Governor Sarah Palin accused “Obama-Biden Democrats,” of launching a series of unfair attacks against she and her family in a fundraising email sent to supporters Monday.Well, it was nice of CNN to save me the trouble of pointing out that not only has Obama never said a bad word about her family, he went out of his way to defend her family. And even a nice link, too.“Friends, in the course of a few weeks, the Obama-Biden Democrats have launched attack after attack on me, my family and John McCain,” Palin writes in the email. “They’re desperate to win and they’ll no doubt launch these attacks against other reformers on our ticket.”
Watch: Obama says discussion of Sarah Palin's family is 'off-limits'
...
“We must stop them,” Palin writes, “…before they turn these shameful tactics on others we support.”
Earlier this month when Obama was asked about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, the Illinois senator repeated previous calls that “people’s families are off-limits.”
“This shouldn’t be part of our politics,” Obama said “It has no relevance to show Governor Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president.”
Sarah Palin is a dishonorable, shameless liar -- no wonder McCain called her his "soulmate". (Isn't there some commandment that covers this sort of thing?)
10 comments:
Just another one you your many symptoms of PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome).
She did not accuse Obama or Biden -- she accused "Obama Biden Democrats." Juat what do you interpret the phrase "Obama-Biden Democrats" to mean? She's obviously referring to democrats who support Obama-Biden.
You've heard of the term "Reagan Democrats" haven't you. Do you really think that someone who uses the term Reagan Democrats is referring to Ronald Reagan?
And what about the term "Clinton Democrats?" I'm sure Obama has used that term a lot recently. Do you think he's referring to Hillary Clinton?
Is there any evidence that Obama or Biden is taking this personally?
"Just another one you your many symptoms of PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome)."
The real derangement is on the part of anyone who supports the election of Sarah Palin. The 'syndrome' is on the part of people like you, who care about winning an election only, no matter what it takes.
"She did not accuse Obama or Biden -- she accused "Obama Biden Democrats." Juat what do you interpret the phrase "Obama-Biden Democrats" to mean? She's obviously referring to democrats who support Obama-Biden."
She's also quite clearly trying to tie Obama and Biden directly to a very tiny handful of people who have gone after her family, when she knows quite well that Obama and Biden have defended her.
I stand by my statement: Sarah Palin is a lying, dishonorable bitch.
The real derangement is on the part of anyone who supports the election of Sarah Palin. The 'syndrome' is on the part of people like you, who care about winning an election only, no matter what it takes.
When you asked me not to mischaracterize your positions in a previous post, I apologized.
Now you are mischaracterizing me. I do not only care about winning an election. I am more informed about the candidates and issues in this election than 99.9% of the electorate. I have analyzed the candidates, and the issues, and compared them to my own values as a citizen. I have concluded that John McCain is the candidate that I support. I am willing to concede that you can look at the same exact facts and come to a different conclusion. But please don't tell me that all I care about is winning an election.
"Now you are mischaracterizing me."
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
For starters, you started out by accusing me of "Palin Derangement Syndrome". Did you expect my response to include flowers and chocolate?
"I am willing to concede that you can look at the same exact facts and come to a different conclusion. But please don't tell me that all I care about is winning an election."
If you say that Sarah Palin was a political choice who is bad for the country but you're supporting McCain anyway and praying for his health, I can accept that. (Barely.)
But you actively defend Palin, and that either means you are a partisan hack or you are completely UNinformed about her. There are no other options. Sarah Palin is not an example of somebody that one merely disagrees with over issues. She is an insulting, dangerous farce, and I cannot respect anyone who defends or justifies her candidacy.
"For starters, you started out by accusing me of "Palin Derangement Syndrome". Did you expect my response to include flowers and chocolate??
It wasn't an insult, Charles. If you knew your stuff, you would realize that "Palin Derangement Syndrome" is a take off on the very popular phrase "Bush Derangement Syndrome."
BDS is a popular term used to describe the hatred of Bush and his policies, and leads opposition to any position advocated by Bush, for no other reason than Bush happens to be for it.
Your clear hatred of Palin qualifies you as a PDS suspect. If Palin said she believed in gravity, you would find a way to criticize her.
She's also quite clearly trying to tie Obama and Biden directly to a very tiny handful of people who have gone after her family, when she knows quite well that Obama and Biden have defended her.
Notice, readers, how Charles has ignored the point that Palin was not specifically referring to Obama and Biden, but rather to their supporters. And that's because when Charles read the term "Obama Biden Democrats," he failed to take into account that the term "XYZ Democrats" has often been used to characterize people who support XYZ, as in "Reagan Democrats" (democrats who supported Ronald Reagan) or "Clinton Democrats" (Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton).
That was a nice try to cover up your failure to recognize the difference between Obama-Biden and Obama-Biden Democrats. But who can blame you Charles -- you were probably reading with your Obama blinders on.
"very tiny handful of people who have gone afer her family."
Please Charles, you can't be serious.
But you actively defend Palin, and that either means you are a partisan hack or you are completely UNinformed about her. There are no other options.
And now the true character of Obama supporters comes through loud and clear. If there is one thing I have noticed about Obama supporters, it's that they can't fathom how someone could possibly disagree with them. Either you're a partisan hack or completely uninformed. Well I'm neither.
I have read everything there is to read about Sarah Palin (pro and con), and yes, I like her and support her candidacy. I have based my decision on where she stands on the issues and what she has done in her political career. Furthermore, so do millions of Americans. But then again, I guess we're all just misinformed.
"It wasn't an insult, Charles."
"Derangement" implies that I am insane. I guess on your planet that's not an insult?
"If you knew your stuff, you would realize that "Palin Derangement Syndrome" is a take off on the very popular phrase "Bush Derangement Syndrome.""
Of course I know that. I gave you the same response that I do when right-wingers use "Bush Derangement Syndrome", because it's equally invalid.
People like me were pointing out Bush's stupidity, cluelessness, lies, corruption and abuse of power years ago. "Bush Derangement Syndrome" was used by people who didn't want to honestly look at the man, to try to hand-wave away valid complaints about him.
Now 80% of Americans have figured out what some of us learned more quickly.
The same is true of "Palin Derangement Syndrome". It is not "deranged" to be concerned about a vapid, empty shell of a woman being VP to a 72-year-old man with a history of cancer who is showing signs of senility. It is not "deranged" to observe that Palin lies freely and happily and doesn't even respond to people pointing out that she lies. It is not "deranged" to look back at her history and see that she has a pattern of cronyism and power abuse. It is not "deranged" to see that her world view and politics are directly shaped by religious crackpottery.
It is deranged to IGNORE all of those things.
"If Palin said she believed in gravity, you would find a way to criticize her."
Bullshit.
I have been very specific about what I criticize Palin over. People like you have NO valid responses to this, so you make up straw men like saying "I would criticize gravity" or "Palin Derangement Syndrome".
Same crap that occurred with Bush, and for the same reasons.
"Notice, readers, how Charles has ignored the point that Palin was not specifically referring to Obama and Biden, but rather to their supporters."
Duh. I already answered this charge.
She mentioned them by name specifically in an attempt to tie them to a tiny fringe of their supporters. And hell, some of the people she mentioned *weren't even Democrats*.
It is a well-known propaganda technique. Perhaps you are dumb enough to fall for it -- I am not.
"That was a nice try to cover up your failure to recognize the difference between Obama-Biden and Obama-Biden Democrats."
And a very bad try on your part to try to pretend her use of that phrasing wasn't a deliberate attempt to portray Obama and Biden as being involved with, or supporting the attacks on her family, when she knows the exact opposite is true.
But that's okay, I don't expect honesty from anyone who would support such a transparently dishonest candidate.
"Please Charles, you can't be serious."
Completely serious.
"Either you're a partisan hack or completely uninformed. Well I'm neither."
The more you write, the more it becomes clear that you are *both*.
"I have based my decision on where she stands on the issues and what she has done in her political career."
So you support her trying to get books banned?
Conducting "cleansing" campaigns to remove "disloyal" public servants?
Inheriting a mayor's job without debt and leaving it millions in the hole?
Screwing up her only major project as mayor?
Charging rape victims for evidence kits?
Lying about the bridge to nowhere?
Lying about earmarks?
Slashing funding for special needs children?
Lying and obstructing justice with regard to Troopergate?
You got any answers for these? Because Palin sure doesn't.
"Furthermore, so do millions of Americans. But then again, I guess we're all just misinformed."
Either that, or you just don't care about the most corrupt, unqualified, ignorant, dishonest person ever being put on a major ticket being elected to office.
I read a few liberal and conservative blogs and I generally find it amusing to check in on what the partisan hacks on both sides are saying. Your blog posts show a fair bit of economic and historical ignorance (every time you say Palin would be the least qualified/least vetted/most corrupt VP in history Garret Hobart rolls over in his grave and Spiro Agnew high fives Dick Cheney), but they are otherwise well written and occasionally contain interesting nuggets of news. Problem is, your personality, especially in the comments section, ruins the fun. You come off in a way that I typically only see from diehard republicans (you remind me a lot of that ass Limbaugh). You have such a sneering, unpleasant sort of partisanship, to the point that anyone who disagrees with you must immediately be insulted. You condescendingly mock the use of GOP talking points, while using Dem talking points in every comment you make. I find the whole thing offensive Chaz, and it reeks of a willful lack of understanding of the whole message behind Obama. Where is the reaching across the aisle, or the different kind of politics, or the audacity of hope? These aren't the comments of a supporter of an enlightened campaign that sought to rise above the fray - they're the comments of the worst sort of old school partisan. You said that baseballcoach (who seems to be a genuine enough guy) cared only about winning the campaign, but that seems to describe you much more than him.
The thing about it is, I'm sure you're reading this and already gearing up the response: hack, transparent, idiot, hack, childish, idiot, blah blah blah. The truth is that I am a registered democrat who held off switching my registration to my new blue state so that I could still cast a much-needed Obama vote in my old battleground state. I just happen to have the ability to open my eyes and look at both sides honestly, something that is wholly lacking here. You refuse to understand that Obama lies too and makes mistakes and is also hiding from difficult situations and says uh because he is not a skilled off-the-cuff speaker yet, etc etc. He is still a better candidate imo, but you have gone off the deep end with your blind support of him and your inability to understand that lots of people who are much smarter than you and better informed than you and way more objective than you still support McCain. Anyway, I won't be coming around anymore, your mean spirited comments have scared me off, but I would feel remiss if I didn't share my feelings and cast a measure of moral support to bbc, who seems intent to continue these back and forths with you despite your toxic attitude.
"I find the whole thing offensive"
Well, sorry. The purpose of this blog is for me to express my views openly and honestly. When I'm happy, I say I'm happy. When I'm angry, I say I'm angry. No "PC", no punches pulled, and no bullshit.
That said, I am generally respectful towards those who treat me likewise. "baseballcoach" really does not.
If you don't like it, well, lots of other fish in the sea and all that.
"These aren't the comments of a supporter of an enlightened campaign that sought to rise above the fray"
Sorry, I've never really bought in to that rot very much. I am not a starry-eyed Obama fan, never have been, and I've made that clear many times. I'm not even a Democrat, and likely will not even vote for Obama personally.
"You refuse to understand that Obama lies too and makes mistakes"
I understand it and I've pointed it before. As I said, I call things as I see them. For example, calling out a bogus 'race card' claim made by an Obama supporter.
"you have gone off the deep end with your blind support of him"
Again -- I do not blindly support Obama. I support him strongly because John McCain has proven over the last two months that he is dangerous and unfit for office. That's all.
"your mean spirited comments have scared me off"
Sorry. Well, no, actually, I'm not. If you want lots of mushy Rodney King "can't we all get along" nonsense, you can find it anywhere.
I don't have time to address all of your allegations, but here are the facts regarding some of them.
So you support her trying to get books banned?
She asked a rhetorical question of the librarian. There was never any list of books to be banned. See Fact Check
Inheriting a mayor's job without debt and leaving it millions in the hole?
The city went into debt to build the $15 million Wasilla Sports Center. Wasilla got a $15 million sports center, and got a mortgage for it. The city, like all cities, took on some long term debt to pay for the project. It also got a capital asset. When you buy a house, you do it with a mortgage; when a city builds a sports complex, it does it by setting up bonds and a tax base to service the bonds. Same thing. The bonds were approved by a special election by the people in Wasilla. And the city of Wasilla is paying off the debt early.
When you bought your house, Charles, did you leave your family in debt?
Screwing up her only major project as mayor?
At the time it was built, Wasilla had a Federal judge’s decision that they had title to the land. After construction started, the judge reversed his decision.
Charging rape victims for evidence kits?
There is no evidence that Palin was aware that the police department was charging rape victims for evidence kits. Not a single person has said that they ever had a discussion with Palin about this. Palin's spokesperson says the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." See Fact Check
Lying about the bridge to nowhere?
A timeline of events:
1. Congress votes on a bill authorizing funding for highways. The bill includes funds earmarked for Bridge to Nowhere.
2. Palin expressed support for the bridge while running for office.
3. Before Palin is elected, congress revised the appropriations bill, strips the earmarks from the bridges, and allots that money to the Alaska Department of Transportation with no strings attached. The money may, but need not, be used to build the bridges. It can also be used for other transportation-related projects.
4. Palin chose not to use the money for the bridge, instead using it for Alaskan infrastructure.
Palin did not "fail to return the money" -- Congress gave it to the Alaska DOT. She rejected the Bridge - It was not built. See Fact Check
Slashing funding for special needs children?
Outright Lie. Palin actually increased funding by 175%. See Fact Check
Lying and obstructing justice with regard to Troopergate?
Nothing has been proven. It is an ongoing investigation, and to draw any conclusions about the outcome is irresponsible. After reading the facts, many people, including me, believe that she will be cleared of all charges. I think it would be best if you wait for the conclusion of the investigation before rendering judgement.
"She asked a rhetorical question of the librarian. There was never any list of books to be banned. See Fact Check"
Your own link paints a rather different story. The "rhetorical question" angle was Palin's.
She shouldn't be asking such questions at all. I guess you don't care much about the first amendment.
"The city went into debt to build the $15 million Wasilla Sports Center. Wasilla got a $15 million sports center, and got a mortgage for it."
And she left the town $20 million in debt, not $15 million.
"At the time it was built, Wasilla had a Federal judge’s decision that they had title to the land. After construction started, the judge reversed his decision."
Utter nonsense. Who do you think you are fooling here?
"Charging rape victims for evidence kits?
There is no evidence that Palin was aware that the police department was charging rape victims for evidence kits."
LOL. Of course not.
You Republicans tell us Palin has 'executive experience' but apparently she's not responsible for anything she did as an executive.
Keep bending over backwards to try to defend your hero.
"Palin's spokesperson says"
Who cares?
"She rejected the Bridge - It was not built."
She's pretending that she rejected it because she opposes pork, but she actually rejected the bridge only when it became a political hot potato.
That's dishonest.
From your own link: "As we said above, Palin is still using the discredited "thanks, but no thanks" line, which implies that Congress gave Alaska money for the bridge and that Palin rejected it."
Lying.
"Slashing funding for special needs children?"
I stand corrected on that one, thank you.
"Nothing has been proven. It is an ongoing investigation, and to draw any conclusions about the outcome is irresponsible."
The outcome hasn't been determined yet, but the fact that Palin is trying to obstruct the investigation is undeniable.
Post a Comment