Even CNN is wanting McCain to dump Palin and get a new VP

[Nitemare]

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn....sider-replacing-palin/

was on the front page.

so much for Obama saying family should be offlimits with regards to the VP's daughter getting preggers.

Brit's lil sis is glad to be out of the news though.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Maybe because they will get more ratings out of a close election than they will a landslide?

And where is there anything in that article from the Obama camp regarding her daughter?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Maybe because they will get more ratings out of a close election than they will a landslide?

And where is there anything in that article from the Obama camp regarding her daughter?

there wasn't, but here ya go

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Maybe because they will get more ratings out of a close election than they will a landslide?

And where is there anything in that article from the Obama camp regarding her daughter?

there wasn't, but here ya go

Your OP is implying that somehow Obama broke his word and made comments about her daughter. Unless you are thinking that CNN should treat Obama's word like Fox News does GWB's and canonize it.

 

[nageov3t]

if by CNN you mean Jack Cafferty.

I don't see it happening. it would be devastating for his campaign; probably more so than leaving her on.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Maybe because they will get more ratings out of a close election than they will a landslide?

And where is there anything in that article from the Obama camp regarding her daughter?

there wasn't, but here ya go

Your OP is implying that somehow Obama broke his word and made comments about her daughter. Unless you are thinking that CNN should treat Obama's word like Fox News does GWB's and canonize it.

basically saying that CNN which has a huge liberal bias is basically ignoring Obama's request because they would rather print dirt and have 0 respect for Palin's kids.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Maybe because they will get more ratings out of a close election than they will a landslide?

And where is there anything in that article from the Obama camp regarding her daughter?

there wasn't, but here ya go

Your OP is implying that somehow Obama broke his word and made comments about her daughter. Unless you are thinking that CNN should treat Obama's word like Fox News does GWB's and canonize it.

basically saying that CNN which has a huge liberal bias is basically ignoring Obama's request because they would rather print dirt and have 0 respect for Palin's kids.

I agree with the part that they are ignoring him. But I think that it is because they have a corporate bias...not a liberal bias.

They want ratings. Ratings equal ad revenue. Ad revenue equals big bonuses for management. Sex sells in the wretched National Enquirer era we are living in.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Maybe because they will get more ratings out of a close election than they will a landslide?

And where is there anything in that article from the Obama camp regarding her daughter?

there wasn't, but here ya go

Your OP is implying that somehow Obama broke his word and made comments about her daughter. Unless you are thinking that CNN should treat Obama's word like Fox News does GWB's and canonize it.

basically saying that CNN which has a huge liberal bias is basically ignoring Obama's request because they would rather print dirt and have 0 respect for Palin's kids.

I agree with the part that they are ignoring him. But I think that it is because they have a corporate bias...not a liberal bias.

They want ratings. Ratings equal ad revenue. Ad revenue equals big bonuses for management. Sex sells in the wretched National Enquirer era we are living in.

Pretty much.

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: Nitemare


basically saying that CNN which has a huge liberal bias is basically ignoring Obama's request because they would rather print dirt and have 0 respect for Palin's kids.

Obama gave his opinion that politician's children are off limits. Where in what Jack Caffery wrote is he going after Palin's children?

 

[StageLeft]

Interesting snowball that has started here. Even the idea that so many seem to think he should brings questions to her in the minds of people who don't actually know whether she's a good candidate or not. If this snowball can grow a bit bigger it will do a fairly good broadside on his campaign.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Maybe because they will get more ratings out of a close election than they will a landslide?

And where is there anything in that article from the Obama camp regarding her daughter?

there wasn't, but here ya go

Your OP is implying that somehow Obama broke his word and made comments about her daughter. Unless you are thinking that CNN should treat Obama's word like Fox News does GWB's and canonize it.

basically saying that CNN which has a huge liberal bias is basically ignoring Obama's request because they would rather print dirt and have 0 respect for Palin's kids.

their only bias and the only thing they respect is thier bottom line, and they do that through sensationalism.

 

[miketheidiot]

oh and lol and jamie spears's fiance being a 'pipe-layer'

 

[cwjerome]

Although I'm not a fanboy of Buchanan's flavor of conservatism, I think he's more right than wrong here: Article.

I get an intuitive sense, based on the tremendous outpouring over the last few days, that many on the Left are scared. Maybe not consciously, but I just get a vibe that a lot of people's kneejerk reaction is based on fear of a conservative woman being VP... the IDEA... for a lot of reasons, mostly concerning what it does to the Leftwing brand, and what it means for the future.

From the article:

"By passing over his friends Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, and picking Palin, McCain has given himself a fighting chance of winning the White House that, before Friday morning, seemed to be slipping away. Indeed, the bristling reaction on the left testifies to Democratic fears that the choice of Palin could indeed be a game-changer in 2008."

and:

"For his boldness in choosing Palin, McCain deserves enormous credit. He has made an extraordinary gesture to conservatives and the party base, offering his old antagonists a partner's share in his presidency. And his decision is likely to be rewarded with a massive and enthusiastic turnout for the McCain-Palin ticket. Rarely has this writer encountered such an outburst of enthusiasm on the right.

In choosing Palin, McCain may also have changed the course of history as much as Ike did with his choice of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan did with his choice of George H.W. Bush. For should this ticket win, Palin will eclipse every other Republican as heir apparent to the presidency and will have her own power base among lifers, evangelicals, gun folks and conservatives ? wholly independent of President McCain."

 

[seemingly random]

the hits just keep on coming

Thanks, mccain. This election was turning into a snoozer.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

If "children are off limits", why is the GOP parading these two children front and center at their convention?

Family supporting their pregnant teen aged daughter? Good. Father sucking it up and marrying the girl he knocked up, even if he is (and we don't know this one way or the other)? Noble.

Putting a pregnant teenager on stage and applauding wildly for her and the dumb kid who got her pregnant? somewhat Appalling.

While the family, girl, and father may all be doing noble and or good things, a celebration/glamorization of teen pregnancy at a political convention is certainly a new order.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Although I'm not a fanboy of Buchanan's flavor of conservatism, I think he's more right than wrong here: Article.

I get an intuitive sense, based on the tremendous outpouring over the last few days, that many on the Left are scared. Maybe not consciously, but I just get a vibe that a lot of people's kneejerk reaction is based on fear of a conservative woman being VP... the IDEA... for a lot of reasons, mostly concerning what it does to the Leftwing brand, and what it means for the future.

From the article:

"By passing over his friends Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, and picking Palin, McCain has given himself a fighting chance of winning the White House that, before Friday morning, seemed to be slipping away. Indeed, the bristling reaction on the left testifies to Democratic fears that the choice of Palin could indeed be a game-changer in 2008."

and:

"For his boldness in choosing Palin, McCain deserves enormous credit. He has made an extraordinary gesture to conservatives and the party base, offering his old antagonists a partner's share in his presidency. And his decision is likely to be rewarded with a massive and enthusiastic turnout for the McCain-Palin ticket. Rarely has this writer encountered such an outburst of enthusiasm on the right.

In choosing Palin, McCain may also have changed the course of history as much as Ike did with his choice of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan did with his choice of George H.W. Bush. For should this ticket win, Palin will eclipse every other Republican as heir apparent to the presidency and will have her own power base among lifers, evangelicals, gun folks and conservatives ? wholly independent of President McCain."

I think you're wrong. The left's reaction is to how bad she is, not how much she helps the ticket.

You seem to have fallen for 'spin', as far-right Buchanan attempts to help Republicans see the problems with Palin as a positive (see the democrats scared).

Had Obama nominated Michael Moore to be VP, you could make the same argument - the Republican huge reaction just shows they're scared. Doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Although I'm not a fanboy of Buchanan's flavor of conservatism, I think he's more right than wrong here: Article.

I get an intuitive sense, based on the tremendous outpouring over the last few days, that many on the Left are scared. Maybe not consciously, but I just get a vibe that a lot of people's kneejerk reaction is based on fear of a conservative woman being VP... the IDEA... for a lot of reasons, mostly concerning what it does to the Leftwing brand, and what it means for the future.

From the article:

"By passing over his friends Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, and picking Palin, McCain has given himself a fighting chance of winning the White House that, before Friday morning, seemed to be slipping away. Indeed, the bristling reaction on the left testifies to Democratic fears that the choice of Palin could indeed be a game-changer in 2008."

and:

"For his boldness in choosing Palin, McCain deserves enormous credit. He has made an extraordinary gesture to conservatives and the party base, offering his old antagonists a partner's share in his presidency. And his decision is likely to be rewarded with a massive and enthusiastic turnout for the McCain-Palin ticket. Rarely has this writer encountered such an outburst of enthusiasm on the right.

In choosing Palin, McCain may also have changed the course of history as much as Ike did with his choice of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan did with his choice of George H.W. Bush. For should this ticket win, Palin will eclipse every other Republican as heir apparent to the presidency and will have her own power base among lifers, evangelicals, gun folks and conservatives ? wholly independent of President McCain."

I would think the answer to why lefties don't like her would be obvious. After 8 years of ridiculously pandering far-right brand of conservative behavior, McCain looked like a Republican who was a conservative without being a far right, ultra-religious nutbar. "You might not like his views, but you can respect him" kind of candidate. And he knows this is his appeal, which is why he's been running to the middle as often as possible, and stressing his ability to bring both sides together.

So who does McModerate nominate? A far right, ultra religious nutbar who is, in addition, totally unqualified. I'm not scared because she might help beat Obama, I'm scared because she might actually end up helping to run (or running) the country. As far as I'm concerned, the far right has lost decision making privileges after 8 years of GWB, so I'm not real happy with McCain deciding he needs to pander to them some more. Add that to the fact that Republicans are being incredibly insulting to women by suggesting they should vote for McCain/Palin JUST because Palin's a woman, and I don't think you need "intuitive sense" to realize why many of us on the left aren't too happy about Palin as VP.

The real question is, why aren't moderate conservatives more upset? Palin is a continuation of everything that's been wrong with the Republican party since GWB moved his cowboy hat into the White House, is beating the Democrats REALLY enough reason to support a campaign that doesn't seem interested in real change?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
If "children are off limits", why is the GOP parading these two children front and center at their convention?
-snip-

Well Obama says so, did you not see his kids paraded around at the DNC?

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
If "children are off limits", why is the GOP parading these two children front and center at their convention?
-snip-

Well Obama says so, did you not see his kids paraded around at the DNC?

Fern

Which seems fine to me, people are definitely interested in what kind of family candidates have. So I never quite understood the "off limits" idea, except that it sounds good. If family is an important part of the life of a candidate, and it should be for most of them, isn't the family part of the story at least to some degree?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
-snip-
The real question is, why aren't moderate conservatives more upset?

As for me, I'd like to get the chance to see who she is and learn something about her before deciding.

And no, I don't think this current wirldwind of innuendo, rumors, outright falsehoods and spin is of any help. Personally, I see all this as an attempts to make up my mind for me by blowing tons of BS propaganda in a rapid-fire manner, an attempt to overwhelm with BS right out of the starting gate. No thanks, I'll do it myself starting with her speech tonight.

I mean seriously, we've got another thread here with so much teeth nashing about how one time long ago she actually maybe said something about maybe banning some unnamed book, but never did anything about yet she is the devil in high heels etc.

Had she actually done it, or even attempted it, I might be able to generate a modicum of interest. But I'm not getting my panties in a wad because somebody said she mentioned it a long ago but never followed up on it at all. I've been in positions of civic authority and brought up stuff/ideas that were probably defect. The point is they weren't followed through or acted on.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn....sider-replacing-palin/

was on the front page.

It's an opinion piece, not a statement from CNN.

so much for Obama saying family should be offlimits with regards to the VP's daughter getting preggers.

Nowhere in that opinion piece does it say anyone from Obama's organization has attacked Palin about her daughter's pregnancy.

Post the facts, and give your opinion, but please don't make BS statements that imply something other than the truth.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford
-snip-
The real question is, why aren't moderate conservatives more upset?

As for me, I'd like to get the chance to see who she is and learn something about her before deciding.

And no, I don't think this current wirldwind of innuendo, rumors, outright falsehoods and spin is of any help. Personally, I see all this as an attempts to make up my mind for me by blowing tons of BS propaganda in a rapid-fire manner, an attempt to overwhelm with BS right out of the starting gate. No thanks, I'll do it myself starting with her speech tonight.

I mean seriously, we've got another thread here with so much teeth nashing about how one time long ago she actually maybe said something about maybe banning some unnamed book, but never did anything about yet she is the devil in high heels etc.

Had she actually done it, or even attempted it, I might be able to generate a modicum of interest. But I'm not getting my panties in a wad because somebody said she mentioned it a long ago but never followed up on it at all. I've been in positions of civic authority and brought up stuff/ideas that were probably defect. The point is they weren't followed through or acted on.

Fern

I hear what you're saying, but I can't help but think that there isn't enough in her background to suggest she's a good candidate, and many indications that she's not. Sure, it's probably BS propaganda spun by both sides at this point, but that's kind of the point...where is the pro-Palin stuff from the Republicans? Maybe it's too early to pass judgement, and I could certainly end up liking her more (even though I doubt I'll vote for her), but these early indications aren't reassuring.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Fern
As for me, I'd like to get the chance to see who she is and learn something about her before deciding.

And no, I don't think this current wirldwind of innuendo, rumors, outright falsehoods and spin is of any help. Personally, I see all this as an attempts to make up my mind for me by blowing tons of BS propaganda in a rapid-fire manner, an attempt to overwhelm with BS right out of the starting gate. No thanks, I'll do it myself starting with her speech tonight.

I mean seriously, we've got another thread here with so much teeth nashing about how one time long ago she actually maybe said something about maybe banning some unnamed book, but never did anything about yet she is the devil in high heels etc.

Had she actually done it, or even attempted it, I might be able to generate a modicum of interest. But I'm not getting my panties in a wad because somebody said she mentioned it a long ago but never followed up on it at all. I've been in positions of civic authority and brought up stuff/ideas that were probably defect. The point is they weren't followed through or acted on.

Fern

Seriously? Are you seriously suggesting that firing the library director (or whatever her title was) is doing nothing? Really? Yes, Palin ultimately withdrew the termination due to public outcry, but in my book, it's disingenuous to spin that as doing nothing. The fact Palin even considered banning certain books shows a dangerous disregard for one of America's most fundamental values. No thanks, we've had almost eight years of that already.

 

[piasabird]

If people dislike Sarah Palin that much she must be the best choice. Why should McCain listen to these media idiots and left-wing pundits? It seems the Washington Elite dispise outsiders who they can not control!

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Nitemare
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn....sider-replacing-palin/

was on the front page.

It's an opinion piece, not a statement from CNN.

so much for Obama saying family should be offlimits with regards to the VP's daughter getting preggers.

Nowhere in that opinion piece does it say anyone from Obama's organization has attacked Palin about her daughter's pregnancy.

Post the facts, and give your opinion, but please don't make BS statements that imply something other than the truth.

It's an opinion piece on the front page of the website. If I'm holding a sign that says "I hate this minority" even though I didn't make it, doesn't that make me a bigot?