but the media didn’t notice.

I'm confused by this statement,  how does one write a media article on a topic while prefacing the article with "the media didn't notice".

This is simple for all of you media types:  If you work for or are published regularly by the media then you are the fucking media.

fortinbras wrote:

...I feel so much more comfortable that candidates in each party have no clue what they are running for.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html

Christ, Forté, WMUR channel 9, and hell, even the Union Leader produces better crap than this. That's not news.

Ok , I'll bite.

Biden did blow it in that statement. He completely failed to actually get to the heart of the matter about Cheney claiming he was in the legislative branch. Which was that Cheney  tried to deny that he was part of the Executive branch for the express purpose of blocking the release of public record VP papers and communications. Records he was trying to destroy even before the argument could be settled. A bold new move in leadership unemployed by any other previous VP.

I would suspect 10s of millions of debate viewers do not follow Washington news enough to know about this. Biden blathered on rather then point out succinctly what Cheney was really up to and why it mattered.

Headkicker wrote:

...which I interpreted as Biden being on the spot and being very careful in his answer, rather than him not knowing what the VPs job is.

I might buy this had he not climbed on his know-it-all soapbox and lectured Palin about the authority and duties of the job.  For gawd's sake, he went on and on about how the VP has "no authority relative to the Congress".  Well, I suppose so if you discount the fact that the VP is President of the Senate, the congressional body in which Biden has apprently been sleeping rather than serving for all these years.

MSG Tripps wrote:

phreddy, pardon my grass soaked brain, it has lapses; have you ever served a country?

That would be Gunner's Mate II to you Sarge.  Four years during Viet Nam USCG.

MSG Tripps wrote:

Hey Bro.

Seems like yesterday.

MSG Tripps wrote:

Fucking Swabbie.

Fuck no.  Coastie.

phreddy wrote:

Headkicker wrote:

...which I interpreted as Biden being on the spot and being very careful in his answer, rather than him not knowing what the VPs job is.

I might buy this had he not climbed on his know-it-all soapbox and lectured Palin about the authority and duties of the job.  For gawd's sake, he went on and on about how the VP has "no authority relative to the Congress".  Well, I suppose so if you discount the fact that the VP is President of the Senate, the congressional body in which Biden has apprently been sleeping rather than serving for all these years.

But isn't that really just a figurehead position?  Other than Cheney, I can't remember a VP even trying to assert any authority in the position.

It was a poorly posed question. Being too oblique about its subject. If you are going to ask a pointed question of the incumbent party's candidate, just ask it. Do you endorse the manuvering Cheney did with classifying his office as not part of the Executive so as to sheild it from public disclosure rules that apply to the Executive branch?

Even obliquely posed, Biden was handed a golden oppertunity to get to the point and pose it to Palin himself. He blew it with ramblings that hold nothing of substance and don't address the reason for the question.

Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-10-09 23:12:59)

headkicker_girl wrote:

. . . it smacks of right wing desperation, just like the Ayers bullshit.

Agreed. 

Phred - what ever happened to all the new dirt you promised few days ago on Ayers?  At present it looks like the McCain campaign is trying to churn up an empty buckiet.   Actually, it looks a lot worse, and like bad strategy to boot. 

Willie Horton, swifties, now this.  A pretty sad comment when you think about it.

Fled wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

. . . it smacks of right wing desperation, just like the Ayers bullshit.

Agreed. 

Phred - what ever happened to all the new dirt you promised few days ago on Ayers?  At present it looks like the McCain campaign is trying to churn up an empty buckiet.   Actually, it looks a lot worse, and like bad strategy to boot. 

Willie Horton, swifties, now this.  A pretty sad comment when you think about it.

It's so transparent that it's pathetic.  McCain and Palin haven't said jack shit all week about the issues...it's been all about linking Obama to terrorism.  I have no idea what McCain plans to do for America other than increase tax cuts for the wealthy and buy a bunch of bad mortgage...oh and give me a $5000 tax credit for health insurance when I've paid about $10,000 a year for coverage (while taxing my benefit if the employer actually still pays for it), while at the same time having a spending freeze, and increasing military spending.

Yet I'm supposed to be more concerned that Biden couldn't speak off the top of his head on poorly worded questuon about a constitutional issue...

What hypocrites. I've not seen ONE Obama ad that doesn't say something negative about John McCain. Not one.

But, hey, the left (and the media) have never let the truth get in the way before, so why start now?

Fled wrote:

Phred - what ever happened to all the new dirt you promised few days ago on Ayers?  At present it looks like the McCain campaign is trying to churn up an empty buckiet.   Actually, it looks a lot worse, and like bad strategy to boot. 

Willie Horton, swifties, now this.  A pretty sad comment when you think about it.

They had intended to roll with the reveal that Obama is not even a Democrat but a member of a radical secret socialist party. Unfortunately they are having trouble with the talking points when on the scheduled day of revelation their own candidate and incumbent turned out to be a bigger Socialist.

Obama, the socialist New Party, and the socialist Bush Treasury Department

There’s a lot of blog buzz over Barack Obama’s membership in the socialist New Party. You can read about it here, here, and here.

A year ago, I might have gotten as worked up about this as everyone else seems to be.

But after watching a GOP White House and Republican collaborationists fork over billions upon billions in socialist aid to private businesses, presiding over the most massive nationalization efforts I’ve seen in my lifetime over the past year — and then watching John McCain pitch his Treasury Department-as-national loan servicer plan during the debate — it’s hard for me to muster up much more angst than I already have.

Read today’s headline, people: U.S. May Take Ownership Stake in Banks:

Yeah, but ptah, you're a massive tool and will only notice those

phreddy wrote:

All the info proving Obama and Ayers worked together to distribute millions to groups working to radicalize students, parents, and teachers in Chicago is contained in a series of articles written by Staley Kurtz.  The most recent is here..   I know, however, that many of you have already partaken of the Kool Aid and have no interest in preventing a quasi Marxist from becoming our next president.  You are prepared to fall in line with Louis Farrakhan when he says, the Messiah has arrived.

Geesh, all the damning evidence happens to be the word of one writer for the National Review.  Really, is that the best you can do?  Parents need to fight the system in Chicago.  Most of the schools suck ass, which is why I do not live in the city.  I applaud Obama for trying to make a difference.

Fled wrote:

phreddy wrote:

All the info proving Obama and Ayers worked together to distribute millions to groups working to radicalize students, parents, and teachers in Chicago is contained in a series of articles written by Staley Kurtz.  The most recent is here..   I know, however, that many of you have already partaken of the Kool Aid and have no interest in preventing a quasi Marxist from becoming our next president.  You are prepared to fall in line with Louis Farrakhan when he says, the Messiah has arrived.

Oh, my poor white brother. . . .  Kurtz offers some weak-ass tea, my friend.  It does not quite rise to the level of guilt-by-association.  Kool Aid (sic)?  quasi Marxist?  Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him?

You seem pretty twisted up inside, Phred.  Try a laxative.

Kool Aid

orangeplus wrote:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ … ewhite.jpg

Annoyingly, I figure this is what about half of the electorate believes. It's going to come down to the last thing both candidates [say they] want it to. How many people do you figure who'll come out, who haven't voted in the past four or five elections, just to vote for/against the black man?