September 02, 2008
— DrewM After yesterday's abbreviated session, the GOP convention is taking on a more normal look tonight with a revamped lineup of speakers.
Republicans say Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman will speak on Tuesday at the Republican National Convention.Convention organizers and John McCain's campaign adjusted the schedule of the four-day gathering with Hurricane Gustav bearing down on the Gulf Coast. The storm now has weakened. That means Republicans will resurrect their program with some changes.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had been scheduled to give the keynote address. But Thompson and Lieberman will take the podium instead. Republicans say the two will talk about McCain's biography and their friendship with him.
Not to diminish the impact Gustav had on those directly affected but it's clear at this point we aren't looking at a Katrina level national disaster so it will be interesting to see if a partisan edge starts to return tonight.
All in all, given that yesterday was Labor Day, I'm not sure the party lost all that much by not having a regular session. With Gustav behind us and Palin on everyone's mind, people should be much more focused on what the party has to say.
UPDATE:
I'm not a big Mike Huckabee guy to say the least but he can be a very effective speaker and advocate. Today he's come out swinging in defense of Palin.
"Over the past few days weve been hearing all this stuff about how Gov. Palin doesnt have experience let me tell you something I can assure having been a governor myself for ten and a half years, shes had more executive experience in 2 years than her counterpart Joe Biden has had in all the years that hes been making speeches because shes been making decisions hes been making just simple speeches," Huckabee told the crowd."In fact I dont know if you realize this but Sarah Palin got more votes running for mayor in Wasilla Alaska than Joe Biden did in 2 quest for the presidency that oughta tell you something,
I guess the partisan edge is back, at least if Huck has anything to say about. I like it.
Posted by: DrewM at
07:48 AM
| Comments (73)
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.
You mean an Obama Presidency?
Posted by: Christoph at September 02, 2008 07:50 AM (hawOV)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at September 02, 2008 07:52 AM (0+Ggj)
I don't care what her other point is. I can have no respect for her when she's talking up that vicious, mass-murdering organization.
Posted by: Christoph at September 02, 2008 07:54 AM (hawOV)
Posted by: DrewM. at September 02, 2008 07:54 AM (hlYel)
Posted by: Christoph at September 02, 2008 07:55 AM (hawOV)
No-one is talking about McCain. No-one cares at this point. Everyone is talking about Palin. The speakers should be taking the fight to the enemy on this front not assuming a happy face and trying to avoid the topic.
A VERY good reason to vote for McCain-Palin is precisely the vile attacks that their opponents have launched. Sure it might not be listed in the poli-sci books but it is a genuine motivating factor.
Posted by: dougf at September 02, 2008 07:58 AM (16GPT)
Planned.... Parenthood?
Planned Purpose is there for a good reason
To stop the blackies from breeding too much, actually...
Posted by: Entropy at September 02, 2008 07:58 AM (m6c4H)
The GOP has gone out of its way to avoid partisanship at the start of the convention because of Hurricane Gustav, but Gustav hasn't stopped the vicious attacks on Sarah Palin by the left, including the MSM.
The GOP has got to go back on the offensive starting tonight. The MSM will criticise them, but what's new? They didn't give the GOP any credit for scaling back the first day.
Posted by: Michael Laurence at September 02, 2008 08:04 AM (o10gU)
Posted by: Christoph at September 02, 2008 08:05 AM (hawOV)
Posted by: jimmytheleg at September 02, 2008 08:07 AM (M+vDq)
Go Huck!
Personally, I have been hoping that they have been feeding the left enough rope to hang themselves.
Posted by: SoCalSteeler at September 02, 2008 08:23 AM (ZXbck)
Posted by: erik at September 02, 2008 08:28 AM (hblvb)
One of the pluses of choosing Palin is that it's given Huck something positive to do in this convention. I was worried he'd play "culture warrior" a la Buchanan in Houston '92.
Not sure why you're worried about this, dougf; there is plenty of time to get back to McCain. You know, the Maverick.
Posted by: David Ross at September 02, 2008 08:31 AM (GwV+j)
Seriously. If they appear on the ballot, I will vote for them.
Now there's a party platform I can get behind! Especially the man-eating cougar part.
Posted by: Monty at September 02, 2008 08:32 AM (4Pleu)
That being said, why we elect a President is because of their judgment. When the unforeseen arises, will they make the best decision possible? Now, I won't get into it with all of you about Obama fitness for office, because we obviously disagree. You know the policies Obama stands for, foreign and domestic, and are less than thrilled.
Now, I am not going to flat out say that Palin is unqualified for office. But what I will say is, who the hell knows what she would do? Pro-life is not a foreign policy. Drill, drill, drill is not a solution to social security. Strong support of the second amendment is not a strategy for handling the Iraq war. How can you come out this strongly in favor of Palin being a heartbeat from the Presidency when you have no fuckin' clue how she would lead?
Posted by: Cam at September 02, 2008 08:38 AM (6+j77)
"Just because it missed New Orleans doesn't mean there wasn't and isn't damage done."
It missed the lower 9th ward so no harm done.
Posted by: Javems at September 02, 2008 08:41 AM (hq71Y)
Word. On the flip side, what will we do if, god forbid, something happens to Biden and Obama has to make a foreign policy call?
Posted by: toby hussein 928 at September 02, 2008 08:41 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: David Ross at September 02, 2008 08:44 AM (GwV+j)
"Word. On the flip side, what will we do if, god forbid, something happens to Biden and Obama has to make a foreign policy call?"
Snort.
/And no, that is not a refrence to the Obaminator and "blow".
Posted by: Javems at September 02, 2008 08:47 AM (hq71Y)
Posted by: lowandslow at September 02, 2008 08:48 AM (MlewG)
It missed the lower 9th ward so no harm done.
That was probalby the first time the lower 9th ward was missed in the last three years.
Posted by: roy at September 02, 2008 08:48 AM (cB77O)
Shit, what if something DOESN'T happen to Obama and HE has to make a foreign policy call?
Frankly, the Run-away Party is not one to stay and deal with dangerous issues-- the Left, historically, has been quick to appease or ignore. Why? Because they really just want foreign policy to go away-- the Left is all about building a domestic socialist utopia. They aren't about solving difficult foreign policy issues, only in getting them to lie low.
Posted by: Stinky Esposito at September 02, 2008 08:48 AM (MMC8r)
Cam, you make a good point but one known backed by an unknown is better than two known, and wrong, variables. McCain is tested in government. Obama has spent half his time at the national level campaigning and is wrong. Biden is a known but wrong, with ample history. Palin is a national unknown but what experience she has is right.
If you want an absolute, dead lock for known Presidential experience then vote for Bush Sr or Carter. They have term life left.
Posted by: Rob B at September 02, 2008 08:51 AM (q32Ly)
Because A, I have a clue. You don't.
B, what I have to guess on makes for much better judgement then either of the other 3 garauntee.
Now, would you get into the car with a complete stranger on a lonely highway late a night who looked a bit twitchy and seemed to be holding something in his hand in his pocket?
OK.
Would you get into the car with a complete stranger on a lonely highway late at night who looked a bit twitchy because you were being chased on foot by a gang of homorapist hicks with chainsaws arguing about whether to turn your used up ass into beef jerkey or a leather dress after they were done raping it up?
Well there you go.
Posted by: Entropy at September 02, 2008 08:52 AM (m6c4H)
Posted by: TBinSTL at September 02, 2008 08:53 AM (2vLkB)
I could say the same kinds of things about Obama. For instance, his bicycle is not his toothbrush.
Posted by: bgates at September 02, 2008 08:53 AM (CFjXn)
Who knows what the hell Obama would do? He's been long on change and hope, and short on specifics. As for judgment? Well the things he's opined on, he's been wrong more than right. You cross him or you simply become inconvenient, he throws you under the bus. All the left leaning types out there who think "Now we have someone who will implement our agenda!" ought to be careful of what they wish for, because Obama will do what Obama has to do to retain power. He's just Bill Clinton with a new paint job. So he's going to surprise a lot of people--on both sides of the aisle--with what he does. And right now, other than knowing he'll do what he has to do to stay in power, we just don't know. Of course so long as Pelosi and Reid hold the keys to Congress, it'll be like letting a 16 year old rookie driver out on the road behind the wheel of a race car. There's no adult in the room to supervise him.
I groaned in agony when the Huckster told a story about six months ago (when he was still in the race) about roasting squirrels over a hot air pop corn popper in his dorm room at Central Arkansas Baptist College. That's the only kind of cooking implement the school would allow the students to have. I figured that the New York Times would make much sport of Huckabee's squirrel roasting if he got the nomination. Well he didn't--but when he's criticizing Biden, he's still "roasting squirrels".
Posted by: Michael J. Myers at September 02, 2008 08:55 AM (LZ3cP)
Posted by: toby hussein 928 at September 02, 2008 08:56 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: Cam at September 02, 2008 01:38 PM (6+j77)
Since you have no intention of voting for anyone but Obama, why the hell do you care? And on the subject of not having a fucking clue how someone would lead, look no further than your hopeychangey dude.
Posted by: grc at September 02, 2008 08:59 AM (PF/ZE)
Two months are an eternity in modern politics. If Democratics keep trying to push the current crap put out there as "scandals" by this time next month, people will start to look at them like they're still talking about Chappaquidick.
Keeping my fingers crossed...
Posted by: Jim62sch at September 02, 2008 09:03 AM (ubHgw)
That's just too rich.
Of course hard leftists despise Lieberman, that's why they hounded him out of HIS Democrat Party.
But to say that INDEPENDENTS say that Lieberman is repulsive? That's just too far.
Posted by: maverick muse at September 02, 2008 09:04 AM (F1b/5)
And that's the point. Camp Obama can't attack her for her record, because its true "hope and change" and makes Obama look like a typical, insider politician by comparison. They can't attack her character without riling up the feminist base/PUMA crowd. They can't attack her beliefs because too many americans agree with her. (Dems do best when abortion is not on the frontburner)
All that's left to attack is her inexperience. But part of McCains strategy was to play Obama as inexperienced--(which he is, like Palin).
Every time they attack her inexperience, they admit that experience matters. Notice that "pre Palin" it was McCain talking up experience. "Post Palin" it is the Obamites talking up experience. McCain has not had to day a word about it, but the whole country is buzzing with the dicussion.
And no matter where an individual comes down on the issue, the Reblicans get a boost. If you think a little charcater matters more than experience, then you have a new VP candidate yo think is qualified. If you think that experience is paramount, then you have to paint Obama with the same brush.
McCain was smart. It's judo plus chess. Or "jewess", as I like to call it.
Posted by: erik at September 02, 2008 09:07 AM (hblvb)
How can you come out this strongly in favor of Palin being a heartbeat from the Presidency when you have no fuckin' clue how she would lead?
This question, coming from one who would eagerly put a fucking Marxist zero heartbeats away from the presidency, does not even deserve to be dignified with an answer.
Posted by: Andy at September 02, 2008 09:09 AM (C3mTI)
Posted by: Dr. David Banner at September 02, 2008 09:10 AM (NMK3S)
"McCain was smart. It's judo plus chess. Or "jewess", as I like to call it"
I thought it was Joooooooooess. No?
Posted by: MAJHAM at September 02, 2008 09:12 AM (NMK3S)
Juan Williams has been getting Surprise New Respect from our side lately, but it looks like he's back to huffing paint.
In the Connecticut primary, Lieberman got 48% of the Democratic vote. Lieberman went on to poll 35% of Democrats in the following August. A little trick known as "math" tells me that 48-35 = 13% of Democrats out of the 48% of "Lieberman Democrats", or 27% of the Lieberman Democrat community, were actually repulsed by Lieberman's choice to buck his party. The remaining three quarters of independent Democrats like Lieberman just fine.
Juan, do like the rest of us and try drinking Scotch instead.
Posted by: David Ross at September 02, 2008 09:16 AM (GwV+j)
If Palin is unfit to lead because her daughter got pregnant, wasn't Al Gore unfit to lead because his son was kicked out of high school for drugs, and judging by his arrest record, he's still a druggy to this day????
Posted by: grc at September 02, 2008 09:18 AM (PF/ZE)
Posted by: Ace's liver at September 02, 2008 09:20 AM (xDwoq)
Posted by: joan at September 02, 2008 09:21 AM (gVGwn)
That being said, why we elect a President is because of their judgment. When the unforeseen arises, will they make the best decision possible?
Obama made a judgement to attend a church for 20 years that even Oprah quit on principle.
Obama made a judgement to associate with Bill Ayers and then lie about that association.
Obama made a judgement that we needed to withdraw our troops immediately from Iraq because in his opinion we were losing.
Obama made a judgement to accept real estate assistance (to put it kindly) from convicted felon, Rezko.
Obama made a judgement to oppose a Born Alive bill contrary to the vote of everyone of his fellow democrat Senators.
Obama made a judgement of picking Joe Biden as his running mate. A 30 year Senate doofus who has made some of the most ridiculous blunders in both verbal gaffes and policy recommendations. A man who has exagerrated his resume beyond the political norm to be catergorized as lies. A man who suggested we give Iran a 200 million dollar bribe to be our friend. A man who recommended Iraq be split into three. A man who has had brain surgery.
Posted by: polynikes at September 02, 2008 09:21 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Al Gore at September 02, 2008 09:22 AM (m6c4H)
Posted by: spongeworthy at September 02, 2008 09:24 AM (a00go)
While Obama is clearly intelligent enough to be President and may do a great job if he is elected there is no way to know what he will actually do. What if Obama gets malaria and Biden is President?!!?! What does Biden think about conflict in Africa and the impact on large apes!??!! Does Palin know where Italy is?!!!
Posted by: bleh at September 02, 2008 09:26 AM (GNCy6)
A) A complete stranger on a lonely highway late at night who looked a bit twitchy and seemed to be holding something in his hand in his pocket
B) A gang of homorapist hicks with chainsaws arguing about whether to turn your used up ass into beef jerkey or a leather dress after they were done raping it up
C) Giant douche
D) Turd sandwich
Hmm. Now it gets interesting. I had been rather despondent about the whole election thing before.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at September 02, 2008 09:30 AM (sI5Ho)
I groaned in agony when the Huckster told a story about six months ago (when he was still in the race) about roasting squirrels over a hot air pop corn popper in his dorm room at Central Arkansas Baptist College. That's the only kind of cooking implement the school would allow the students to have. I figured that the New York Times would make much sport of Huckabee's squirrel roasting if he got the nomination. Well he didn't--but when he's criticizing Biden, he's still "roasting squirrels".
Don't knock it hon, squirrels are damn good eating and if all you have to cook with is a hot air popcorn popper (and I can certainly relate to that since that's all I could have in my dorm as well, not that I cooked squireels with it) that's just redneck ingenuity. If you look down on eating squirrel your an elitist wanker.
Posted by: joan at September 02, 2008 09:30 AM (gVGwn)
"This question, coming from one who would eagerly put a fucking Marxist zero heartbeats away from the presidency, does not even deserve to be dignified with an answer."
For those of you in our audience who may have missed the point, I'll repeat. At this point in the election cycle, if you don't understand where Obama stands on the major foreign and domestic issues, try reading something. There's plenty that has been said and written about the direction he wishes to take the country.
Likewise, there is plenty that has been said and written about McCain and where he wishes to take the country. I happen to prefer Obama's direction to McCain's. What isn't known is where Palin wishes to take this country. Aside from the GOP's favorite wedge issues (guns, gays, abortion) we know hardly anything about where she stands.
Now, this seems to be the part nobody understood before, so I'll take it slow. You may disagree with Obama's policies, but they exist. He has foreign policy planks, you just disagree with them. He has domestic policy planks, you just disagree with them.
Palin has no foreign policy planks. Palin has no domestic policy planks (except pro-life, yeah we got it). Again, I'm not saying she's not qualified, or that I even disagree with her. But I have to know what the hell she stands for before I make a decision. I just find throwing 100% of your support behind a woman that McCain has only met once, but already thinks is a "soul mate," ridiculous.
Posted by: Cam at September 02, 2008 09:31 AM (5+UZK)
Posted by: Kensington at September 02, 2008 09:35 AM (kFwRi)
Yep. They have inadvertently inoculated her from attack in their panic. Partially or fully attenuated bolus? Not known, yet, but their fever will be significantly less contagious.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at September 02, 2008 09:36 AM (sI5Ho)
Posted by: bleh at September 02, 2008 09:38 AM (GNCy6)
Posted by: Tom at September 02, 2008 09:39 AM (5rt67)
Cam is right that we do know from Obama's statements where he wants to take this country.
Obama wants a huge-ass civilian corps. I once would have expected that McCain, who is a Teddy Roosevelt wannabe, would ask for something similar; but since he's chosen Palin, the libertarians might be able to rein him in.
Obama's also going to ask for a few incremental reforms in health care (which might be okay), and boondoggles in ethanol and "green energy" (which won't be okay, but people will grumble and move on).
But Obama won't be effective ; his tax cuts, even if sincere (as I believe Candidate Clinton's were in 1992) will be shot down in Congress (because n00b Obama won't be any stronger than was n00b Clinton at overcoming the deficit and foreign market pressure, c.f., 1993). Also, I'd mentioned last night that Obama is big on strongmen and action, and easy prey for bullies and crooks. His cabinet is going to be awful.
And Obama is going to get snowed by the Chavezes of the world, but most Obama trolls are big fans of Chavez, so this is a feature rather than a bug.
Posted by: David Ross at September 02, 2008 09:44 AM (GwV+j)
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at September 02, 2008 09:47 AM (1hM1d)
Posted by: Mike "Big Green One" Huckabee at September 02, 2008 09:49 AM (1hM1d)
...like I said my little Acolyte Token Liberal**: you are off to a bad start.
And if we didn't hold out much hope of your recovery, we're holding less and less the deeper you dig.
**Cam
Posted by: davis,br at September 02, 2008 09:49 AM (zewwG)
"You know the policies Obama stands for, foreign and domestic, and are less than thrilled."
Uh, no we don't. He has yet to definitively state them. Ever.
"Now, I am not going to flat out say that Palin is unqualified for office. But what I will say is, who the hell knows what she would do?"
Oh, so you're not going to flat out say it, you're going to come at it sideways. Nancyboy.
"Pro-life is not a foreign policy."
Nor is "hope and change". Nor is "Iran is a tiny country and no threat" one day, then "Iran is a grave threat" less than 48 hours later. Nor is "I will meet with dictators without pre-conditions", nor is "We need more arabic translators in Afghanistan". And who ever made this absurd claim you make?
"Drill, drill, drill is not a solution to social security."
Who said it was, other than you in this nonsensical screed? You know what else isn't a solution to social security? A bunch of screeching halfwit democrats blocking Bush's attempts to come up with a "solution to social security".
"Strong support of the second amendment is not a strategy for handling the Iraq war."
Again, who said that it was? Who writes this crap for you, and where are you cutting and pasting it from?
Does blabbing about how the surge will be, is and now continues to be a failure despite obvious and incontrovertible proof that is has been anything but a failure constitute a "strategy" for handling the Iraq war? No it does not.
"How can you come out this strongly in favor of Palin being a heartbeat from the Presidency when you have no fuckin' clue how she would lead?"
More to the point- how can anyone come out strongly in favor of b.hussein being the President when noone, NOONE has any fuckin' clue how that stupefying dipshit would lead? He has absolutely NO experience running anything. NONE. He's a fucking worthless dipshit cypher.
Now scram, cram.
Posted by: hey, wada minnit at September 02, 2008 09:54 AM (ez7V0)
Although the idea that Obama can unify the country at this point when he couldn't even successfully unify his party is laughable.
Posted by: Tom at September 02, 2008 09:55 AM (5rt67)
Which "stands" are we to read? The first, the second, the third, etc.?
Posted by: hey, wada minnit at September 02, 2008 09:58 AM (ez7V0)
Hey Cam what are Joe Biden's policy positions? What about his judgments? When was the last time he headed up a negotiation of a 100 million dollar deal as an executive of his State? When was the last time as an executive he submitted a billion dollar budget for his State to be approved. When was the last time he had to make Homeland Security plans as an executive of his State? When was the last time he managed more than the 15 people he has on staff?
It may be important to also remember that Palin is the VP nominee. And what I don't know about Obama and what the media refuses to investigate could fill a library. Any clue about his academic or extracurricula activites at Columbia? Any clue as to his chairmanship of the Annenberg project besides it was judged a failure? Any info on why he was not required to publish anything at Harvard? How am I supposed to evaluate someone's judgment when they are trying to hide who they are in addition to having no accomplishments to list? But you keep relying on old hopey changey.
Posted by: polynikes at September 02, 2008 10:06 AM (m2CN7)
"Drill, drill, drill is not a solution to social security."
Tell that to Norway.
Not that I'm advocating we take after Norway and utilize it as such. Oh and someone such as yourself who is opposed to big government and is upset at how Republican's are no longer the party of small government they were before leaving you, you shouldn't even be concerned about social security. You should want it gutted and ended since its a government bureaucracy.
Posted by: buzzion at September 02, 2008 10:06 AM (Lrsi6)
That's right, no.....one.....knows. Not even someone as slow-witted as you.
Posted by: MrDIe at September 02, 2008 10:16 AM (MrDIe)
How can you come out this strongly in favor of Palin being a heartbeat from the Presidency when you have no fuckin' clue how she would lead?
But, we DO have a clue how she'd lead. If her experience as a governor is any indication, which is all the indication we have, she would attack government waste and corruption, she would negotiate for beneficial energy policies (a la the natural gas pipeline that she was instrumental in getting approved in Alaska), while watching out for our pocketbooks (as she did in getting the tax surplus from oil production paid back to her constituents). This is just off the top of my head, without further research.
These are actual accomplishements, and they mean a lot to me. She doesn't just talk, she walks the walk. Since I (mostly) like where she is walking, that's good enough for me.
Posted by: April at September 02, 2008 10:19 AM (qVLLg)
As for the rest of you dullards, I just feel sorry for you. Have fun copy-pasting your little Ayers/Rezko memes, and sucking up the tripe Rove is hand feeding you. Enjoy the tax cut you'll be getting since you all make over $2.87 million a year. Oh, wait, what's that? You don't make $2.87 million a year? You just like to THINK you will benefit from Republican economic policies to pretend you in that top 1%? It all makes sense to me now.
You actually think the GOP wants to make abortion illegal? Hahahahaha. You actually think the GOP wants to do anything serious about the "grave threat" that is gay marriage? Hahahahaha. How many years now have you been told that an election is about "protecting life?" How far along has that defense of marriage constitutional amendment advanced? Not very far it seems.
If the GOP actually accomplishes anything on these fronts, what issues will they use to rile up the base? How will they keep you in line while doling out huge tax cuts to the richest .1% of the country? Without homophobia and abortion rhetoric the future looks pretty bleak as far as wedge issues. I suppose there is still some mileage left with gun control. Anything to distract the increasingly impoverished red states from their own economic misfortune.
Me? I'll be here in New York City doing just fine for myself. You know, having sex and doing drugs just like everyone else all across this country. Red state or Blue. The only difference is, I won't be a huge hypocrite about it.
Posted by: Cam at September 02, 2008 11:46 AM (6+j77)
Hate to break it to you Tom, but they are "wedge issues." Issues that your beloved GOP can trot out every election cycle to rile you up, and then do nothing about.
Posted by: Cam at September 02, 2008 11:50 AM (6+j77)
Posted by: Margaret Sanger at September 02, 2008 12:02 PM (TNuqz)
Posted by: just sayin at September 02, 2008 12:10 PM (7DB+a)
Posted by: someone at September 02, 2008 12:13 PM (2z2WN)
Posted by: toby hussein 928 at September 02, 2008 12:17 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: Trimegistus at September 02, 2008 12:42 PM (x5VrF)
Posted by: Cincinnatus at September 02, 2008 01:30 PM (ZAlQ3)
Posted by: jimmytheleg at September 02, 2008 02:02 PM (qTIS5)
Also, millionaires are the people who start businesses and jobs. More jobs means more competition and higher wages for good workers. Sucking too much money from them does hurt the workers. It's not complicated.
Posted by: Shill at September 02, 2008 04:25 PM (8jYMc)
Posted by: TomJW at September 03, 2008 04:28 AM (xRCpL)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.









