- ‹ previous
- 2614 of 2716
- next ›
The Bridge
THE BRIDGE....Jeff Toobin on CNN: Sarah Palin's speech was better than Joe Biden's, but was also "smug, cutting, and sarcastic." That's better? Maybe, I guess, but does smug and cutting really sell outside the true believer base?
Also, Toobin reminded me of the speech's worst moment: that fact that Palin repeated her lie from Friday about standing up against the Bridge to Nowhere. There have been days and days of coverage thoroughly debunking this, showing beyond doubt that she was an enthusiastic supporter of the bridge and an enthusiastic supporter of the earmark, giving up only after the earmark was rescinded and Alaska was given the same amount of money to spend on other projects. She didn't turn down a thing. And yet she repeated the lie because she knows perfectly well that 30 million people will see the speech and only a couple million will read the fact check tomorrow. That's some straight talk for you.
W in a dress.
It's not a lie.
It's done in the service of a Higher Truth.
And what the hey, there are like nine other commandments left...
Palin delivered a dreadfully sophomoric speech written by young smart ass Rovian speech writers. I had expected better. They have solidified "the base" but the Republican base is not as large and the Democratic base and I suspect Palin's Christianist theological ties will alienate the crossover voters (formerly known as Independents) who rejected those folks in 2006.
The R's need an "enemy". They picked the MSM which has actually been in their corner recently. Now they've alienated them in "solidifying" their base. The R's organization was too cute by half.
she knows perfectly well the 30 million people will see the speech and only a couple million will read the fact check.
Goopers have been doing this since the days of Reagan and Atwater because they know that the traditional corporate media are utterly impotent to stop them, even if they wanted to. Especially in this era of right-wing domination of radio and tabloid journalism, Republicans -- and pretty much exclusively Republicans -- can and do lie at will, even on national television in a venue such as this, with impunity. The repeat of this lie so blatantly is a big fat middle finger to the MSM from the McCain campaign. (Doesn't mean our elite journalists won't all flock to the next BBQ he throws for them, though, so there's that.)
Sheagleton!
Buchanan in a skirt.
Did you notice the part where she talked about how the name McCain is the kind of name one finds on war memorials? Implying the name Obama is not? Nasty.
And going after Michelle when Obama had been very nice to her this week. I guess it is Ok to go after his family just not her's.
That strikes me as a mistake. Palin is still being defined by the media and the public at large. To repeat this claim, which not only can be disproved in clear, simple terms, but now has an incriminating picture of Palin attached...I don't know, this just seems like the work of someone who doesn't fully get how the media works. She's going to get categorized enough as a liar that it will cut against the "reformer" brand she and McCain are selling. Looks foolish to me.
The earmark was rescinded before she was even elected. The earmark was removed in conference committee in 2005. Palin was elected in 2006.
Anyway, Jesse Taylor at Pandagon pegged the speech perfectly: It was a speech to Michelle Malkin's comments section.
Did you notice the part where she talked about how the name McCain is the kind of name one finds on war memorials?
You mean old dead guys?
I'm not a fan, but it seems to me that in fairness, she gets to tell one good lie to make up for the fundamentally false WaPo story about her having cut funding for teenage mothers (in fact, what she did was trim a huge increase passed by the legislature). If WaPo comes out with a correction, then we can hang her for the bridge-to-nowhere lie. But I ain't gonna hold my breath.
I get what you are saying about the fact check Kevin but the truth is that it is also not entirely up to the media. The Obama campaign can also do its bit to go after this sort of dishonesty. They probably don't want to focus too much attention on her really but they could raise it in the context of the general lie that McCain and Palin represent any sort of reform. They are both willing to lie about their records on earmarks, lobbyists etc.
Tonight Palin really proved that she has what it takes to excel in small town politics. Half of the speech was petty, and the other half was ignorant.
To be totally honest, the speech was pretty good on first impression - but the more I think about it, the worse it tastes. She looked really polished (like her entire family's teeth) and her delivery was solid. But take that away, and her words are just ugly.
Oh, it was ugly, but she served up the red meat with a smile.
She's a player.
And after 2000 and 2004, I'm not about to discount hate, ignorance or the size of the GOP base.
She didn't tell us much about herself aside from the fact that she hates Democrats.
Still, she gives a good speech. But wait a week, and what will this speech be?
Rabid right wing talking points. Good for activating the base, bad for winning normal sane people. Especially if your base isn't a majority anymore.
Absolutely, the Dems need to really press them hard on the "change" thing.
Exactly what parts of the Bush and Cheney program would McCain and Palin change? What Bush programs would they cut? What economic policies would they change? What foreign policies of Bush would they counter? and why?
Please, Republicans, explain to us why the last 8 years have been so bad and how you'll be so different
I'd guess that the amount of input Palin had into the speech was minimal. She essentially functioned like one of those talking head programs where you feed it a text and the image of a pretty gal reads it back to you. Thus she wasn't the one choosing whether or not to lie again about the bridge.
I went over to the comments thread at CNN and discovered to my amazement that the vast majority of posters were turned off by the speech. A lot of them claimed to be independents. I am not too worried about the speech.
JimBOM, she's Journo major -- actually used to do small-market TV news. Not surprising she can read a teleprompter.
She's getting props for doing what she was trained to do.
The bridge to nowhere might prove a bridge to far.
Kevin writes:
"an enthusiastic supporter of the earmark, giving up only after the earmark was rescinded and Alaska was given the same amount of money to spend on other projects."
This incompetence and unfamiliarity with the facts is getting annoying. The timeline you have presented here is all wrong. Let me explain the timeline, slowly:
2005: Bridge to nowhere "earmark was rescinded and Alaska was given the same amount of money to spend on other projects"
2006: Sarah Palin campaigns for governor and pledges to use that money to build the bridge to nowhere.
2007: Palin decides not to use that money to build the bridge. She says that Congress did not give Alaska enough money to build the bridge.
2008: Palin claims, "I told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere."
Why is this so difficult to understand? Why can't we get even the most basic facts right? Read the Daily Howler, dammit.
I apologize for my harsh tone. Shouldn't have been that insulting toward Kevin, he just didn't know. It's TPM that's most at fault here for missing this. Still, I'd really, really, like liberal bloggers to start getting basic facts right.
Did I hear her say that she and McCain would go to D.C. and fight for the common good?
Bring THAT on! Even a momentary switch to "All For One", instead of "Every Man For Himself" might heal our endangered unity.
And, if she sincerely wants to push for alternative energy sources, great. It's the right idea now, and it was the right idea 30-odd years ago when Carter first implemented it, only to see his programs killed by Reagan, setting the scene for decades of oil war carnage.
JimmyM:
Do you deny that her 2008 statement, particularly in conjunction with all her other statements about reform and cutting waste, are intended to suggest that she opposed the bridge from the beginning because it was wasteful?
Do you deny that this is a dishonest portrayal of events? One made even more dishonest by her record as mayor? After all, she hired a lobbyist with ties to both Don Young and Jack Abramoff. At the time, Wasilla was one of a very few cities in Alaska to employ a lobbyist and one of the smallest to do so. This lobbyist helped bring in millions of dollars per year in earmarks to this city of under 6,000 people.
First of all, she insulted the dedication and hard work of thousands of community organizers across the country by implying that community organizing involves no responsibility. The mayor of my town is a good man, but he's in the mayor's office 2 hours a day. Does anyone know how much real time Palin actually put into her stint as mayor, and how much time she actually put in to her role as governor? We know the Bush governorship was essentially a part-time gig. Palin demonstrated that she can stand in front of a crowd and deliver a speech that was mostly written BY someone else FOR someone else to give until 'Plan Joe' fell through. I was listening for substance, and there was none--only biography, which we've already had more than enough of. She failed to explain why she and McCain are to be viewed as 'change' and 'mavericks.' Granted, she emphasized that they want to DRILL-BABY-DRILL, but the remainder of 'their' energy alternatives were lifted from Obama's plan! She lied about Obama and taxes, and offered nothing that hasn't been the standard Republican fare for years. I'd like to see the blogs and MSM hammer away at the fact that there's no 'moosemeat' to their ticket.
2005: Bridge to nowhere "earmark was rescinded and Alaska was given the same amount of money to spend on other projects"
2006: Sarah Palin campaigns for governor and pledges to use that money to build the bridge to nowhere.
2007: Palin decides not to use that money to build the bridge. She says that Congress did not give Alaska enough money to build the bridge.
2008: Palin claims, "I told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere."
More importantly-- did she give back the money that they gave her to build the bridge?
No. She kept it. That's truly fiscally responsible.
remember, you only get one chance to make a first impression...was that the one that you would want a national politician to make.?
Name only politician who came to prominence with their first speech so negative on a black background?
Just a thought
JimmyM, the way you describe what happened seems to me to put Palin in even worse light than Kevin's version:
2005: Bridge to nowhere "earmark was rescinded and Alaska was given the same amount of money to spend on other projects"
2006: Sarah Palin campaigns for governor and pledges to use that money to build the bridge to nowhere.
So she wants to take that money from "other projects" and build the bridge instead -- even after the earmark has been rescinded?
2007: Palin decides not to use that money to build the bridge. She says that Congress did not give Alaska enough money to build the bridge.
So she gives up only because the money wasn't enough to build the bridge? Not because she thought it was a wasteful project, as she now claims?
2008: Palin claims, "I told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere."
Thanks for what -- since there was no offer of money for a bridge at this point?
I don't have any independent knowledge of all this, but strictly from your facts (as I read them) it seems that what she claims now is very far from the truth on several points. And this is something she knows well, right?
I thought that was Jimmy's point, that the facts are actually worse for Palin than the common understanding.
NeoCon means throwback. So Palin is Princess Throwback.
I was watching CCN this morning and Palin was referred to as a "rising star." Talk about bias!
Why can't I find at least neutral national news to watch in the morning? MSNBC is certainly no help!
What did you expect? They brought in an ex-bush speechwriter to write it for. It said whatever the bushies thought it best for them for her to say.
GOP rule #1: when all you have is the lie, go with the lie.
That's why they do it so often.
JS and Boronx are exactly right. Palin's claim is not a mere flip-flop, it's wholly dishonest on multiple levels. Leading liberal bloggers have not yet realized this. And obviously the media hasn't noticed, so Palin felt free to repeat this outrageous lie in her speech last night.
"And yet she repeated the lie because she knows perfectly well that 30 million people will see the speech and only a couple million will read the fact check tomorrow."
Its called Republicanism 101. It works. Just ask Cheney or Bush or Rove. "We create our own reality"
Sarah Palin didn't pay her taxes or disclose her ownership stake in a carwash in AK.
I had the feeling last night that the real impulse of the corporate media was to portray Palin as doing a great job, because that was the best story. The, "Yup, she's just an inexperienced dope," narrative wasn't going to interest people, so they sold the best story they had.
Here's hoping that anyone who actually watched the speech found her as scary as I did.
30 million people will see the speech and only a couple million will read the fact check
She may be an "outsider" but she'll fit right in. Standard GOP tactics - insure that only a small percentage of the sheeple will know the truth.
I am worried. People keep saying that the voters will not be fooled again. Yeah right. There were actually people doing their job in 2000 and 2004, but because people take no interest in politics until Nov. 3rd, we keep getting crappy leadership.
And if I hear one more person say that Biden needs to take it easy on this certified liar, I am going to kick someone's teeth in.
You know what else works, though? Obama Jiu-Jitsu.
It's how they won the primary, and it's how they'll win the general.
Step 1: Be Nice.
"She's a skilled politician. We respect her."
That takes the club out of their hands. Nothing to argue about.
Step 2: Beat Them Over The Head With Their Own Words/Deeds.
"What are they going to talk about? Eight years of peace and prosperity? It is phenomenal when you think about it, that we're into the final day of the convention and not one serious word about the state of the economy, not one serious word about where they would lead. We've heard again and again that John McCain was a prisoner of war, for which we all honor him and respect him. But heck, we knew that before the convention."
See? Now we're back on our playing field. I think it's pretty slick.
I'm not a fan, but it seems to me that in fairness, she gets to tell one good lie to make up for the fundamentally false WaPo story about her having cut funding for teenage mothers (in fact, what she did was trim a huge increase passed by the legislature). If WaPo comes out with a correction, then we can hang her for the bridge-to-nowhere lie.
Wrong. This was a one-time appropriation to *build* the center for the unwed moms. Because she cut the budget, it's going to take longer to build and so the mothers are going to go longer without the services.
JimmyM has already explained, so I'll hit it once more so we're clear.
Quaker: "The earmark was rescinded before she was even elected. The earmark was removed in conference committee in 2005. Palin was elected in 2006."
The earmark was removed but the money still went to Alaska. Palin's predecessor opted to allocate most of the money to the bridge anyway. Palin continued that policy until last year, when the cost estimate went up and there was no way Congress would pay the whole cost. And, since the whole bridge was becoming an embarrassment, she suspended work on the bridge. (But not, as we've learned, the adjacent access road.)
Thank you, Grumpy, for saving me a little typing here. Way back last Friday, I ran across an article about the bridge which basically states what has already been said, except, the money Congress granted was approx the total estimate for the bridge, but was to cover all federally funded road & bridge projects in Alaska. One of the projects that would not have been built would have been the new $25M highway leading to the Ketchikan approach of the bridge.
Now the interesting part is, the $25M bridge approach highway is being funded, with that road dead-ending at the water's edge. Looks to me like someone hasn't given up completely on the bridge.
And just to put things into perspective, Ketchikan is a city of about 7500 people (which is fewer still than Wasilla- about 8500- has today), with the ONLY access to the city being by ferry. The other end of the bridge is an island with about 50 residents & the area's airport. They are currently accessible from the city by ferry. Now imagine this project even being considered under similar circumstances in, say, South Dakota?
Can you say "boondoggle"? Yet Sarah Palen was all for it until it became absolutely clear that there would be no more Federal funding for it.
Christian Louboutin
d an enthusiastic supporter of the earmark, giving up only after the earmark was rescinded and Alaska was given the same amount of money t UGG boots, uggs shoes, replica designer handbags
what ? they are all liers.
what ? they are all liers.
It is all about the threat
It is all about the threat of game copies for N. The wii is perfectly capable of playing games from HD or SD with a software update. This is a major problem, and N could find itself out off business during the Next Gen if their rivals are able to come up with their own innovative controllers.
Another reason not to buy
Another reason not to buy any thing Apple. It comes down to this we purchase the music we have a right to listen to it on any device we choose. The constitution and current laws back this up as fact. Apples refusal to allow any other device to sync with I Tunes is in clear violation. As long as Apple continues this anti-competative business model. I will not buy or use any thing they produce.
Nike
tagged as:- result
Nike Shoes的设计师造访我国Nike Sneakers，偶然间在休闲鞋目睹了传统Nike Shoes的编织过程，立刻被这种休闲鞋的工艺所吸引，激发了将Jordan Sneakers与运动鞋的鞋面制造相结合的灵感。Jordan Sneakers经过不断的尝试，终于在2000年设计出了以运动鞋为卖点的休闲鞋。无独有偶，Nike Sneakers设计总监Jordan Shoes也恰好在此时于Nike Shoes发现了类似的Jordan Sneakers，并应用于休闲鞋作为辅助。由此，Nike Sneakers在功能性上截然不同的运动鞋却为Jordan Sneakers日后的Nike Sneakers下了坚实的基础。
显眼的Jordan Sneakers，全部以[uCheap Jordan Shoes而成，自然形成井然有序的Nike Air Jordan Retro Shoes，同时呈现出一种休闲鞋的轨迹。而在Nike Sneakers的中底设计上，仍然隐藏有高科技Nike Shoes，具备温故而知新的Nike Sneakers精神——这就是对Nike Shoes最好的概述！