« Male vs. Female Bloggers: A Theory | Main | The Government We Deserve »

October 07, 2008

Biased "Fact Checkers" Shilling for Obama?

John Lott fact checks the fact checkers:

When you interview for a job, here is a hint: make sure you know what the job is. Joe Biden failed that test last Thursday. He couldn’t even get right what a vice president does, but the media didn’t notice.

The media is all over itself about how smart and experienced Biden is. Political analyst Charlie Cook is quoted in the Washington Post on Saturday as saying “Biden is clearly so much more knowledgeable, by a factor of about a million.” Saturday Night Live does a skit about Biden being smart, if slimy. Meanwhile, Governor Sarah Palin is treated as being nothing more than a simpleton.

Yet, take Biden’s statement from the debate on the role of the vice president:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

Biden is confusing which part of the Constitution covers the Executive Branch (it is Article II, not Article I). More importantly, the notion that the vice president can preside over the Senate only when there is a tie vote is simply wrong. Nor is it true that the only legislative involvement the vice president has is to break tie votes. The vice president is the president of the Senate, where he interprets the rules and can only be overridden by a vote of 60 senators.

Early vice presidents spent a lot of time in the Senate. Thomas Jefferson even spent his time writing “A Manual of Parliamentary Practice: for the Use of the Senate of the United States.” Modern vice presidents may show up only when they think tie votes will occur, but that is their choice.

This isn’t rocket science. The Constitution on this point is very straightforward: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

Instead, it was Palin who got it right. Besides correctly stating that the vice president holds positions in both the executive and legislative branches, she also noted that:

Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and [I] will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chooses to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

But just as the vice president’s job includes more than simply being ready to assume the presidency if the president dies, the Constitution merely states what the vice president’s minimum responsibilities are.

Compare the uproar over Palin’s answer to Charlie Gibson about the “Bush Doctrine,” a doctrine that Gibson clearly didn’t understand and for which there apparently exist at least four different versions. Where is the outrage over Biden not understanding what vice presidents do? For Biden, his inability to correctly say what vice presidents do was surely his “gotcha” moment.

Yet, this mistake during the debate was hardly unique. Biden got a lot of things wrong in the debate that are going unnoticed by the fact-check media.

Lott goes on to catalog a long list of Biden debate flubs the "fact checkers" inexplicably failed to fact-check, though they had no trouble picking out a similarly long list of Palin faux pas. What explains the discrepancy in scrutiny?


CNN, whose "fact checkers" previously declared the Ayers story "UNSUBSTANTIATED" have finally decided to seriously scrutinize Barack Obama's claim that William Ayers was just "A guy in his neighborhood". To no one's surprise, when you actually look at the facts even Obama's supporters are forced to admit that (just as with the Reverend Wright incident) Obama lied about his connection with the still unrepentant former terrorist:

“But the relationship between Obama and Ayers went much deeper, ran much longer, and was much more political than Obama said.”

But of course none of this will be allowed to interfere with the dominant narrative: it's somehow unsporting to point out that it might not be wise for a unexperienced candidate who is selling himself with the slogan "The Judgment to Lead" to have catapulted himself into the Democratic presidential nomination with the help of a man who - to this day - does not regret plotting to bomb the Capitol Building and the Pentagon.

In 1984, a KGB defector spoke candidly of the dangers of a free society becoming so demoralized by the loss of moral standards that they are no longer able to make sensible decisions.

When American voters overwhelmingly are turning to the party who facilitated the economic crisis we find ourselves in today and blaming the party which tried to prevent it, is there any doubt that we have reached that point?


Yuri Bezmenov
by onmyway02

Posted by Cassandra at October 7, 2008 08:47 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2446

Comments

Some people are not very worried about people like Ayers, Soros, or people like Jeremiah. THey see their efforts as failures, as jokes, and as threats much less worrisome than external physical threats like AL Qaeda.

However, the big picture has nothing to do with the personal success or bombing of such individuals. The big picture have to do with controlling the mental territory enough that people will join your side because they will be unable to even imagine that somebody like Obama could be bad.

When American voters overwhelmingly are turning to the party who facilitated the economic crisis we find ourselves in today and blaming the party which tried to prevent it, is there any doubt that we have reached that point?

It's Crisis. Like what Russia did with the separatist movement in Georgia. First create instability and then use that as a pretext to go in. It works. It's not just the theory of "conquer and divide" but it is the actual operations plan for getting it.

In the final count, Ayers, Jeremiah, Soros, the ACLU, CAIR, and what not do not matter. Their efforts are jokes and they are harmless. Harmless so long as external enemies don't take advantage of it. Georgia's separatist problems were harmless to Georgia, even if the President of Georgia gave those two provinces autonomy far greater than Tbilisi. It is only important if you or your nation has an external enemy. And do we, as Americans, have external enemies? If we don't, if Georgia didn't, then don't worry about it. It's all good.

Can we afford to look at youths breaking out in riots and failed terrorists like Ayers and say "they're clowns"? It may be the truth, it may even be an understatement of the truth since clowns at least aren't executed once their uses are up, but it is also dangerous at the same time.

It is an underestimation and a poorly focused long range view of the big picture. Of the chaotic strands that link such disparate things together.

In 1984, a KGB defector spoke candidly of the dangers of a free society becoming so demoralized by the loss of moral standards that they are no longer able to make sensible decisions.

Multiculturalism and moral relativism works. They may not be true, but that's not necessary is it.

Also it supports the principle of war that you can't win simply by using the resources only available to your own side. To win, to achieve skill in victory rather than victory through brute force, you optimally need the help of others aside from your countrymen. Neutrals, friendly forces like the Kurds, or even former enemies like the Sunnis. Defectors, high level defectors that have worked against us=good stuff. You need such people or your war is going to cost you a lot more than you might have bargained for.

Georgia has also been "normalized", of course.

I wrote a post about Soviet Propaganda once I found out about Yuri Bezmenov. This was some months ago.

The story Yuri told about a group of "journalists" that went to Soviet Russia and came back to the US full of glorious news of the successful Communist Revolution, Cass. Course, the fact that a KGB minder had interviewed each journalist and refused VISAs to the "unreliable" ones, that, of course, doesn't matter. What matters is that Obama is fighting against poverty against corrupt rich blokes like McCain and the Republicans.

That is what matters.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 7, 2008 05:48 PM

Let's be honest, folks, at least among ourselves. There isn't a soul in Washington, D.C. that's been honest with you, party affiliation notwithstanding, except for the meter maid that caught you over-time near the national Gallery. The bitter truth is that, with the signal exception of my own representative, who happens to be a Republican toady (albeit with a convenient conscience that permits him to embarrass himself doing the Party's garbage-hauling) this entire Congress has so mishandled their responsiblities as to warrant a rough ride out of town on a rail, covered in tar and chicken livers and guts. Ask yourself this: How can any non-totalitarian institution that can only garner a sub-10% approval rating ever possibly endure? If the institution of first and last resort for good governance, fiscal prudence, and public safety is so pathetically ill-equipped for the task, or simply outright purchased, how can anyone truthfully expect that smart-set investors will look past the dearth of confidence between smart-set banks for their institutional and foreign investors. Face it, dudes, our leadership sucks, This asleep-the-wheel-until-after-the-election posture has already stacked about 24 to 36 months onto the market recovery cycle. It was a hell of a party, folks, but the bill is finally on the table. Closing time. If it makes you feel any better, your neighbors thoroughly enjoyed themselves of your 30 year-old scotch.

Almost forgot! It's time for "Are You Smarter Than a Three-Year Old!"

Pardon me if I'm not taking any bets at the moment.

(Obviously, the readers of this blog are certainly quite a bit smarter than your average FICKEN IDIOTS that will place the same FRICKEN IDIOTS back in office come November. No offense intended.)


Posted by: Mr. Gloom-on-the-Street at October 7, 2008 06:40 PM

[Opening one eye lazily]

Hmmmm .... do I need to call Mistress Mandy? Because I hear she left the whip in Las Vegas...

*as the Indiana Jones theme music fades somewhat indecently into the sunset*

Posted by: Cassandra at October 7, 2008 07:12 PM

Ymarsakar,
if you look at the demographic break down of the ages of people today and when events happened, for a large majority, these are like reading about mythic things in the past too.

I think for many on the left the problem is that the stories, if they have heard some of the bad ones, are tough to get your mind around. to them its false because its like extreme movies.

Stalin is giving a speech in Magnitogorsk announcing the new steel production targets. Someone sneezes. Stalin stops his speech and asks, "Who sneezed?"

The room is silent.

"Guards! Take the last row out and shoot them!" Stalin says. The guards do as he says, and shots are heard. "Who sneezed?" Stalin repeats.

The room is silent.

Again Stalin calls for the last remaining row to be shot, and again they are filed out and shot. Again Stalin asks "Who sneezed?"

An old man in the second row raises his hand. "Ah, Comrade, it was I who sneezed."

"Bless you," Stalin says and continues with his speech.

people having grown up in the US have no concept of waking up and the neighbors are not there. they are not aware that the apartments stalin built had two entrances, a front way and a back separate way for the state.


here is an example of what i am talking about when it comes to the mindset of those around...

from beloit college. the mindset list.
www.beloit.edu/mindset/

this is the list for the class that entered this year

Most students entering college this fall were born in 1986.

Desi Arnaz, Orson Welles, Roy Orbison, Ted Bundy, Ayatollah Khomeini and Cary Grant have always been dead.

"Here's Johnny!" is a scary greeting from Jack Nicholson, not a warm welcome from Ed McMahon.

The Energizer bunny has always been going, and going, and going.

Large fine-print ads for prescription drugs have always appeared in magazines.

Photographs have always been processed in an hour or less.

They never got a chance to drink 7-Up Gold, Crystal Pepsi, or Apple Slice.

Baby Jessica could be a classmate.

Parents may have been reading The Bourne Supremacy or It as they rocked them in their cradles.

Alan Greenspan has always been setting the nation's financial direction.

The U.S. has always been a Prozac nation.
They have always enjoyed the comfort of pleather.

Harry has always known Sally.

They never saw Roseanne Rosannadanna live on Saturday Night Live.

There has always been a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

They never ate a McSub at McD's.

There has always been a Comedy Channel.

Bill and Ted have always been on an excellent adventure.

They were never tempted by smokeless cigarettes.

Robert Downey, Jr. has always been in trouble.

Martha Stewart has always been cooking up something with someone.

They have always been comfortable with gay characters on television.

Mike Tyson has always been a contender.

The government has always been proposing we go to Mars, and it has always been deemed too expensive.

There have never been any Playboy Clubs.

There have always been night games at Wrigley Field.

Rogaine has always been available for the follicularly challenged.

They never saw USA Today or the Christian Science Monitor as a TV news program.

Computers have always suffered from viruses.

We have always been mapping the human genome.

Politicians have always used rock music for theme songs.

Network television has always struggled to keep up with cable.

O'Hare has always been the most delay-plagued airport in the U.S.

Ivan Boesky has never sold stock.

Toll-free 800 phone numbers have always spelled out catchy phrases.

Bethlehem has never been a place of peace at Christmas.

Episcopal women bishops have always threatened the foundation of the Anglican Church.

Svelte Oprah has always dominated afternoon television; who was Phil Donahue anyway?
They never flew on People Express.

AZT has always been used to treat AIDS.

The international community has always been installing or removing the leader of Haiti.

Oliver North has always been a talk show host and news commentator.

They have suffered through airport security systems since they were in strollers.

They have done most of their search for the right college online.

Aspirin has always been used to reduce the risk of a heart attack.

They were spared the TV ads for Zamfir and his panpipes.

Castro has always been an aging politician in a suit.

There have always been non-stop flights around the world without refueling.

Cher hasn't aged a day.

M.A.S.H. was a game: Mansion, Apartment, Shelter, House.

Posted by: Artfldgr at October 7, 2008 10:01 PM

"Lenin died and went to heaven. St Peter lets him in and grants him 2 wishes. Lenin says he would like all people on earth to be wise, honest and communists. Peter objects "i can only grant you 2 wishes". Lenin starts thinking:
-When a man is honest and a communist, he isnt wise
- When a man is wise and a communist, he isnt honest
- But if a man is honest and wise, he isn't a communist".

Posted by: Artfldgr at October 7, 2008 10:03 PM

-When a man is honest and a communist, he isnt wise
- When a man is wise and a communist, he isnt honest
- But if a man is honest and wise, he isn't a communist".

Interestingly, it is also true that some of the Left's most implacable enemies are former Leftists, Democrats, socialists, or communists themselves.

The amount of gay rage directed at someone like Corporal Matt Sanchez and the amount of anti-neo-con sentiment directed against people like Lieberman that was kicked out of the Democrat party is pretty extreme. But they justify this extremeness the way Andrew Sullivan does his. It's the fault of the Bush administration or it is the fault of the people they are targeting.

When a woman like Sarah Palin appears to not only be stepping off the plantation of Leftist feminism but also trying to raise up rebellion amongst other women, ohh then it is time to employ the weapons of person destruction. We can't let someone like Sarah Palin intact, cause that'd be like the Soviets leaving useful idiots around after they have proven to be no longer useful and actually wise to Soviet ultimate goals.

Clarence Thompson, Secretary Rice, and all kinds of other people must be purged, once and for all, for their very existence damages the credibility of Leftist lies. Just as the very existence of America and liberty damages the Islamic notion that salvation and Allah's favor lies in obeying Sharia.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 7, 2008 11:24 PM

Ask yourself this: How can any non-totalitarian institution that can only garner a sub-10% approval rating ever possibly endure?

Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and their compatriots don't seem to be hurting much from a low approval rating for the Legislative branch.

They endure by being re-elected.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 7, 2008 11:27 PM

Facts can be such inconvenient things...

Posted by: camojack at October 8, 2008 03:34 AM

Strange...If you read what Biden said and what you quoted from the Constitution, the only difference is "Article I" and "Article II". Far less egregious than Palin say the VP is to make sure the will of the president is carried out. Wrong! That my be what it has come to in politics,but it is not in the Constitution. So, even in your post, you obfuscate and contradict your point entirely. Biden made a mistake...Palin created her own definition (or another Bush Doctrine).

And for you to bring up Ayers is absurd and desperate. The full disclosure of Ayers was made months ago and revealed that they both worked with Annenberg and the Woods board. As well, Annenberg is a conservative who honored Ayers for his work. That is the connection. Much less binding then Keating five, Reverand Hagy, Dr. Dobson, Palin and husband's connection to the Alaskan Secessionist Party and it's leader (Palin spoke to the group this year...her husband has attended their conferences since the early 90s).

So you go on about Ayers, Obama's middle name, that he's liberal, about Pastors, and continue to ignore the implosion of the economy, $800 billion on a war to nowhere....I recall a couple months ago I commented that the economy was affected by the war and the Head Blogger was upset with me. Well, I'd argue that$10-15 Bill per month doesn't help, let alone has helped to cause a big problemo in Afghaniland.

So after the past 8 years, would you say we are in a better spot?

Posted by: Miguel at October 10, 2008 01:19 AM

And you know the intelligensia of the Republican party (George Will, David Brooks, George Schultz, etc) are throwing their weight to Obama and ripping the strategies of McCain/Palin et. al....so basically, everyone is running from the strategy you are employing on this site.

Posted by: Miguel at October 10, 2008 01:26 AM

...the only difference is "Article I" and "Article II".

If you are asked about the performance characteristics of a Ford Lotus and you reply with the specs for a Model A, does that give you a pass?

Far less egregious than Palin say the VP is to make sure the will of the president is carried out.

"Supporting the President" is not the same thing as "making sure the will of the president is carried out."

The full disclosure of Ayers was made months ago and revealed that they both worked with Annenberg and the Woods board.

And was first denied, then obfuscated. Obama still claims that Ayers was just a guy he knew from the neighborhood. Ayers, who planted IEDs on American soil and pllotted the murder of American soldiers on American soil and has stated he's sorry that he didn't plant *more* IEDs, launched Obama's career in Chicago.

As well, Annenberg is a conservative who honored Ayers for his work.

Annenberg was a philanthropist who wanted to see an improvement in the public education system. The Annenberg Foundation lauded Ayers for his founding role in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and for distributing grants in its behalf -- it certainly didn't honor him for the *results* of his efforts, which were nil.

...and continue to ignore the implosion of the economy...

No, *you* ignored all the posts she's written about the panic. Read much?

I'd argue that$10-15 Bill per month doesn't help, let alone has helped to cause a big problemo in Afghaniland.

What has caused the "problemo" in Afghanistan is that the Taliban continued to train and recruit in the Tribal Areas of *Pakistan* and engage in cross-border attacks, and the Afghan Federal Government is not yet strong enough to exert its authority in the more remote provinces. If we don't have sufficient troops to stomp out every terr cell that's got a thousand kilometers of infiltration routes to choose from, raise the point with Congress -- that august body sets the troop limits for the Armed Forces.

Posted by: BillT at October 10, 2008 03:01 AM

...so basically, everyone is running from the strategy you are employing on this site.

Seventy years ago, everybody ran from the necessity to stop the expansion of the Third Reich. A cattle herd will stampede at the wind blowing a tree limb around.

Running from something is not an effective strategy unless you're attacked by a slime mold with a knife...

Posted by: BillT at October 10, 2008 03:14 AM

Miguel:

Knock it off. As usual, you are being dishonest and completely ignoring the content of the post to construct whatever off-topic straw man you wish to erect.

I've never brought up Obama's middle name, and as I mentioned on my CNN post, Anderson Cooper looked into the Ayers thing and concluded that (contrary to what you say) Obama has lied about his connection with Ayers :p

Some "disclosure". Facts are stubborn things - Ayers was not (as Obama said) "just some guy in his neighborhood". He lied, and then the story kept changing just as it did with Wright.

Obama always lies and lies and lies when he gets caught and the press and his followers (like you) shill for him and eagerly lap up each new lie.

Far less egregious than Palin say the VP is to make sure the will of the president is carried out.

The Constitution (read it) actually spells out no duties for the Vice President, Miguel.

Biden incorrectly placed the President as being under the Executive branch in the Constitution when in fact the only duties which are spelled out for him expliticly in the Constitution are legislative in character. Big, big mistake, especially for a former Constitutional law teacher and supposed "expert". Palin was, in fact, correct to ask "What does a Vice President do?" because nowhere is this spelled out explicitly in the Constitution.

Which you'd know if you actually read the Constitution instead of listening to the press, who are all in the tank for Obama. That's what happens when your bias overcomes your curiosity.

I didn't happen to know if she was right or not, and I didn't assume she was just because she's a Republican.

So I did the research.

The truth hurts.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 10, 2008 05:34 AM

Actually, let me correct myself:

The Constitution (read it) actually spells out no duties for the Vice President, Miguel other than those relating to presiding over the U.S. Senate and the obvious duty (which Palin has also correctly identified during the debates) of stepping in for the Prez in cases of death or disability.

Insofar as carrying out the wishes of the President, if all the Vice President did were what were spelled out in the Constitution, he would do nothing all day.

The Vice President is not LIMITED to what is spelled out in the Constitution, and for you to argue that reveals a profound ignorance of how that document works.

To construe that document as saying that "except for presiding over the Senate in case of a tie and waiting around for the President to die or become incapacitated, the Constitution REQUIRES the Vice President to sit around his office all day and do NOTHING BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE GIVING HIM AUTHORITY TO EARN HIS SALARY is patently foolish".

I trust you are not so arguing?

Posted by: Cassandra at October 10, 2008 05:52 AM

Thanks for putting so many words in my mouth. I am now quite full. As evidenced by your paragraphs of rebuttal, I seem to have hit a nerve.

On one hand, you are very bright and extremely urbane on these issues and on the other you dive right into false characterizations to support McCain Palin. You use the word "lie" so freely with Obama, but never once have applied that term to the current president and his policies. As well, when McCain talks about voting records, he misinforms the public by not divulging the nature of "why" Obama voted "no" on an appropriations bill, characterizing it as refusing to support the troops. Then, months later, McCain votes no on the same bill because it includes a time table. Is he being truthful? If you are going to lob out the liar title, you might want to apply it freely.

As well, I never prescribed a definition of VP responsibilities. I preferred the constitution's description. I'll leave that to you and Palin. Because once again, a conversation moves towards discussion of peripheral factors rather than the issues at hand. So I'll ask the question again, are we better now than we were 8 years ago? And one more...who is better fit to lead us? AS I stated here before, I liked the old McCain. The one who was in opposition to the likes of Bush; the one who sought campaign finance reform; the one that knew when it was appropriate to use military force. Not the one that has caved in on every principle he ever had (including running an honest campaign)and embracing the policies of W. I would have voted for the old McCain. And then the choice....a secessionist sympathetic governor from Alaska with a B.A. in Communications who makes up her own rules about governing (or just let's her husband help)who happens to be in the pocket of the oil companies who subsidize her state with "welfare" for the people (some call it a oil tax credit...still a tax on oil). If she is an expert on energy, then Jack Abramoff is an expert on ethics.

I support your right to support someone like Sarah Palin. Because as you make posts on your blog, the anti-Obama, pro-Palin comments and text greatly outweighs any positive McCain postings. And that is telling about what you think of that Senator. As David Brooks said, "Sarah Palin is a cancer to the Republican party". And it doesn't look like chemo is going to work.

Posted by: MIguel at October 10, 2008 11:04 AM

So you go on about Ayers, Obama's middle name...

Posted by: Miguel at October 10, 2008 01:19 AM

Hardly "putting words in your mouth" :p

Own it, Miguel. Because you said it.

As well, I never prescribed a definition of VP responsibilities. I preferred the constitution's description.

THERE IS NO "CONSTITUTION'S DESCRIPTION" of the VP's responsibilities. The only "description" of the VP's responsibilities in the Constitution is to preside over the Senate in case of a tie (hardly ever happens) and to step in if the Pres dies or is disabled (again, hardly ever happens).

Read it sometime, Miguel. You might learn something.

As usual, you did not respond to my point because you have no response.

My point was that if all the VP did was what was explicitly "described" in the Constitution (your "preferred description") HE WOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING EXCEPT IN EXTREMELY RARE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Do you get it now?

Posted by: Cassandra at October 10, 2008 11:16 AM

And in case you are wondering, Miguel, before writing that post I did a full text search of the United States Constitution and extracted every single mention of the office of the Vice President into a Word document. So I know exactly what I'm talking about and can back it up with facts.

Also I cited a research paper in my post (which I'm sure you didn't bother to read - you never do) which also cited several other scholarly works to the same effect, as well as the Constitution.

It was written by a law professor.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 10, 2008 11:19 AM

If you read, you would see that I have no beef about the description listed; nor do I have a beef with how you describe it. And as you state, the description is limited. And I am had no objection to that, so I don't get the sturm and drang you are going on about with the VP thing. So thank you for the heavily researched topic. I don't understand why you are defensive on this matter. I made no comment in opposition to your knowledge on this. I made comment on your characterization of specific comments.

Clearly Biden made a mistake, and Palin created her own idea about what the VP does. Seems your position is because of the lack of description (or no description if you like), Palin is free to politicize the powers of the VP. And although you attempt it, I am unoffended by your supposition that I am ignorant of the Constitution or any written material. I learned in 9th grad debate that is a weak tactic in any discussion.

So, again, are we better off after 8 years of this form of Republican leadership? Chuck Hagel would say, "No".

Posted by: Miguel at October 10, 2008 11:35 AM

What does Chuck Hagel have to do with anything?

I couldn't care less what Chuck Hagel thinks on any topic.

And we have not had 8 years of Sarah Palin's leadership :p Your arguments don't make very much sense, Miguel. Do I think we're better off after 8 years of George Bush?

Better off than what? Than we would have been after 8 years of Al Gore? My answer would have to be "Yes".

Posted by: Cassandra at October 10, 2008 11:53 AM

Finally, as to Palin "creating her own idea of what the VP does"... ummm, no she didn't.

What the VP does is whatever the sitting President wants him or her to. His or her "role" is defined by the sitting President. So her characterization is entirely correct: the VP carries out the wishes of the President. He or she "makes sure that what the President wants done, gets done."

It's called common sense, Miguel. Only it doesn't seem to be so common in some parts.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 10, 2008 11:56 AM

Once again, not insulted. So, as you keep on the Sarah Palin meme, let's try and move on to other issues. Because ultimately, this is about John McCain's leadership. And over the past couple years, you have not been very supportive of McCain (in total).

As for a comparison of the last 8 years...let's just try the previous 8 which was real (not a fictitout Al Gore presidency). Clinton. Let's see....surplus for three years in which the republican congress and Democratic presidency worked together (mostly)...(of course there was the Gramm-Leach Biley Act which contributed to our current mess). I would think despite the hatred that many conservatives have for Clinton, their portfolios were much larger and liquid under Bill Clinton. So, compare the last 8 to those 8. When conservative economists, conservative columnists, conservative politicians, and conservative figures in society start talking about the failures of this presidency, can you say we are better off than we were the previous 8 years? And can you say that we should "hire" John McCain and secessionist Sarah to be in charge, when they both support the current administrations positions on almost every subject? Even Karl Rove is skeptical.

Posted by: Miguel at October 10, 2008 12:07 PM

Glad you asked :p

Yes, personally I'm much better off. So are my parents. And my in-laws. Actually, now that I think of it, pretty much everyone on both sides of my family are better off financially now than they were under Clinton. Some are Dems, some are Republicans.

Good question, Miguel.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 10, 2008 12:35 PM

Oops!

Forgot. My kids are also better off.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 10, 2008 12:38 PM

You know Miguel, I'm kind of at a loss to figure out where the heck you're coming from with your bizarre arguments.

ultimately, this is about John McCain's leadership. And over the past couple years, you have not been very supportive of McCain (in total).

Again, this makes no more logical sense than to think I would give a flying wallendah about what Chuck Hagel thinks.

Why would it ever occur to me to "support" John McCain over "the last few years"? He was one of how many Republican Senators? Were you "supporting" Barack Obama years ago?

*crickets chirping*

Yeah. I thought so. It's a dumb argument.

I don't go around "supporting" randomly selected Senators, nor does anyone else I know unless they have waaaaaaay too much time on their hands. The suggestion is frankly silly.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 10, 2008 01:07 PM

Ah, delusion is a great thing. Seeing how our children will probably not be able to benefit from Social Security and will be forced to deal with debt that is mounting daily. So, ignorance is bliss, I guess.

I am making more money, have less debt and have saved money. I personally was prudent and saw the writing on the wall in 2000. So, I was careful, as were you most likely. But by every economic measure, we are in the worst position as a nation we've been in ages. Unemployment, savings, debt, value of the dollar, investment in infrastructure, education....in terrible shape. So if you insulated yourself, it was not the result of the leadership of the past 8, or even 20 years. It was because of your own devices. Yet, not everyone has been as prudent as you. This nation, not by my measure, but by economists and financial experts of all persuasions, is in deep trouble. We can blame the inaction of and culpability of democrats, and the brazen, capricious behaviors of republicans, and the deception and lying of lobbyists and financial institutions...but the truth and reality is our nation is not better off. Show me how our nation is better off now than we were 8 years ago.

Posted by: Miguel at October 10, 2008 01:08 PM

Again, argumentation 101 (feigned confusion). My point is your use of Palin to ignore who is running for President on the Rep ticket. I support Obama because he is the best choice at this time. I did not formerly ridicule and criticize him, and now embrace him (guardedly)as you've done with McCain. So, Palin is the easy way for those that don't really like McCain to embrace the ticket and speak about her. Thus, avoiding the issue of John McCain's leadership and his complete reversal on previously held positions.

And of course you don't like Chuck Hagel because he is opposed to the Bush policies now. So in your eyes he's not worthy of comment.

And its funny how you characterize McCain as a "random Senator". Hello.....he's running for president. Or did you forget that. Because Palin isn't running for President.

Posted by: Miguel at October 10, 2008 01:16 PM

My "use of Palin"???

Palin just debated Joe Biden, Miguel. Wake up. It's not (as the Democrats keep trying to imply as a distraction) Palin vs. Obama.

The topic of this post is biased fact checkers talking about the Vice Presidential debate. Therefore, John McCain HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT AT HAND, and it is you who are trying to distract the discussion from what you seem unable to deal with (and still have not admitted) - that the "fact checkers" were wrong: Joe Biden did not know what he was talking about and Sarah Palin was factually correct in his instance: the VP's job (since the Constitution is silent as to his/her duties) is, in fact, to do what the President wants.

You can yammer on all day and all night about the last 8 years or any other off topic idiocy you want, but the fact remains that this is what the post was about.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 10, 2008 01:31 PM

Once again, Miguel shows up, totally ignores the topic of a post, introduces some completely off topic rant, and then accuses everyone else of "feigned confusion".

Pay attention, Miguel. GO BACK AND READ THE POST.

And then try to explain what anything in your last comment has to do with the topic.

Nothing.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 10, 2008 01:33 PM

Sorry I didn't confine myself to the narrow scope of the post. Forgive me. I understand that it is difficult to think abstractly when confined to a concrete development stage.

So the post was about the VP comments...hmmm...then why was this in the post:

"But of course none of this will be allowed to interfere with the dominant narrative: it's somehow unsporting to point out that it might not be wise for a unexperienced candidate who is selling himself with the slogan "The Judgment to Lead" to have catapulted himself into the Democratic presidential nomination with the help of a man who - to this day - does not regret plotting to bomb the Capitol Building and the Pentagon."

Oh so it wasn't just about the VP thing. Now I get it...you are permitted to ramble about character judgments and bring up talking points, but other need to stick to the topic you mandate. Sounds like free, intelligent discussion...for a Bush Townhall meeting.

Posted by: MIguel at October 10, 2008 01:49 PM

And I didn't accuse everyone of feigned confusion...I accused you of it.

Posted by: Miguel at October 10, 2008 01:50 PM

Alright, I have to get productive today with the Dow down 1500 points in three days...so I'll cut to the chase.

Do you like John McCain, do you support him, and why do you support him? Why will John McCain offer hope for the future and move us in a direction away from the problems of the past few years?

Posted by: MIguel at October 10, 2008 01:55 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)