AmericanPapist Comments
Does anyone think that Sarah Palin is qualified to be president? Or, rather, is she a race-bating hate monger schismatic?
lies gay sex domestic terrorist you betcha hussein hate talking points there you again lack of syntax contraception no political future unamerican dishonorable perversion of religion teenage sex retaliatory firings unlawful lies shill lololol say it aint so
Frank,
You betcha. And no.
"retaliatory firings unlawful"
She was cleared in that report. It just came out. But that won't matter. It's the seriousness of the charge, not that she is not guilty, that matters, right?
The Attuned Lightworker: showing us how it's done.
If Palin and a pundit with the rep of Laura Ingraham realize that this issue is probably the most differentiating between Obama and McCain, and that it is getting too little attention...
...then McCain has obviously made the strategic decision not to talk about it except to groups of known supporters.
Get a clue McCain, you're losing the swing voters on the big issues, and Obama's domestic terrorist friend isn't swinging them your way. You could easily call into question Obama's judgment on ALL ISSUES by talking about his being in denial of scientific fact on life issues.
I've never had real confidence in you, Senator, and you're not helping me have more, not by a long shot.
Not that I'm going to vote for Obama. But man, am I considering not voting for you, either. Obama can't win my state, thank God, but you'll win my state by a smaller margin than you ought, and you ought to think about that.
Doc Angelus:
McCain is courting the PUMA vote, and many of them are pro abortion.
I think he is betting that his record and Sarah Palin's example speak well enough of their pro life stance in contrast with Obama's.
I must question your rationalization in witholding your vote. Voter registration fraud is rampant, all of which support Obama.
We need all the "anti Obama" votes we can muster to counter this effort. Your whining about McCain's campaign tactics is a poor reason to allow Obama to win.
Buck up, and think of your country first.
Mike, I belive Ann was actually mocking Frank by typing a word cloud of common talking points about Palin (see: race-baiting hate monger schismatic).
As an aside: race-baiting? Really? Who has thrown the race card so many times in this campaign that there have to be at least three decks of them?
Andy,
Yeah, Ann seems to be making fun of that. I felt like taking the point on, because others believe it.
Ann is an illiterate troll.
Best to treat them like pimples; ignore them, and they'll go away.
Atheling, think before you speak. But I feel your frustration.
I will vote. I will vote against Obama.
I am thinking of my country first. Shame on you. I am really tempted to put some off-color language in here, I'm really upset you could accuse me of selfishness and calling me a whiner.
And in putting my country first, I'm voting against the Demoncrats.
But for the exact same reason, I may not vote for McCain. (NOTE the use of "may.")
Because, frankly, he's not that great. And the Republicans have to know, I'm a Catholic and a Republican by default. I have no love of Republican-ism nor of most Republicans; and they have to realize that they need to put up better candidates. For the sake of the country.
I live in Wyoming. McCain will win it regardless of how I vote. Unless there's many others who feel like I do. The Republicans should sit up and take notice, though: They're winning the red states by smaller margins then they should and losing the swing states.
It's disgraceful.
The frustration that's being voiced by McCain's audiences suggests that such disappointment with him is rampant.
Also, how people who have voted Republican in the last few elections are not voting Republican in this one. They liked previous Republican candidates, but not McCain.
Hint, hint, Republican party members.
And, strategically, he's doing something wrong because he's tanking. I know a thing or two about marketing strategy, and campaigning is a kind of marketing, and I'm not impressed with McCain's strategic moves. Some of his tactics have been good, but strategically, he's flailing in the water.
Believe, I wish he weren't.
He's not especially pro-life. Palin is. Palin isn't running for President.
He has thrown pro-lifers a bone in picking Palin, to shut them up. To inspire them to talk like you, Atheling.
But that's all Palin is, a bone to throw. He really hasn't used her--strategically or tactically--to his fullest advantage.
He's got a pro-life plank as a position to hold and not as a goal to be achieved. He has no discernible plans to do anything.
So, if he loses, it's his own darn fault.
And, by the way, I can vote however the heck I want.
So stop your own darn whining about possibly losing votes like mine and look at the fact that the Republicans haven't put forward an especially wonderful candidate. I think he'd make a mediocre president. Better in certain respects than Obama, for sure, but he's uninspiring and uninspired.
Again, if the Republicans lose, it'll be their own fault.
I find it odd that Catholics keep telling themselves, "he is pro-life, he is pro-life, he IS pro-life" as if it were true, or as if repeating it would make it true.
I want to believe it, too. So I hope he does something soon to change my mind.
But more importantly, he has to change the minds of folks in Ohio and Virginia and North Carolina (SHAME on any Republic
Well, my previous post hit the limit I guess. I forgot what the rest of it was.
And, for the record, I admit that I'm ignorant of who PUMA is or why they're so important to court that McCain would willingly lose tens of millions of Catholic votes in Ohio and Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
Some sort of brilliant strategy, I guess.
I found PUMA, finally, after doing an advanced search screening out "shoes" etc.
So, NOW I get it! McCain is more worried about appealing to liberal Demoncrats pissed off that Hillary lost than he is to conservative Republicans! Why? Cause we have no where else to go! Great reason to vote for the man.
Puts the selection of Palin in a whole new light, too.
Boosts my confidence in the guy greatly, let me tell ya.
Maybe you should get out more, Doc:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/462772.aspx
Well, gee, Atheling, in your erudition and my cave-dwelling, I hope you noticed that the dateline is, hey! TODAY. Today's events don't change the past, wiseguy.
Like the author of the article says, "You have to wonder why the McCain campaign hasn’t been trying to pummel Obama on the abortion issue up until now."
He wonders, and so do I, because it's a great idea they haven't been doing, and that McCain himself still isn't doing and hasn't for, oh, the last 10 months. His whole career, in fact.
I hope this continues and I hope it makes a difference. Believe me.
But for now, I'm taking it as another bone thrown at pro-lifers. It doesn't prove anything--yet.
You can sharpen your fangs if you like. I'm waiting for the meat, thanks.
Actually, I agree with much of what Doc A. wrote. McCain is the BEST the Republicans could put up? Really? Doc, you said it best when you said you are a Catholic first, and Republican by default. I also agree that the pro-life vote is taken for granted by the Repubs. I am not voting for McCain nor will I vote for Obama. I really wish a "no confidence" vote were available.
Nerina--
"No confidence" is what I'll be writing in on my ballot. One or the other of them will win; either would be awful. If Obama takes it, it's not because I didn't up and vote fro McCain; it's because McCain lost his race.
If you're in a swing state, and McCain steps up to the plate in the next couple of weeks, seriously consider voting for him.
But that doesn't mean he's a great candidate.
"Republican by default". Never looked at it that way, but so true for many Catholics.
It has been my experience that, in a presidential election, the choice has nearly always been between bad and worse. Never has the choice been between good and better. Only twice have I had a choice between good and bad.
Doc,
I live in New York so you know what color my state is. I guess this way I know my vote doesn't make one bit of difference anyway.
"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda."
S.A., anyone who refuses to protect innocent life lacks the wisdom to lead and the moral authority to speak about any other issue. I.e., give me Palin (who is not running for president) with her penchant for firing state troopers over Obama (who is running for president) any day.
By the way, the report also said she acted within her constitutional and legal prerogatives of her office. Perhaps the commission overstepped its authority in making subjective assessments of what happened.
I.e., if it was "impermissible pressure" then she violated some statute or regulation or something that defines what is permissible and impermissible pressure. "Impermissible" implies an authority (such as the law) higher than the governor's office. I mean, who says it's impermissible? The report should have used a word like, "inappropriate" or "unusual" or "irregular" or something, if the pressure were out of synch with what is commonly or customarily done.
Therefore the report is self-contradictory. Either she acted within the law or she did not.
And besides, did you ever count how many Clinton administration personnel died suddenly and mysteriously under Clinton?
And finally, anyone who refuses to protect
It was also an investigation run by Democrats, not by people who are independent. That doesn't mean the people running the investigation got anything wrong, but what came out, right before the election, raises a cloud of doubt that could have been avoided by having a special prosecutor named, or by holding off publishing the results until after the election.
Didn't one of the dems on the report say "get ready for an October surprise."?
Furthermore, I find it hard to swallow that Sarah Palin was unethical because she didn't put enough pressure and Todd (an adult and a private citizen of Alaska, completely free to contact reps. as a private citizen) etc.
This coming from a commission run by men who are clearly political opponents of Mrs. Palin. A commission they released RIGHT before the election. Should they be investigated for ethics violations?
Meant "on Todd".
"Should they be investigated for ethics violations?"
No, they're Democrats. Dems don't commit ethics violations.
Speaking of ethics violations, the Associated(with Obama) Press is reporting that President Bush took a "Mulligan" on the 14th tee last week, and that Nancy Pelosi has promised to launch a full investigation...as soon as she finds out what a "Mulligan" is.
Yeah, and the dems just might put regulations on the number of holes one can play...
Commenting by HaloScan
