Pajiba

Can't someone tell him to stop using "My friends" all the time??

Yah, that was some electrifying shit from McCain last night. I only fell asleep twice.

I was going to make some snarky comment about how tv ratings were the only reason McCain picked Palin, and use this to illustrate how horrible she'd be for America, but instead I'm driven to make two notes about the image you picked for this post:

1) What's up with all the reflected angles? Palin's left arm and McCain's mic, her right arm and the arm of the little girl, her whole upper body and the chest-bump of McCain's suit?

2) Heh, microphone boner...

There was also a big push for Obama supporters to get together and have a watching party to make it an event. I was at a house with 30-40 people watching his speech on 3 different sets. And yes, we were watching c-span. Sadly, there was no measurement for eyeballs per set.

I'd never seen a Republican with a black penis before.

I'd never seen a Republican with a black penis before.

Posted by: Sofía at September 5, 2008 10:31 AM

I'm struggling not to make a Gay Republican joke right now. I really am.

Is it superficial of me to recommend White Strips? Because I freaking swear, I have never heard a word he's spoken because all I can think about are his nasty green Scott Farkis teeth.

Oooh, I bet that's his strategy. Well played, McCain. Well played.

"I'd never seen a Republican with a black penis before."

Ted Haggard says otherwise.

Can we also recommend that he stops trying to lift his arms? My mom always pointed out that his bulbous head, fish teeth, and short fin like arms make him look like some horrible aged dolphin. Then I reminded her that he was a POW and my mom said "eh,whatever... fuck that guy."

ms shai

I love your mom.

It's probably gonna irk you all even more to know that Palin polled higher in popularity than both McCain and Obama...

And that according to recent polls, Obama's mighty 8-point lead has been vanquished...

I was stuck in an airport lounge while the right wing lunatics had their "celebrate ignorance" party last night, and I have to remark that I weep for America because I was the only person there who wasn't enthusiastically nodding at the screen and talking about how great "Sarah" is. I almost threw up. By the way, this was in Newark, New Jersey, not Peoria. Is it possible people have actually been hoodwinked by this debacle. Also, any woman with a brain should read Judith Warner's column in the New York Times today (you have to register but it's free) and print it out and distribute it to any female who thinks Palin is a good pick.

"I'd never seen a Republican with a black penis before."

Ted Haggard says otherwise.

Larry Craig wishes he could say otherwise.

And I love you, Some Guy, for your persistence in the face of the rabid Obamania up in this bitch.

Some Guy: Where did you get those figures? Please name your polls and their polling sample (i.e., did they call anyone outside of Wasilla?) Yesterday McCain had fallen 16 points since last Friday in a Reuters poll.

The only thing less energizing than John McCain's speech would have to be Cindy McCain's deadpanned stare into the teleprompters.

Some Guy, as a Missourian who edits Wikipedia, I am obligated by law to say "show me your sources". (I'm also inclined to suggest that the current crop of polls does not accurately reflect both conventions and their respective speeches and performances, but that's a discussion for another site.)

I love listening to people talk about how much the other side's politicians lie and how stupid people have to be to listen to them.

We're all being pandered and lied to, okay? If someone can get this far, they did it by pandering and selling out and playing ball with business and special interests. If you don't think your candidate is pandering to anyone, that's because they're pandering to YOU. The kind of politicians that tell the truth and vote consistently, if they can even make it into the public eye, get swept under the rug in the early rounds. Do you really think the power base is even going to give you a chance to choose someone who is going to change anything in a significant way?

Hell yeah the shit stinks from both parties!

The only thing Palin has going for her is that she spells her first name correctly...Sarah with an h.

Chris Rock had it right all along:

Republicans are fucking idiots, and democrats are fucking idiots -- anyone who makes up their mind before addressing an issue is a fucking idiot.

Amen, Sofia. Chris Rock is a genius.

Okay. Mr. Some Guy's style is all over the internet, a particular smirky, smug attitude that Republican-favoring people have as they say the equivalent of "Heh heh, my team's winning, don't it make ya mad? Heh heh". Lots of goading and giggling and such.

A. This conversational style is nothing new, nor is entrenched Republican power in Washington. Don't smirk and gloat or whatever it is and then say you're being unfairly oppressed by the Fourth Estate or strike any kind of underdog pose at all. The press is supposed to be the government's opponent. Lately there's been some aggressive reporting too. Was the liberal media doing a biased hatchet job on Richard Nixon or were they doing their job?

B. My political leanings and opinions, by definition, aren't fact. However, I can never get an answer when someone says "Heh heh, you're gonna lose!" and I ask "What is under threat if your candidate loses? What do you personally stand to gain after a win? What American Eden have you been living in? If the county's doing great now, what exactly would constitute trouble?"

I am not being rhetorical in the slightest. Answer me.

For Godtopus' sake, he's too old to use his own pecker even with viagra. That's not a black penis, it's a strap on.

He's pointing to Cindy & telling her to take the night off, while he "talks policy" with his new runningMATE. I just hope Sarah was telling the kid to run like hell.

what you learn from reading political comments of assorted pajabians is that you will learn nothing from reading political comments of assorted pajabians. from the brilliant comment attributed to someone's " mom" to the recommendation to read some blowhard's column in the ny times, these comments are boilerplate crap from self styled intellectuals too lazy to do anything but jerk their knees.
Eep got it right ... 1 out of 18 is about right for this crew.

I don't know from poll numbers, nor, at this point, do I care much--the election's not till November.

However, I've seen various reports today that the Obama campaign received $10 million in donations in one day--Friday, the day Gov. Palin was announced as McCain's VP pick. Those same reports say that another $8 million has "trickled" in since Friday.

Obviously Sarah Palin has made an impact; but in whose favor remains to be seen.

Bottom line is we have four people on the national ticket that do not belong there.

It is too soon for Barack, though I think he means well, it is just too soon for him. Biden is an idiot, who was a poor pick.

McCain is terrible and does not belong in the White House. Whereas Palin, nice speech but it is too soon for her as well. Come back around 2020 and let us see if you can hold an audience while your cans sag.

This election, that is so crucial to our country's well being, proves that we are stuck in a poor political cycle.

Clearly, Cindy McCain is a Republican shocktroop for the SpamBot Apocalypse. That woman is not human.

As a moderate Republican...maybe I should just stop...no, I'm still going. I thought Judith Warner's article had a couple decent points nearly drowned out by the remarkable hatefulness. I don't know why Sarah Palin's accomplishments as a woman need be so diminished because she holds different political views from the standard feminist set. In truth, shouldn't that mean that they are more impressive given that she belongs to a party so overflowing with sexist, rich, white assholes? I don't think she's perfect, but I think she's done some pretty great things and it bums me out that because she belongs to the wrong party and doesn't present herself the way Warner wants her to, her successes somehow don't count.

Also, when Warner says this: "Because the Republicans, very clearly, believe that real people are idiots," I almost barfed. Not only is she blatantly calling Palin - an educated, well-spoken, successful woman - an idiot (dropped g's?! NOOOOO!), but seriously? spend a day on the Pajiba boards, lady, and it's not the Repubs dishing out the "idiot" label.

But you guys are totally hilarious too! Kisses!

And Cindy McCain's speech was pre2izlkzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I take it all Pajibans are registered to vote... aren't you?

Oh, please be!!

here are your answers, jay:

A) the liberal media did a biased hatchet job on nixon.

B) you are correct. the perceived differences between candidates , so magnified during political campaigns , will shrink beyond recognition once the election is over and the victor assumes office. so much for " change ".if it is ann eden you are looking for it will be of your making not the governments.

That's not what I asked. I still want to know what Republicans who aren't Federal government employees want to protect from the Democratic Party. What golden age of peace and prosperity under George W. Bush is occurring somewhere? What does one stand to gain or lose that would make one so giddy and eager to bait about opponents about weaknesses in the Democratic campaign?

It frustrates and confuses me because it always seems like both "My utopia is under attack by fanatical bullies!" and "Give it up, pussy. You've got no chance! Haw haw haw!!" Those don't quite go together. You see what I mean?

Do we really need to get into politics here? Jesus, I thought this was a fucking movie/tv review site. Stick to the important stuff, like whether SP is a MILF.

However, I've seen various reports today that the Obama campaign received $10 million in donations in one day--Friday, the day Gov. Palin was announced as McCain's VP pick.

...which, non-coincidentally, was also the day after his speech at the DNC.

I disagree very VERY strongly with everything she believes in and stands for ... but sosumi , let the truth be told: Sarah Palin is indeed a MILF. And I say that as a straight woman. The lady is sexy as shit.

Comment diversion: Elected Officials we'd be willing to do...

Stick to the important stuff, like whether SP is a MILF

No. I like glasses a lot but hers are ugly and a deal blower. Without them she'd have more points than with.

I like her hairstyle though.

But she's no Laura Bush.

Sorry Jay, I'm gonna have to go with Neon on this one. Laura Bush? Really? Ewwww.

"Not only is she blatantly calling Palin - an educated, well-spoken, successful woman - an idiot (dropped g's?! NOOOOO!), but seriously?"

"Educated" is a strong word for somebody who supports creationism being taught in public schools. I'd hasten to add that it took girlfriend six years and five colleges to get a B.A., but I fear being labeled as "elitist" by the G.O.P.

However, I've seen various reports today that the Obama campaign received $10 million in donations in one day--Friday, the day Gov. Palin was announced as McCain's VP pick.

No, it was Thursday, the day after her speech.

Jay there are politico assholes on both sides of the major parties and probably some in the minor parties as well. There are thoughtful liberals and conservatives interested in the truth and what's best for the country, and there are loudmouthed jerks interested in their own agenda and hearing themselves talk. Guess which type manages to push themselves into the press more often? Republicans are just as sick of hearing how stupid, inbred, redneck, and greedy they are as you are of hearing them gloat. If you assume that all Republicans think and talk like Sean Hannity, you're doing yourself a disservice and allowing those jerkoffs to invent divides among the people for their own political benefit. Just like Republicans would be doing themselves a disservice if they assumed that all Democrats were pretentious dickweeds like Keith Olbermann. It's all designed to keep you from actually thinking about the issues at hand and how (and the oft-maligned whether!) the government should address them.

About creationism...
I don't think it's that terrible that they teach it in schools.

I went to Catholic school, and they taught us creationism in religion class and evolution in science class. And it was okay, because it was within a context. It was Catholic school, so it's only natural for them to teach us what's in the Bible, but they never ever told us "evolution doesn't exist!" Creationism was a metaphor, and allegory or whatever you wanna call it. And both theories can co-exist peacefully, as I've observed in my Super-Catholic scientist father.

...do public schools usually have religion class? I don't think they should. I think they would have ruined it for me. Both theories can co-exist. I even like to lazily blend them together from time to time. My version of Genesis has Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs through the Garden...hmm,maybe I could have benefited from a class or two.
And statistically scientists are the most religious professionals with theologists most likely to be atheists.

That's a fair point, Eep, I mentioned some similar things last week about Neal Boortz as the face of the Libertarian Party and how his blowharding does his purported colleagues few favors.

In this case, though I'm not talking about "the media", though my less-than-zero respect for Sean Hannity is doubtlessly mirrored by other's feelings about Keith Olbermann, but rather talking about people on email lists and comment boards, and in public in general, who can trollishly act both proud and persecuted but never actually, you know, justify or even explain what's motivating them, even when I dare them to.

And that according to recent polls, Obama's mighty 8-point lead has been vanquished...

One poll out of about four released in the last week.

And any poll, those showing Obama ahead by yards and those showing McCain caught up, are meaningless for another week or so; people need a bit of time to make up their minds after the conventions. Give it some time.

...do public schools usually have religion class?

Uh... Right, I forgot to mention: I went to private school. All-girls private Catholic school. Uniforms. No men in sight. Teen pregnancy heaven.

Public schools do not have religion classes. And ms shai - you're last sentence confused the hell out of me.

Dammit - I meant YOUR!

What really pisses me off is the assertion that being well-educated is a reason NOT to be President? REALLY?? I dont know about the rest of you but my gut has more attitude than a pmsing 16 yr old girl during prom season. My gut is not in charge of my life and no one's gut should lead this nation.

And don't get me started on Sarah "The Pandering Pawn" Palin. I want to bitch slap everyone with my burning bra who call her a feminist, or questions my feminism.

Umm... I hate to do this, Draya, but the truth about bras is... http://jezebel.com/5045886/the-truth-is-bra+burning-feminists-never-actually-burned-a-bra

I don't question your feminism, though.

Sources as requested:
On palin being more popular:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain

On McCain closing the gap:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/opinion/polls/main4416798.shtml

Granted, every polling site is different and many contradict, but if you are going to call my sources as bullshit because you don't like what they show or are from "conservative" places, take a long hard look in a mirror regarding your "polls" as well.

Now let's look at some standard liberal practices that obama has said he would continue, or might possibly, and how they might have a negative effect.

Raise taxes on large corporations: Corporations hire more overseas workers, allocate overseas where tax burdens are smaller. America loses jobs.

Raise taxes on Gas companies: Gas companies in response raise gas prices to make up for the loss. We pay more, corporations continue to reap record profits. (Let's also remember that these rich american oil companies make around 70 percent of their profit from foreign buyers, not from the US. However, we will be the ones paying for it.)

Raise the minimum wage: Companies are forced to alter budgets, which means fewer workers get hired, and fewer underqualified workers get hired.

Universal Health Care: Giant raise in taxes and oodles of gov't spending. Let's look at england. England has been trying to adopt a universal health database for several years now. That is, they've been trying to get a database of all citizens health records for easy access. So far it has not worked and has cost over 20 billion dollars. And this is a country with around a fifth of the population of america.

you all realize that a lot of conservatives dislike Bush because he spent like a democrat, right?

Alternative fuels: So far, alternative energy sources such as thermal and wind power account for less that 2 percent of the total power supplied in the US. Now, if Ted Kennedy himself wouldn't allow wind power stations to be installed 5 miles off the coast of new england, because it would ruin the view, how do you think the great plains will look with thousand of giant turbines and windmills marring up the place? Oh but it's the midwest. Fuck em, right?

and drilling for oil in alaska or the gulf? You can claim that it will take 10-12 years to actually see oil and profits, but why is that?

Brazil recently discovered huge oil deposits. They are projected to start seeing production and profits in around 2-3 years from discovery to $$$. Why does it take so long in the US?

Because of democratic environmentalists and their red tape. The reason it takes so long to get oil is not because of the work involved, but because of the red tape holding up the work involved.

Now, if you all could be so nice as to tell me how Bush and the repubs. have personally ruined your life, please tell me. Yes, unemployment spiked and the economy took a turn last year. But before that? Record stock market profits after 9/11. The economy grew at a pace unequaled since reagan.

Lose your house to shady mortgage lenders? Well next time, don't spend outside your means. It's called PERSONAL FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Bush's unemployment average has been around .2-.3 percent higher than that of the clinton years. Call me when it hits 10 percent or more, and then we will really have a problem.

And don't give me that torture, gitmo, war crap, or even wiretapping, because unless your friend or neighbor was taken away during the night never to be seen again by Gmen, or you can actually prove that the gov't was listening to your personal phone calls, I don't see how any of those things really affect your lives.

(Unless you are so caught up in "world opinion" that the idea of some random european resenting you or disliking you because of the actions of your gov't. causes you to lose sleep. In which case, work on your self-esteem, because last time I checked, the the largest economies in europe are pro-america. France and Germany specifically, with england on the fence. )

How will Obama improve your lives?

Point taken. I like the image of the bra leaving a mark.

I'll still smack them though.

Draya,
You can always make them wear the bra, pull it back all the way and then let it go. The bra snap hurts like hell.

Some Guy can be my test victim.

There are so many things I disagree with what you said. Its so convenient to spew out those one-sided factoids, then stand back and say "See! I'm right! You suck." I'll stick to my favorite ideas though:

- Big corporations are going to hire oversees workers no matter how you tax them. Why? Because they have their interest (and only their interests) in mind. They dont care about you and the small towns that depend on them. So why not try and get what you can out of them by taxing them?

- Blame democrats for red tape?? I cant wait to hear why thats a legit arguement

- The Stock Market did so well after 9/11 BECAUSE of 9/11 not because of anything Bush did. Want proof? Look at what happened to my measly investment account once Bush became president. That money was supposed to help me get through college. Instead I have lost over $200,000 dollars over the past 8 years. How dare you suggest that he has done no harm.

Draya,

did Bush make you invest 200 g's in the market? Could it be because you made poor choices in what to invest in?

I don't see how you can blame a man for losing your money when you allowed your money to get lost.

I have three simple questions for all of you:

Are we in a recession?

What needs to happen to technically label the US economy as "in a recession?"

At what percent did the US economy grow last quarter?

Draya,

one more:

If you won't give Bush credit for the good economy following 9/11, then how can you give him credit for the poor economy of late?

Explain your logic.

Jay-

Those are the same people, they're just not famous. You notice them because they make noise. The fact that they put themselves out in the forefront of the party by pushing and shoving and yelling doesn't mean they represent the views of the party.

I've never voted for "lesser evil" or "least offensive", but I most certainly have voted and will vote "NOT him". While I personally like Barack Obama he'd most likely still get my "NOT him" vote unless there were some very extenuating circumstances. I'm a party voter, to be sure.

I'm glad to see some rare "here's what would happen". Thank you. I'd still like to also know "here's what's been great". You know, what made people elect Bush in the first place?

And don't give me that torture, gitmo, war crap, or even wiretapping

None of that's any reason to vote someone out of office, surely.

because unless your friend or neighbor was taken away during the night never to be seen again by Gmen, or you can actually prove that the gov't was listening to your personal phone calls, I don't see how any of those things really affect your lives.

Terrorists didn't blow up my house either. Does that mean I still should've re-elected Bush just in case?

you all realize that a lot of conservatives dislike Bush because he spent like a democrat, right?

Didn't seem to be an issue with the people that give him eight years.

No, I don't mind if European leaders aren't pleased with my government. That doesn't mean I'm at all proud of my current government either.

On day one, Obama will improve my life by being someone different, and then we can see how it goes from there. Meanwhile I'll continue to not believe in things like the "liberal Washington" Mitt Romney said needs "change", and, you know, overbearing social conservative crusaders in general. But, thanks for your answers.

It was in issue in 2004 Jay, Bush won because of foreign policy and the war on terror. They didn't want Kerry running the war in Iraq, which we certainly would have actually lost had he been elected and pulled out like he promised.

I know I'm not a Unitedstatian, but what happens up there affects my country, too.

A few years ago, we were about to sign a trade treaty with your country (I don't think I need to stretch the importance of such treaty), and Bush wanted us to vote pro-war in the UN. Our president didn't give him the vote, and Bush threatened to break the treaty unless we supported him. We ended up signing the treaty, but the threat was there.

I know homeland security and what your president can do for your country is first, but you have to acknowledge the awesome responsibility that comes with being the president of the United States -- you're not just running that country, you're defining the future of the other smaller ones.

I blame Obama. If he had only picked Hillary as V.P. we wouldn't even know Palin's name.

Well said, Sofia and thanks for bringing that up. The election of the US president is so much larger than a US issue, and based on the RNC speeches, republicans seem to want you to forget that fact. The RNC slogan of "country first" is all well and good in that it gives us warm-fuzzies about being American but it's such a false ideal in our current state of globalization.

What bothered me most about the RNC speeches were the comments that ridiculed Obama for "apologizing" to Europe. More than one RNC speaker said or elluded that they would never apologize. No, admitting fault is weakness!

Another curiosity was that while Obama and crew maintained a level of class and celebration during their week-long party, with delegates tearing in support and solidarity of their candidate, Republicans at their event spent more time derisively laughing, booing and chanting "USA!." Weakness bad! Right?

...and that pretty much tells me everything I need to know about people who are going to vote for Republican.

Oh, and for the earlier comment about the number of African-American delegates, numbers have trickled out that AA participants at the RNC numbered about 7% of the total in attendance. Apparently, that's the lowest number since the 1960s?

I guess that's why the "spot the minority game" my family and I were playing got boring pretty quickly.

There is no war on terror. It's a marketing slogan, and an excuse to stay on "a war footing". A terrorist crime happened, one time, and suddenly we're at war with...."terror". "Terror" is a concept, the "War on Drugs" was at least about physical matter. When is the "war" won? When "terror" gives up? Or is that just a way to always say "but we're at WAR!"

There was a war the US started in Iraq that lasted a few weeks. There is no "war" to lose there now, we're just there, shooting and getting shot at. When would one win this "war" anyway? When Al-Sadr signs a treaty on a battleship? Who's going to surrender their sword? If there's any war there it's a civil war. We busted the dam that an admittedly tyrannical system had kept in place, so we also liberated the same thing that tore up the Balkans after European communism fell ten years earlier. It's still not our "war" to win or lose.

Yay, fun times. Some Guy:

Taxes on corps: make them windfall profit taxes. Go Jeffersonian (foundation of entire US economy) and make the taxes import taxes. Production in US raises, higher paying jobs, substantial working class = able to afford things.

Gas companies: again, windfall taxes mean YOU GET TAXED if you raise the price to raise profits. That they will raise prices is a strawman.

Raise min. wage: Historically speaking, raises in the min. wage have NEVER shown the result you're claiming. Increased income means increased spending, means higher profits. Again, statistically you're completely wrong.

Universal Health Care: Look at your paycheck. You are paying MORE THAN 50% IN "TAXES" now- if you add your health care in! You're crazy if you can't see that. INSURANCE COMPANIES MAKE A PROFIT. That money comes from SOMEWHERE- it's your pocket. Actually, an increase in taxes modeled after a socialized medicine country like Sweeden (50% of your salary) would SAVE ME (and most middle class families) around $250 a paycheck. Simple math. Really. Just look! Also, add in any premiums you may have paid.

Alternative Energy: you're... kidding, right? You realize that petroleum is not a sustainable source of energy? That the wells do, in fact, dry up? This is not a matter of if, it's when.

As for Bush and Co... the middle class is destroyed dude! Since you're a Republican Apologist, I have to put this in terms you can understand since you can only care about yourself, so I'll ignore the fact that you gloss over record unemployment. Here is how a weak middle class hurts you. The ONLY times this country, and any country, for that matter, have been powerful within the country with a stable economy is when the middle class is strong. The New Deal ushered in unprecedented growth of the middle class, which in turn gave us the social policies like the civil rights movement. The dollar in your bank account is worth LESS than it was 8 years ago. That hurts you! Inflation has risen over 11%... if you don't allow for the "new math" policies of Bush and Co. for their dishonest reporting of finances.

I love Bush Math. It is some whacked out shit. Like... social security (which is super stable, btw) is going to "fail" according to their own math because -get this now- their figures? have the average life span at 150 years old! Well, yeah, you're gonna bankrupt the system if you have people retiring at 62 and living for another 88 years!!! Bush Math with figuring unemployment: if you don't have a job for 2 years, you're no longer unemployed! hee! you're not counted! Bush Math with inflation: the cost of living is figured by taking the average RENT payment across the country! Not mortgage payment- RENT. Oh, and food's not in there. Or gas. Or anything else.

Bottom line- my dad was a school teacher. He had three kids. My mom stayed at home. They had a house, 2 cars and a pool. They paid their taxes and saved their money. They were upper middle class. My husband works in the exact same district. We couldn't afford a house in my parent's neighborhood. We can't afford a house at all without my paycheck. I can only dream of having 3 kids because I have to space them 4-1/2 years apart to avoid double daycare, which would bankrupt us, which will put me at approximately 38 if I wanted my third kid. The increase in health issues with children once the mother is over 35 increases, as do fertility problems. Under a McCain/Palin presidency, if I did wind up with a special needs pregnancy, I couldn't choose to keep or abort. But I probably couldn't afford to raise that kid. So I'd be SCREWED. And that is what the Republican audacity has done TO ME. I can't get into what it's done to the millions without homes, jobs, or any sort of issue. And that's not EVEN getting into my friend whose been stop lossed and deployed back to Iraq after only 12 months home.

So... yeah. Obama/Biden 08

oh, and I forgot- new drilling will take 10-12 years because the oil companies SAY it will because like any good business, they, um, DON'T HAVE ALL THE EQUIPMENT JUST LYING AROUND. See, they have to buy it. Build it. Lay Pipe. Move the rigs.

It's a play for land. Period. There are billions of barrels of oil on-tap. ON-TAP right now. If they wanted to, they could flood the market and make gas $.50 a gallon. Because it's there. There are pre-drilled and caped reserves out there now. But there is no incentive to do so.

Y'all just need to simmer down. Doesn't really matter who you vote for, they're all just a bunch of fuck-ups (notwithstanding Palin's MILF status). Anyone see the irony in Palin being a MILF and a pro-lifer? Hmmmm....

Import taxes? You mean like tariffs? Those are for people that don't understand economics. Tariffs always cost the economy money (this should be obvious since there is money flowing to the government). The money gained by the industry will never and can never equal the cost to the rest of the economy. BUT, since the people that lose their jobs as a result of the cost of the tariff and the economic impact of the tariff on individuals and business are diffuse, it looks like you're doing something really good for one group of people (which you are in the sense that you're preserving their jobs and giving them money, although you're also removing incentive for them to actually take measures to become competitive) without affecting everyone else in any significant way, which is not true but is a trick of the mathematics involved.

I'm not sure how the fact that we will pay more at the pump if we tax the oil companies more is a strawman. If we tax the oil companies, the ONLY group that will profit is the government. It won't force the oil companies to lower their prices: they can't really because their margins aren't high enough. They make so much money because of the volume involved. If you tax the oil companies more, they will be forced to pass the cost on to you in order to survive.

Some Guy, it's interesting that you answered Jay's request not with any answers of your own but simply by reversing the question back to him.

Since WWII the economy has grown more under democrats than under republicans by a significant margin. Incomes have risen more under democrats, an effect observed most clearly in the lower income groups but observed across the income spectrum excepting only the super-rich.

I find the small-government mystique simply baffling. It seems to completely ignore the very concept of an economy of scale. Some things we just do better when we work together, in a way that isn't achievable through market-driven mechanisms. There are all kinds of examples of socialism at work in our great nation. Things that the government runs and runs well.

As for healthcare, arguing the power of the free market is an absolute idiocy since our insurance-based system bears no relationship whatsoever to any kind of fee-based market-driven system. That aside, we somehow manage to spend 14% and more of our GDP on direct healthcare costs including insurance. The next closest is UK, which spends something like 7 or 8% of their GDP on such costs. And guess what? They have better health indiciators across the board than we have, by a large margin. So what does all our extra spending get us? It would be more efficient if it was run by the government.

As for the polls, news agencies and news consumers alike need some lessons in basics statistics. To say that they are in a "statistical dead heat" when Obama is three points ahead with a three-point margin of error is silly. What that means is that they could be dead even. Or Obama could have a six-point lead. Or it could be anywhere in between, but no matter what, Obama still leads.

I wouldn't trust too many of the phone-based polls to be accurate this election. These polls are almost all based on dialers that only access land lines, which some 20% of the people now (mostly young) don't have. They also typically don't sample from all registered voters; many, such as Gallup, may poll only people who actually voted in the last election. Which means anyone who felt lackluster about Kerry but energized by Obama will not be polled, while lots of people who felt energized about Bush but feel lackluster about McCain *will* be polled. They may say they'd vote for McCain but that doesn't mean they'll mobilize on election night. This tactic also systematically excludes voters under the age of 22.

Now onto the realy nitty gritty. I once worked for Gallup and have a degree in epidemiology, so I have studied this matter. Gallup is well-known as a right-leaning polling organization. They utilize a formula when calculating their numbers based on the proportion of people they think are registered with each party. So they poll voters who voted last election, take those results, and then multiply by the number of people who were registered with each party at the last election. First of all, their formula for those proportions rarely match any kind of statistical reality (one example I saw estimated that 68% of voters are registered Republican) but even if reality based, if they rely on numbers from four years ago they will miss the sizeable jump in democratic registration that preceded this primary season.

It's disingenuous to say that conservatives hate Bush because he's too much like a democrat, Some Guy. Dude may have spent "like" a democrat (although I question that too) but he sure didn't spend those trillions on the things a democrat would advocate. So he fritters those monies away to contractors, where a democrat would have invested in health care, infrastructure, education, and all the other public good that generate productivity across the board. Under Bush things fall to shit and you blame the spending itself, rather than the lack of investment in the country by the federal government.

It's easy to get fired up over the McCain, Palin ticket. I can't say enough about Sarah Palin. I liken her detractors to skaters who go down hard; that look of disbelief. Again, we're seeing them fold like lawn chairs. It's long overdue. Anyway, here's a clip from Jan & Dean. I found it apropos. Better than "Barracuda." Bet you can't watch just once: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX7X4FovYRA&NR=1 And how 'bout them Dems: lost in space, or true tales from the Pork-master General: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Economies of scale as an argument for a government-run monopoly are great as long as they are producing the right product in the right quantity. GM got really really efficient at producing SUVs because they're huge and were able to buy on grand scales amortize their costs over bajillions of examples sold. The problem with that is that they did it with huge outlays in capital equipment with no flexibility. The SUV market tanks and now they are SCREWED. The price in efficiency of a little flexibility is often well worth it. Just ask Toyota, if they're not too busy counting our money.

There are certain things where the government should certainly direct the usage of funds for the sake of avoiding mayhem (take the road system for example), but does it really make sense for the road workers to work for the government? If they do, then the government has to pay them all the time, even when they're not working on public roads. Or worse, the government decides whose private project to loan them out to during their downtime. Talk about an invitation to corruption.

Some things naturally invite and work more efficiently under monopolies, and monopolies will naturally develop there... except that we have laws against those. The market almost always comes up with the most efficient way to do things; the popular vote and politicians' fiat almost never do.

There is no war on terror. It's a marketing slogan, and an excuse to stay on "a war footing".

Posted by: Jay at September 5, 2008 2:58 PM

So true, Jay, but I don't think you go far enough. There is a war on terror going on, it's just not being fought against "terrorists" -- unless you consider every citizen of your own country a terrorist-in-waiting. Suspension of habeas corpus, "wartime combatants", and unauthorized surveillance -- the FISA bill is a complete travesty -- are tools for keeping the citizenry in check; just look at what happened to the demonstrators in St. Paul.

Republicans (and many Democrats, to be fair) regard the Constitution, and especially those pesky amendments (such as #4), as an unwelcome obstacle. The idea that Republicans are enemies of government spending is laughable; their disdain for taxes (at least on themselves) seems to be real but it is definitely outweighed by their own shylock-ian tendencies.

the term "free market" is a misnomer. Markets HAVE to exist under laws, which set theplaying field. It is absolute BULLSHIT that Markets "work it out." Markets make money for people who HAVE money. And current policies? Well, for profits, it's all about the free market. Losses? Hell, those have to be socilaized, Fannie Mae anyone? Yeah. It. Is. Bullshit.

It goes to the fundamental difference between progressives and neocons. Neocons believe the value of our country is reflected in how well the richest of us are doing, progressives believe our value is reflected on how the poorest are doing.

Regarding taxes on business leading to jobs being shipped overseas: Obama's plan, according to his speech at the DNC, was to create tax incentives to those corporations that keep or create jobs here in America, and use taxes to penalize those that take jobs overseas. Whether you think that is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion but I don't think he said anything about tariffs.

Could you PLEASE reduce that down to a sound bite, Handel? The eyes of any Republicans reading this will simply glaze over at that many words devoted to a single, boring issue. Hell, there's no "USA" or "victory" or "eye-rack" anywhere to be seen in there!

Your average Republican will see "...use taxes to penalize...", translate it into "raise taxes" and "expand government", wonder what Rush has to say about the Clinton's involvement, and then look for the Tylenol because their head hurts.

If Palin is a pro-life MILF, does that mean you can fuck her without a rubber?

If Palin is a pro-life MILF, does that mean you can fuck her without a rubber?

Posted by: Sofía at September 5, 2008 5:48 PM

It means that's the only way you can fuck her.

Markets make money for anyone who has anything to sell. What is the difference between a company dominating a market because it is efficient enough that it can and the government taking over the market? Only that someone can have a chance to offer an alternative in the first case.

Losses happen in any market. Losses happen in the free market. Losses happen because of luck, because people get lazy, because people make bad decisions. Losses are not an indictment of the system, unless, I submit, they are built into the system the way that they are whenever the government tinkers with the economy. That's the stupidest false dichotomy. "Someone lost money in this system, so there must be something wrong with it." Bullshit. The system doesn't make the money, the people do, no matter which system it is. The difference is that when someone fucks up in capitalism, someone else can take advantage. When someone is screwing you over in capitalism, someone can come in and screw you over less and capture the market. It doesn't always happen instantly, but if someone is really bilking you that much, the opportunity to undercut them is always there... UNLESS they manage to manipulate government authority to keep anyone from doing it. But that is a fault of excess government, not of capitalism. You can't abuse or sell out power that isn't there. Look, seriously, everyone complains that big business corrupts government... and then the solution they come up with is to give government more power. Har de har har. Yes, this law will be the one that the businesses can't buy someone to twist or ignore.

And what do you mean "free market" is a misnomer? The free market isn't a system that people put in place or don't, the free market is what is: the exchange of goods and services at the price agreed on by the buyer and seller. Every piece of government regulation, incentive, subsidy, excise tax, all they do is change how you can use the free market, they don't replace it.

@Eep

Any "free market" requires constant government regulation in order to function - take anti-trust laws, bankruptcy laws, and contract enforcement. There is no null state for the economy, and the view that economics boils down to "government/regulations/taxes vs market" is a huge oversimplification.

Jake

I disagree. You say "needs"... in order to what? Trade would cease if there were no government intervention? Of course not. Trade preceded government. Government is what we are willing to give up in freedom and efficient trade in order to insure smooth trade and peaceful coexistence. Where we run into problems is when we start to believe that the sign of a properly operating system is that nobody fails. That's what starts us spinning out of control with government regulation, subsidies, etc., because we will never stop failure, and past a certain (arguable) point we will only make it more difficult for anyone to succeed.

Also, I would say that violation of contracts constitutes theft, not an aspect of trade that occurs when there is no regulation. As I said, free trade is the exchange of goods and services at agreed upon prices. If you agree to a price and then don't deliver the goods/services or the proxy (money), then you have stolen something, not used an aspect of free trade that the government thankfully curtails.

Get what I mean? Theft is not a part of free trade, it is a violation of free trade. Violating a contract is the same thing as stealing. It is of course a function of the government to arbitrate cases of theft, as it is a function of the government to arbitrate any case of harm to person or property.

As far as the anti-trust stuff goes, whoever said that monopolies aren't a part of free trade? Free trade is what happens naturally when government exercises no control over the market. Anti-trust laws do not create or protect free trade. They promote a more diverse market, but they are the opposite of free trade: they are regulation.

Every piece of government regulation, incentive, subsidy, excise tax, all they do is change how you can use the free market, they don't replace it.

Posted by: Eep at September 5, 2008 6:17 PM

I started to prepare an Econ 201 response, but then I drifted back down to your last line and realized that all we may have here is a failure to communicate.

What exactly do you mean when you say "free market"? A lot of your rhetoric seems geared toward a theoretical Adam Smith-type "free market", yet you also seem to conflate modern global capitalistic markets with "free markets" (which in reality are nothing of the sort). Which is it? I'll gladly debate you on either economic abstraction or on the merits of degrees of market freedom, but I'd much rather avoid trying to do both simultaneously.

P.S. Your screen name makes me chuckle; my German mother used "eep" as her slang/code term for penis (I have no idea if that's actual German slang or just her bipolar dual-citizenship shining through).

The gov't's role in the economy should be limited to the protection of property rights. The judiciary branch of the gov't should handle this through the processing of law suits.

Attempts to manipulate the economy through the expansion and contraction of the money supply (the fed setting interest rates), gov't spending and taxes, market regulation, etc. have proven to be counter-effective far more often than not.

@Some Guy -- Earlier you asked how can someone not credit bush for the success of the economy post 9-11 and simultaneously blame him for the current mess. while i am not going to attempt to blame bush entirely for our current crisis, i will say that that question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the predicament we are in now. our economy is on the verge of falling into a chasm BECAUSE of the excesses earlier this decade. the housing market is collapsing BECAUSE it was allowed (or, more accurately, urged) to expand at an unrealistic rate for far too long (thats what a bubble is). financial institutions are failing BECAUSE of relaxed lending standards that created the boom of credit-based consumption that fueled our bubble of GDP.

now i dont necessarily put this blame on bush (i consider greenspan the primary culprit). i am just pointing out the problem with your logic in that question.

There are two main reasons why McCain chose Palin that make her spectacle: 1) pregnant 17 year old daughter, anyone? hot 18 year old that impregnanted her daughter anyone...comments?, 2) OIL OIL OIL!!! DRILLING!!!! in off the Alaska National Park! YES! Anyone? Yeah, more gas for us to consume. Her anti-abortion, pro-abstinence stance is quite deplorable. Did you notice all audience at the RNC that night were white? It's sure hard not too!

What's the difference between Sarah Palin and
George W. Bush?

Lipstick.

I'm sure many people watched for the same reason they watch NASCAR - they were hoping for the flaming wreck. As for McCain's ratings, the carry over viewers from the NFL game on NBC helped.

Wow! Some valid points, but more hyperbole and venom. Maybe we should remember this:

"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection." - George Washington

-- "I'm guessing that McCain's speech drew at least 8 or 9 million fewer viewers than Palin's speech."

I don't feel like getting into another flame war with Crazy Mary, but...

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B043FDC12%2DA2D2%2D433A%2DB910%2DED41AD132571%7D&siteid=rss

Ahhh liberals. Are you going to screw this up too?

Ah, it is as I said . . . American politics, my favorite blood sport. As a fan, of course.

Many years ago there was a series on PBS, televising brilliantly facilitated discussions of actual hard issues. The host was a law professor at one of the better schools. The panel always included about 10 folks, with knowledge and actual positions on the hard topic. The host would pose questions, spinning scenarios, and changing the scenario a little to exxplore the issue and more important the ways of reasoning about it. That was a prof I'd like to have had.

The best of the series was titled Hard Drugs, Hard Choices. The panel discussion of that topic, as broadcast, ran 240 minutes - 4 hour-long episodes. Why? Because entirely unlike the War on Terror (Can you even have a war on an emotion?), or the invasion of Iraq, or the sternwheel spatterings of crazed hummingbirds that are the political mewlings here and now, thought, consideration and actual listening went into the discussions.

To be clear, this is not a diatribe against the current administration alone. A pox upon all your houses - fabricators of false urgency & deniers of actual present malafece, imperial, imperious executives, and the spineless enablers who let them.

We get candidates like these because as a polity we deserve them, indeed we insist upon their like. We get the "discussions" virtiolic, knee-jerk, and unresolved that we also deserve. Indeed, on most of the "third rail" issues no fact-based position can help but muster the bile of both sides.

It's a diverse country. Start by respecting that other opinions have their reasons. Seek first to understand and maybe, just maybe, we'll get a crow come to help a soul put the wrong things right.

Until then, it's Devil's night, people.

Start by respecting that other opinions have their reasons. Seek first to understand

It's a valid point for anybody. You'll notice I was asking for actual reasons and opinions on specific things earlier, rather than vague taunting with unknown motivations. Didn't go too well, but...I try.

Oh. My. God.

I weep for the future.

Maryscott, so do I.

And I don't think there's too much of it left, which makes it all the sadder.

Che
Without going back and reading all my comments, I'm pretty sure that I was referring throughout to a market without government regulation. To be perfectly honest I haven't read Adam Smith, or even P.J. O'Rourke on Adam Smith, so I couldn't tell you if that's his position.

As far as the conflation goes, unless you're talking about a different part of my comments, I'm saying that there is always a free market, you can only restrict how people use it. What I was getting at is that the free market is what is being used whenever a transaction takes place, though you may have to make that trade in a certain way because of legislation. Legislation and control is not an alternative to free trade, it's a modification of it.

Think of a river. Commerce flows up and down the river. If you add locks and dams to the river, they change the way that commerce flows, and usually (at least in the immediate sense) slow its passage, though they might increase safety at certain points, or allow larger traffic than the stream itself originally allowed, what have you. Those are like regulation. They are a system imposed on parts of the river. But they don't change the fact that it is a river.

I suppose some might think of it as a semantic difference and claim that as soon as you impose any sort of regulation the free market no longer exists, but I think it makes more sense to think of it my way because the underlying thing doing most of the work and having the largest effect is always the underlying free market. Placing one or even thousands of government regulations on how you use it doesn't mean that you've constructed a competing system, you've just changed how people are allowed to access the free market. If people weren't making choices and conducting commerce based on their own needs to the extent they are allowed, they would end up with a bunch of crap that didn't suit their personal needs and needing a bunch of stuff that they weren't allowed to buy.

Well said, BierceAmbrose. That show sounds amazing, like the opposite of Hannity and Colmes.

I appreciate the well thought-out response, Eep, especially the river metaphor. I think you're right about our differences being largely semantic, at least at this point.

You suggest that a "free market" with regulations is still "free" (as you implied that a river with dams and locks is still a river). I think the operative word over which we disagree is "free". Using your metaphor, you actually start with a "wild river" or "untamed river" and are left with a "river" after it is dammed; similarly, I believe you are left with a "market" after a "free market" is regulated. Since there are very few markets these days -- especially in the industrial world -- that are untouched by regulation, I would assert that "market forces" are responsible for the behavior that you attribute to "free markets".

It's a small difference, to be sure, but it enables a conversation about a theoretically free market relative to the conversation about markets as they exist today. I get exasperated quickly when I engage people -- usually Republican -- in such a discussion and have to listen to blather about our "free markets". Thus, I just wanted to clear this hurdle before we got any farther into it.

Having said all that, now I have to figure out where we are with respect to the actual issue that triggered all this expository discussion. Clearly, someone invoked the charged words "free market" and "free trade"...

What's the difference between Sarah Palin and
George W. Bush?

Lipstick

(cue porno soundtrack) Oh! And tits! And...umm...sexy librarian glasses. Oh yeah, baby! Who's been naughty. Overdue books? We don't do fines here, we're all about (test smacks leather belt) DISCIPLINE! Now, after each stroke, say "thank you, may I have another, Iraq was a great idea." Say it! (soundtrack stops with the screech of scratched vinyl)

Other than sex appeal, not a single damned bit of difference. Equally vacuous craniums, zealotry that would lead to institutionalisation anywhere else...

But oh, those glasses...

But oh, those glasses...

Right on, lordhelmet. All this partisan bickering, and we forgot the true issue here: whether or not Palin is worth sexing up.

Because if I have learned anything in my years on this earth it is this: The penis is the true bipartisan.

Dammit, I answered this already.

They're ugly glasses, canceling out the spectacle appeal. "No glasses" would score more points than those frames. She's got negative points. Invisible rimless lenses and some thick black straight lines on your nose and temples?

No.

I kinda like the hairstyle but I just can't respect those frames. I'm more sexy librarian than SHE is!

Oh...uh...excuse me. I get passionate about these things.

Jay, as a lifetime 4-eyes I can't totally disagree with you, but since there's precious few 4-eyed high-profile and high-visibility people, I'll take what I can get, k? I sure wouldn't mind her upgrading those frames but it's a good start for my fantasies. Oh, and Verm, let's not forget that, as a VP candidate, sexing up is about the only thing that Palin is good for. 'Cause even a bipartisan penis has gotta have some standards!

Oh, I forgot:

Bill / Opus '08. Ack / Thpppppppt!

"If Palin is a pro-life MILF, does that mean you can fuck her without a rubber?"

"We forgot the true issue here: whether or not Palin is worth sexing up."

Oookay. So I'm not one to pick fights, but I'm getting really fucking tired of people completely sexualizing and demeaning this woman. She's accomplished more in her 40-plus years than any of us ever will, and, like her or dislike her, people should be somewhat respectful. The fact that she wears a skirt and has boobs does not make her some porn star deserving of all these tacky comments. I don't mind when people talk about women in a sexual way - especially if they are in an industry in which their sexuality is a big selling point. But this woman is a governor and a candidate for Vice President of the United States. She is out there promoting herself in an entirely professional, non-sexual way, and all half of you want to talk about is her tits. Apparently we think this is appropriate because she's a Republican and we therefore don't have to take her seriously? I'm sorry, it still sucks.

Disappointed in you, Pajiba. Boo.

And the pithy gay man agrees with me!

http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2008/09/simon_doonan_feels_for_levi_jo.html

I thought I was on record that I don't care much about breasts. I care about accessories! I do hear ya, tt, but I also think there's no real appeal worth talking about. I'd rather talk about her being a sarcastic, hypocritical, double-standard, sheltered, librarian-intimidating asshole, but I'm seriously gonna need to find a Power-Up chip or a basket of Boston Terrier puppies or something because all my rage is exhausting me. Maybe she'll just vanish. Plus I've got an ulcer healing and I'm annoyed that I'm not letting myself have any pizza or beer for at least two weeks. GAH!

tt_marie, sexualising Palin is the only way I can say anything positive about her - yes, she's risen to greater heights than I'm likely to, but that doesn't in and of themselves make those heights better, especially given her (alleged) misconduct in those positions. Tack on her hypocrisy, double standards, attempted censorship, unthinking agreement with her wack-job pastor (and president!), let alone her near-meritless appointment to VP candidate, and there's really very little there to inspire any kind of positive treatment. I consider myself a feminist guy, enthusiastically behind equal pay and equal treatment and opportunity and protection before the law, but her energetic abandonment of any rational principles and abdication of basic feminist/egalitarian principles in my mind removes her from any sort of protection from my scorn. Heaps of burning scorn, make that. So rather than fighting seriously over her (when she herself isn't serious, at least in good faith), I will trivialise her by pointing out the only appeal she has left, and refrain from being adequately insulting to be misinterpreted as questioning her worth as a human being. Hopefully, by laughing long enough, she'll go away. If she cares to respond rationally and stand up and face her critics without running away and hiding behind FOX's apron strings, I might relent. As long as Palin and her puppet masters handlers continue to disrespect feminism, rationality, and the rule of law, (with due respect and apologies to women elsewhere), she and they will continue to receive my complete lack of serious regard and respect.

lordhelmet - I'd much MUCH rather hear serious talk about her qualifications or stances on important issues than about her looks/boobs/etc. All I'm saying is she deserves to be roasted or praised on the same basis as her male counterparts. It is sort of hypocritical to say Republicans disrespect feminism and then talk about the only female on the ticket in such a manner. People can support feminist causes or platforms 'till the cows come home, but until they actually start treating women equally and respectfully on an individual basis (when they actually interact with or talk about them), it just doesn't matter very much. I'm sure you didn't like Bush four years ago, but I highly doubt that you talked about how he'd be in bed. That's all I'm saying.

I get that this is a way to trivialize the Republican ticket, but I don't think it should be done at the cost of trivializing women in politics. Stick to making fun of McCain for being old or Bush for being stupid. To cut Palin's legs out from under her because of her looks and her gender is just plain sexist.

Again, I'm just trying to convey my feelings on the subject - nothing against you personally, lordhelmet, I promise.

So I'm not one to pick fights, but I'm getting really fucking tired of people completely sexualizing and demeaning this woman (...) Apparently we think this is appropriate because she's a Republican and we therefore don't have to take her seriously?

Posted by: Boo

I have to kindly disagree with you. Obviously the MILF comments were submitted to lighten the mood a little bit; things were getting too political (and that's fine) and maybe we just wanted to have a laugh. Not because of Palin. She's a MILF who just happens to be a Republican, just as Tina Fey is a MILF (and the flyest woman in the bizz) who happens to be a Democrat. Palin's political colors have nothing to do with this. I was raised in a conservative home, and although I don't share the same beliefs, I respect their stances because obviously they have thought things over before deciding what they want to be (or one should hope so).

As a woman, I am not offended when somebody gets called a MILF. Hell, Palin has accomplished a heck of a lot in very little time, and on top of that she's hot? That's a good thing. She's a conservative with a pregnant teen and she still has the guts to run for VP of the most powerful country in the world. Of course we acknowledge her merits, but you have to keep in mind that everything that's been said fits in a context. This is a mostly liberal site, and if I'm not mistaking, female readers are a majority. So I will kindly suggest you turn it over in your mind a couple of times before being disappointed in Pajiba and its eloquents, because we want to discuss politics intelligently and be irreverent at the same time.

Aaah, I screwed up. My above commented was directed at tt_marie

Sorry!

I don't think it should be done at the cost of trivializing women in politics.

The nomination of Sarah Palin trivializes women in politics.

No one's talking about important, relevant things because she won't let anyone ask.

Palin not 'scared' to answer questions: McCain campaign

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080907/pl_afp/usvotepalin_080907190329;_ylt=AuViqIC7pgXWfhqHlVFuD1nCw5R4

For all of her speech's arrogance, the Pit Bull's handlers are whining up a storm. And you can't expect serious journalism if you freeze out serious journalists. We'll see what Charlie Gibson does.

I couldn't give a shit what chromosomes a candidate's packin, it'll earn neither my scorn nor respect.

The nomination of Sarah Palin trivializes women in politics.

Damn straight!

And tt_marie, I get your pain on her being made fun of in a unique manner that her male counterparts aren't, but short of calling McCain a Hugh Hefner wannabe (actually, that's not half bad), the sexist shots at the male candidates just kinda fall short or hang limp, and don't convey nearly the same scorn nearly as effectively. Bush has never been referred to in my house without a "fucking" and/or "dumbass" attached. If I were to similarly excoriate Palin I'd be accused of being threatened by her being a woman - no, I'm threatened by a thoroughly unqualified lunatic being a heartbeat away from running the biggest arsenal on the planet. Her nomination is a blatant ploy, and a political ass-grab - she wasn't nominated on the same criteria as other male candidates were judged by, she was judged by her gender first and her unthinking loyalty second, lack of qualifications (and abundance of scandal) be damned. It pains me to do it, since I'd love to see a serious, qualified, female candidate, but not only for the good of the nation (and world) but for the good of women in politics, this mad dog needs to be put down, hard. Nothing personal on this end, either.