AtlanticCanadianScot AtlanticCanadianScot

Fair & Balanced Reporting : David Brooks Considers Sarah Palin Fatal Cancer of the Republican Party

▼

Fair & Balanced Reporting : David Brooks Considers Sarah Palin Fatal Cancer of the Republican Party

Palin Represents ‘Fatal Cancer’ to GOP, Top Conservative Pundit Says

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/08/palin-represents-%e2%80%98fatal-cancer%e2%80%99-to-gop-conservative-says/
from WinCustomize Forums

FrankenbarbieConservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, who has expressed doubts about Sarah Palin's readiness to serve as vice president, said this week the Alaska governor represents a fatal cancer to the Republican Party

From CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

(CNN) – Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, who has expressed doubts about Sarah Palin’s readiness to serve as vice president, said this week the Alaska governor “represents a fatal cancer to the Republican Party.”

Brooks praised Palin’s debate performance and called her a natural political talent, but told a New York audience Monday that “experience matters”: “Do I think she’s ready to be president or vice president? No, she’s not even close to that,” he said.

“…Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas,” he also said, in remarks first reported by the Huffington Post. “But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices."

 

Other prominent conservatives, including George Will and David Frum, have publicly questioned Palin's readiness to be vice president. Prominent conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early supporter, said late last month that recent interviews have shown the Alaska governor is "out of her league" and should leave the GOP presidential ticket for the good of the party.

Brooks himself has also written skeptically about Palin. "Sarah Palin has many virtues," he wrote in a recent column. "If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."

internet
419,866 views 357 replies
Reply #251 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Draginol, reply 18
BTW, for people who seem to forget the hatred that has been thrown from the left, here's an article that serves as a useful reminder:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12/crush-the-obamedia-narrative-look-whos-gripped-by-insane-rage/

 

Um, you're posting a link from a forgotten comedienne and, um, Madonna (who cares?!), as somehow the equivalent of Palin, Malkin, O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, et al, political commentators and candidates with national daily stage/major network exposure?!  :omg:

Reply #252 from WinCustomize Forums Top

dup. deleted.

 

[insert support for intelligent voters here]  :D

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #253 from WinCustomize Forums Top

You might try reading the whole thing.  

Reply #254 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I look at the ACTIONS of these men, over decades. 

One man has worked himself from single parent POVERTY to the most coveted positions at Harvard and is now a stone's throw from being the most powerful man in the world, which he clearly takes seriously and humbly, nominating as his running mate a man who compliments his strengths and weaknesses. 

The other has sold out every idea he used to admirably stand for over the past 8 years just to have his one last chance at the big ego-trip and will do anything, even nominate an unqualified gimmick as a running mate, just to get there.

Your spin is most impressive.

Reply #255 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Daiwa, reply 20
The media knicker-wad over McCain allegedly 'inciting' hatred in his supporters is such a pathetic joke.  They pretend DK, DU & HP just don't exist, that BO never catered to them.  Horsepucky.

I don't think many of the participants on this thread even know about DailyKos, Democratic Underground, or Huffington Post where the left regularly wishes for the painful deaths of political opponents and dance in glee (their own words) when it is discovered that some prominent conservative has been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

What happens is that the mainstream media tends to be a lot more aggressive at "reporting" right-wing kooks.  Left-wing kooks, after all, happen to be the base of the Democratic party these days.

Reply #256 from JoeUser Forums Top

McCain has the guts & moral clarity to do the right thing & publicly remind his own supporters that Obama is a decent man, one who should not incite fear in the hearts of man, and what does the mainstream media do?  Ignore it & squawk about 'inciting hatred'.  It shows me clearly which candidate has a wealth of human decency in his heart & mind and confirms for any with open eyes the dishonesty & bias of the mainstream media.  McCain didn't have to do that, he could have just played to it & gone on.  When has BO corrected his own supporters or disowned anything they've said (when he wasn't forced to, that is, and then only in a minimal weasel way)?

Reply #257 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Daiwa, reply 6
McCain has the guts & moral clarity to do the right thing & publicly remind his own supporters that Obama is a decent man, one who should not incite fear in the hearts of man, and what does the mainstream media do?  Ignore it & squawk about 'inciting hatred'.  It shows me clearly which candidate has a wealth of human decency in his heart & mind and confirms for any with open eyes the dishonesty & bias of the mainstream media.  McCain didn't have to do that, he could have just played to it & gone on.  When has BO corrected his own supporters or disowned anything they've said (when he wasn't forced to, that is, and then only in a minimal weasel way)?

He only tried to tame the crowds several days after it started, after he was receiving a lot of bad press about it. And what happened when he told them to chill and be respectful? The crowd BOOED him!

And yes I know Brad hates huffpo, but I think this is a really good article about the whole "omg he's a Muslim = evil, dangerous, terrorist!" bullshit. Is Muslim the new Queer? So what if he is/was Muslim? Does that somehow discount him from being able to hold office? Are you trying to say that ALL Muslims are bad, dangerous, terrorist/terrorist sympathizers? Talk about generalization. What if he was a Jew? Or a Buddhist? Or *gasp* an Atheist? Is anyone who's not a Christian suddenly banned from being president? It's ridiculous.

Reply #258 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Don't confuse the political expediency of positions needed to win the White House for what their true positions are once in power, for EITHER man

It would appear then that Obama is really not so new and different. Is it your contention that Obama doesn't really mean what he is saying as a candidate and therefore BSing and pandering to the American electorate?

Reply #261 from WinCustomize Forums Top

If/ when Obama wins, we will have a completely liberal government with way too much liberal power (congress). This is Bad, very bad!

Within a year they will pass a law bannng elections as they hurt the losers feelings so they will select Obama's replacement via silent voting to protect the innocent. :P

 

 

 

Reply #262 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Within a year they will pass a law bannng elections as they hurt the losers feelings so they will select Obama's replacement via silent voting to protect the innocent.

Hmmm, mightn't be such a bad idea... it would eliminate all this Repub vs Democrat BS every 4 years, stop all the political name calling cos there'd be no more Repubs, end the bickering between friends and families... and more importantly, save billions in electioneering costs that could go to much better causes; ie, the homeless and hungry, aged care and better health, not to mention cheaper fuel and free beer.

:-"

Reply #263 from WinCustomize Forums Top

They said that the bailout will cost each taxpayer $ 2,300 or something like that. They should have opened etrade accounts forevery taxpayer for $ 2000,00 and let them do some investing. This would have boosted the market incredibly while allowing people to choose what to do with their cut. Trickle up for once.

Just another uneducated thought.....  :erk:

Reply #264 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Your spin is most impressive.

Your blinders to the truth are even more so.

Reply #265 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Everyone should realize that the "Secret Muslim" and "Terrorist" smears are just code for racial fear and bigotry.  Since neither of them are true, it gives cover to bigots to claim these are the "real" reasons they won't vote for Obama, since few bigots want to proudly admit their ignorance to those around them. 

Reply #266 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Reminds me of the Nixon years and the communist smears.  Plenty of negative ads being pitched at Obama here locally.

Reply #267 from WinCustomize Forums Top

It would appear then that Obama is really not so new and different. Is it your contention that Obama doesn't really mean what he is saying as a candidate and therefore BSing and pandering to the American electorate?

Actually, I believe this is the essense of POLITICS, finding compromise and balance between the disparate positions of the electorate.  It's just that I believe that McCain/Palin will be right wing idealogues once in office, continuing the ignorant agenda of telling people what their values should be and how they should act (while secretely acting against those values).  While I believe the Democrats understand that we're all human and that such fundamentalist hypocrisy has no place in government or its intrusion into our lives.

But in order to be elected under the current right wing "gotcha" smear environment, even being "purple" like the vast majority of Americans is enough to keep one from being electable.   Even Palin stood up and bald-face lied about her positions during her debate, stating THE position on a number of issues that matched Obama's word for word.  These are the "election hurdle" phrases that pollsters and pundits force candidates to regurgitate now...and while it's pathetic...it is politics.

For example, I don't care whether a given Senator (insert list of recent Republicans here) is gay.  I do care that he SAYS he isn't, passes laws meant to assuage his own moral guilt on the rest of us, and then turns out to be massively in the closet and stooping male pages in-between votes.  Again, the very definition of hypocrisy.  Which is one of the reasons I laughed out loud at Brad's thinly veiled assertion that somehow the "liberals" were more hypocritical than "conservatives".

Reply #268 from WinCustomize Forums Top

When has BO corrected his own supporters or disowned anything they've said (when he wasn't forced to, that is, and then only in a minimal weasel way)?

McCain said this ONCE, meanwhile authorizing the smear ads, hiring the goons, and sending Palin into the field with the fear and bigotry agenda.

Obama has held his so-called "negative" ads down to a level of 34% (him) to 100% (McCain), and FactCheck.org has determined that the majority of McCain's are "misleading" or "outright lies", Obama's have been almost entirely fact checked as "TRUE" or at worst, "misleading".  Look it up.  The organization is NON-partisan.

Meanwhile, he has told all of his people not to mention McCain's failing health, the Keating 5 scandal (talk about associations!), made Palin's childen and home life OFF LIMITS, etc. etc.

When Obama tries to bridge the divide by agreeing with McCain during the debates on issues where we all have no differences, McCain's response to to put out ads deriding Obama for saying "I agree the with the good Senator" and to respond dismissively to a man with a higher IQ and a much better memory as "he doesn't understand" over and over again.

When PALIN stops inciting racial hatred disguised as "terrorist" fearmongering, then I will know that McCain is stepping back up to the plate as the man he USED to be 10 years ago.

Notice how Biden has never even started to take the Palin attack dog mode in this campaign?  Who do you think made the executive decision to run his campaign this way and commanded the respect to enforce it?

 

 

Reply #269 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Reminds me of the Nixon years and the communist smears. Plenty of negative ads being pitched at Obama here locally.

Indeed.  Politicians have always used fear as a tool of power.  "The huns are at the gates of Rome, make me the Emperor and I'll save you!"  It used to be that the fourth estate had a check on that fearmongering, but now it drives ratings, and so their agendas are one and the same. 

In the last year though, some journalists have started getting their "balls" back, and this has given the American people the chance to go apeshit over things they sucked up a few years back.  That is why there is such pent up "hatred" for Bushco and by proxy McCain/Palin. 

Even the dumbest Amercans KNOW we've been lied to BIG TIME.  Only the ideologues with their heads in the sand remain intractable, as they don't have the personal integrity to admit that they voted not just once, but twice in some cases, to put these war criminals and ultra grafters into the White House.  We all make mistakes.  That's just human.  Not admitting and correcting our mistakes is just another manifestation of fear. 

So, admit it if you fell for the Bush lies twice.  Admit you are complicit in the bankrupting, morally and finally, of this great nation.  Admit it's the BLACK man who scares you if he does.

And vow you'll never let FEAR drive your vote again.  Like going to confession, you'll fear better for it, I promise.

(and yes, this post is meant to deliver a grain of truth through a veil of satire)  :D

Reply #270 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Exalpius.. Looking for logic in McCain's campaign will send you over the edge. Be careful you don't wear out some nuts and bolts.

 

However, you know what does worry me... McCain's actions since being released from Captivity. His actions do raise questions as to whether he was brainwashed or not. Alot of information is lost / hidden  beneath all his "Heroic" talk.

 

I'm just saying, that is you want to explore "manchurian candidates", look a little deeper.

Reply #272 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Looking for logic in McCain's campaign will send you over the edge.

Ah, so that's why i feel all burned out, mentally drained and keep having to bend to pick up loose screws.... :-"

Reply #273 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Obama's have been almost entirely fact checked as "TRUE" or at worst, "misleading".  Look it up.  The organization is NON-partisan.

Factcheck.org is not completely "non-partisan" as they are funded by a far-left group that is connected with Obama.  Regardless, he has been proven a liar way too many times to count.  If you think 0Bama is truthful, then I don't know what else to say. 

 

When PALIN stops inciting racial hatred disguised as "terrorist" fearmongering, then I will know that McCain is stepping back up to the plate as the man he USED to be 10 years ago.

How exactly is she enciting "racial" hatred?  The fact is 0Bama has surrounded himself with terrorists, and many other questionable people. 

I notice one thing here, nobody can refute what 0Bama does, they just keep using the racial card.

Reply #274 from JoeUser Forums Top

Everyone should realize that the "Secret Muslim" and "Terrorist" smears are just code for racial fear and bigotry.

Bullshit.  This is the dodge BO's defenders use every time - ignore the facts/truth and throw the race/fear/bigotry card down.  Pure intellectual laziness.

Reply #275 from JoeUser Forums Top

When PALIN stops inciting racial hatred

The usual 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' tack.