aware, I assume, that there is plenty of Canada in between.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Deborah — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:42:35 -0000

Knowing where to look....Tom says she doesn't have any real experience or new ideas on a host of policies, including energy. "Drill baby drill" does not count as a new idea on energy policy. If she has this deep expertise, let's see it. Right now it looks an awful lot like her foreign-policy-by-osmosis credentials--Alaska has a lot of oil money, she's Alaskan, obviously she knows all this energy stuff. (Poor Canada, proximity to which--and there are actual fishing issues with Canada, which is within the 3 mile limit for coastal disputes--doesn't get you any foreign policy cred.)

As for Spengler, boring talking points. Hillary is popular with a segment of the Democratic base, who voted for her, anathema to independents, and gotv anathema to Republicans. She would not have helped. Any chance of her being on the ticket was blown when "does he have to take Hillary" was allowed to start up, and the what-might-have-beens that filled the air since are attempts to keep the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuit riled. I like Biden, and he seems to help with seniors, blue-collar comfort levels, and gravitas--everyone could picture him taking over. He's qualified. A serious pick. Getting minimal vote in Delaware when he'd withdrawn from the campaign months earlier is....well, it's not what you call a compelling case for why his presence hurts the ticket. But for Republican talking points, Plus One!

Shorter: Palin is brilliant on energy policy? Let's see them take up that issue. Right now, "she is head of the Alaskan National Guard" is their level of confidence in her energy cred.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Fred — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:02:47 -0000

Related to my last comment, and the VP selection decisions made by the respective candidates generally, check out Spengler's Column in the Asia Times. Snippets to start you off,

Obama is the most talented and persuasive politician of his generation, the intellectual superior of all his competitors, but a fatally insecure personality. American voters are not intellectual, but they are shrewd, like animals. They can smell insecurity, and the convention stank of it.

[snip]

Biden, who won 3% of the popular vote in the Democratic presidential primary in his home state of Delaware, and 1% or less in every other contest he entered, is ballot-box poison. Obama evidently chose him to assuage critics who point to his lack of foreign policy credentials. That was a deadly error, for by appearing to concede the critics' claim that he knows little about foreign policy, Obama raised questions about whether he is qualified to be president in the first place. He had a winning alternative, which was to pick Clinton.

[snip]

Alternately, Obama might have chosen a rising Democratic star like Virginia's 50-year-old governor Tim Kaine. A weaker choice than Hillary, Kaine (or someone like him) would have made a bold statement of self-confidence. Obama could have said with credibility that he would bring to Washington a new generation of outsiders who would change the old system. Instead, Obama saddled an old and unpopular Washington warhorse.

[snip]

McCain doesn't have a tenth of Obama's synaptic fire-power, but he is a nasty old sailor who knows when to come about for a broadside. Given Obama's defensive, even wimpy selection of a running-mate, McCain's choice was obvious. He picked the available candidate most like himself: a maverick with impeccable reform credentials, a risk-seeking commercial fisherwoman and huntress married to a marathon snowmobile racer who carries a steelworkers union card. The Democratic order of battle was to tie McCain to the Bush administration and attack McCain by attacking Bush. With Palin on the ticket, McCain has re-emerged as the maverick he really is.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Fred — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:41:36 -0000

To Deborah:

My comment was in response to Tom's above. Schweitzer would have been an interesting VP choice for Obama. Too bad he lost his nerve and settled on the boring choice Biden, who is a gasbag, but knows little about gas or other energy issues.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Deborah — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:37:47 -0000

@Fred,

With the caveat that I can't tell whom you're quoting, as this is about the Republicans bald-faced 23-times now lie regarding the bridge to nowhere, but maybe that's in a comment somewhere:

Maybe she was picked for her energy expertise, whatever it may be. (Praying for pipelines?) Two weeks ago I would have said so. If that was the case I'd expect her to be making it by doing many interviews in which she eats the Democrats' lunch on energy policy, and for surrogates to talk about little else as they promote the brilliance of her energy policies. Instead we have Meghan McCain handling interviews--seriously, they think Meghan less likely to embarrass the campaign--and surrogates touting "she is commander in chief of the national guard; also, Alaska is near Russia so she has foreign policy experience by osmosis."

If the McCain people think she has energy expertise they are hiding it very, very well. She's no Brian Schweitzer.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Fred — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:07:28 -0000

Sarah Palin has "no real experience" with energy policy? You've got to be kidding. She has more hands-on experience with energy issues than any of the candidates. She was head of the oil & gas commission in are most energy-rich state where she rooted out corruption. She just successfully negotiated what will be one of the largest international infrastructure projects in North America, a huge pipeline to transport natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Deborah — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:19:24 -0000

Can I just go ahead and dare NYTimes, WaPo, LATimes, etc to have a big headline "McCain and Palin are lying. Over and over. Every time we call them on it they do it again! And so we're calling them out."? Cause right now the Rs are making it very clear they see no downside to flatout lying, and they may be right.

I think the best analysis of the R tactics to date was Sean at 538's Palin's a hockey agitator. With this week's flatout lying from both R candidates, and recent developments like "OMG if anyone mentions lipstick in any context it is a grave insult and we'd best avoid the cosmetics section of drug stores for the next 2 months lest we have the vapors" it applies to the whole McCain campaign.

Sample bit: She skates into the corner, throws up an elbow, and the Democrats cry: “Foul!” Hey! She said Obama has never passed a major bill – this is an objective lie! Hey! She ridiculed community organizing the day after Service was the theme! Technically people should punish her by not voting for her over this infraction!

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Tom — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:08:51 -0000

IS THE US REALLY THIS DESPARATE? We really cant blame anything but ourselves when the US economy and world influence slips even further over the next 4 years after we elect an at best state level qualified politician with no real experience or new ideas on the REAL IMPORTNAT ISSUES (national security, energy policy, US position in the world economy, credit crisis, housing crunch, and the general souring of the US economy) to a critical federal level position.

Come on Mr. McCain, this once possible supporter is wonderng what the F*$% you were thinking. I guess so long as gays cant get married, the church can keep making inroads into our poitical fabric and all life can be protected (even embyros that would further high level scientific research) who cares about our economic position or standing slipping further in the world.

Will a real Republican/Conservative please stand up (instead of these soft right wing vote panderers) so I can vote for someone who will really put "country first" instead of using it as a cheap dress up line.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

MoeLarryAndJesus — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:52:49 -0000

Jake writes: "She wanted federal funding to build the Bridge to Nowhere, and only turned against the bridge after Congress refused to fund it. She didn't refuse a thing."

And she KEPT THE MONEY.

This is the dumbest claim by a politician since Nixon's "I am not a crook." He was, and she craved the Bridge like a cat craves mice.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Jake — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:39:38 -0000

The point here is that Palin is lying when she claims that she "told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that Bridge to Nowhere." She wanted federal funding to build the Bridge to Nowhere, and only turned against the bridge after Congress refused to fund it. She didn't refuse a thing.

She introduced herself to the American people with this lie, and she's repeated it again and again. She's holding this up as a hallmark achievement, and it's a lie. She is trying to use it as the basis of her image, as a maverick reformer, and it is a lie.

This should be devastating to her. We will see.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Juan — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:18:26 -0000

I'll agree that the churches cancel each other out.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

S.G.E.W. — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:40:26 -0000

If that's mainstream things are worse than I thought.

Remember: it's Pat Buchanan's idea of what "mainstream" is.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Chet — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:12:13 -0000

She belongs to a mainstream Christian church.

Absurd. Her church speaks in tongues, "slays in the spirit", and probably handles snakes to boot. They promote fringe creationism in schools. They prepare for the end times. And, of course, they're bigoted homophobes.

Mainstream? If that's mainstream things are worse than I thought.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Juan — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:53:21 -0000

In case you guys missed Pat Buchanan's essay today on Obama versus Palin, here's an excerpt:

Barack and Michelle are affirmative action, Princeton, Columbia, Harvard Law. She is public schools and Idaho State. Barack was a Saul Alinsky social worker who rustled up food stamps. Sarah Palin kills her own food.

Michelle has a $300,000-a-year sinecure doing PR for a Chicago hospital. Todd Palin is a union steelworker who augments his income working vacations on the North Slope. Sarah has always been proud to be an American. Michelle was never proud of America -- until Barack started winning.

Barack has zero experience as an executive. Sarah ran her own fishing fleet, was mayor for six years and runs the largest state in the union. She belongs to a mainstream Christian church. Barack was, for 15 years, a parishioner at Trinity United and had his daughters baptized by Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons are saturated in black-power, anti-white racism and anti-Americanism.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

Deborah — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:52:30 -0000

Through the magic of the google: Obama's earmark requests for 3 years. I add it up to be about 500 million in requests, though not all of those are granted at all or in full: note the "requested 5 million and secured 3.5 million in funding for..." phrasing. This is everything he asked for, successful or not. An infrared astronomy project for 62 million, not granted, is the biggest piece.

Here's why we're getting tetchy:

Obama says: earmarks should be transparent

Obama does: passes legislation to make earmarks more transparent and has an exemplary list readily available so that someone asking "what sort of earmarks has Obama asked for for Defense, and were they granted?" can check in a few minutes.

McCain says: earmarks are bad

McCain does: doesn't ask for any earmarks

Admirable. Both men's actions are consistent with their stated principles. Now let's add Palin in.

Palin says: I reject earmarks, cause I'm a maverick reformer.

McCain says: Palin rejects earmarks. She killed the bridge to nowhere. She is a maverick reformer.

Palin does: The opposite, swooping up all available earmarks, including the portion of the bridge money congress had already allocated, even though no bridge was built.

McCain says: No no no, that's a lie. My gut says she kills earmarks like they're moose.

TNC and Ambinder say: I'm going to gnaw someone's ear off if this keeps up.

All about everybody's earmarks here. Obama doesn't even make the top 10, though Hillary and Durbin do.

Also I propose we burn in effigy the coiner of "Walmart moms," today's annoying McCain-blogger-10-point word. Who's with me?

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

MikeCee — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:26:59 -0000

I once worked for an amazing CEO whose favorite saying was "If you say anything with consistency and conviction it will be so". This is very true and it is being played out in the MSM today.

The people now running the McCain camp get this big time. Truth matters very little it seems, a shame that.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

JAC — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:20:47 -0000

Obama needs to frame the argument against Palin and McCain this way: they are exaggerators. If it beat Al Gore, why not use it against the Republicans this time?

People don't like exaggerators. Clearly Palin has lied about selling the plane on eBay, the Bridge to Nowhere and the being all anti-pork barrel spending. And McCain ain't no Maverick.

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

ed — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:51:41 -0000

I have a feeling that come Spring, when Obama assumes the Presidency, my fiscal conservative sensibilities are going to have an acute case of buyer's remorse.

Well, did you really think that voting for Bush, Jr. would be fiscally conservative? Really?

Re: I try to not do this sort of thing

John S. — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:05:51 -0000

I have a feeling that come Spring, when Obama assumes the Presidency, my fiscal conservative sensibilities are going to have an acute case of buyer's remorse.

Then remind yourself that whereas Obama's proposals would boost the deficit by $3.5 trillion, McCain’s plans would increase the deficit by $5 trillion.

That should help your conservative sensibilities.