This is an amazing video (via). A reporter (of course a local Maine reporter -- no campaign reporter would be so rude as to ask difficult questions) finally asks McCain about the many vulnerabilities of Sarah Palin, and his answers must be seen to be believed.
Most amusingly: The reporter asks directly about her national security credentials. McCain's answer? "Energy." But wait, there's more! "She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America." Wow. Also, she understands Russia's "newly aggressive behavior" because ... Alaska is close to Russia. Apparently the knowledge radiates from the country, which is why people in Florida know nothing at all about Russia. Also, is the implication that Russia is going to invade Alaska?!
Watch:
Comments
View as Threaded
Baby Boomer Posted 3:28 am
11 Sep 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:34 am
11 Sep 2008
And it's about the same distance from New York City to Moscow (4,700mi, 7,500km).
Therefore: Everyone in New York City know about as much about what Russia is up to as does Palin.
Couldn't find distances for Bangor, Maine. But it's got to be a lot closer than NYC. That's where we're going to find our best Russian experts.
Just think, had McCain actually vetted prior to choosing we could have a sugar maker or lobster fisherman waiting in the wings to take over as Commander in Chief.
We'd be so much safer....
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 3:44 am
11 Sep 2008
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:53 am
11 Sep 2008
Alaska is a welfare state. We send lots more money there than we get back in taxes.
It's off there, somewhere in the far north. Kind of an exotic place.
Not really clear what value it is to us other than a place to vacation without flying. (Canada and Mexico also fill this need.)
Were we a large corporation in financially troubling times we might look around for an asset to sell off in order to pay off some debt.
How about approaching Russia to see if they want it back?
We could get some serious cash up front with the balance paid in oil credits.
We would end the negative cash flow from this non-performing asset.
We could still visit. Still get there by road, if desired.
We might even get a bidding war going between Russia and Canada and come out well off. Heck, even China might be interested.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:49 am
11 Sep 2008
Permalink
saluki Posted 6:01 am
11 Sep 2008
Same as Bill Clinton's when he became president.
Permalink
Spearhead Posted 6:25 am
11 Sep 2008
Now they do the same with Sarah Palin, perhaps the most dangerous person in this election. Since I live in Western NY, I guess I'm an expert in Canadian policy, hydro-electric energy, and photo-optics. Maybe I can get a position in the cabinet?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:40 am
11 Sep 2008
This is not Obama or Biden's job. Liberal 527s are firing up to do this if the media won't. the constant swiftboat style 527 ads from the right make it necessary.
MCCain repeating the lies makes him complicit, time for video of McCain versus Palin versus Palin/McCain.
They have flip flopped and lied so much it's a circus of "ridiculous opponents".
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
guade00 Posted 6:47 am
11 Sep 2008
So, yeah, let's get rid of 'em!
Permalink
guade00 Posted 6:49 am
11 Sep 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 6:52 am
11 Sep 2008
This link will take to several statements by major news agencies that have called McCain on his lies recently....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/gutter-politics- ...
Permalink
saluki Posted 7:12 am
11 Sep 2008
First of all, at their closest points, Alaska and Russia are 2.8 miles apart. Now, while such a fact may not bestow any automatic information on one, it could certainly be a reason for Palin to have a strong interest in Russia and their policies.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 9:34 am
11 Sep 2008
Give me a break....
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 10:32 am
11 Sep 2008
First of all, at their closest points, Alaska and Russia are 2.8 miles apart. Now, while such a fact may not bestow any automatic information on one, it could certainly be a reason for Palin to have a strong interest in Russia and their policies.
Exactly how many people are on that island three miles from Alaska? Just because our rock in the Aleutian islands is close to their rock in the Aleutian islands doesn't make that a foriegn policy concern. Aside from a rare grumble about somebody dropping their crab pots on the wrong side of the line nobody cares.
The nearest Russian Consulate is even in Seattle. Alaska, with it's tiny population of Russian orthodox christians, doesn't rank one.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
saluki Posted 10:45 am
11 Sep 2008
Give me a break...."
I can understand how you might need a break from your own idiotic strawmen.
Permalink
saluki Posted 10:47 am
11 Sep 2008
Completely irrelevant. Just the fact of having Russia as a close neighbor could make her interested in it's policies.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:31 pm
11 Sep 2008
Please find one incidence where Palin has shown even a slight interest in understanding Russia.
Has she written a book or even article, made a speech, done anything to demonstrate even a tiny bit of engagement?
She's admitted that she hasn't paid much attention to US/international issues. Been too busy with Alaska.
This person is so, so very unqualified to be President of the United States that it is just plain pitiful.
Permalink
Russ Doty Posted 5:54 am
12 Sep 2008
Permalink
Duggles Posted 6:02 am
12 Sep 2008
Permalink
chrisblood Posted 7:53 am
12 Sep 2008
Have you ever wondered why Bill Clinton was in England for University? Rhodes created his Scholarships to train the future leaders of the world - you don't consider four years with those people some value to understanding international politics?
Permalink
GreenGeezer Posted 9:17 am
12 Sep 2008
Sarah Palin's outspoken conservative Christian beliefs, personal history and influences, lifestyle and record as a public official clearly places her in the camouflage outfitted conservative camp. She endorses aerial hunting of wolves and has appointed a Game Board in thrall to a "hook and bullet" constituency.
Sarah Palin has been the wrong choice for Alaska and is the wrong choice for the country.
Permalink
saluki Posted 9:55 am
12 Sep 2008
How would you know if she has an interest in understanding Russia? Where do you get the idiotic idea that there has to be an "incident" in order for her to have such an interest.
"Has she written a book or even article, made a speech, done anything to demonstrate even a tiny bit of engagement?"
Has Obama written a book or an article or anything that shows that he knows squat about foreign affairs? If publication is an indication of interest, then Obama is interested in no one but himself.
"She's admitted that she hasn't paid much attention to US/international issues. Been too busy with Alaska."
At least she concentrates on her job. Must be why she has an 85% approval rating. Obama and Biden work in a body that is completely incompetent and has an approval rating in the teens. In fact, the US economic turndown corresponds to the Democrats taking over Cngress. And those idiots think that they have an answer to the economy. Talk about more of the same. "Let's raise taxes, that will fix the economy". The stupidity is incredible.
"This person is so, so very unqualified to be President of the United States that it is just plain pitiful."
If she is unqualified, then Obama, who has never even run a lemonade stand, who knows squat about foreign policy, who thinks that voting present is a way to run government, and who can't find his butt with both hands, is even more unqualified.
Permalink
Spearhead Posted 10:58 am
12 Sep 2008
-Saying Palin's approval rating means she concentrates more on her job is just incorrect. Here in NY, Hillary Clinton's approval rating from the state was once in the mid 70's. She hasn't done a single thing for this state, but people liked her (I don't know why) so her approval soared.
-Congress' approval rating has been holding steady at 'just awful' for 5 years now.
-The economic downturn can almost be solely credited to the world-wide demand for petroleum, and the lack of oversight regarding speculative trading. To say anyone one country (or political party) caused this, well, is just not right.
Last, Obama's stated plan would reduce taxes for the lowest 98% of wage earners, increasing after tax income by nearly 5%. McCain's proposal would increase after tax income by roughly 2%.
With that said, I don't care much for either candidate, just clearing up the facts :)
Permalink
saluki Posted 3:24 pm
12 Sep 2008
This is simply Obama pandering for votes. He had the opportunity to oppose tax increases more than 90 times in his career, and not once did he vote against tax raises. In addition, he spending plans mean that he is going to need more revenue - much more revenue. He will take that tax cut and more out of everone in the forms of other taxes, like inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. These are taxes that will hurt everyone. I'm middle class, but I own stocks. Many people have pensions that are supported by capital gains. Most people will be leaving property to their children. Also if you look at Obama's cutoff at 200,000. That is a pizza shop, a botique, or a gas station. Small business will be effected by Obama. He's not going to get all of that new money from 1 or 2 percent of the top earners.
What it comes down to is that Obama is supporting the cynical delusion that people can vote for him and he will take money from others to give to them.
Permalink
saluki Posted 3:32 pm
12 Sep 2008
I guess, "was once", is the operative word. Palin's "is" at 80%. Clinton is a master politician and you have to expect that she will be able to fool the public, at least for a while. But eventually they figure it out. Also, governors run the state, so their effect is more clearly known to people. A Senator is just 1 of 100. And while people might be interested in what comes out of the Senate, most people cannot give you the voting record of their Senator. In NY they probably feel that Clinton has been voting mostly liberal, and that is what they want.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:33 pm
12 Sep 2008
And he'll concentrate on reducing oil use, balancing the trade deficit and stopping energy lead inflation. And revive the economy with green jobs.
He will usher in a renewable energy/conservation boom in manufacturing and jobs, and expand tax revenues through growth to pay down the deficit and the huge debt built up by the duuhbyaist regime.
McCain's record of voting with Bush for huge tax cuts for the super rich and subsidies for corporations to outsource jobs won't help at all. And more invasions for oil? Not a way towards energy independence and economic recovery.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 4:22 pm
12 Sep 2008
He can't. If he withdraws so quickly that Iraq fails he will be held responsible for loosing an all but won war. All that he can do is withdraw slowly. That is basically the same thing that McCain and Palin will do. Also, remember, Obama promises to increase forces in Afghanistan now.
"And won't invade Iran."
Neither will McCain/Palin. The only issue with Iran is their drive for nuclear reactors. If McCain takes any action against them at all, it will be to bomb their reactor sites. No boots will hit the ground in Iraq. Such an operation would be relatively cheap.
"He will usher in a renewable energy/conservation boom in manufacturing and jobs, and expand tax revenues through growth "
Nah, he'll build a few windmills and it will supply a tiny fraction of US power and he will claim success. He knows that any drastic changes will collapse the economy and he knows that if he starts going after peoples cars that he will be out on his ass after 4 years. Tax revenue increase through growth can only happen if you have growth. Obama has no plan for growth. Tax increases don't produce growth. Replacing energy capability that we already have with a different energy capability is not growth, it's just additional cost.
Permalink
saluki Posted 4:33 pm
12 Sep 2008
This is the big lie that the Democrats think will convince people if it is just told often enough. I recieved a nice tax cut from Bush and I'm middle class.
Being tougher on corporations will do nothing to cause them to stop outsourcing jobs. It may succeed in driving corporations out of the country to rebase in other places, like Dubai. But you can't screw the corporations, milk them for taxes, and pretend that they should like it. Exxon paid 300 billion in taxes to the government last year. People like Obama are fooling you because the government makes more money off the oil companies than the oil companies make in profit. So who is really the greedy one? Any politician that would throw away that income stream would be just stupid. Like I said, if you hate large corporations, move to North Korea. They don't have any. And if you expect your government to screw large corporations, don't be surprised when we don't have any here either. Does the idiot left ever think about the millions of jobs that large corporations provide to American's, or don't they care if Americans have jobs?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:27 pm
12 Sep 2008
Nothing personal, it's just patriotism and love of nature.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pathos Posted 5:31 pm
12 Sep 2008
The fact is, ExxonMobile's profits last year were all on the order of $9 billion per quarter (which, it should be noted, smashed records for quarterly profit declared by any corporation, anywhere, ever--multiple times in the same year), so we're talking $36-40 billion in income, at most.
I don't know what the taxes on $36-40 billion would be--and I promise you, ExxonMobile found ways out of a good deal of them, not because they're evil and unprincipled (which they absolutely are), but simply because anyone with that kind of money can, and therefore will.
So, realistically, we're talking a few billion, tops. Compared to the money they made--and the increasingly large percentage of every American citizen and business's income that goes into their coffers (or those of one of the other oil giants)--you can't blame us lefties for not being very sympathetic when we talk about increasing their tax burden.
Permalink
Pathos Posted 6:04 pm
12 Sep 2008
He can't. If he withdraws so quickly that Iraq fails he will be held responsible for loosing an all but won war. All that he can do is withdraw slowly. That is basically the same thing that McCain and Palin will do.
Frankly, you're right. And that's a good thing. Abandoning Iraq at this point would massively screw over millions of Iraqis, and create a giant breeding ground for terrorists. McCain spins his slow withdrawal in a way that appeals to his hawk base; Obama (whose timetable for withdrawal is "16 months after taking office") spins it toward the doves, but it still amounts to a slow withdrawal.
That said, this war was still based on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that are now widely regarded to be nonexistent. And the money and manpower--and not to mention, lives--that have been spent on Iraq could have done far more good elsewhere. Do you think the genocide in Darfur would still be happening if our military weren't tied up in Iraq? Do you think Katrina and Rita would have been such a cluster#$%!! if we'd had our National Guard at home, and money in our budget for major disaster relief? McCain has supported this war from the beginning. Obama opposed it.
Also, remember, Obama promises to increase forces in Afghanistan now.
That's a good thing, and one that McCain isn't picking up on. Afghanistan is a war that we started, that we largely abandoned before it was finished, and that has been a major issue for every NATO country except the US ever since. Oh, and by the way, the Taleban is still going strong, and controlls a despressingly sizable portion of the country.
Bush announced this week that he would be sending more troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Obama's been saying it for a year now.
"And won't invade Iran."
Neither will McCain/Palin. The only issue with Iran is their drive for nuclear reactors. If McCain takes any action against them at all, it will be to bomb their reactor sites. No boots will hit the ground in Iraq. Such an operation would be relatively cheap.
I wish war were that simple. But do you think Iran doesn't have its own fighter planes to defend its airspace? Do you think it doesn't have the strength to retaliate, even if it can't beat us? Trust me, war with Iran will be bloody, and expensive, and in the end, not worth it. No one expected diplomacy to work with North Korea, either. And while North Korea is a very different situation from Iran, categorically rejecting any attempt at a nonviolent solution, as McCain has, is the worst possible strategy.
"He will usher in a renewable energy/conservation boom in manufacturing and jobs, and expand tax revenues through growth"
Nah, he'll build a few windmills and it will supply a tiny fraction of US power and he will claim success.
There's no real answer to that, except A, I hope you're wrong, and B, time will tell. But McCain has already established that yup, that's exactly what he's going to do. Obama has expressed intent to do better.
Permalink
megal Posted 6:49 pm
12 Oct 2008
Permalink