Palin Numbers from CBS

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:06 pm

Two polls released today actually show a "bump" in favor of McCain, not inconsistent with the type of bump you get after a candidate's party has its convention (though the overall meta-analysis I wrote about Saturday showing a divergence with Obama going up and McCain going down still holds true as of today).

Much of this bump is being credited to yet-to-be-discovered-by-America- Pelin. To me the most important "numbers in the numbers" in the poll I show below is that the number of "undecideds" about her have doubled in a week and the number of "haven't heard enough" is at 45% (more than the favorable and unfavorable combined.)
That's 60% who are "undecided" or "haven't heard enough" about her...and, believe me, America will get to know her...

So let's get started. :
She is under ethics investigation for abuse of power in hiring and firing of employees.

She thinks the world is 6,000 years old. She said in an interview that all she knows about the Iraq war is that it's "God's war".

(I think she means her God). Her brother and husband are secessionist, advocating that Alaska become its own country.

While she should not be held responsible for the views of her sibling, that last bit of selfishness is convenient, seeing how Alaska has taken more pork from the American taxpayer per capita than any state in the country. And that INCLUDES her repeated categorical support for the "bridge to nowhere" in several televised and recorded interviews despite lying about it now in TV commercials and in front of an entire American audience at the Republican convention. And when she at the 11th hour flipped and said she was against it, she kept the money for the Alaska general fund anyway.

She won't be interviewed yet because, obviously, how can she answer any questions on oh, those pesky issues like foreign policy? (Maybe, unlike McCain, she'll know that there is no Iraq-Pakistan border, that Iraq doesn't train Al Qaeda (they kill each other, actually), and there is no country called Chzeckoslovakia. She's never been outside of North America

She voted against polar bears being listed as an endangered species, concerned it would thwart for drilling in ANWAR. In fact she, along with McCain are two of the most pro-fossil fuel politicians on the American political scene leaving no doubt that this election is about Big Oil vs. Green Energy.

Her statements that "she took on big oil" in Alaska is another lie, as she has consistently supported every drilling project American big oil has advocated even though US oil leases, onshore and offshore, aren't being pumped (to keep the price of gas high) while she and McCain say the solution to our gas price problems is drilling new wells that will be ready in about 10 years. All she did was engage in a debate as to where Alaska's oil tax revenues should be spent. That record is not taking on big oil. That's being in their pocket.
This woman is about as dangerous a vice presidential candidate imaginable.

Wait until Americans get to know her. I think the "haven't heard enough" column will turn into "I've heard enough" very quickly. Stay tuned.
Kevin Purcell

By <http://www.pollster.com/bio/mark-blumenthal.php>Mark Blumenthal
CBS News

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:13 pm

yeah, and I heard that she's the one that shot Ol' Yeller. :roll:

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:22 pm

I heard that she killed Bambi's father :shock:

Danielle Masters · Post by **Danielle Masters** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:45 pm

She is also against abortion in cases of rape and incest, we discussed that over coffee this morning along with some of the other issues Jim brought up.

I really wonder how she will do in the debates, there will be no teleprompters but she is probably being schools in the proper talking points right now. So that is a possible reason she can't give interviews right now.

I am shocked to hear about her shooting Bambi's father though, especially since she is far too young to have done that. Does that mean she can time travel Stephen?

Mark Moran · Post by **Mark Moran** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:06 pm

As Ive said before, and others have said many times and better than I(especially Sam Harris in the op ed piece from the LA Times I posted), what stinks about this VP selection is not what there is or isnt to know about Sarah Palin, but what it says about McCain, and the republican party.

Yes, all vp choices are partly political. But this was an ENTIRELY political choice designed to feed the grumbling religious right that was dissatisfied with McCain. It is vastly depressing that so many people on the right, who might be affronted by the cynicism of this choice too if they had a shred of dignity, seem only to be celebrating the political calculation involved.

It is an FU to the American voter, who (the McCain campaign has obviously calculated) will fall for anything as long as its entertaining.

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:14 pm

I really wonder how she will do in the debates, there will be no teleprompters

yeah, kind of like the second half of her speech last week.

who might be affronted by the cynicism of this choice too if they had a shred of dignity,

I'm an independent, and as such, have no dignity.

Just a thought, and I know that this might seem like a stretch to some people, but maybe, just maybe, some Republicans are cheering his pick of VP because she is a staunch conservative, and not just because she's a woman.

Nah, you're probably right, He's a pig, and just wanted American's had a woman to vote for.

I also heard that she's a direct descendent of Eve, and therefor responsible for all the sin of the world. Which is a shock to most democrats, who thought that George Bush held that title. :shock:

Mark Moran · Post by **Mark Moran** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:17 pm

ah, I believe the urban myth that she delievered her speech without a teleprompter is just that.
But who cares? Reality TV has now taken over politics.

Colleen Wing · Post by **Colleen Wing** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:26 pm

Jim,

Even if John McCain had picked Leiberman to be his VP you wouldn't have voted for him. So why waste time spewing venum and trash talk?

Don't like McCain? Don't like Palin? Don't vote for them. I am amazed at the time that has been spent bashing them. Seriously, look at the number of posts.

Way to stay positive, so much for tolerance. :roll:

Peace.

Colleen

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:51 pm

Colleen Wing wrote:Jim,

Even if John McCain had picked Leiberman to be his VP you wouldn't have voted for him. So why waste time spewing venum and trash talk?

Don't like McCain? Don't like Palin? Don't vote for them. I am amazed at the time that has been spent bashing them. Seriously, look at the number of posts.

Way to stay positive, so much for tolerance.

Peace.

Colleen

Colleen

No I would not have voted for him with Liberman. That is correct, but are you so sure I would not have voted for him, had he been the John McCain from 4 years ago?

You are right, Liberman, would not have done it for me.

Go back and read, the time is not spent bashing them, but correcting the lies being spewed by them.

Colleen, how as an American can I sit idle as the far right tries to steal the country through trickery yet one more time? Co-opting change and hearing the Republicans, spewing the party line "change, change, change" has been a bit overwhelming for me. Especially after a Republican strategist says, "We must own change, change is the key word, experience didn't work for Clinton and it will not work for us. We must own change."

You know I have no problems with many Republicans, including you. It is the ones that feel they can never be critical of GWB or their party I wonder about. I can give you lists of what the Democrats have done wrong. Of course I do see most of the Republican presidents since I voted as evil, and the Democrats very lack luster. But that is me.

I am also curious. Have I ever in all my years asked anyone here or anywhere to not post or why post or hold back? Have I ever asked for you or Ryan or anyone to hide and shelve their emotions, questions, likes and dislikes? Three times in 4 years people have come to the deck to get me fired, thrown off, shut down, even boycotting LO's advertisers. I have encouraged each conversation, taken part and read the harsh criticism, and accepted all of it as an important conversation. Every post here teaches me more about the city and who lives here with me.

This country needs the conversation and needs to vent. This is the most important election in my life. The choice is obvious, Responsible government, growing economy OR start planning the Iraqi War Wall.

For what. What has it accomplished that was so hurried?

FWIW

* 60,000 names on the Vietnam Wall, 30,000 just because Nixon wanted to be President. It has been said that it would be impossible to build that wall in Vietnam, because it would take three lifetimes to etch all the names. Very soon Iraq's list of civilians killed will be twice that size!

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:16 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_qD9uZ8kB8

Tim Liston · Post by **Tim Liston** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:21 pm

Hey Stephen I gotta say, I just got home and I'm looking at this Global Discussion forum and you have posted to the last four threads. For a total of 18 words. Will you please just stop looking up links and stuff and put a little thought into your posts? Thank you.

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:22 pm

Eloquent post Jim, for some reason, I just lost mine, so I will try again.

Colleen,

For me the number 1 issue in this election is the war, which was why I had originally supported Dr. Paul. So I am not anti-Republican.

You are right, Lieberman wouldn't not have done it for me and most likely any candidate McCain would have selected would have been very pro-war. But I was very intrigued by the choice of Gov. Palin. Her speech to the Republican convention I thought was excellent when she talked about her life and history. I didn't like the sarcasm. But lets face it she didn't write the speech, but she delivered it very well.

But then I started researching more. She was touting in her speech that she said Thanks but No Thanks on the Bridge to Nowhere. Well, like most hearing that speech, I assumed she returned that money to the federal goverment - but she didn't she spent it on her own special projects. So she did recieve the pork - she just disregarded the strings attached to it.

Then she talked about selling the Gov. plane on E-bay. McCain talked about the profit she made selling the plane on E-bay. The CEO of E-bay is a big supporter of Senator McCain. Come to find out she didn't sell the plane on E-bay. She listed it there - but sold it through another company at a huge loss.

So why care about these small lies? We were just lied into a war, we keep hearing 9/11 and Iraq being tied together. It bothers me, if one would build a campaign strategy around these lies, will they take us to war on these lies?

It also bothers me that Senator McCain chose such a strong fundamentalist for this position. Someone who wants to ban books, someone that thinks the war is God's will. Will he select other fundamentalist for the remaining cabinet positions?

Additionally as a woman, I was excited that a woman was named to this position, but I look at the Republican party and I see far more experienced women. If you are agreeing that you support Bush's foreign policy why not Condolezza Rice? She is extremely experineced and educated. Why not Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson? or Senator Olympia Snowe?

It bothers me that McCain also shot from the hip and selected someone that wasn't vetted. His campaign admits this. She attended 6 schools in 6 years, the media can't find people at some of these schools that even knew her. Why choose her when Secy Rice academic credentials were amazing? Will Senator McCain continue to shoot from the hip and get us into another war for example with Russia? I prefer the slow, methodical, deliberate decision making that gathers information and weighs all the data before making major decisions. JMHO.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:29 pm

Tim Liston wrote:Hey Stephen I gotta say, I just got home and I'm looking at this Global Discussion forum and you have posted to the last four threads. For a total of 18 words. Will you please just stop looking up links and stuff and put a little thought into your posts? Thank you.

No... If you do not like my post then just ignore them... Thanks

Jeff Dreger · Post by **Jeff Dreger** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:57 pm

the OP by JOB is right on and I could've written Lynn's reply... while it's doubtful that most people will be swayed one way or the other, it's our duty to engage in the process in whatever small way we can... sharing opinions, correcting errors, passing along new info, etc.

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:28 pm

It bothers me, if one would build a campaign strategy around these lies, will they take us to war on these lies?

the speech I heard said that she "put it on e-bay" not that she SOLD it on e-bay.

And could you post the link to the reference about wanting to ban books?

And while we're at it, where do you get the information that Palin wasn't vetted? Or is it that she wasn't vetted to your particular specifications?

If all of this is true, I guess I don't understand why McCain decided to be her vice president in the first place :oops:

The bigger question to me is this... If she's such an improper choice, and it's so obvious, then why are so many Democrats so offended by the selection? Shouldn't they be sitting back saying "I sure am glad that McCain picked Palin, NOW WE'LL WIN BY A LANDSLIDE". Instead, people are acting like their owed an appology for his selection, and we end up speculating about whether or not she'll suck out our blood or grind up our bones to make bread.

It's gotten so bad, that most Democrats have even stopped complaining about Bush. :shock:

[/quote]