So much for change

[P562045]

I think Ms. Kouric gets the next shot so sorry at Governor Palin latter on this month.

"The first interview segment will air on the 'CBS Evening News With Katie Couric' on Sept. 29, followed by additional material on Sept. 30 on 'The Early Show' and CBS News, a press release said."

Link Here

And don't worry if a person misses this it will be talked about Ad nauseum for at least one day if not two.

I find it rather fascinating that first ABC and Charles Gibson and now Katie Couric both will use Governor Palin for little more than ratings and also get the message out again of course that Governor Palin is evil like Bush. Can't these two talk or Brian Williams talk to Obama and get the same kind of numbers as Palin. Speaking of Brian Williams he better get to Governor Palin quickly because she will not be nearly as fascinating after the end of this month. Well I guess Brian Williams could use Govenor Palin for some more Palin is evil like Bush rhetoric if that ever became necessary again.

Has Governor Palin been answering tougher questions since August 29, 2008 than Obama has since February 10, 2007?



I am trying to remember which one is one running for president. Not of course!

[hork]

Originally Posted by tymy

But he wasn't impeached............

Ultimately, if you say his actions were not ignored then they had to have been condoned.

Either way, it was a very low moment in our country's history.

he was actually impeached although the conviction required to remove him didn't come through. i still think the main reason that fell through was because too many of them were doing the same thing and didn't want it to get out (ala newt gingrich)

what didn't happen and probably should, was he wasn't tried for his actions as governor of arkansas. the lewinski stuff was bogus and a blatant attempt by the right to crucify him (in so much that no crime was committed and there was no reason for it to ever have been an issue as it didn't impact his duties), the stuff he pulled while governor was illegal and for that he should be held accountable.

[P562045]

I have been condoning bad behaivor for how long now because I have supported the president we have now 99% of the time while he has been president.

What has been my biggest criticism of the president we have now?

I sure do hope that Obama gets 10% of the scrutiny of the president we have now when he is president but for some reason I very much doubt that will be the case. Obama will get the William treatment and only be scrutinized about things that should not even matter. Now of course I don't even remember if I scrutinized William much around here except for those little incidents that I have mentioned before late February of 1993, August 7, 1998, and October of 2000 and those three dates very much matter to what is happening now but we should not really talk about those three incidents because it might focus on the worst thing William did as president and I know we should not scrutinize William for that at all because it does not really serve any really purpose now does it? How do I know those incident matter. Back when William was trying to sell some books about his life made the comment that he did everything he possibly could when it came to his response to them. I am probably having a little selective memory loss about what I have scrutinize William about as all of us do when it suits our own purposes.

Never fear I will ask the same questions maybe in a slightly different way of Obama and of course I will be attacking Obama but is it o.k. to scrutinize Obama and ask the same very tough questions about the president we have now? How long have people been making the same sort of comments about the president we have now time after time after time. What purpose does this really serve except to keep the Bush is evil rhetoric going? Does repeating something over and over and over again really change anything. No it does not.

People will think I am supporting the president we have now yet again.

[P562045]

How can Hannity not count because of that little show with Alan Colmes gets more viewers than Larry King, Anderson Cooper, Campbell Brown, Keith Obermann, Chris Matthews, Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Charles Gibson.

I am sure that Colmes is what people are tuning in for. That can't be right though because people very much desire a different perspective in the news from the other people I mentioned and Alan Colmes just does not provide that for people.

[P562045]

Originally Posted by hork

so in other words, let's just ignore alleged abuses of power, let's condone the refusal to address them and let's ----- about the opposition.

This is oh so fascinating to me because just last month the day after the 10th anniversary of the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa I openly discussed some of the things that the president we have now has done as president.

On that day just last month I even talked about what the president has done with regards to going into Iraq and taking away people's civil liberties in the aftermath of 9/11 but I am still trying to deny that the president abused his power and I don't won't anyone else to discuss this because of my own desires to protect the president.

Well here is something I wrote just last month about what I just mentioned. Does it really sound like I am trying to deny what I just mentioned I think not. I do find it rather fascinating that what a person is about to read no one really said I was dead wrong and I have a better ability than most to honestly assess what the president has done in the past with regards to both Iraq and squashing civil liberties just a month after 9/11 for the president we have know own wants and desires. You would think a person like me would never say something like this about the president because I so have my own desires to protect the president no matter what he has done while being president.

Originally Posted by P562045

The main reason it appears I am trying to rationalize the reason why the president did certain things is in order to discuss what he did in the first place.

I am trying to give reasons why I think the president did what he did and if it appears that people think I approve of what the president did and was justified in what he did the fact is I think the exact opposite of opposite of what I just said is true. In fact I said the exact opposite. I said there is no excuse for what the president did. And this goes for many things that the president has done and the main ones are going into Iraq in the first place; and taking the people's civil liberties away for solely his own purposes. That is the real reason why I think the president did what he did with regards to the two things I just mentioned. And if people can't handle that then tough. We are not going to have the ability to solve any problems if people are not willing to talk about them in the first place. That is just one of the reasons I am discussing these very difficult matters now.

[hork]

guess i was led away from your position based on the multitude of your posts in several different threads. specifically the two threads titled after prominent democrats in which you rarely if ever post anything other than criticism, coupled with the apologetic tone you often take in the thread titled after the gop nominee.

add to that the apologetic tone you often take with regard to palin and the attacking tone you assume when you discuss the media's fascination with her along with the absence of anything even remotely positive with regard to posts made about the majority leaders in congress and you might see why i gathered what i did from the what i perceived to be the tone of your post.

that said, once again in this post, i mentioned the typical MO of the GOP to deny, ignore, or lie about the facts in hopes that they'll either go away or this nation of whiners will simply forget about them and move on to the next issue (like those evil homosexuals who think they have the right to be treated equal in a free society, or those unamerican folks who have the audacity to complain about oil companies) and you immediate take an attacking position on the other side all but ignoring the topic at hand. even going so far as to bring clinton (the bill version not the hillary who at least was relevant in this electoral season) back into the fray.

granted that may have not been your intention (i should know better than to read into the words posted) but i'm sure you can see why i made that assumption. guess it all comes back to the old saying about assuming.

[tymy]

Originally Posted by hork

even going so far as to bring clinton (the bill version not the hillary who at least was relevant in this electoral season) back into the fray.

You continue to paint a picture of John McCain and George Bush practically sleeping together yet when someone brings up past Democatic Presidents you talk about going off topic.

You want everyone to believe that McCain will be another George Bush but why should anyone believe Obama won't be another Democratic failure?

[hork]

Originally Posted by tymy

You continue to paint a picture of John McCain and George Bush practically sleeping together yet when someone brings up past Democatic Presidents you talk about going off topic.

You want everyone to believe that McCain will be another George Bush but why should anyone believe Obama won't be another Democratic failure?

i point to mccain's voting record to substantiate my fears. all anyone can offer about obama is party affiliation to substantiate theirs. well i shouldn't say all they can offer, rather all that has been offered is more correct.

[tymy]

Originally Posted by hork

i point to mccain's voting record to substantiate my fears. all anyone can offer about obama is party affiliation to substantiate theirs.

So we should support Obama based on his lack of a voting record?

[hork]

Originally Posted by tymy

So we should support Obama based on his lack of a voting record?

on the contrary were i one of his detractors, i'd likely try to use it against him. the only candidate who doesn't have a real record to peruse is Palin.

granted she has a couple of years as governor but basically with no record to speak of other than pandering (hence I wouldn't suggest using her record as a reason to vote for her either)

[tymy]

What I find truely fascinating is the fact that in the course of a few months the GOP has gone from practically conceding the race to a dead heat, depending on which poll you choose to believe. I think the question that screams out is how and why did that happen? Is it possible that voters are beginning to see the "true" Obama?

[tymy]

Originally Posted by hork

granted she has a couple of years as governor but basically with no record to speak of other than pandering (hence I wouldn't suggest using her record as a reason to vote for her either)

And the GOP hopes the Democratic faithful keep talking the party line because it will end up losing the election for the Dem's. Even better would be if the Dem's would try again to make an issue of her pregnant daughter. Talk about countinuing to shoot yourself in the foot.

[hork]

Originally Posted by tymy

What I find truely fascinating is the fact that in the course of a few months the GOP has gone from practically conceding the race to a dead heat, depending on which poll you choose to believe. I think the question that screams out is how and why did that happen? Is it possible that voters are beginning to see the "true" Obama?

it's likely a case of a convention rebound coupled with a new and exciting face. but like you said the polls are about dead even, the financial crisis the GOP has put us in is consistently getting worse (as evidenced by the recent events with Lehman Bros., AIG, and Meryl Lynch), and Palin is becoming more and more radical each time she talks couple that with the new tactics of ignore and deflect being employed by the GOP machine and folks will realize soon enough it's just more of the same. when that happens we'll see those numbers change again.

but at least this false sense of a dead heat is keeping things interesting for now. the way things are shaping up, it looks like it's going to be ohio's call yet again. where at the moment it looks like mccain is ahead (+3%) but his lead is within the margin of error (+/-5%).

of course november is still a ways off and as we all know all it takes is one major screw up and even bush can win an election

[hork]

Originally Posted by tymy

And the GOP hopes the Democratic faithful keep talking the party line because it will end up losing the election for the Dem's. Even better would be if the Dem's would try again to make an issue of her pregnant daughter. Talk about countinuing to shoot yourself in the foot.

no need to bring her family in (and only an --- would) as she's offering more than enough herself. Troopergate is a real issue whether the GOP wants to admit it or not it's not going away, and of course her belief that the invasion of Iraq is a holy war in which we're doing God's work.

what more proof does anyone need to realize she's a power hungry fanatic than that? and the beauty of it all is she offered the ammunition herself through her own words and actions. nothing exaggerated or fabricated there.

if all of those folks we hear preach on and on about character, integrity, and morality honestly believe in their own values and convictions, then they have little choice but to vote for some other ticket. now of course if it is all just talk and empty rhetoric then who knows it might be a close race.

[tymy]

Originally Posted by hork

no need to bring her family in (and only an --- would)

You pontificating "son of a gun" (what I typed, not what I meant).

Now I fully understand why Rich will no longer debate this with you. I did not bring her family into this race. YOU DEMOCRATS did and it backfired in your face. At least be man enough to admit it.

I'm done with you....bring on November!