Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
August 29, 2008
POLITICS: Sound and Fury

My take on Obama's speech last night, before it gets completely overshadowed by the McCain VP announcement (if it's indeed Palin, now we know what John McCain wanted for his birthday: Barack Obama's news cycle):

1. Yes, it's hard for me to objectively evaluate a speech of this nature by a Democrat, but I can say this: it wasn't a dud like Kerry in 2004 and wasn't power-mad like Gore in 2000, but it also wasn't full of "how can we possibly beat this guy" moments like one of Clinton's speeches. Only in the MLK homage did his rhetoric really soar, and his "specifics" still seemed either vague, small-bore, shopworn or implausible in light of his record.

2. Obama said nothing at all that will be remembered a week from now - no Cross of Gold, no "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," no "kinder, gentler America," no "Bridge to the 21st century." If there was a unifying theme, it eluded me.

3. Probably Obama's most effective claim - I lack the time to deal with this one today - was his promise to cut taxes. Also his promise to eliminate government programs. Neither bears any relationship whatsoever to his record or his campaign to date.

4. Almost certainly the flimsiest part of the speech was where Obama basically said "I know we disagree on abortion, guns, immigration and same-sex marriage, but surely we can all agree on some talking points on these issues that Democrats have been using for years."

5. Someone should tell Obama to stop using the "my brother's keeper line" as long as George Obama is living on $1 a month in a shanty in Kenya.

6. The set wound up being less pompous than billed, but still reminded me of Bill Maher's old set:

maherset.JPG

UPDATE: I wrote too fast this morning and missed a crucial point I had wanted to make. A year ago, Democrats were full of woe about the future of Iraq. Last night, the worst Obama could think to say about the state of Iraq is that they are running a budget surplus.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:37 AM | Politics 2008 | Comments (60) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

I've read the transcript but missed the speech. (Which is an interesting thing to do for Obama's speeches: without the deep baritone voice and charisma, his speeches aren't nearly as impressive.) For someone who has been promising change, it's strange that most of the speech was self-adulation, attack and posturing. Nothing at all specific about how he is going to re-make American politics.

Posted by: per14 at August 29, 2008 9:07 AM

"For someone who has been promising change, it's strange that most of the speech was self-adulation, attack and posturing. Nothing at all specific about how he is going to re-make American politics."

Oh no!!! Obama has become a Republican!!!!

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at August 29, 2008 9:20 AM

Perhapas Cindy McCain can help Obama's half-brother. Of course, that would come after she helps her half-sister after clai9ing to be an "only child" -- AT THEIR FATHER'S FUNERAL WITH HER HALF-SISTER IN THE FRONT ROW!. Yup, she is a USC grad all right. University of Spoiled Children.

Posted by: Magrooder at August 29, 2008 9:34 AM

We got way more specifics and examples of leadership from W in 2000 than we have ever gotten from Obama.

My point was that Obama's entire justification for his perceived ability to President is that he is "different". A fresh "change." And he's proving that it's all crap. He's just like all the rest of them.

Posted by: per14 at August 29, 2008 9:46 AM

As Mike has pointed out many the time, you guys are really funny when you talk about Obama. The stink of insecurity is all over these remarks.

Posted by: jim at August 29, 2008 11:04 AM

What the heck do I have to be insecure about re: Obama? That he may win? I almost hope he does. He'll be so bad it'll send the liberal agenda back decades.
The reason I (can't speak for "you guys") get so up in arms about this guy is he is so obviously a phoney. There have been phonies before, but they knew they were phonies and everyone knew they were phonies.

Posted by: per14 at August 29, 2008 11:09 AM

Palin? And she is qualified to be President, should somehting happen to McCain, exactly how? She looks like McCain's insurance policy against impeachment and not much else. Oh yes, those years on the city council must have been invaluable.

Posted by: Magrooder at August 29, 2008 11:56 AM

Gone is the comment about state senate in Illinois...I'm imagining there are a lot of erasers with the speechwriters for next week...

That and announcing on the anniversary of Katrina with a storm in the Gulf...yep, McCain doesn't get it...which is the theme of Obama's speech. It will be reiterated today.

Posted by: AstrosFan at August 29, 2008 12:04 PM

I'll take the chance on Obama sucking. I already know Bush-pet McCain sucks so we can pass that one on by. Hopefully Obama will be as bad as Clinton was. All that peace and prosperity were a real drag.

Posted by: jim at August 29, 2008 12:26 PM

Yeah, Magrooder, please harp on the Veep selections lack of experience. You can then point to your own Chief Exec candidate's years as a friggin' ward heeler in the most corrupt regime in America as his entire fantastic resume'.

I hope you'll all jump on Palin's lack of experience. Do it, it's really a great attack for you guys!

Really!

Posted by: spongeworthy at August 29, 2008 1:32 PM

Spongey, what it means is that any GOP attack on Obama's supposed lack of experience is shown to be utterly transparent and totally fradulent.

She is Harriet Miers and Clarence Thomas -- GOP tokenism. Can you seriously argue that if she were Sam Palin, she would have been nominated. Hwer own speech was a bald plea to vote for her because she is a woman.

Dan Quayle was more qualified. My god, even Ferrarro was more qualified. McCain has shown himself to be completely unserious about governing.

Hurricane Sarah is going to swamp you in November.

Posted by: Magrooder at August 29, 2008 1:46 PM

Spongey, what it means is that any GOP attack on Obama's supposed lack of experience is shown to be utterly transparent and totally fradulent.

She is Harriet Miers and Clarence Thomas -- GOP tokenism. Can you seriously argue that if she were Sam Palin, she would have been nominated. Her own speech was a bald plea to vote for her because she is a woman.

Dan Quayle was more qualified. My god, even Ferrarro was more qualified. McCain has shown himself to be completely unserious about governing.

Hurricane Sarah is going to swamp you in November.

Posted by: Magrooder at August 29, 2008 1:47 PM

I'd like to think that McCain's choice would take the whole "experience" debate off the table for both parties. But no, now we're going to argue whether 2 years as a governor compares to 3 years as a Senator and other inconsequential trivia. Great.

Posted by: MVH at August 29, 2008 2:44 PM

Yeah, I'm not crazy about the Palin choice. Really, both sides are in a bind now on the experience issue, which really is an issue I think.

But there is a fundamental difference here: Palin isn't running for President. Obama is.

And I think calling Thomas a token is a little harsh. Read any serious commentary on the Court over the last 15 years. He's not Scalia's lapdog. He wasn't awed by Rehnquist. He was the spark in a lot of the Court's movement over the two decades. Now, one can completely disagree with his views, which is fine, but the idea that he is just there for show and tell doesn't really hold up.

Posted by: per14 at August 29, 2008 3:05 PM

"Hurricane Sarah is going to swamp you in November."

Speaking of hurricanes, we can at least be sure of this: Palin has absolutely no experience in handling an emergency response to a hurricane.

Posted by: MVH at August 29, 2008 3:32 PM

I'm pretty sure her idea for handling a hurricane would be to drill.

Posted by: jim at August 29, 2008 3:49 PM

"But there is a fundamental difference here: Palin isn't running for President. Obama is."

True, but keep in mind, McCain is 72. He's a little more susceptible to kicking the bucket or winding up with serious health problems while in office.

Both parties should just drop the whole discussion.

Posted by: MVH at August 29, 2008 4:02 PM

Yeah jim, she would definitely drill in a huricane, not like Alaska has any weather conditions to deal with. Regardless, better that she drill than have cocktails and fundraisers with a McVeigh wannbe like Bill Ayers.

Posted by: dave at August 29, 2008 6:19 PM

I'm still trying to figure out why experience is important. Between George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower, no one has ever really been qualified to be president, and certainly no one since.

Since WWII, Nixon was probably the most experienced candidate for president, and how did that turn out?

Otherwise, the most "experienced" candidates are presidents running for a second term; yet second-term presidents are notorious for lack of accomplishment.

Go further back you get comparisons like this:

Experienced: James Buchanan
Inexperienced: Abraham Lincoln

Experienced: John Quincy Adams
Inexperienced: Andrew Jackson

The problem with Obama is not his inexperience it is that his change message is entirely theoretical. No one actually knows where he's going with it. He doesnt' really stand for anything besides an abstract concept.

Palin actually arrives on the national scene with an agenda. That's far more important than "experience."

Posted by: Henry at August 29, 2008 6:27 PM

Let's hope Palin runs hard on her agenda; they'll get crushed.

Posted by: Magrooder at August 29, 2008 8:14 PM

I think the point is missed on the Palin selection--unless he meant Michael Palin, and now McCain is running for the Silly Party with Wim Bim Lim Ftang Tag, but I digress...

It's a gambe to pick someone who is so extreme, simply because she is female--trying to snag so many angry Hillary supporters with another woman. As Rush said, "We have the babe." Aside from the Yankees having the real one, the GOP does have the fat addicted pig, but again, I digress... (sorry).

Hillary spoke to disaffected voters, and if McCain wins, she is toast in her own party, so she has to fight hard for Obama, precisely in the areas where she was strong--and they will see very quickly that the only thing Palin has in common with Hillary Clinton is the second X chromosome.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at August 30, 2008 10:08 AM

he is so obviously a phoney

Explain, per14? Beyond the fact that all politicians are motivated for for person success than anything else, what is it about Obama that's so "obviously" phony?

His membership in the Democratic party? His skin color? The fact that he's more charismatic than McCain? That he's not a wimp, just waiting for the GOPers to drag his name through the mud?

Which is it?

Posted by: Mike at August 30, 2008 11:00 AM

Crank, I like you are a New Yorker. Has it not been hilarious watching NYC Dems and Libs just losing it over the last 24 hours. I literally see total panic in their eyes when talking with them about Palin. My favorite thing to do so far is when the they rather foolishly bring up the experience issue is I just ask them to name any of Obama's executive experience or accomplishments as a Senator- they start melting down. Two of them started shaking, yes shaking, in impotent rage.

Posted by: dch at August 30, 2008 11:00 AM

President of the Harvard Law Review brings more executive experience than mayor of a podunk town of 5000, not that either one matters.

The more critical question is what qualities at all, besides hewing the wing nut policy line -- she brings. She "heard about" the surge on the news. There is no record of her having any thoughts about any aspect of foreign policy or national security before 2007. Energy policy experience? Alaska is unique in its energy situation among the 50 states, so how does that help? Drill ANWR? Fine, drill it. Nothing changes for 10 years.

If Palin is qualified, then there really are no criteria for VP other than having a pulse.

Posted by: Magrooder at August 30, 2008 11:46 AM

It is entertaining to listen to the libs (yet again) trivialize other's experience as a means of trying to make Obama's seem better. "Why Obmama's leadership as president of his 3rd grade class is superior to Palin's 2 years as govenor!" "Why how does McCain's years a a POW possibly compare to Obama's 2 hours trapped in an elevator?"

You libs are a joke. I said it before; just admit your guy has no experience but it doesn't matter to you.

BTW Darryl your statement "It's a gambe to pick someone who is so extreme, simply because she is female" could be changed to be "It's a gambe to pick someone who is so extreme, simply because he is black".

Posted by: Lee at August 30, 2008 12:19 PM

NYC Dems and Libs just losing it over the last 24 hours.

??? Do you like in the same "NY" I live in? I've seen none of this panic of which you speak.

just admit your guy has no experience but it doesn't matter to you.

Lee, if McCain wins we're just one 72 year-old heartbeat away from a President who's younger than Obama & has less experience. Please tell me I'm not reading you still playing the experience card.

{Psst} I know you GOPers aren't too swift Lee, but your candidate just took that one away from you guys. You'll need to try a new one. Maybe his skin color? His teeth? Michelle's dress style?

Posted by: Mike at August 30, 2008 3:22 PM

But Lee, Obama wasn't picked, he was VOTED on. My own feelings on Palin and the current state of the GOP is based on loathing of policies both believed in and carried out. Eight years of total mismanagement by the "experienced" governor of Texas tells you that the only criteria for president is to do the job well.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at August 30, 2008 3:23 PM

I think the only real experience edge Obama has is that which he's gotten running for President. Which I don't discount - running a multi-million dollar organization, visiting all corners of the country, and trying to manage your message for over a year is pretty good preparation for the big chair. But other than that, he hasn't done a lot the matters to me.

Executive experience, even the limited degree Palin has, is a plus. But she is still below the normal level of experience, and will have to persuade a doubtful public. Time will tell.

Posted by: Jerry at August 30, 2008 5:04 PM

"But Lee, Obama wasn't picked, he was VOTED on." So what! He was PICKED by the Democratic voters. Same thing.

Just like a liberal, wordsmith and ignore the basic premise. Do we have to debate the defintion of word "is" yet again? ;-)

Do we have bring up John Edwards name as a less experienced VP than Palin? While he had more time in the Senate than the Messiah, he was still a 1st termer. He had held no executive position (heading up his own law firm does not count) and never held public office before at a state or federal level.

QED

Posted by: Lee at August 30, 2008 7:55 PM

Lee,

Um. Being "picked" by voters is how a democracy works.

By the way, has anyone seen or heard from the Crank? Is he that distraught over McCain's choice of Eagleton in a skirt?

Posted by: Magrooder at August 30, 2008 10:58 PM

Yeah Little Mikey, I live in the same NYC you live in-you know the same NYC that coincidentally declined for 30-40 years under liberal democratic rule (see just about every city run by libs) that just coincidentally turned around when we changed tax, welfare and crime policies. Go back to sleep Gump.

Posted by: dch at August 31, 2008 2:16 AM

Lee, is being picked by millions of voters (which we call a Constitutional Republic) worse than being picked by 5 Supreme Court justices (which we call a sham?)

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at August 31, 2008 8:47 AM

DCH -

Anger issues?

Posted by: Mike at August 31, 2008 8:47 AM

Daryl, they can't hear you.

Posted by: Mike at August 31, 2008 8:48 AM

Daryl,

Do you have an issue staying on topic? It seems everytime someone makes a point, you change the subject.

Politics aside, do you think Edwards had more experience when he was picked as VP by Kerry than Palin? If so, why?


Posted by: Lee at August 31, 2008 9:44 AM

I've had clients in from out of town and been too busy to give more than a half-baked response, which I prefer not to do.

Distraught? Yes...over Aaron Heilman.

Posted by: The Crank at August 31, 2008 9:46 AM

Lee, considering on this thread all I am doing is responding to your posts, you might want to read what you've been writing about before resorting to insults that have no basis in facts. Or is it that you have now lost the facts and the truth, and are down to pounding the table. I guess you're right Mike.

And Crank, you got that right. Damn, I wish everyone would read their Earl Weaver, and maybe study the 1999 playoffs. Weaver didn't believe in intentional walks, and I think he is smarter than the average 5th grader, and why would you have a pitcher with control problems throw outside the strikezone on purpose? Lee, that is still staying on topic, but history tends to meander, and the more you know, the more you can draw on.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at August 31, 2008 11:05 AM

She's from Alaska. I look forward to 10 weeks of the media asking if she's American enough.

BTW, the disaffected Hillary voters who are thinking of not voting for Obama are a figment of the imagination of the "villagers". Do yourself a favor, and don't believe a word the MSM tells you. They peddle made-up story lines, which have no basis in reality.

Posted by: Berto at August 31, 2008 12:17 PM

Uh-oh. Palin faked the pregnancy. Eagleton! Paging Senator Eagleton!

Posted by: Magrooder at August 31, 2008 11:06 PM

Magrooder, you are filth. I don't know what in the human mind causes the desire to come up with these kinds of casual slanders, but you repeat anything of that nature on this site again you will be gone.

Oh, the things the Left does not bother to understand.

Posted by: The Crank at August 31, 2008 11:50 PM

"Oh, the things the Left does not bother to understand."
Yeah, the Rove Right would never stoop so low. LOL!

Posted by: Berto at September 1, 2008 4:47 AM

you are filth

Wow!

Funny move there, Crank. You call Magrooder "filth" because alludes to some silly meme making the blog rounds these days, yet you link casually to a site that refers to the left as "murderers" and "eugenicists."

I unabashedly believe that every woman on earth has the right to do whatever she wants with an undeveloped blob of cells growing in her uterus. And if anyone wants to disagree with me on that position, I believe it's their sacred site to do so. They can even call me a "murderer" or a "eugenicist" if that floats their Christian-hearted boat.

But saying such slanderous garbage neither makes it true, nor removes the stain of their hypocrisy regarding the ad hominems they choose to toss my way.

For folks who claim that their position is born of love & respect & spiritualism, it's amazing how much utterly hateful verbal trash gets spewed by the anti-abortion crowd.

you are filth

Is that an example of "turning the other cheek"? Of "hating the sin but loving the sinner"? Is that what Jesus really thought when he said "forgive them father, they know not what they do"?

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2008 9:12 AM

Mike, the candidates are grownups, we expect them to stand in and take a lot, including the occasional untrue story, including heated rhetoric about their positions like Thomas' view of the Democrats' approach to abortion.

But willfully circulating wholly unsubstantiated slanders about Palin's teenage daughter, who did nothing to deserve this, is beyond the pale. The people doing this know full well that they have no basis for it; they are just acting from pure, venomous malice.

Posted by: The Crank at September 1, 2008 10:01 AM

The people doing this know full well that they have no basis for it; they are just acting from pure, venomous malice

So that's what makes them "filth" then? So I suppose if I scroll back to your posts from summer & autumn of 2004 I'll see where you joined McCain in opposing the Swiftboaters? You called them "filth," I assume, since there was little or no substantiation to their story. Since John McCain and many others denounced them as liars, as scoundrels.

(Even though the Bush campaign chose NOT to denounce them. Even though the Swiftboat supporters included many with close ties to the Bush campaign.)

Just shoot me the link, Crank. I want to see where you called these foul, lying propagandists "filth" because they impugned the reputation of a man who served his nation under fire. Who faced the bullets for his country.

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2008 10:32 AM

Here you go, I did it for you:

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2004/08/politics_playin_2.php

Just to summarize, you rationalize the Swiftboaters actions, and even take a swipe at McCain!

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2008 10:39 AM

And in this post, you all-but admit that you're on Kerry's side (as a war hero, etc.), but you again rationalize the Swiftboater's actions for purely political reasons.

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2004/08/politics_playin_2.php

In other words, you're at best uncertain about the truth of their claims; you don't agree with the philosophy of what they're doing; and you acknowledge that politics, and politics alone, are behind it.

Yet for some reason my computer isn't showing the line where you call them "filth." What's up with that Crank?

Could there be some inconsistency in your position here? I know you'll distinguish between Kerry and Palin's daughter, but that's some weak coffee in my mind.

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2008 10:46 AM

Finally (I promise I'm stopping now; I feel I made my point), in this one, you acknowledge that the Swiftboat campaign is about grudges and revenge as opposed to the truth of the story itself:

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2004/08/politics_moving.php

And you even end with the line, "Welcome to 21st Century Politics."

Indeed. I think we might say much the same about the "filth" who've dredged up (or made up . . . we'll see) the Sarah Palin baby story.

Karl Rove and friends may wanna tell Ms. Palin (and all the sensitive GOPers so up-in-arms about this story) what the expressions "good for the goose, good for the gander" and "chickens coming home to roost" mean.

* * *

You hardballin' GOPers shouldn't get all soft & weepy & sensitive over tough politicking, not when you've played the whole rootin--tootin' cowboy angle for so long (Bring it on, anyone?).

One thing I actually DO like about Obama (and even Biden, who I generally loathe) is that he's tough. Get ready for a rough campaign this year, Crank. And all I wanna say is, that baby better be hers. Cause if it isn't, it's gonna be an ugly day in GOPville when the truth comes out.

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2008 10:54 AM

Leaving aisde the difference between John Kerry and a teenage girl (I'm not the one who said there's none), you assume facts not in evidence. I realize in some quarters it's an article of faith that the Swifties were liars, but the main evidence of this is that the Democrats keep repeating that it is so. I don't doubt, as I wrote repeatedly at the time, that both they and Kerry got some details innocently wrong, as you'd expect from the fog of war plus 35 years. But their appearance did force Kerry to retract things he had claimed previously about his first Purple Heart, and the one example of an implausible story that had to be completely abandoned after being debunked wasn't anything the Swifties said but rather Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" fable. Nearly all the documents that supposedly 'disproved' the Swifties - most of which didn't really respond directly to their allegations - were authored by Kerry himself. Kerry to this day has refused to publicly release his wartime diary and other sources that could have backed up his claims.

Bonus question: did they fabricate the video of Kerry's nationally televised Senate testimony, which after all was the most damaging part of the whole Swift Boat campaign?

Posted by: The Crank at September 1, 2008 11:24 AM

. . . and the McCain team just made a statement that Palin's 17 year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant, i.ethat she couldn't have given birth 7 months ago.

(They also noted that she's unmarried, but will marry the randy young fella who's half responsible. Lucky guy.)

So . . . by way of analogy, she responded just as Kerry did.

Still want to toss around the "filth" word?

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2008 1:00 PM

Mike,

Couple items.

1. To help you with the difficult math, April is 4 months ago not 7 (8 - 4 = 4 maybe 4 1/2).

2. Yes, I would still call someone filth who spews that kind of venom against a kid. The kid made a mistake. We all do. She has the unfortunate situation of having her mistake discussed and mocked by fools with an internet connection because they disagree with her mother's political positions. John Kerry was actually an adult who was personally running for office when the veterans (who were disgusted with his misbehavior and appalled at the thought of someone of his ilk being elected president) ran ads questioning his fitness for office. As Crank said the questions about his various stories about Nam could somewhat be attributed to poor memories on both sides. The problem is the most effective thing the SBVFT did was remind everyone of his despicable behavior in Congress.

Posted by: largebill at September 1, 2008 3:40 PM

Crank,

Ban me if you like. You guys dish it out without regard for your targets -- McCain's "joke' about Reno, Hillary and Chelsea anyone?

If you live in the sewer, you can't yell "oh s**t each time a turd floats by.

Posted by: Magrooder at September 1, 2008 5:06 PM

Every Conservative knows to blame the parents when a teen has a baby out of wedlock.

Posted by: Berto at September 1, 2008 5:42 PM

What does old turkey-waddle Dr. Laura have to say about this nomination? This chick clearly is not her kid's mom (and so much more with the double entendre).

Posted by: jim at September 1, 2008 7:28 PM

Largebill -- Oh, where to begin?

April is 4 months ago not 7

Well, if nothing else, glad to see you got the important take-away of my post. Now that I know Palin gave birth in April, not February, it changes all my positions entirely. I take it ALL back, at least for the last 75 years. I'm supporting Alf Landan over FDR in '36, arguing that Chamberlain got it right at Munich in '38, telling Ike his "Overlord" plan was crazy in '44 . . .

I would still call someone filth who spews that kind of venom against a kid. The kid made a mistake. We all do. She has the unfortunate situation of having her mistake discussed and mocked by fools with an internet connection

But . . . Crank called Magrooder "filth" because he suggested that Sarah Palin claimed the baby was hers, as opposed to her daughter's. Now you're bringing in the acknowledged fact of Palin's daughter's out-of-wedlock child? What dos that have to do with what Crank all hot-and-bothered? A tad defensive, aren't you? And where's the "filth" come into play?

disgusted with his misbehavior and appalled at the thought of someone of his ilk being elected president

What "misbehavior"? That he protested against a war he fought in?

You refer to a Veteran as "someone of his ilk"? A man who put his neck on the line for his county is "someone of his ilk"? Man, you GOPers play it fast & loose, don't you? I guess "filth" is someone who disagrees with you. And so is "someone of his ilk."

his despicable behavior in Congress

"Despicable," huh? What was the "despicable" thing he did? Be a Democrat? Protest the war he fought in? Please, fill me in on your thinking.

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2008 8:13 PM

How was he despicable?

Being a veteran doesn't give him a pass for what he did when he came home. Lee Harvey Oswald was a veteran. I consider the totality of the man not just whether he served for a little while. He went before congress and lied and called all veterans rapists and compared us to Genghis Khan's hordes. He is absolute dishonest trash.

Maybe honor doesn't matter much to you but it does to some of us. For a guy to have served and then turn around and pull crap like that is reprehensible.

Posted by: largebill at September 1, 2008 9:53 PM

Does The Crank have a pair or is he a shill?

There was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project -- all intended to benefit Palin's town, Wasilla, located about 45 miles north of Anchorage.

You blasted Obama for earmarks, now let flash the light on your golden girl. BTW, it was pointed out you were flat out wrong on your Obama post.

Posted by: javaman at September 1, 2008 11:32 PM

Does The Crank have a pair or is he a shill?

There was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project -- all intended to benefit Palin's town, Wasilla, located about 45 miles north of Anchorage.

You blasted Obama for earmarks, now let flash the light on your golden girl. BTW, it was pointed out you were flat out wrong on your Obama post.

Posted by: javaman at September 1, 2008 11:32 PM

John Kerry called ALL veterans rapists?
If that's true, it is reprehensible.
My understanding is that only SOME veterans are rapists. (Although the stories from Iraq make it seem that the government is trying to cover-up a lot of rape investigations).

Posted by: Berto at September 2, 2008 11:08 AM

As is usual with the right, you condemn first, and then lie about it after. It's a wonder that McCain got reelected if he says no to earmarks. Shouldn't it depend on what the earmark is? Say an earmark to rebuild a bridge in Minnesota. Good (we have that near me, and rebuilding a failing piece of infrastructure is good). Supporting an Alaskan bridge to nowhere? Bad. And if you check, Palin was for it before she was against it. Oh, wait, we can't use that argument can we? The right wing might think that is not a fair thing to say.

I was right the first time. McCain should have nominate Michael Palin.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at September 2, 2008 11:27 AM

27 million in earmarks for a town of 7,000, (reformer) are you kidding? Crank, what gives, let’s say you favorite topic of late Obama and family breaths wrong you have a 500 word opus on how evil breathing like Obama could be if he wins. Now, Miers II is selected to run for Veep and you claim the delay on posting is research. Pot calling kettle, stones and glass houses I could go on but you have exposed yourself. Never knew you own a trench coat.

Posted by: javaman at September 2, 2008 11:59 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg