Thursday, September 4, 2008

Palin Has Dems Wailin


If I was 30 years younger, had my hair, didn't suffer from erectile dysfunction and Mrs. Palin was single, I would pack up my things and move to Juno Alaska. That woman has the looks, the brains, the charisma and the presence that we need in politics today. Even my daughter-in-law who is a staunch democrat is impressed with Sarah Palin's poise, grace, intelligence and her ability to connect with everyday Americans.

She praised a great president with her statement, "My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and habber-dasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency."

A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

Palin eloquently neutralized Obama, "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening."

She took on the status quo, "And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people."

She addressed the energy question, "To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both. Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

Here is my favorite part of the speech and where I fell in love, "And there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much ... he promises more….

For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.

For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.


I'm in love.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

As I researched Palin, I discovered that she fought to have certain books banned from the library. This puzzled me, as she has been touted as “an intelligent woman.” I could not help but think, “Why would an “intelligent” being want books banned? Isn’t education about the exchange of ideas?” When I ran across a list of books that Palin wanted banned, I was struck dumb:

• Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
• Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
• Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
• Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
• I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
• James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
• Lord of the Flies by William Golding
• My Friend Flicka by Mary O’Hara
• Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
• The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
• The Color Purple by Alice Walker
• The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
• The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
• To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
• Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
• Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster

You're in love with a woman who represents everything wrong in America:

1. Censorship
2. Opposed to pro choice by her family "chose" to keep their baby (a truly admirable thing) but would deny other women their right to decide.
3. Took the hundreds of millions on the "brige to no where" from the feds... pork barrel spender that she is.
4. Did not sell the plane on Ebay- sold it to a Republican crony at a loss for the state of Alaska.
5. Does not believe in global warming.
6. Balanced the Alaska budget with Federal money not allocated to other states.
7. Republicans and Fox News (a Republican propaganda machine) said she has "foreign experience" because Alaska is near Russia. (Therefore ever border state governor has similar experience.)
8. Recently attended a church meeting where their invited speakers said bombing Israel was God's punishment against Jews.

And you still love her? Maybe it's because of her rude, crass, condescending, snide speech.

At no time did she express any policy knowledge or positions. Instead she continues the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove slash and burn politics that turn people off.

Love her now- come election day she will be returning to Alaska as a L-O-S-E-R while America and Americans will be WINNERS!

Anonymous said...

A Milf just one heart beat away.

Anonymous said...

And your sources are..... poster no. 1 above?

Anonymous said...

I agree 100% with the first post. She has not laid out any specifics regarding economic or foreign policy. It is September 8th and she is still reading her convention speech at their campaign stops, which by the way she had no hand in writing. I just found out today that her interview with Charles Gibson is going to be taped over several days, so that she will have a chance to "Do over" certain parts of the interview that she is not happy with.

She is a phony in the way she is presenting herself. MCcain wanted somebody who would be ready to lead on day one; she's not even ready to take on a real INTERVIEW on day one. How will she be ready to lead and take on the complicated issues facing this nation?

Obama has clear knowledge, opinions and policy positions on all the major issues, and has been vetted for two years.

This will backfire on the right, and it will cost them dearly to try to play the American people for ignorant fools.

Anonymous said...

Sources:
Wall Street Journal
FactCheck.org
NY Times
Washington Post
LA Times
AP (cited in various publications)

and more...

Anonymous said...

Obama and McCain Have Big Economic Differences
Obama, McCain economic plans rely on tax cuts, but in sharply different ways
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON



Job No. 1 for the next president? In the minds of an overwhelming number of Americans, it's fixing what ails the sick economy. What the voters will have to sort out are very different approaches offered by Barack Obama and John McCain.

Both of their fix-up plans rely heavily on tax cuts, but in sharply different ways that speak to the historic differences between Democrats and Republicans.

McCain, borrowing a page from Ronald Reagan and President Bush, would keep tax rates low for higher-income taxpayers and slash rates for corporations, arguing that this is the way to jump-start a lethargic economy and create more jobs.

Obama, focusing on a theme of many past Democratic campaigns, seeks to target his help to the squeezed middle class and address the growing income inequality between rich and poor. He would retain all of the Bush tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year, but would do away with Bush's cuts for people making more than that.

The money raised from tax increases on the wealthy would be redirected by Obama to tax relief for lower-income Americans.

Unlike a lot of campaign debates where the promises of neither side get enacted into law, this war of words will make a difference because all of Bush's tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010.

Since neither party wants to go back to the tax rates in effect before 2001, whoever wins will have to work with Congress to pass legislation shaping how the tax code will look beyond 2010. At stake will be billions of dollars.

Under Obama, the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, those making roughly $600,000 or more, would see their taxes go up on average by $93,709 in 2009, according to an analysis done by the Tax Policy Center, because Obama would begin implementing his tax changes even before the scheduled expiration of the Bush cuts.

Under McCain, those same taxpayers would see an average reduction of $48,860, reflecting in part additional cuts he is proposing.

By contrast, the bottom 20 percent of taxpayers, those with taxable income of roughly $19,000 per year or less, would see their taxes cut by an average of $567 under Obama's program and $21 under McCain's plan, the tax center estimates.

For the 20 percent of taxpayers right in the middle of the income scale, making roughly between $37,600 and $66,400, the tax break would be $1,118 under the Obama plan and $325 under the McCain plan in 2009, according to the analysis done by the tax center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, two Washington think tanks.

In addition to tax cuts, both presidential candidates are out promising voters a lot of programs in the areas of health care, energy and education.

But the outlook for the federal budget is much darker now than in 2000. In that year, candidate Bush traveled the country promoting across-the-board tax cuts as a way to fix what ailed America in the wake of a sudden slowdown in growth and a bursting of the bubble in high-tech stocks.

With the Congressional Budget Office and others forecasting record-breaking surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion over the decade, it seemed like a good idea to a lot of Washington policymakers to return a part of those surpluses in the form of a $1.35 trillion tax cut passed in 2001 and a follow-up measure in 2003.

The problem was that the surplus forecast turned out to be wildly inaccurate because of an unforeseen recession that began in 2001 just as Bush was taking office and the soaring costs of fighting a global war on terror that began in the wake of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

The federal books were in the black in 2001 — for the fourth consecutive year — but since then, the U.S. has returned to running huge deficits, including the largest in history in dollar terms, a $413 billion imbalance in 2004.

Now, with the government pumping out $106.7 billion to Americans in stimulus payments to keep all the problems in housing and the credit markets from pushing the country into a deep recession, the deficits are surging again.

The CBO predicts a $400 billion imbalance this year, and the administration is forecasting that the deficit for the next budget year that begins Oct. 1 will hit an all-time high of $482 billion.

That forecast doesn't include the cost of the government takeover announced by the administration on Sunday of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That effort, which has the potential of adding tens of billions of dollars to the deficits in the short run, won the qualified backing of both Obama and McCain.

The CBO's current forecast for the next decade doesn't look that bad on paper, projecting the budget will go into the black in 2012, giving the country a small surplus of $270 billion over the next 10 years.

However, that forecast comes with a warning label. The CBO has to make its estimates based on current law, which has the Bush tax cuts expiring after 2010 and makes no provisions for further outlays to keep the Alternative Minimum Tax on the wealthy from hitting millions of middle-income taxpayers, a huge expense every year.

The economic plans that McCain and Obama have put forward do include the billions needed to deal with the AMT plus extending the Bush tax cuts. McCain would extend all of them except the total elimination of the estate tax, while Obama would extend only the cuts for individual taxpayers making less than $200,000 annually or couples making less than $250,000.

With those big-ticket tax cuts plus the impact of other changes in the tax code included, McCain's plans would slash revenues by $4.2 trillion over the next decade while Obama's reduction would be a slightly smaller $2.9 trillion. Both would transform the CBO's small surplus over the 10-year period into big deficits, according to the tax center.

The two campaigns argue that it is not fair to hold them to the unrealistic CBO baseline. Rather, the campaigns like to compare their proposals to a current policy baseline which assumes the Bush tax cuts are extended and the AMT is patched every year. Under that baseline, according to the tax center, McCain's plan would cut taxes by $596 billion over the next decade; Obama's would increase taxes by $627 billion during the same period, reflecting the fact that Obama is raising tax rates on the wealthy and boosting the taxes they pay on dividends and capital-gains earnings. Obama is also not embracing McCain's proposal to cut the top rate on corporate taxes.

Regardless of the baseline used, the government's debt would go up sharply — by $3.5 trillion under the Obama plan and by $5 trillion over the next decade under McCain's plan, the tax center estimates.

While both campaigns argue they are not getting enough credit for their plans to cut spending, history shows that campaigns always pledge to pay for their tax cuts but seldom achieve that goal because spending cuts prove much more difficult to get through Congress.

And how about the overall goals — McCain's effort to give the country a boost by cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations and Obama's efforts to narrow income inequality?

Economists say there are things to like in both programs. They generally favor reductions in top rates as a way to spur new investment and job creation, so on that point McCain's program gets good marks. However, there are worries that the higher deficits that are expected because of the tax cuts could drive up interest rates, raising the cost of money for businesses and result in less investment, not more.

For Obama, the concern is that all of his new and expanded tax credits, such as his "Making Work Pay" refundable credit which would provide low-income workers with a maximum of $500 per individual and $1,000 per family, will further complicate an already complex tax system and won't make a very big dent in the problems of income inequality.

And neither candidate is talking very much about tackling what all experts see as the biggest budgetary challenge facing the next president — the explosion in the government's big benefit programs for Social Security and Medicare as the baby boomers retire.

Obama has proposed levying a 2 percent to 4 percent tax on payroll earnings above $250,000 a decade from now to deal with Social Security, but experts say that would fix only a small part of the problem with the pension program. And neither campaign has put forward any proposals that experts say would make a meaningful dent in fixing Medicare, the far bigger entitlement problem because of soaring health care costs.

Some experts see tax increases, not cuts, in the country's future regardless of who wins the presidency.

"We are starting out with very big deficits, and the demographics are turning more unfavorable with all the baby boomer retirements," said Nigel Gault, senior economist at Global Insight, a Lexington, Mass., forecasting firm. "The deeper you get into the next presidency, the more likelihood that taxes will have to be raised."

———

AP Business Writers Ellen Simon in New York and Christopher Rugaber in Washington contributed to this report.


Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

Anonymous said...

sarah palin is all fluff. only selected because she has a dwon's syndrome kid and one going off to war. and she's a woman in the hopes to steal away hillary's voters.

Anonymous said...

All your liberal sources are wrong. The press is admitting that all the propaganda about Sarah is coming from the extreme left wing blogs with no facts to back them up. Sarah is great and all of America loves her except a few hateful vindictive people like you. Now listen to me we are going to win in November because the American people will reject your hate and most of all reject your liberal socialist agenda. LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER HA HA HA HA HA!

Anonymous said...

What "press is admitting that all the propaganda about Sarah is coming from the extreme left wing blogs"?

You're listening to FIXED NEWS, LUSH LIMBORE, SEAN BLANITY, AND BILL O'LIELLY

The RESPONSIBLE press is reporting the FACTS and the FACT is- she is unprepared. Oh, she might be in the future after she learns more about the world, but right now the only reasons she was selected are:

1. Trying to get Hillary supporters (women).
2. She is an evangelical and evangelicals love her (they also think the world is 5000 years old- so while China/India rise, we regress to Dark Age thinking).

So ignore the facts. We ultimately get the government we deserve, but the stupidity, arrogance, and lies of the right will destroy our childrens' futures. That's ok, your kids can work for Chinese, Indian, and Brazilian masters...

Anonymous said...

There's something about Palin that revolts me. I think Obama/Biden will be the winners this November. The American people have had enough of these blood-sucking Republicans.
EIGHT IS ENOUGH!

Anonymous said...

NO WAY. NO HOW. NO MCCAIN.

Anonymous said...

Patrick Henry - Make this one of your feature articles.

Whatever criticism there is regarding Sarah Palin's qualifications, nobody seems to address what qualifications Barack Obama has. He is a junior Senator that hasn't even completed his first term in the US Senate. He has been absent from Washington DC for more than a year now because of his campaign schedule and everyone seems to fall back on his service as a "community organizer".

What is a community organizer: Maybe it's someone that helps circulate petitions and secure signatures. If so then all those volunteers that come around asking for political candidate petition signatures is qualified to run for President.

Maybe it's someone that helps collect donations for special and charitable causes. If so, anyone that chairs a fundraiser is qualified to run for President.

Maybe it's someone that organizes rallies to address or protest certain social issues. If so, anyone that has organized the protests that occurred during political conventions, world economic conferences, UN sessions or any anarchist protest is qualified to run for President.

Let's face it, Obama doesn't even have the experience to manage the local McDonald's.

He is were he is simply because of his ethnicity and his ability to make great speeches. But then so do several TV evangelist preachers and there bottom line is simply to take as much money from people in certain stages of physical, emotional or psychological weekness and who need to believe that a "miracle" can happen and that the "preacher" can make this happen as long as they send him money.

Ask yourself this - Do You Want Some Phoney Charlatan TV Preacher as President of the United States?

In The Land Of The Blind The One Eyed Man Is King

julia said...

Yes, old man McCain and the Beauty Queen will lead our nation to greatness.

Not.


What don't you admit it to yourself that the real reason you don't like Obama is because he's black?

Anonymous said...

Has ha..we won.. Looks like Sarah will have to go over to QVC..

Mr. Mojo Risin..