What else didn’t Sarah Palin know? It’s starting to leak out of the McCain camp now. Check out this site and Bill O’Reilly video. It shows that Sarah Palin was abhorrently uninformed about basic matters affecting national security and that John McCain was trying to commit a fraud on the American people by nonetheless presenting Palin as capable. When he chose Palin, and then failed to drop her when he knew that she would be dangerous for the country, John McCain was acting treasonously. “Treason” = disloyalty to one’s country. Shame on him. If you think this judgment is harsh, consider that McCain is probably covering up his medical condition too, which would make it more likely that he might have put Sarah Palin in charge of the United States. McCain treated the choice of Palin as if it was a silly game, as though it wouldn’t have endangered millions of Americans by giving them no leadership at a time of massive multi-front crises.
John McCain disgusts me for what he hid from Americans about Sarah Palin. He also disgusts me for what he tried to do to Barack Obama for the past year.
Last night, John McCain offered some cheap words of congratulations to Barack Obama. McCain’s low rent audience offered mostly derision to Obama in response. Again, shame on John McCain. This is what he gets for slandering a decent man, unjustly failing to call out our followers when they accuse Obama of being a Muslim, friend of terrorists, of highly suspect moral character and incompetent. This is what you reap for lying to your followers that Barack Obama’s policies were the opposite of what they are. Tons and tons of lies spewed at Obama over the past year and now McCain stands up and tells his deluded and misinformed followers that Obama is a fine man and will make a good President.
We can only hope that one of those people that McCain has gotten enraged through his countless lies doesn’t successfully assassinate Barack Obama. I will hold John McCain personally responsible if that happens.
McCain’s campaign is now, more than ever, certifiably without any class at all. For all I care, McCain can take all of those cheap words from last night and leave the national stage in total disgrace. History won’t be kind to McCain. Nor should it be.
Karl: What is a good word for the kind of person who is absolutely incapable of saying "I was wrong" when the facts are overwhelming. Your latest tactic, of claiming that Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative, is outrageous. You have refused to recognize the vast evidence for the conclusion that Sarah Palin has no credibility. Again, your standard for judging people you like versus people you don't like is night and day. Conservatives are given a low bar while you don't put the best foot forward of any Progressive.
You are here for sport, not truth.
Here's a little exercise for you. Write down five things that demonstrate that Sarah Palin would not be a good leader and five things showing that Barack Obama would be a good leader. I know that you will work hard to put that "lawyer" part of your brain to work here to say things that don't mean what they mean (based on your previous 100 comments), but in a big complicated nuanced world, you SHOULD be able to do this.
"You are here for sport, not truth."
This seems like a good assessment.
“You are here for sport, not truth.”
Otherwise known as a "troll".
Your statement assumes leadership happens in a void and that is ridiculous.
I can qualify your question and then answer it honestly.
Why Obama would make a good leader for the conservative party.
1) He has a Christian moral worldview.
2) He is able to have empathy for people.
3) He believes that fat cat Republicans and Democrats alike are responsible for many of the nations inequities.
4) He believes in the importance of the family and passing along family core values.
5) He is willing to listen to others for advice on matters where he isn't experieinced.
Funny thing is Sarah Palin has the same qualifications.
I can also qualify the question and say why either of them would have had a hard time leading this country.
1) Too many people think the above qualities are pointless because of the way washington is really run by lobbyists and special interest groups.
2) The biggest special interest groups are the Republicans and Democrats.
As for O'reilly
This taken from wikipedia.
The O'Reilly Factor is an American talk show on the Fox News Channel hosted by the self-proclaimed "traditionalist" commentator Bill O'Reilly, who discusses current political and social issues with guests from opposing ends of the political spectrum.
He may share many of the same points of view as conservatives, but O'Reilly does not want the label. You can base who you believe him to be by the populace he attracts in the ratings, but that's like saying Obama is a socialist because of how others interpret what he has said.
I stand by my statement. O'Reilley holds too many fingers up into the wind for me to call him a conservative first. He a traditionalist first and a conservative second. This way when pop culture has been around long enough to begin to effect a nations traditions he can morph and say he was only following what the majority opinion of the people believe is reasonable.
If I knew for certain that his ideology was first Judeo-Christian and then a traditionalist I would agree that he was also a conservative.
Check out this video on how he handles opposing points of view on his show which is pretaped and subject to his review and editing.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1402770/bill_o_reil…
I'd like to make sure that I don't contribute to the further spread of a false story about Sarah Palin. It appears that the claim (asserted on FOX and many other places) that Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent was false.
Bill O'Reilly is a self-serving demagogue. It is easier to get a rise out of people touting the current (I stress "current") conservative line than it is to work the liberal side of the debate. Whether you agree with it or not, the left viewpoint requires nuance and depth just to make the case, and usually appeals only to thoughtful people, even when they disagree with its conclusions. Since Joe McCarthy, right wing politicians have found it easy to get people revved up by poking fun and making accusations about "eggheads" and intellectuals. You can do it in a one-liner. O'Reilly, if he is a traditionalist at all, is a traditionalist in that vein, and it serves to get him ratings. I find him no more than a purveyor of political snake oil, unworthy of either the conservative or liberal apellation.
That was a nice honest remark – I appreciate your candor.
Again, Palin's so-called "executive experience" apparently includes finding scapegoats to blame for her own failures.
Palin gives a long interview while turkeys are slaughtered in the background. How strange. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/20/sarah-pa…