Obama might pursue criminal charges against Bush

That according to Joe Biden:

Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden said yesterday that he and running mate Barack Obama could pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if they are elected in November.

Biden's comments, first reported by ABC news, attracted little notice on a day dominated by the drama surrounding his Republican counterpart, Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

But his statements represent the Democrats' strongest vow so far this year to investigate alleged misdeeds committed during the Bush years.

"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued," Biden said during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, according to ABC.

"[N]ot out of vengeance, not out of retribution," he added, "out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law."

Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies".

Juxtapose the freshness and genuineness of Sarah Palin with this stale, old Bush Derangement Syndrome inspired stupidity and you've got the makings of a landslide victory in the fall.

Keep it up Dems.  Keep running against Bush.

Idiots.

Comments

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

"Idiots."

Yes, but useful ones.

I hope someone as the guts to ask these two morons about this during a debate so the nation can hear about it.

[Mommynator]

This is the change we're supposed to hope for? Continuing to hound Bush? Just who are they running against anyway?

Gives me hope that McCain/Palin are going to landslide their way into the White House.

[Zossima]

Palin's cracks are so obvious that all you can do is follow the talking points by castigating those who dare state them. Clearly a desperate political pick. Even the great Peggy Noonan sees this when she's not pandering in her columns. (I suspect your offline conversations are the same. You can't possibly be so dumb or shrill as to think that this woman should be next in line. You just like it that she might score points against those evil libbrulls.)

Far from Dems being sexist, picking one so highly unqualified over those who were clearly far more qualified is sexist--or maybe you all just believe in affirmative action now. Losers.

Anyway, the fun with Palin is just beginning. You losers will whine all the way. But her association with a secessionist party is something that every American should know about. And it's all on youtube right now, boys and girls.

But here would be the sweetest irony: McCain wins the election and then extracts his revenge on Rove and Bush for their racist, lying smears on him and his family during the 2000 primaries by allowing criminal charges to be pursued both in America and by the World Court against Rove and Bush. Now, there is a thought worth savoring.

Not possible, you say? Who is deranged? You think McCain isn't livid with all the pandering he's had to do to you yukksters? And you think he's not still furious about the shame of 2000?

[BroKen]

Zossima, your brain has popped. Please explain why picking one woman (whom you think unqualified) over another (whom YOU think is qualified) is sexist? Palin has the reputation of standing up to Republican bosses in Alaska. That is what McCain (and the country) is looking for. Why was it SEXIST to pick her?

BTW, I didn't marry your sister. I guess I'm sexist, too.

[Zossima]

I'll ignore the comment about my sister because she wouldn't marry a tool.

Picking a trophy woman (and that's not just because of her looks) over a more qualified woman is clearly sexist. Why do I have to explain that? It's taking advantage of a woman, plain and simple; it's also discriminating against the others; both are forms of sexism.

If you think that standing up to small town and small state GOP members (and let's not forget that she supported the bridge to nowhere before she opposed it) qualifies her over Condi Rice, Kay Bailey, Christy Whitman, and numerous others (men and woman who have spoken more truth to more power than Palin could ever dream of), then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Finally, I love the argument coming from the GOP that America wants change. Um, didn't you guys f*ck everything up? Scandals? Check. War with no reason? Check. Lie upon lie to get into that war? Check. Shaming America by debasing our values to torture people? Check. Illegal rendition? Check. High gas prices, high unemployment, inflation, deficit, Russia's return to superpower status? Check. Hey, here's a great idea, let's vote for the guys who made the problem. Yeah, that'll change things.

Isn't there an IQ check when you get your voters card?

[Leslie]

>> because she wouldn't marry a tool.

Zossima, is this necessary?

[BroKen]

It's OK Leslie. Zossima is smart enough to realize that the DEMs may actually lose in November and he is losing his composure over it.

Zossima, the term "trophy woman" is sexist. But YOU are the one using it. You are the one who views Palin as a trophy woman. You assume McCain and the Republicans (and, I guess, me too) view her just like you do. Perhaps we see things that you do not. Isn't it possible? Might we have criteria which you ignore? Own up to your own sexism and then we can talk.

[Zossima]

Yes, Leslie, it is necessary.

No, BroKen, I'm not losing my composure. As I've noted, it wouldn't be surprising if McCain let the prosecution of Rove, Bush, et.al., go through. His whole pandering to your crowd might just be a ploy to exact a sweet revenge. I hope so.

What is striking is that not a one of you can defend her record or promote her talents, except mealy crap about how she stood up to the local sheriff. Your support of Palin consists of railing at the people who point out her lack of qualifications. Sorry, there is no way in hell that she is more qualified than any other person on McCain's short list or his long list. So the fact that he picked her means that it was a political ploy to save a lost cause campaign. She's a trophy, dude. I didn't make her that. Your guy did. It's exploitation, plain and simple. It's not the phrase that's sexist. It's the deed of making her his pick in the first place over other far more qualified women and men.

Again, if it's not sexist, it's affirmative action at it's finest. Either way, it's weak.

"But her association with a secessionist party is something that every American should know about."

Zithead,

Provide proof or shut it.

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

Last one mine, sorry folks.

[BroKen]

What you are missing Zos, is that your rant against Palin can turn against your guy. Why did the Dems pick a bright, articulate but inexperienced, black man like Obama when there were more experienced blacks available, like Jackson and Sharpton? If McCain picking Palin is sexist (and I don't think it is), then certainly the pick of Obama is racist.

You say, "She's a trophy, dude. I didn't make her that."

When you show me a quote of McCain calling her "his little trophy" then you have a point. Until then, YOU MAKE HER THAT! Own up to your sexism and we can talk.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Again, if it's not sexist, it's affirmative action at it's finest. Either way, it's weak.

It is noticing female competence exists, where it really does. Thereby demonstrating the capacity for doing so, without being a clownish sycophant.

And in demonstrates that, it undermines an entire religion.

Which is why, like millions of others, you are, indeed, losing your composure.

[Zossima]

Let's hope to god that you're not responsible for identifying talent at your company. Let me know so I can sell the stock short. Seriously, you guys want to pick a fight with anyone who criticizes the pick, but she is clearly not competent to serve as VP. She gives a far better speech than McOld. But any of those other more qualified women could have done the same.

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

"Which is why, like millions of others, you are, indeed, losing your composure."

We all know why Morgan, we know. Panic.

Notice how he didn't name the "more qualified woman", just rants on & on & on...

Surprised he didn't pull the 'She won't be able to spend enough time with the kids' BS while he was at it.

[Zossima]

As I said, Broken, it's not the words that are sexist, it's the pick. You GOP/Christianists and your word fetishes boggle my mind. (I just speak the truth of what is in your evil shill heart.) Assent to Jesus and you can go to heaven. Wear a flag pin and talk nice about soldiers and you're a patriot. Screw all that. It's what you DO that matters. And when you pick an unqualified woman over more qualified women, you are being sexist. And until you can defend that she is MORE qualified than Condi Rice, Christine Todd Whitman, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Carly Fiorina, Elizabeth Dole, and probably another dozen GOP women, shut the hell up about who is being sexist.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

She called out conservatism as common sense and liberalism as lunacy.

It's driving you nuts.

And after your long minutes and hours in echo chambers, you're so accustomed to equating things that drive you nuts, with some lack of talent. You think these are the same thing. Well, they're not.

Meanwhile, Obama's resume is so thin, that when he's called on to name exactly what might qualify to be our next President, his answer is running for President!

Unbelievable.

[Zossima]

I believe conservatism is common sense. Tell me what is "conservative" about running up trillions of dollars in debt? What is being conserved when we outsource jobs and depend on foreign oil that depletes natural resources? What is being conserved when the president issues signing statements and executive orders that are unconstitutional? What is being conserved when we have our military in the wrong war?

I could go on and on.

Conservatism absolutely is common sense. You guys are the true radicals. You are GOP/Republicans. You have no business calling yourselves conservatives. You have betrayed Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan.

[Zossima]

BTW, Morgan. Thank you for proving my point. If Obama is unqualified to be president because of that response, then how much MORE is Palin unqualified to be next in line when she has managed far less than he! (And sorry, guys, "commander in chief" of the Alaska national guard is more of a figurehead role.)

[Morgan K Freeberg]

"Popcorn"; that's my new name for you.

Because when the heat gets too much, you explode into this puff-ball of talking points about unconstitutional blah blah blah trillions dollars debt blah blah blah.

You're cornered, and you cannot stick to the subject. All that butter makes you slippery, I guess.

[Zossima]

Huh, lesseee. Morgan stated conservatism is common sense. I used facts to say that it is not. That means I can't stick to the subject. Morgan quoted Obama to say that Obama is unqualified. I pointed out that his "logic" would mean that Palin is more unqualified. Again, apparently, that direct response is not sticking to the subject.

And here we have it, the GOP brain at work. Can't address the real issues? Call names. Someone actually arguing with indisputable facts? They must be changing the subject. It's just a bizarro world of propagandist relativism over here.

Call me whatever you want. You still haven't made one single positive statement about why Palin is qualified to be Vice President of the USA. Pathetic.

[BroKen]

If McCain wins and then dies on, say, January 30, 2009, we are stuck with an inexperienced President; just like we would be if Obama WINS.

But if McCain wins and survives for a year or two, then we have a second stringer coming off the bench with a couple of years of on-the-job training. Biden was right when he said the Presidency is no place for on-the-job training. Seems to me that the VP might be just the place.

I am not playing with words. It is the idea that she is a "trophy" which YOU express. You don't like her, so YOU demean her. YOU like some Republican women better, so she is unworthy. You are terrified that her resonnance with middle-America will defeat your ticket, so you blast her with vitriol. Own up to your sexism and we can talk.

[Zossima]

I don't know how much more clear I can be: It is the choice of Palin over other far more qualified candidates that is sexist. It is that which makes her a trophy. Me calling out what is just plain true isn't sexist. It is the GOP choosing her that makes her a trophy, the fact that I call it what it is just means that my head isn't up my ass.

I have no intention of demeaning Palin. (Nor can you point to a single demeaning thing I've said.) It is not demeaning to say she isn't as qualified as other women. It's just fact. This is no matter of opinion. It's not that I like other GOP women better. It's that those other women ARE better (more experienced, better equipped to deal with terrorism, Russia, our energy situation, etc.). I think my wife is the best mother in the world, but she is not qualified to be vice president. And if anyone picked her to be veep over those more qualified women, I'd be saying the same things. Please, develop some common sense and a spine to deal with this thing the rest of us call FACT. McCain and the GOP and YOU! are exploiting Sarah Palin.

Own up to your exploitation of women and we can talk.

[Leslie]

Zossima: And when you pick an unqualified woman over more qualified women, you are being sexist.

Zossima, I'm afraid I don't understand where you're going with this at all.

You set up the argument here:

It's taking advantage of a woman, plain and simple; it's also discriminating against the others; both are forms of sexism.

Let's assume I agree with you. Even though I don't. :) I'm not sure this is "sexism". When a woman takes advantage of a man is it sexism or is she misbehaving? There would be times when a man taking advantage of a woman could be called sexism and other times when it could only be called plain selfishness. Depends on the reason for his mis-steps and who can understand the heart of a man?

:D

As for discriminating against the other...it is sexism because the other qualified women didn't get picked? I'm not sure. Were they not picked because they were women? That would be sexism.

Jo Biden from my CNN/FOX vantage point north of the border seems like perhaps not the most qualified choice...was that discrimination against all the other Democratic men who might be more qualified or just a dumb move on Obama's part?

Who in the world is the most qualified to even make these judgments anyway? Condi Rice (whom I have a great deal of respect for) may indeed be more qualified, what do I know? But is that to say that she's THEE MOST qualified...you gave a list of several worthy women. If McCain had picked one of them, would there be a case to be made that the others were discriminated against because individually they may each have a smidge's worth of an edge on the chosen lady's qualifications in some area or another?

What then is the measure for being qualified?

Allowing women into politics is complicated.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Can't address the real issues? Call names.

As worthy as the public debt may be for further discussion, along with outsourced jobs, foreign oil, signing statements, et al, may be -- they are off topic, Popcorn.

Someone actually arguing with indisputable facts? They must be changing the subject.

Signing statements being unconstitutional, is certainly a disputable "fact." I believe if we were going to pursue it, it would be up to you to cite what controverts the Constitution. And what part of the Constitution that would be. Which you can't do. Popcorn. But that presumes it's got something to do with the subject under discussion. Which it doesn't, Popcorn.

Call me whatever you want. You still haven't made one single positive statement about why Palin is qualified to be Vice President of the USA. Pathetic.

There's nothing to address. She's the governor of the LARGEST state in the entire nation -- she is a highly successful one, too -- and some of our very best Presidents have been Governors. Republican or democrat, they make the best Presidents. That's because being a Governor has to do with executive decision making, whereas being a Senator has to do with legislating, which is ultimately pandering. It's John McCain's hidden weakness. He mitigated it appropriately by bringing someone to his ticket who actually has experience running things.

Barack Obama augmented his ticket by bringing someone into it who's just another Senator. More legislative experience. More pandering. Thirty-five years worth. A lifetime spent in the good ol'-boy club. And that, there, is an indisputable fact, Popcorn.

I have no intention of demeaning Palin. (Nor can you point to a single demeaning thing I've said.) It is not demeaning to say she isn't as qualified as other women. It's just fact. This is no matter of opinion.

So you can't tell the difference betwen the two. No news there, Popcorn.

I think my wife is the best mother in the world, but she is not qualified to be vice president. And if anyone picked her to be veep over those more qualified women, I'd be saying the same things. Please, develop some common sense and a spine to deal with this thing the rest of us call FACT. McCain and the GOP and YOU! are exploiting Sarah Palin. Own up to your exploitation of women and we can talk.

There's nothing to talk about, Popcorn, because the FACT of it is Sarah Palin has shown herself to be a strong, dynamic, experienced and principled leader. She has shown, word for word, and articulately, how her ideological preference soundly addresses the problems our country has to face. Liberals cannot do this, because liberalism has to do with solutions to things that do not work. Even worse -- it has to do with solutions to things that have been tried, and proven not to work. Palin lives what she believes.

And if you'd bothered to go reading my link and inspecting what you found there, from top to bottom -- it's not one of my more abbreviated pieces, so I knew you wouldn't do this, Popcorn -- what you'd find is that I agree with you that Palin is inexperienced at some things, and this inexperience is an asset. She does not piddle on peoples' shoes and tell 'em it's raining, like you do, Popcorn. She doesn't do that because she has no experience doing it. And the truth of the matter is, if she was nine hundred years old and the option had been available to gain "experience" doing this, she'd pass it up. She does not care to learn how to sell ice to the proverbial Eskimo. She does not want to learn how to say it's a sunny day outside when it's stormy, or vice-versa. This simply isn't her schtick. It isn't what she does, it isn't what she's all about. She's keepin' it real.

Go on, Mister Reality Guy. Try to tell me the same thing about Joe Biden with a straight face.

Here's the truth: The United States of America is a glorious, wonderful country. If we had to pick and choose which countries on the globe are worthy of an impassioned, deadly defense -- and we do not -- the US of A would be at the top of the heap. It is worth a lethal defense, a terrible defense, a patriotic defense. McCain/Palin agrees with that. Obama/Biden does not. And so, they will lose.

Popcorn.

[Zossima]

Hi Leslie,

That's a lot of questions. Let me start with the last. I don't think there is one absolute measure for being qualified. Is Condi more qualified than Kay Bailey? Hard to say. But clearly both are more qualified than my 6yo daughter. Palin's lack of experience in the things that are important for a VP puts her closer to my daughter than to her GOP superiors. It's just not even close.

With any VP pick, there is a consideration of "electability"--how that pick helps the ticket. But if you make the pick solely on electability, then you're doing a disservice to the country. I think it's indisputable that Palin is unqualified (despite the coolness of her "pitbull" quote and the fact that her speech killed McCain's). Otherwise, we're saying every small-town mayor is qualified. But I think she just might be more electable than Kay Bailey or Condi. There's a newness factor. There's the lack of a voting history--which definitely is in Obama's favor right now. Plus she holds some "beliefs" (e.g., primarily says a lot of words, though I am thankful that she put her pro-life words where her mouth is) that appeal to the GOP "base" and the christianists (Dobson, etc.). So, I conclude that McCain made a politically savvy pick that is a disservice to the country. I'm not alone in concluding that this pick is purely political.

Let me summarize to this point: (1) Her unqualified status is unarguable. Notice that the best anyone has done is some muckety-muck about how she was a whistle blower or that Alaska is close to Russia. Sorry, doesn't work. (Morgan's reasoning why Obama is unqualified only serves to highlight that Palin is more unqualified and BroKen's argument that she'd be "in training" to McCain ignores that he's 72, with a cancer history, and was hated by this very crowd just months ago.) (2) My opinion (strongly influenced by 1) is that she is (maybe for just a short while) a savvy political pick who props up base support for a weak candidate.

Okay, now the big one: Why is it sexist to pick her?

Let me preface by saying that Rick has a point in pointing out the hypocrisy of a so-called (I don't believe it) "liberal media" asking these questions. But, it does seem to me they are questions that the family values crowd should ask, even if the media shouldn't. (The feminist movement freed women to be in the workplace, though not with equal wages; but it still has a ways to go to acknowledge the value of women in the home.) The fact that they don't when it is politically expedient is telling. Funny how people switch sides...

Now to answer the big question: Why is this sexist? Well, would Palin have been picked if she were a man? No. Were there other more qualified people, including women? Yes. Was this a politically expedient pick? Seems so. Therefore, she is a woman who was chosen above other qualified people in part because of her femaleness. No, she was not excluded--the classic definition of sexism. She is being used to achieve the ends of others in large part due to her gender. (Exploitation.) That reinforces gender stereotypes that women are objects to be used for the gratification of men (since it is men calling the shots here). Therefore, it is sexism.

Finally, if this is too long, just enjoy this timely satire: here and here.

[Zossima]

Popcorn. LOL. (I'm in the 4%.) At least I pop.

Public debt is on topic when you're talking about what is true conservatism. Signing statements were unconstitutional when Clinton did it (you remember how you whined about that) and they are now, hypocritical shill. You brought up the topic of conservatism. You are not a conservative if you're not conserving anything. That is by definition of the word. And you, my friend, aren't conserving sh*t.

"She's the governor of the largest state." Um, no, she's the governor of the largest land mass. Big difference. Not even close to being the governor of the largest state. But thanks for regurgitating the talking points. Please, tell us next how she's the "commander in chief" of the Alaska National Guard and that they are the closest state to Russia. Tool.

Morgan: the FACT of it is Sarah Palin has shown herself to be a strong, dynamic, experienced and principled leader.

Um, well, except for that ethics investigation. Oh, and supporting the bridge to nowhere. And chairing Steven's 527. Oh, and the whole secessionist thing that her husband was a member of. Well, nice try. I believe that's 4 strikes for you.

Do you have any actual examples of HOW she has been dynamic, experienced, and principled, or do you think that just saying it makes it so? Does her ability to read strong words from a teleprompter with a lot of enthusiasm make it so? And even if she had, being the principled leader of the local Kiwanis hardly qualifies one to be veep of the US of A.

"She's keepin' it real". Thanks, JJ. That's what America needs, someone who can "keep it real" but wouldn't know what the hell to do if the next 911 or Katrina happened. You are making your country weaker.

Can't argue with you that I think the USA should be "at the top of the heap". If you think the Bushies have done that, I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Then it's settled.

If you don't think the United States is worth defending, you should vote for Obama.

[Zossima]

Morgan: It is worth a lethal defense, a terrible defense, a patriotic defense. McCain/Palin agrees with that. Obama/Biden does not.

It occurs to me that this bit of Morgan's bloviating alone is worth scrutiny. It really gets at the great divide in this country, which is built around the lie: The GOP will defend us, but the Dems won't. The Democrats do not believe that America is worth defending.

Obama and Biden have both sworn to defend this country. You have nothing but speculation to the contrary. And they have public statements to the affirmative. So you are a liar. And unless you can prove otherwise, Liar is your name. (And probably I'll call you bullsh*t motherf**king liar.) So produce the statements where they have vowed not to defend this country, produce the policy that they have stated where they will negotiate with terrorist organizations, produce the platform plank where they will let Israel fall or let the Chinese walk into our country or whatever it is that is responsible for putting our nation at such grave risk. Or say to the world that you are the liar that you are.

I'm just sick of this rank bullsh*t from the GOP whores.

See, you don't have to agree with their policies. You don't have to agree with how they would defend the country. You may think their approaches would not be strong enough. But have the integrity to not lie about them.

[Zossima]

If you don't think the United States is worth defending, you should vote for Obama.

More of Morgan's obfuscating. You cannot actually defend Palin's qualifications. You cannot defend her ethics. So, the next page in the GOP playbook is to attack the patriotism of the critic.

Nice try. I'll defend this country until the day I die against liars like you. You need to back your sh*t up, son.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Actually, Sarah Palin said it for me -- as you can depend on any strong, experienced leader to do:

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.

Is it too much to ask of these two guys who want to sit in the White House, that they describe how they will see to it America uses her military might to defeat people who are her sworn enemy?

I agree with you, that this issue "really gets at the great divide in this country," which is, in my words: Can America solve all of her problems without ever once recognizing, and calling out, pure evil? Sure there are some people who think this is possible. People like you, agree. And you think this is some kind of litmus test to see if people have what you call "integrity."

Heh. I guess you were throwing up a smokescreen when you were talking about Palin's "inexperience." You're really going after the integrity angle.

Well, I and millions of others, Gov. Palin included, have this kind of integrity. But we don't think it's possible to defeat evil without identifying it. You think compromise will solve anything and everything. We, on the other ahnd, question what compromise is.

Coincidentally -- or not -- I had a post going up today about you people. It turns out that, even if your side was correct about these beneficial effects of compromise, you're flawed in your premise of how to bring that about because you think sitting down in a meeting will magically make that happen. Reality, as it always has, frowns upon that.

Gov. Palin's smart enough to understand that. Obama and Biden might be, as well, but if that's the case then they are liars. But they're pretty sure they're smart enough to fool people like you.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

And when did Obama/Biden ever "[swear] to defend this country"? In what context? Is that the country as it exists in the moment in which we do our arguing here, or is that some country that exists in their pipe dream of what they want to make it into?

Thus far, I haven't heard Obama make one single positive comment about the US of A as it exists in the here and now. All of his charitable comments about "this country," to my knowledge, have concerned the country as it exists in his dreams of what he wants to make it into. That's a very different thing.

You cannot actually defend Palin's qualifications. You cannot defend her ethics.

Again, there's no defense needed.

So, the next page in the GOP playbook is to attack the patriotism of the critic.

Not so much a "playbook."

When Obama possess the talent, apparently, to consistently pick out the most anti-American position possible when he selects out of a brochure of carpeting or wallpaper swatches, at some point I find it advisable to call his patriotism into question.

If the left-wingers were truly into the exchange of ideas, they'd debate such a thing honestly, instead of trying to stigmatizing it. AGAIN.

[Zossima]

Morgan, I've called your bluff. Quite the bloviating. Back it up or shut up. Show me where Obama/Biden have determined not to defend America. You just persist in trying to demonize the other side, as if cute words about someone's decorating tastes constitute proof. It's simple. Prove it or be a bullsh*t motherf**king liar.

Oh, and btw, you guys haven't done such a good job of identifying evil. You're fighting in the wrong country, goddammit! The terrorists are and have been in Afghanistan. Jesus, you blowhards are stupid.

[Leslie]

>>Otherwise, we're saying every small-town mayor is qualified.

This is closer to where I think the root of the problem is. How long would one have to be governor of Alaska before one would be considered to have any political experience at all?

We're not talking sexism. We're talking ruralism. Or Alaskanism or something.

Well, would Palin have been picked if she were a man? No.

There aren't very many situations in the world that only have one possible outcome.

[Mommynator]

Well, there goes the Founding Fathers' concept of citizen legislator.

Zossima, your ignorance undies are showing. Time to run to the ladies' room.

[Zossima]

Leslie, I appreciate your thoughts. I'll leave it here with you: If it's just her experience and the issue of whether or not someone from a small town or from Alaska could ever be experienced, then that in itself is a legitimate question. I think my first point addresses that. She just isn't experienced. But I do think that picking such a clearly inexperienced person was a political ploy. And that to me makes Palin the victim of sexism or tokenism. It just doesn't help women in general. Anway, thanks.

[Leslie]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzM3ZWNhZmVhMDY2MDcxOGYzMWFmNWFkNGE2YTI4MGI=

[Zossima]

Leslie, I do buy the narrative about how corrupt the GOP has become. I don't know that I buy the narrative that Palin is a reformer. Let's see where this ethics investigation goes. And I don't think that McCain is a credible reformer anymore, unless he's just pulling the wool over everyone's eyes with his pandering to the base these past few months. Finally, I don't buy the narrative that the Dems are some form of absolute evil (tax and spend, won't defend the country, etc.).

My narrative is that 30 years ago, the Dems were corrupt and inept and were swept out of power by Reagan. During their years of power, labor unions had become corrupt and inefficient, the welfare state had become corrupt and inefficient, and America was militarily and competitively weak. It was time for the power pendulum to swing from Dems to Republicans. But Republicans have since (fairly quickly if you look at the Iran-Contra affair and very deeply under Bush-Cheney) become corrupt themselves. It is now so severe that the pendulum must swing the other way. The Democrats will defend America, though not by starting wars where no war is needed. And after Clinton, they own the issue of fiscal responsibility. And when they have become corrupted by power in a few years, I will be out here railing against those who would blindly follow them and tell lies against the other side.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Show me where Obama/Biden have determined not to defend America...Prove it or be a bullsh*t motherf**king liar.

Uh, you had said they had sworn to defend America. Wait, maybe I'm wrong, lemme go check that.

Obama and Biden have both sworn to defend this country.

Boosting the volume...

OBAMA AND BIDEN HAVE BOTH SWORN TO DEFEND THIS COUNTRY.

Slower...

OBAMA...AND...BIDEN HAVE...BOTH...SWORN...TO...DEFEND...THIS...COUNTRY.

Zossima, maybe I'm bloviating once again. But from where I sit, it looks like you've got two pieces of evidence you need to bring. And all I have to come up with, is a question I've already asked. In what setting did they ever say that?

I'm just wishing the "AN IDEA BOMB" ticket came up with one third of the passion for fighting terrorists, as they come up with for fighting conservatives. You can stigmatize me from noticing it, but it's too late, because I've already noticed it. These milquetoasts don't have any passion for defending what's important to the nation as it exists in the here and now.

Hey now that I think on it -- how much passion do you have for fighting the terrorists? Because I haven't seen you say anything against anyone in this thread, except for "bloviating" conservatives. You think we should negotiate with the terrorists; should I take your apparent desire, or lack thereof, to negotiate with these bloviating conservatives, as an indicator for how you'd negotiate with the terrorists? How do Obama/Biden feel about that?

Just a question.

Stop being so defensive. You're losing your composure again.

[Rick]

Zoss...

I don't mind passionate commenting, in fact, I can relate...

But clean up the language man... I confess to cussing like a sailor at times and have on the blog but I do try to keep this place semi-clean (as best I can)...

I've had to go back this morning and 'clean' up too many posts...

Help me out here and do your own cleaning...