National Review: Palin out of her league

[Andy]

Sorry he dances circles around her, deal with it. Live in the real world for once.

OBAMA
Wow. Isn't it amazing how perspective makes all the difference. Obama has never once said anything of any substance as far as I know. I have never been able to say for certain that 'this' or 'that' is what he stands for. I have never seen him take a clear stance... at least not without changing it later on a whim, or coming across phony and without reason.

It seems to me that Obama's entire campaign strategy is to attack the other person relentlessly. I was scanning the headlines the other night, and about half of the headlines were about why Obama says McCain's plans suck. Never what his plans are. Never what he plans to do. Not what his solution is. Just that McCain's plan is bad. That's not a platform, that's a whine fest.

I think this is why Obama sucked so bad at Saddleback Forum. He didn't hear what McCain said, so he had nothing to attack. When he just had to answer questions about only him, and what he was in favor of, he stumbled and bumbled all over himself.

When does life begin? I'm not paid enough to know that answer... but your in the top 5% bracket and running for president, and you'll have bills come before you where the answer to that question matters. If he believes at birth, he should have said so. If believes at conception, he should have said so. But instead he had this lame melee mouth wimp out waffle answer, I'm not paid enough.

It's just like all his speeches really. One thing he constantly hammers in nearly every speech is... these people are saying this about me. Those people are saying that about me. This is what they stand for and why it's wrong. Here's what they want to do and why it's bad.

In fact the only thing I can say for certain that Obama stands for is 'hope' and 'change'. Which is nothing. That's meaningless. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, all stood for hope and change. I need something a bit more... specific?

So everything I've seen of Obama, every time I've heard him, or read something he's written, he's come across as a complete idiot. A chameleon, trying to be all things to all people. Hey, go inflate your tires and will solve our energy problems. I mean, I posted a complete joke that Obama's solution to the health care issue, was diet and exercise. Obama supporters showed up claiming it was brilliant. When you can't tell the difference between a presidential candidates position on an issue, and completely a fabricated joke.... then that candidate is a world class idiot.

PALIN
With that said, I have not been impressed with Palin, but not because I don't like her, or think she is out of her league. I think what's going on here is... and not surprisingly I have heard from Rush listeners that he's said the same, (I don't listen to him) is that McCain, although a better option than Obama by leaps and bounds, is still a RINO (republican in name only). He's a democrat with a republican badge on. Palin is more of a conservative. How much more I do not know, but more than McCain.

Palin is being forced to support the views of McCain since she's VP and rightly needs to promote the presidential nominee. However, this put her in the awkward position of trying to support views she really doesn't support. If you are ever put into a position where you must try and convince someone of a topic you don't buy yourself, you would know how difficult that is to do while trying to look authentic.

The initial big buzz about Palin was that everyone thought her to be a conservative, which is the big down side to McCain. So expectations where high that she'd come on spouting conservative values. Instead, Palin has ben confined to the McCain box, promoting the partial leftist jargon of McCain.

When I hear her, she sound like she is out of place, trying to fit the McCain platform mold. I wager if she ever runs president, you'll see her more relaxed and on the ball, promoting views she really believes in and more comfortable doing so. I also wager, and here's my prediction, she'll depart very quickly for the McCain positions, and the press will call her on it and claim she's waffling.

Conclusion:
At any rate, I knew the moment McCain won the nomination, that there is no candidate in the race that I truly fully support. However, I also knew when I saw the absolute nutty, even hallucinogenic, hysterical blind support of Obama, and the willingness to not just give a pass, but completely disregard his connections to terrorist, and his laughable claim that he didn't know the teachings of the Church of Hate he's been a member of for 20 some odd years... I knew then that I was voting for McCain no matter what. We can not afford this psycho socialist to be in office.

When a candidate can do or say anything, and his supporters are so ignorant, so stupid, so completely brain dead as to believe him word for word... that man is capable of anything.

 

[Popeye]

You're an Indi who leans left... you're not one of the kool aid swillers who vote straight Democrat ticket in every election.

Also... you attack them for "failing to do some of the things we want them to do" but that wasn't my point. The point was, when a Republican is involved in a scandal, the Right asks that person to step down. On the Left, scandal is rewarded as a badge of honor.

Still want to argue? Then please, name the last Democrat that was pushed out of office by his own party... Only one I can think of is Joe Lieberman - and he wasn't removed for scandal, he was removed for not following the authoritarian party line of the Left.

Republican Larry Craig is still in office...please explain that. Otherwise the entire premise of your argument is blown up.

 

[GenSeneca]

Republican Larry Craig is still in office...please explain that. Otherwise the entire premise of your argument is blown up.

Thats not what I asked... Fact is, you cannot point to even ONE Democrat thats been pushed out of office by his own party - All that you are doing is attempting to deflect attention from that fact by trying to claim hypocrisy on the Larry Craig issue... I expect such song and dance from Popeye or Top Gun but not from you.

Now as for Craig... He's Toast. The guy is no longer supported by the Republican party, they want him gone. Craig said he would resign but renegged on the promise and instead chose to serve out the rest of his term - Craig will NOT be re-elected.

 

[SWP70]

Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame on our country banking problems.

We might repeat history because of the greed of others. Remember this is from 1999 before they knew the outcome.

Read what Ralph Nader warned about in 1999 below.


This is why we are having banking problems today. This law was put in after the Great Depression. Changed in 1999

Clinton Signs Legislation Overhauling Banking Laws

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12, 1999 (Reuters) - President Clinton signed into law today a sweeping overhaul of Depression-era banking laws. The measure lifts barriers in the industry and allows banks, securities firms and insurance companies to merge and sell each other's products.
"This legislation is truly historic," President Clinton told a packed audience of lawmakers and top financial regulators. "We have done right by the American people."
The bill repeals parts of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act to level the domestic playing field for United States financial companies and allow them to compete better in the evolving global financial marketplace.
Analysts and industry leaders say the measure will probably fuel a wave of mergers as companies compete to build financial supermarkets offering all the services customers need under one roof.
Financial stocks were winners on Wall Street today, with J.P. Morgan & Company, Citigroup, American Express and Merrill Lynch all posting big gains. That helped the Dow Jones industrial average end up 174.02 points, at 10,769.32.
The Senate approved the final bill by 90 to 8 on Nov. 4 and the House followed suit by a vote of 362 to 57. Congress had previously made almost a dozen unsuccessful attempts over the last 25 years to revise the statutes, which had increasingly come to be viewed as anachronisms.
"The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it," said Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, chairman of the Banking Committee and one of the bill's prime sponsors.
Opponents said it would have the opposite effect, creating behemoths that will raise fees, violate customers' privacy by sharing and selling their personal data, and put the stability of the financial system at risk.
The privacy issue was a key focus in the long and often heated negotiations that produced a compromise bill, and President Clinton made clear he still wanted to see more done to safeguard consumers' personal financial information.
Clinton's support for the legislation comes despite warnings from critics and consumer activists that it could lead to price-gouging of consumers and the erosion of their privacy by newly formed financial conglomerates that are too big and powerful.
"The bill is anti-consumer and anti-community," advocate Ralph Nader declared. "It will mean higher prices and fewer choices for low-, moderate- and middle-income families across the nation."