Tina Fey displays her uncanny ability to resemble Sarah Palin

September 15th, 2008 // 99 Comments

Tina Fey did the obvious this weekend and portrayed Alaska Governor Sarah Palin during the season premiere of Saturday Night Live. While this sketch lacks the awesomeness of Gina Gershon in a bikini, it does contain a powerful message. And that message is: I’d do things to Tina Fey. Although, technically, that means I’d do things to Sarah Palin, but her refusal to use any form of contraception nullifies such an arrangement. Unless, of course, she lets me “shoot my own moose.” I have no idea what that means, but I bet it’s a great euphemism for “Hey, I don’t remember Jesus saying anything about child support.”

superficial

  1. Josh

    The Bush Doctrine obviously refers to the right to the preemptive strike – any small town idiot knows that. It’s obviously a “media” term, as Bush didn’t issue a formal doctrine along with his disasterous wartime plan – but that doesn’t take away from the fact that anyone following politics over the last decade should know the term, its derivation, and their own opinion on it. And, regardless, someone on this message board not knowing something is one thing, but no one here is running for VP/President.

    Look, there’s no point to argue with people who believe Palin is qualified to be VP/President. It’s a total waste of time. They are in complete denial, and make up the uneducated group that the Republicans target with their factually flawed themes and moronic catch-phrases in the hopes of pulling enough small-minded votes to win the election. The funniest thing is that these idiots clearly learned nothing from the last eight years as they are, yet again, ready to vote for another four..

  2. Zuzu's Dry Flower

    #41,
    Not at all. She’s into that kind of thing.

  3. Slick Rick

    “Liberal Media” and “conservative media” are an inventions to draw demographics to a specific channel. By making other “channels” the enemy, people who side with the opinion speaker inherently think they are “getting the truth” by playing on their own biases and thus creating brand loyalty of the accusing media outlet. This isn’t a just US problem, it’s worldwide.

    Winners:
    *Advertisers
    *Media outlets

    Losers:
    *General public

    Solution:
    Watch and read all channels of news (Fox news, Mother Jones, Time, CNN, Drudge Report) and from other countries to get a well rounded opinion as all outlets claim factual sources, it just what they leave out that’s dangerous.

  4. EuroNeckPain

    I just checked on Wikipedia whether Ronald Reagan had some kind of diplomas. Well, he “attended Eureka College, where he majored in economics and sociology”. It does not sound very prestigious, does it.
    And what about George W. Bush ? He looks and sounds like a moron, and whatever he got at Yale must have been paid for by his father.

    So, it appears that the debate about Sarah Palin being qualified enough is irrelevant. At least she looks good on TV.

    What is relevant though is what the Republicans have done to the USA these past years, not a pretty sight and quite a load of morally repulsive memories.

    I hope we are not witnessing the beginning of a major collapse of the economy. It could be TOO LATE to vote for democrats.

  5. jim

    #51, Nice try, but you’re wrong…just like Charlie Gibson, according to the person generally thought to have ‘invented’ the term –> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

    Maybe next time you should consider being more informed and less condescending.

    #54, You forgot about the Harvard MBA. As a Wharton guy, I can’t help but point out that W is a Harvard guy.

  6. Canada

    Palin needs to be face raped.

  7. #54 stop searching through Wikipedia and go back to working on your e-harmony profile

  8. DrNecropolis

    @22 Really? I don’t think so. She’s supported Abstinence Only Education since she came on the scene as late as ’06. She’s a busy body who needs to but out. get a summary here:
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/01/1320417.aspx

  9. Jen

    #51-
    You’re WRONG, and your assertion that it’s “obvious” what he meant is WRONG.

    Bush’s so-called “Unilateralism” (ie… not cuddling with the UN) when dealing with foreign policy issues has very commonly been referred to as “The Bush Doctrine”. LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.

    You and Charlie Gibson have some Googling to do. Have at it and come on back :) I wonder if you can be honest enough to admit you’re wrong and that Charlie set her up knowing you would buy into his feigned mistake. And I say feigned mistake, because mark my words.. He will admit he was mistaken before this is all over. But it will be too late then, won’t it. That toothpaste can’t get shoved back into the tube, can it?? He duped America like a good Democrat hack would.

    Charlie Gibson is a tool- in every sense of the word

  10. Jethro

    Good political sketch.

    McCain/Palin !!!!!!!!!!!

  11. Kharn

    Republicans AND Democrats market toward the the uneducated.

    Anyone who does a little history look up will find out that the main argument against adding in the bill of rights, is that the government can do nothing more than what is in the constitution anyway.
    How sad is it that today all that is left for us to defend ourselves against the environmentalist religious government onslaught is the bill of rights.

    The only party forwarding true principal is the Libertarian party.
    http://www.lp.org/platform

  12. White Collar

    It’s SO funny to see the Republicans playing country music and trying to grab the blue collar vote. And it’s even funny to see how well it’s working! Inbred idiots.

  13. Palin is already so over rated, and Im tired of hearing about the nobody.

  14. Clem

    As usual SNL loses it after the 1 minute mark. Just can’t wrap it up can they?
    Great idea overkilled.

  15. Evan Faine

    Tina Fey is not funny, and Amy Poehler is even worse. That new movie of theirs SUCKS TEH CACK big-time. It’s no wonder why SNL fucking sucks these days.

  16. Dr. John Blackheart

    I’ll tell you what sucks, Palin and this bullshit economy we’re in, good thing for me I have money HAHAHA bitches!!! I dont have to worry about the retards going to Washington & I dont only mean Palins son. HAHAHA Vote Republican.

  17. Judas

    I wouldn’t vote for Palin if it’d save my own life.

  18. SARAH PALIN SUCKS! If you vote Republican this election, you’re an idiot. You want the economy to get worse? More people out of work? The stock market is complete shit right now and we can’t take another 4 years of this shit. Get your shit together and vote for change.

    p.s. if you hate Sarah Palin then order one of these shirts:
    http://www.crucialbrutal.com
    Under “Other Shit”
    and “Online Store”

    THEY’RE GOING FAST!!

  19. lori

    Only a Republican would find a woman with the IQ of a sponge, the personality of a pitbull, and a look that’s been outdated for 25 years, sexy.

    Tina Fey has got Palin pegged: Small mind, small-town accent, clueless, fatuous, and adored by stupid, shallow people everywhere.

  20. Frankie D

    If you didn’t find that skit funny, you are retarded like Palin’s fake kid.

  21. What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

    Democrat leadership.

    Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn”t elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

    Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn”t elected one since 1954;

    Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… since 1984;

    Cleveland, OH (4th)… since 1989;

    Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

    St. Louis, MO (6th)…. since 1949;

    El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

    Milwaukee, WI (8th)… since 1908;

    Philadelphia, PA (9th)… since 1952;

    Newark, NJ(10th)… since 1907.

    Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

    It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats – yet are still disadvantaged… hmmm…

  22. lori

    Hey #71, since when is it a Mayor’s responsibility to create jobs? Jesus, you are really digging here. Only another Republican would be stupid enough to fall for your bullshit. Do yourself a favor and go take some dumbshit 101 courses in American government. There are some community colleges that might accept you if you go get a GED first.

  23. HorribleJudgment

    Everyone knew Fey was gonna do it, and she did it. Fey a bit overrated, but that ain’t gonna stop her from being around for a while. Pretty funny. Not mind blowing. And anyone who keeps saying that Sarah Palin is hot, and that they would do her, is either gay, hard up, or so ignored in their life that they would say anything to get attention. None of the above options bodes well for these people.

  24. lori

    “Not all conservatives are stupid people, but most stupid people are conservatives.” – John Stuart Mills

  25. @72, 74

    gosh lori-

    i think i speak for at least 50% of the people when i say thank you for explaining to all of us that the real problem is that we’re dumb. you’re clearly smarter, not to mention a gifted orator like the great senator from illinois.

    thanks, again!

  26. jim

    71, creating jobs is always an important aspect of being mayor (and governor and president, for that matter). Even Barry thinks that it’s pretty important, which is probably why he recently (and wisely) flip-flopped on the issue of raising tax rates.

  27. candycandy

    #71…uhhh…Detroit isn’t poor because it has had Democrats for Mayors. Detroit is poor because after the riots everyone fled and now all that is left is a shell of a city with a horrible image. No Mayor, Republican or Democrat, can easily fix that.

  28. Loren Mike

    They should have gotten a monkey to play Obama.

  29. tommy salami

    i wish she would have aborted her little tardlet and let the moose she killed come back to life………………………. get your bitch ass back in the kitchen…….and make me some pie

  30. J

    People that vote for that dumb fucking cunt and the retarded old man should seriously consider shooting themselves in the face. Kill yourself, please. You know you must be a loser, just do it. Kill yourself and save your soul. Do it. Kill yourself.

  31. J

    People that vote for that dumb fucking cunt and the retarded old man should seriously consider shooting themselves in the face. Kill yourself, please. You know you must be a loser, just do it. Kill yourself and save your soul. Do it. Kill yourself.

  32. sebastianudo

    ganen los Democratas o los Republicanos para el resto del mundo sera lo mismo,no son muy diferentes pero lo importante es que Tina Fey esta 10 millones de puntos

    saludos

  33. V

    @74

    Rules for quoting:
    1. Use the person’s actual words.
    2. Know the person’s name.

    “Stupidity is much the same all the world over.” — John Stuart Mill

    See? It’s easy.

  34. vomit

    Dear Sarah Plain,
    This Halloween instead of candy please just hand out condoms because lets be honest the only thing most kids are abstaining from these days is abstinence itself.

    I guess the wedding is being planned by the Bullet Bridal Boutique;

    “Where every mother of the bride dress and father of the bride tux comes with a free shotgun and the bride gets a free lace adorned adult diaper in case her water breaks mid ceremony (can’t let that baby be born a bastard, even though it totally is one).”

    And people wonder why the divorce rates are so high. Stupid bitch, maybe if you had less kids instead of adding to the idiot population you could have actually kept track of them, but then again you’d rather livein denial than ever educate your slut, I mean daughter for her own protection.

    Only in politics would a woman this PLAIN and man jawed be considred hot because Politcs is for people who are too ugly to be actors. The only hottie in american politics was Jackie and she was cute not gorgeous, all Clinton PRESIDENT OF THE FREE WORLD could get was fatty Lewinski. Pittiful. No one I know would ever call Palin a milf, but I guess the first ladies of late have warped the views of attractiveness with their frowish nastiness.

    Shame.

  35. Chuck

    I don’t know why I read these comments. I mean, I know it will only make me angry what with all the moronic Pro-Bush, Pro-Palin bullshit. All I can say is if any of you imbeciles really and truly believes Sarah Fucking Palin is ready to lead this country, you’re even stupider than all your grade school teachers believed.

  36. @85

    again an interesting argument like lori above (#72, #74). the more you tell people how dumb they are, the more apt they are to listen to a reasonable, alternate view.

    i am personally not voting for anyone to be vice president.

  37. Amna

    Superficial Guy, THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING OBAMA!

    She’s completely unsuitable for the white house. So many people are going to vote for McCain/Palin simply based on the fact that she’s an attractive soccer mom. Have Americans not fallen for this the past eight years? We need to learn from our mistakes.

    Also, anyone thinking of voting for McCain, read up on his political agenda. Don’t just vote to vote. That’s retarded. This country really needs someone to get this country back into order. Did you know McCain sided with Bush on over 75% of his policies? Read UP.

    Also, Sarah Palin is anti abortion. This includes women who’ve been RAPED.
    She is no woman, sorry.
    And what kind of Alaskan would want their home to be drilled for oil? She’s a monster.

  38. SUPERFICIAL GUY-AMNA IS AN IDIOT

    @#87-

    i looked it up- less than 1% of abortions are from rape/incest. over 40% are from individuals that have had previous abortions (meaning: abortions are used as a form of birth control).
    pro-choice individuals throw around the rape card like every other woman is pregnant from their brother or a gang bang.

    please research the “born alive infant protection act”. obama is the one who is repugnant-and anyone who supports letting a born, live baby starve and die in a janitor’s closet is as well.

    don’t presume to speak for me. liberals scream, ‘i can’t believe she hunts, she’s a murderer’ but support the right to suck a VIABLE baby thru a vacuum tube.

  39. Glow

    Love, love, love Tina Fey but I can’t stand Sarah Palin, what a moron, seriously! We cannot afford to have another set of incompetent Republicans in the White House to continue to screw things up. It’s got to be Obama.

  40. wwwukeruker

    Jesus never had a girlfriend and told his followers to ‘leave their families and follow him.’ So much for Christian’s claim to represent family values. In fact, there’s strong suggestions that Jesus Christ was Gay in that his male disciples thought it was strange to see him ‘talking to a woman’ one day.

    Just think. Here’s a Jew who never had a girlfriend or sexual relations with a woman. Now if a man like this was in Sarah Palin’s church they would think he’s Gay and pray for him.

    The USA has had it because of these Christian fundamentalist wingnuts.

  41. Christian Fundamentalist Wingnut

    @90

    That is probably one of the most uneducated bigoted comments I have ever heard. Please do not take Biblical references out of context. Jesus was too focused on saving mine and your wretched souls from Hell to stay at home with his wife and family. God, who was Jesus (research the trinity), knew he had a short time to change the world before he was killed by the religious fakes. then to speculate that Jesus was gay?? Sounds pretty judgmental, by the way, that is exactly the bad rap Christians get. You are becoming the very thing you hate. Then you go on to judge Sarah Palin’s church which you have never attended and probably don’t know the name of it without googling it.

    One more thing…research the Founding Fathers of our great nation. You should thank those Christian Fundamentalist wingnuts for giving you the right to call them that. Like it or not, this country was based on Christian values and ever sense we have drifted away, our country has suffered. Read your history book….

    The only one that can fix the damage the Democrats AND Republicans have done to American….is Jesus himself. Undoubtedly, this post will receive a few nasty, uncivilized, hateful replies which only goes to show how far we have come….

  42. I’d love to hit Tina Fey & Obama with the same kick while Olbermann is watching! One has to wonder just how much more Democrats will milk class-warfare politics before people wake up to their deception. No matter what economic problems we face, Democrats always find a way to blame them on the ‘rich’ and the Bush tax cuts. Why? Because it rallies their base and–they hope–will alienate enough others against evil Bush Republicans to give Democrats a prohibitive advantage on domestic issues. Joe Biden even blamed the current mortgage crisis on the Bush tax cuts. He said: ‘We should try to correct the problems that caused this… [which are] the profligate tax cuts to the very, very wealthy that John [McCain] wants to continue.’ Never mind that low- and middle-income earners received greater tax rate reductions than the highest-income earners; that doesn’t fit within the Democrats’ class-envy template. Forget the reckless legislation forcing financial institutions to lend money to people who probably couldn’t pay it back–to satisfy the liberals’ obsession with looking compassionate and pandering to minorities. Forget that Obama was the second-highest recipient of campaign cash from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (according to the Center for Responsive Politics), cash aimed at keeping congressional regulators off their backs… Despite the Democrats’ destructive practice of blaming every economic woe–from Enron to rising oil prices–on the Bush tax cuts, the tax cuts had nothing to do with those problems, including the mortgage crisis.
    In 1995 former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn helped launch Barack Obama’s political career at a small function in their Chicago home.

    Bill Ayres also hired Obama to head the Annanberg Challenge, a $50 million fund which enabled Obama to fund organisations which could enhance his political career.

    Later Ayres worked with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund, together doling out millions to leftist causes.

    Obama has consistently tried to minimise his relationship with Ayres and Dohrn. The couple themselves, seem intent on maintaining a low profile-until at least after the election. Both parties realise that Obama’s opponents will seize on any links to Ayers and Dohrn in order to discredit the Senator.

    But are Ayers and Dohrn really out of the picture? Could they still be helping their friend from “underground”?

    I recently profiled Progressives for Obama (PFO). Founded earlier this year, PFO unites all the main leftist currents behind the Obama campaign-the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), the CPUSA offshoot Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS), Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)and former members of the ’60s radical organisation Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)and its terrorist splinter group Weather Underground Organisation.

    PFO aims to not only put Obama in the White House, but to build a huge united “progressive” movement that can force the new President to move America massively to the left. The influence of the CPUSA on the Roosevelt administration that produced the “New Deal” and the pressure of the CPUSA and SDS/New Left that pressured Johnson into the great social changes of the ’60s are the model for this new movement.

    But this begs the question. Who founded Progressives for Obama?

    In early 2006, a group of former SDS members and sympathisers, led by DSA activist Paul Buhle joined with some a new generation of college students to re-found Students For a Democratic Society. The movement now has over 130 chapters across the USA.

    More importantly Buhle and co also founded an SDS support group for older activists-Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS). SDS is the muscle behind the new protest movement and was very prominent in the recent violence at the Republican National Convention at St Paul Minnesota. MDS is the brains behind the SDS brawn

    A quick check of the MDS website reveals a link to SDS. It also used to link to Progressives for Obama, but this seems to have been removed.

    A review of the 2006 MDS board reveals some even more interesting connections.

    Elliott Adams-leader of the CPUSA front Veterans for Peace

    Senia Barragan-(Student Representative)-new SDS

    David Barsamian-a leftist brodcaster with close ties to Noam Chomsky

    Noam Chomsky-Well known linguist, writer and activist. A member of both DSA and the CCDS Advisory Board.

    Carl Davidson-A founder member of SDS, later a Maoist ativist before becoming a leader of CCDS in 1992.

    Bernardine Dohrn

    Bill Fletcher Jr-A former Maoist. A leader of DSA and the AFL-CIO

    Bert Garskof-Involved with SDS the 60s, a close friend of Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn.

    David Graeber-Former member of the SDS, turned anarchist.

    Tom Hayden-Founder and leader of the SDS

    Gerald Horne-A member of the editorial board of Political Affairs, theoretical journal of the CPUSA.

    Michael James-A former member of SDS

    Robin DG Kelley- A former member of the Communist Workers Party, more recently close to CPUSA.

    Michael Klonsky-Son of CPUSA member Robert Klonsky. A former member of SDS, who later led the pro-Chinese, Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist). Mike Klonsky works closely with Bill Ayres on educational projects.

    Ethelbert Miller-Chairman of the board of the notoriously leftist and Cuban linked Washington based think tank, Institute for Policy Studies.

    Charlene Mitchell-A leader of CCDS, former high ranking member of CPUSA

    Michael Rossman (deceased)-A Californian New Leftist, with close ties to SDS.

    Mark Rudd-A former leader of the SDS and the Weather Underground

    Howard Zinn-A well known Marxist historian.

    The connections between those listed above, Obama and Progressives for Obama are many fold.

    Carl Davidson worked closely with Obama in Chicago in the mid ’90s and with another former SDS activist Marilyn Katz organised the famous 2002 peace rally in Chicago where Obama first came out publicly against the Iraq War. Davidson is the webmaster for the Progressives for Obama website.

    Bert Garskof is active in the Obama campaign in Connecticutt. He recently wrote this comment on the website Foreign Policy in Focus.

    We must realize that the only way to hold Obama, as President, to the progressive agenda is to maintian and build the grass-roots state/County organizations that were built only to elect him…We must remember that the most significant progressive changes have only been instituted into law after grass-roots activism forced the issue…we can maintain our more progressive values and work as organizers within the grass-roots election campaigns.

    We need to convince the new people and the many veterans of electoral wars that this is a unique opportnity. we can create 2-way communication with the People’s President – truly make him the People’s President if we create methods and structures that work to connect in an on-going way – the President, his staff and grass-roots Obama groups for discussion of what the grass-roots thinks and wants.

    Gerald Horne, an historian who has studied the Hawaiian Communist Party-was first to publicly reveal the connection between Barack Obama and his boyhood mentor, secret CPUSA member Frank Marshall Davis.

    Mike Klonsky was a blogger on Obama’s website until negative publicity forced his withdrawl. Klonsky’s brother Fred and wife Susan are both listed as endorsers of the Progressives for Obama website.

    Bill Fletcher was the initiator of the Progressives For Obama project which he co-founded with Tom Hayden. The other two founders of PFO were writer Barbara Ehrenreich, who is a member of both DSA and MDS and actor/activist Danny Glover who is close to some DSA members.

    Mike James, Robin DG Kelley and Mark Rudd are all listed as endorsers of the Progressives for Obama website.

    A quick trawl of the internet reveals several other MDS linked activists listed as endorsing Progressives for Obama.

    They include MDS founders Paul Buhle and Thomas Good (a former communist turned anarchist who has referred to himself as an “unrepentant Weather supporter.”), Texan former SDS activists David Hamilton and Thorne Dreyer, Chicago based Obama fundraiser Marilyn Katz, Marxist academics Rosalynn Baxandall and Immanuel Wallerstein, plus Cornel West, an academic and DSA member who refers to Obama as his “comrade.”

    Another interesting turn-up is Rahid Khalidi, nominated unsuccessfully for the MDS board. Khalidi was a close friend of Obama’s from his time in Chicago in the 90s. Khalidi has been accused of ties with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and has written for the pro-Obama, Chicago based DSA/IPS linked journal “In These Times”.

    Three of the four founders of Progressives For Obama, Bill Fletcher, Tom Hayden and Barbara Ehrenreich have served on the MDS board, as has the PFO webmaster Carl Davidson. Several MDS activists are endorsers of PFO.

    Obviously, Progressives for Obama is an MDS creation.

    While Bernadine Dohrn’s role as an MDS board member is clear, Bill Ayre’s is less so.

    From the MDS website

    Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS) held its first national convergence at Loyola University, from November 8 through 11 (2007)with the participation of the newly inspired SDS, Students for a Democratic Society.

    One of the events listed is;

    10 am-10:50 am Room 412 Resisting Endless War: Tom Good, Elaine Brower, Bill Ayers

    Below are four Youtube videos of Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayres speaking at an November 2007 SDS reunion at Michigan State University

    Note Dohrn’s reference to the new SDS and MDS. Note references to the overthrow of capitalism, visits to Chavez’s Venezuela and building a “new movement”.

    Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn are involved in an organisation uniting three Marxist parties, a host of ’60s radicals and terrorists and a new generation of militant activists.

    That organisation has spawned a spin-off organisation specifically designed to put Barack Obama in the White House and to bring about massive social change across the US.

    Ayers and Dorhn helped launch Barack Obama’s political career. Do they guide it still?

    Maybe someone should tell Obamessiah what the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually does?

    “I am absolutely committed to ending the war,” the longtime community organizer declared. “I will call my Joint Chiefs of Staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war.”

    While everyone has focused on the first part of the statement – Obama’s “absolute commitment” to defeat – I want to devote a little attention to the second part, the mechanism whereby Obama will make that defeat a reality. In Obama’s telling, he will call in his Joint Chiefs of Staff and reset their priorities.

    I know Obama is a student of military matters and intellectually voracious, so it is thus rather stunning that he would betray such ignorance regarding the way the military actually functions. In truth, the Joint Chiefs are not part of the chain of command. Indeed, they are specifically by statute not part of the chain of command but instead serve solely in an advisory capacity to the president.

    Surely Obama knows this. Obviously he wouldn’t be seeking the role of Commander-in-Chief without knowing how the job is done. So what follows will be familiar to him, but may be enlightening to the media types who to date have overlooked yet another Obama misstatement.

    In 1986, the Goldwater-Nichols act passed congress, and it reorganized the way the military functions. Its prime goal regarding the Joint Chiefs was to cut down on inter-service rivalries. To give you the hyper-condensed Reader’s Digest version of things (which will still obviously put you several leagues ahead of presumptive-nominee Obama), the intent was that a guy like Norman Schwarzkopf could have command of a theatre without having to repeatedly go hat in hand to the different services. The Joint Chiefs would have a representative from each of the services that could advise the president of their individual service’s insights, but they were specifically cut out of the command loop so that the Schwarzkopf-type could run things efficiently.

    So what is to become of our poor President Obama, barking out orders to his Joint Chiefs only to learn that they don’t carry out orders but just give advice? Will he claim he is powerless to end the war? Or will he eventually figure out that he has to get Odierno or Gates or Petraeus on the phone to make his wishes known?

    And what are we to think of our Candidate Obama? I’ll admit the Goldwater-Nichols act isn’t exactly a household name like Miley Cyrus or Amy Winehouse, but the guy is running for president for the specific purpose of making war time changes. As he’s been running for office for 18 months now, shouldn’t he have found some time to explore the way the president interacts with the military rather than repeat canned (not to mention erroneous) assumptions he’s probably held since his community organizing days?

  43. Experts Agree: There is No One “Bush Doctrine” –

    WAPO: Many Versions of ‘Bush Doctrine’

    Summary of the experts cited by The Washington Post:

    Peter D. Feaver, of Bush’s national security strategy team: I counted at least seven Bush Doctrines

    Richard Holbrooke, of the Clinton and Carter administrations: “The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”

    Philip Zelikow, Bush advisor who wrote the above (what Holbrooke calls the “Bush Doctrine”): “I actually never thought there was a Bush doctrine.”

    Zbigniew Brzenzinski, Carter’s National Security Advisor: “There are many elements to the Bush doctrine.”

    Andrew C. McCarthy, prosecutor on 1993 WTC bombing and foreign policy maven: People who “follow this stuff very closely, disagree intensely among ourselves about what the Bush Doctrine is.”

    Charlie Gibson’s “Gotcha” game made somebody look like an idiot, but it wasn’t Palin.

    Many Versions of ‘Bush Doctrine’
    Palin’s Confusion in Interview Understandable, Experts Say

    By Michael Abramowitz
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, September 13, 2008; A01

    Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin seemed puzzled Thursday when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson asked her whether she agrees with the “Bush doctrine.”

    “In what respect, Charlie?” she replied.

    Intentionally or not, the Republican vice presidential nominee was on to something. After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea — enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document — that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country. But that is just one version of a purported Bush doctrine advanced over the past eight years.

    Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president’s second-term “freedom agenda”; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a “coalition of the willing” if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about — the doctrine of preemptive war.

    “If you were given a quiz, you might guess that one, because it’s one that many people associate with the Bush doctrine,” said Feaver, now a Duke University professor. “But in fact it’s not the only one.”

    This debate may ordinarily be little more than cocktail chatter for the foreign policy establishment, but political blogs were buzzing yesterday over Palin’s entire interview with Gibson, including the confusion about the doctrine. Liberals said it was yet another case of Palin’s thin grasp on foreign policy, while conservatives replied that she handled herself well by putting the question back on Gibson.

    After she asked Gibson to clarify what he meant, the anchor pressed Palin on whether the United States has “a right to make a preemptive strike against another country if we feel that country might strike us.”

    “Charlie,” Palin replied, “if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

    The campaign of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama directed reporters to online commentary about the exchange. “What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues,” journalist James Fallows wrote on TheAtlantic.com. “Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the ‘Bush Doctrine’ exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.”

    Conservatives ridiculed such reasoning. “What a bunch of nonsense,” Andrew C. McCarthy wrote on National Review Online. “Peanut gallery denizens like me, who don’t have states to run and who follow this stuff very closely, disagree intensely among ourselves about what the Bush Doctrine is.”

    Outside foreign policy experts offered different reads on the question. Richard C. Holbrooke, who served key posts in both the Clinton and Carter administrations, said he saw the 2002 National Security Strategy of the White House as the critical statement of a Bush doctrine. (The White House staff member who helped draft the 2002 document, Stephen E. Biegun, now serves as Palin’s foreign policy adviser.)

    The strategy document itself articulates the principle as follows: “The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”

    According to Holbrooke, “the core point is that the Bush people were extremely proud of it and they presented it as a historical breakthrough.”

    But one of the drafters of that document demurred at investing the statement with too much weight. “I actually never thought there was a Bush doctrine,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who later served as State Department counselor under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “Indeed, I believe the assertion that there is such a doctrine lends greater coherence to the administration’s policies than they deserve.”

    Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said he thought there was no “single piece of paper” that represents the Bush doctrine, but said several ideas collectively make up the doctrine, including the endorsement of preventive war and the idea that there is such a thing as a “war on terror.”

    “There are many elements to the Bush doctrine,” he said.

    In an interview, Bush press secretary Dana Perino said that “the Bush doctrine is commonly used to describe key elements of the president’s overall strategy for dealing with threats from terrorists.” She laid out three elements:

    “The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor terrorists. . . . We will confront grave threats before they fully materialize and will fight the terrorists abroad so we don’t have to face them at home. . . . We will counter the hateful ideology of the terrorist by promoting the hopeful alternative of human freedom.”

    Bush, she added, “is comfortable with the way I just described it.”

    Much as Bush-hating media members conveniently ignore historical events that led to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, their current finger-pointing at the White House, John McCain, and all Republican politicians for the collapse of the financial services industry lacks any honest assessment of decades-old legislation that laid the groundwork for today’s problems.

    In particular, 1977′s Community Reinvestment Act which required banks and savings institutions to make loans to the lower-income areas in the communities they served.

    Despite how integrally tied the current crisis is to this bill enacted by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by Jimmy Carter, no major media outlet other than Investor’s Business Daily and National Review Online mentioned it during last week’s market meltdown.

    Going against the grain was a highly-informative editorial by IBD Thursday (emphasis added, h/t NBer Gary Hall, photo courtesy About.com):

    To hear today’s Democrats, you’d think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

    Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

    These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans. [...]

    Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called “CRA rating” that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was. [...]

    In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

    Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.

    That’s how the contagion began.

    With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.

    Readers are strongly encouraged to review this entire fact-filled piece to not only better understand the roots of today’s financial crisis, but also to get a sense as to just how absurd media accusations of this all being Bush and McCain’s fault are.

    That said, from 1989 through 1995, I managed branches for two savings and loans: Imperial Savings, which got taken over by the Resolution Trust Corporation during the S&L bailout, and; Great Western Bank which eventually was purchased by Washington Mutual.

    The pressure to comply with CRA was astounding, especially at Great Western as it was expanding throughout the country. Its ability to acquire other institutions was directly related to its CRA rating.

    With this in mind, IBD’s views concerning this matter are spot on raising a very important question: if the role of news media is to inform the public, why does a LexisNexis search indicate that as this crisis came to a head last week, its connection to CRA, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton was almost completely ignored?

    Would such a revelation make it difficult for Obama-loving press outlets to point fingers at George W. Bush and, more importantly, John McCain?

    Yes, that’s a rhetorical question.

    –Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
    IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor’s Business Daily — Congress Lies Low T

    Congress Lies Low To Avoid Bailout Blame
    By TERRY JONES
    INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:30 PM PT

    Congress says it likely will adjourn this month having done nothing on the most important issue in America right now: the financial meltdown from the subprime lending crisis.

    ——————————————————————————–

    IBD Ongoing Series: Uncommon Knowledge

    ——————————————————————————–

    Can Congress just walk away from a problem it helped create? Maybe, maybe not.

    There’s now some talk of a grand deal between the Treasury, the Fed and Congress for a “permanent” solution: creating a government agency to buy up all the bad subprime debt, just like the Resolution Trust Corp. did with bad real estate in the 1980s and 1990s.

    Already, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the subprime crisis from crashing the world economy. The collapse of twin mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the failures of Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns and insurer AIG, expose taxpayers to more than $1 trillion in liabilities.

    Until now, Congress has been surprisingly passive. As Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid put it, “no one knows what to do” right now.

    Funny, since it was a Democrat-led Congress that helped cause the problems in the first place.

    When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently barked “no” at reporters for daring to ask if Democrats deserved any blame for the meltdown, you saw denial in action.

    Pelosi and her followers would have you believe this all happened because of President Bush and his loyal Senate lapdog, John McCain. Or that big, bad predatory Wall Street banks deserve all the blame.

    “The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi said recently, as she vowed congressional hearings.

    Only one problem: It’s untrue.

    Yes, banks did overleverage and take risks they shouldn’t have.

    But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

    Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”

    Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

    “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Rep. Barney Frank, then ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

    It’s pretty clear who was on the right side of that debate.

    As for presidential contender John McCain, just two years after Bush’s plan, McCain also called for badly needed reforms to prevent a crisis like the one we’re now in.

    “If Congress does not act,” McCain said in 2005, “American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.”

    Sounds like McCain was spot on.

    But his warnings, too, were ignored by Congress.

    To hear today’s Democrats, you’d think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

    Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

    These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.

    Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms’ books to make sure they were in compliance.

    Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called “CRA rating” that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.

    It was economic hardball.

    “We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible,” Clinton’s comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, told the Senate Banking Committee in 1993.

    And they meant it.

    In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

    Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.

    That’s how the contagion began.

    With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.

    Wall Street eagerly sold the new mortgage-backed securities. Not only were they pooled investments, mixing good and bad, but they were backed with the implicit guarantee of government.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to become monsters, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans. At the time of their bailouts this month, they held $5.4 trillion in loans on their books. About $1.4 trillion of those were subprime.

    As they grew, Fannie and Freddie grew heavily involved in “community development,” giving money to local housing rights groups and “empowering” the groups, such as ACORN, for whom Barack Obama once worked in Chicago.

    Warning signals were everywhere. Yet at every turn, Democrats in Congress halted attempts to stop the madness. It happened in 1992, again in 2000, in 2003 and in 2005. It may happen this year, too.

    Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office).

    The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who’s who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

    Collectively, they and others made well more than $100 million from Fannie and Freddie, whose books were cooked Enron-style during the late 1990s and early 2000s to ensure executives got their massive bonuses.

    They got the bonuses. You get the bill.

    Obama’s Social Security Whopper
    He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain’s plan. False.

    Brooks Jackson
    factcheck.org
    Sep 20, 2008 | Updated: 6:20 p.m. ET Sep 20, 2008
    Summary
    In Daytona Beach, Obama said that “if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would’ve had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week.” He referred to “elderly women” at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support “grandmothers and grandfathers.”

    That’s not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.

    Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil – if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees would not have been affected.

    Analysis
    In our “Scaring Seniors” article posted Sept. 19 we took apart a claim in an Obama-Biden ad that McCain somehow supported a 50 percent cut in Social Security benefits, which is simply false. Then, on Saturday Sept. 20, Sen. Barack Obama personally fed senior citizens another whopper, this one a highly distorted claim about the private Social Security accounts that McCain supports.

    What Obama Said
    In Daytona Beach, Florida, Obama said in prepared remarks released by the campaign:

    Obama, Sept. 20: And I’ll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it. Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty – half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would’ve had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. Millions would’ve watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes. Millions of families would’ve been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a “casino culture” on Wall Street – but the fact is, he’s the one who wants to gamble with your life savings.

    That’s untrue. All current retirees would be covered by exactly the same Social Security benefits they are now under what the Obama campaign likes to call the “Bush-McCain privatization plan,” which Bush pushed for unsuccessfully in 2005.

    Who Would Have Been Affected
    As the White House spelled out at the time, on page 5 of the document titled “Strengthening Social Security for the 21st Century,” released in February 2005:

    Bush Plan: Personal retirement accounts would be phased in. To ease the transition to a personal retirement account system, participation would be phased in according to the age of the worker. In the first year of implementation, workers currently between age 40 and 54 (born 1950 through 1965 inclusive) would have the option of establishing personal retirement accounts. In the second year, workers currently between age 26 and 54 (born 1950 through 1978 inclusive) would be given the option and by the end of the third year, all workers born in 1950 or later who want to participate in personal retirement accounts would be able to do so.

    Nobody born before Jan. 1, 1950 could have participated, and anyone born on that date would be 58 years old now. The earliest possible age for receiving Social Security retirement benefits is 62, for early retirement at reduced benefits. Full retirement age is currently 66, and scheduled to go up to age 67 in coming years.

    It is certainly true that the stock market carries risks, as recent events remind us. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down nearly 17 percent for this year, for example, and despite gains in other years it is still barely above where it was at the start of 2000. But historically there have also been rewards for those who make diversified investments and hold for long periods. When Obama spoke, the Dow Jones average still stood 305 percent higher than it had at the start of the 1990′s.

    Disappearing nest eggs?
    Also worth noting here:
    The private accounts would have been voluntary. Anybody fearful of the stock market’s risk could simply stay in the current system.

    Obama’s reference to “casino culture,” disappearing “nest eggs” and gambling with “your life savings” are also misleading exaggerations. Only a little over one-fourth of any workers’ total Social Security taxes could have been invested (a maximum of 4 percent of taxable wages, out of the total 15.3 per cent now paid, split equally between worker and employer.)

    Speculation in individual stocks would not have been permitted. Workers would have had a choice of a few, broadly diversified stock or bond funds.

    While McCain has voted in favor creating private Social Security accounts in the past, and endorsed Bush’s 2005 proposal (which never came to a vote in Congress), he is not making a strong push for them as part of his campaign. In fact, a search for the term “Social Security” on the McCain-Palin Web site brings up the following: “No documents were found.”

    Footnote: When we contacted the Obama campaign for comment, spokesman Tommy Vietor defended Obama’s remarks as accurate:

    Vietor: You don’t have to be retired to rely on Social Security. Millions of people who will one day retire rely on Social Security as they plan their future. Senator Obama’s bottom line is absolutely true. If McCain got his way and we had private accounts . . . people who are relying on that money for their retirement would be in a very difficult situation.

    We would grant Vietor a point if Obama had made any mention of workers being fearful of their future retirement (although this would apply only to those who had chosen to participate in private accounts, and not to everybody.) But Obama did not say that. Instead, he referred to “elderly women” in danger of poverty. He spoke of families “scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers” a secure retirement – not to families worrying about their own retirement. If Obama did not mean what he said to be a reference to current retirees, he could say so clearly and amend his words.

    Reprinted with permission from Factcheck.org.

    Sources
    The White House, “Strengthening Social Security for the 21st Century,” Feb 2005.

    Dow Jones & Co. “Dow Jones Industrial Average Historical Performance” Spreadsheet accessed 20 Sep 2008.

  44. Yes, she is Governor of Alaska. No, she’s not the Lieutenant Governor. No, she’s not currently Mayor of Wasilla. Yes, she was Mayor of Wasilla, some years ago.
    Yes, as Governor of Alaska, she’s the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. And yes, her professional military subordinate is quite impressed with her in that role.
    And yes, the New York Times says the job of Governor of Alaska is one of the harder, and more powerful, jobs in state government.
    Yes, there are people in Alaska who think she’s too liberal.
    Yes, she did giggle when someone called Lyda Green a “bitch.” Yes, Lyda Green is a cancer survivor. Yes, it was the same Lyda Green who tried to force a scheduling conflict that would make Palin miss her son’s high school graduation. Yes, this would also be the Lyda Green who complained no one had asked her about Palin during the vetting process.
    Yes, she did push for and approve the Wasilla Sports Center. Yes, it did cost a lot of money. (People keep saying $20 million, that article says $14.5 million, but then they also added a $1.2 million dollar food service/kitchen piece. This year, after Palin was out of office as Mayor.) Yes, the city went into debt to do it (how did you buy your house, bunkie?) and raised the city sales tax from 2 percent to 2.5 percent to pay for it. Yes, the city is paying it off early. Yes, there is an ongoing dispute about title (following a struggle with the Nature Conservancy and another buyer. And yes, at the time it was built, Wasilla had a Federal judge’s decision that they had title to the land. Here’s a place to think a little, folks: if Wasilla got a $15 million sports center, and got a mortgage for it, then the city incurred more longterm debt, you bet. It also got a capital asset. You do it with a mortgage; a city does it by setting up bonds and a tax base to service the bonds. Same thing. Whether it was wise or not is another question, but the bonds and tax increase were approved by a special election by the people in Wasilla.
    Yes, she did want authority to have wolves culled from the air, because they were taking too many moose and caribou. Which people hunt for food in the back country in Alaska. No, she isn’t shooting them herself. I mean, not that she couldn’t, but I’m sure she doesn’t have time. (Thanks to bluemerlin in the comments.)

    Look, this is one of those that I’m tempted to categorize under “cripes, what city folks will believe.” You don’t sport hunt from the air; this isn’t some fascination with “blood sports.” This is wildlife management; the authority wasn’t general, it was for only a limited number of wolves, and it was to be done by people with state-issued permits. Here’s how this happens in the wild in a predator-prey model: the predators build up to the point that they cut the population of the prey animals dramatically. They then starve. The prey animals then build up again. Repeat. Only, in this case, the predators who would starve include Alaska’s native (and Native) human population.
    No, the Downs baby (Trig) isn’t Bristol’s kid, and no, the kid wasn’t born with Downs because (a) Palin flew on an airplane (b) went home to have the baby after an amniotic leak (c) because he was the result of incest between Todd Palin and Bristol.
    No, Track (the kid who is leaving for Iraq) didn’t join the NG because he was a drug addict. (It’s worth noting that drug addiction is a medical disqualification for service.) He may have joined the NG because he was tired of people saying his Mom was getting him into the good hockey leagues. (Yes, that one was original reporting. I’ve got sources in Wasilla.) It also wasn’t because he had been caught for some juvenile crimes (see the end of the list.) That “join the army or go to jail” thing doesn’t happen much any more, and in any case he didn’t enlist until two years after the supposed vandalism thing.
    No, Willow and Piper aren’t named for witches on TV. Among other things, Willow was born before Buffy came on TV, and Piper was born before Charmed was a popular girls name in 1994. In any case, try to settle on one theory, okay: she can’t both be a witch and be a crazy AoG fundamentalist, can she?
    Yes, Trig’s name may be misspelled. Isn’t it usually “Tryg” as in “Trygve”? In any case, I doubt he’s named for the Secretary General of the UN (1948-1952), either. But at least that was before he was born, unlike the others.(Thanks to Chris, via his blog.)
    Yes, it appears that she has a Big Dipper tattooed on her ankle. She lost a bet.
    No, she’s never been in any porn as far as anyone can find (and God knows I get enough google hits on those very topics.) I would think the Big Dipper tattoo would be a giveaway.
    No, no one seems to be able to even find swimsuit pictures of her from her beauty queen days; God knows I looked. The bikini pictures that are around are photoshopped, just like the Vogue cover I have up.
    No she wasn’t a member of the (wild-eyed libertarian) Alaska independence Party, although her husband once was
    No, neither the (Canadian) National Post, nor Marc Armbinder at the Atlantic have troubled themselves to issue a correction. Yes, the New York Times did finally correct their story of September 1 — on September 5. And on page 14. This was after Elizabeth Bumiller was quoted by Howard Kurtz as saying she was “completely confident about the story.” Yes, that was after the New York Times’s source retracted the story. Yes, this should embarrass the Times, Bumiller, and Howard Kurtz. No, there have been no signs of embarrassment.
    No, she was never a Pat Buchanan supporter; even when Buchanan claims she was, she was on the board of Steve Forbes’a campaign in Alaska. Yes, Palin was a Steve Forbes supporter in 2000.
    No, she’s not anti-semitic. In fact, she has an Israeli flag in her office. (Contrary to popular belief, the usual Evangelical thinks Israel has a right to exist, granted by God.)
    No, I don’t think she’s being “indoctrinated by Lieberman and AIPAC as we speak”; I don’t get the feeling that being indoctrinated is something that Palin does well.
    Yes, it seems unlikely that she’s going to be in hiding for the next two weeks seeing as she’s been in rallies twice in the last two days. Or at least it’s going to be real rough, given that she has three media interviews scheduled today (6 September) alone. Note: Since then she’s been interviewed on several occasions, and it’s still not quite two weeks.
    Yes, it does appear that Palin’s local pastor preached about an end time when God will judge everyone, even Wasilla, Alaska, and the United States. Duh. This is called the book of Revelation, and while I don’t believe it personally, I don’t see it as a disqualifier for the hundred million or so Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals, Episcopalians, Catholics, Assembly of God, Presbyterian, Lutherans (traditional and Missouri Synod), African Methodist, and so on Christians in the US.
    Yes, I do sometimes wonder about the state of Andrew’s health. All of this is true, but it screws up the numbering. The next update will introduce a new ordering with a new numbering.
    No, she’s doesn’t believe that the Iraq War was directed by God. Yes, she did pray that proceeding with the war was God’s will: “they should pray ‘that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.’” (Ever hear the phrase “Not my will, but Thine, be done”?) Yes, this apparently freaks some people right out. But it’s worth mentioning that Obama has also prayed that he was acting in line with God’s will. Here’s a little hint for the confused here: if someone prays for rain, that doesn’t mean they think it’s already raining.
    It’s a little unclear who Buchanan supports now. At one point, he seemed to be supporting Obama. (Buchanan did think her speech was amazing, but then so do 80 percent of the people who saw it.) Buchanan did say “I stand with Obama” after Obama’s acceptance speech. Buchanan sure doesn’t like McCain though.
    Yes, she was apparently pregnant when she got married
    No, so far there’s no confirmation she had an affair while she was married, and they’ve denied it pretty strongly. No, she wouldn’t be the first Christian woman who got a little on the side, if it were true.
    No, she wasn’t named as a co-respondent in a divorce; there’s no evidence she had an affair with her husbands’ business partner. The partner tried to have his divorce records sealed because he was being harrassed by journalists who used them to get his phone number. The National Enquirer seems to still be pushing this one.
    Yes, barring immaculate conception virgin birth (whatever), Bristol appears to have had sex with her fiancee. No, Bristol didn’t receive only “abstinence-only” sex ed.
    Yes, I have it on reliable report that Sarah Levi’s mom has been heard screaming “Way to go Levi!” at her future son-in-law son. No, it doesn’t appear to have been when Bristol broke the news to her family.
    Note: I originally understood this story to be about Sarah, not Levi’s mom, in the context of hockey games. As such, it’s shouldn’t be in a Sarah Palin Rumors story, but I like the story too much to delete it.
    yes, her 17 year old daughter is pregnant; no, the baby’s father is not an eighth grader; no, having sex at 16 is not statutory rape in Alaska. And no, there’s no way that a 17 year old can be 5 months pregnant as a result of having sex before she was 16. Learn to count for God’s sakes.
    yes, she did fire the public safety guy, Monegan — but he said in the Anchorage paper that, for the record, she never, and no one else in her administration ever, tried to make him fire her ex-brother-in-law.
    and yes, the state trooper (her sister’s ex-husband) she was worried about did: tase her 10 year old nephew; drive his state patrol car while drinking or drunk; did threaten to “bring her down”; and did threaten to murder her father and sister if they dared to get an attorney to help with the divorce.
    yes, the state trooper was suspended when he was put under a court protective order
    no, the trooper wasn’t fired
    yes, she did fire the Wasilla Chief of Police as Mayor; yes, it was because he was lying to the City Council.
    Yes, she did try to cut her own salary as Mayor by $4000 a year; yes, she had voted against the $4000 a year raise while on the City Council. Yes, she did hire a city administrator; she’d tried to get that through while in the City Council, and was apparently part of her platform when she ran for mayor.
    No, she didn’t cut funding for unwed mothers; yes, she did increase it by “only” 354 percent instead of 454 percent, as part of a multi-year capital expenditures program. No, the Washington Post doesn’t appear to have corrected their story. Even after this was pointed out in the comments on the story.
    No, she didn’t cut special needs student funding; yes, she did raise it by “only” 175 percent.
    yes, she did try, clearly unsuccessfully, to get Bristol married off to her fiancee before the story came out
    yes, she did ask the librarian if some books could be withdrawn because of being offensive; no, they couldn’t; yes, it was “rhetorical”, at least as was reported contemporaneously in 1996[1] ; yes she did threaten to fire the librarian a month later; no, that wasn’t over the books thing but instead over administrative issues; no, the librarian wasn’t fired either; yes, the librarian was a big supporter of one of her political opponents; yes, the librarian was also the girlfriend of the Chief of Police mentioned above; no, this is not the first time in the history of civilization that someone has been threatened with being fired over a political dispute
    No the list of books she wanted to ban that’s being passed around isn’t real; among other things, it includes a number of books published after her time in office there.
    No, that hasn’t actually deterred people from claiming it really is true even if the list isn’t correct. For example:
    “This list might not in fact reflect the books Sarah Palin wanted banned. As more than one person in Comments has pointed out, some of them were not published when Palin was in office. It is my hope that the mainstream media will not let this story drop and that at some point an actual list will surface. The very thought of having someone who once advocated book-banning possibly occupying one of the highest offices of our land fills me with profound dread. It should fill you with dread too.”
    No, I don’t understand why a fake list is supposed to fill me with dread, either.
    no, it wasn’t won’t be [bad tense, hasn't happened yet] a shotgun wedding; Bristol and Levi been engaged for a good while according to Levi’s mother. It was either an accident or just an unconventional order.
    yes, she’s an was an Assembly of God Holy Roller. No, she doesn’t attend an AoG church now. Yes, she did leave the AoG because they were getting too weird for her.
    No, she’s not anti-Mormon. No, not all AoG churches are anti-Mormon. (AoG is even more hard-core about allowing each pastor and congregation to make their own decisions than the Baptists are.) (Thanks to AnonAmom in the comments.)
    No, she’s not from another planet. No, I haven’t actually heard that one yet, but you wait. Okay, I have now heard it.
    yes, she apparently believes in some variant of Intelligent Design.
    Note: This started an argument with my best friend, who is a Biology professor and rather more of an atheist than I manage to be. He thinks this is code for “Creationist”. But let’s look at what Palin actually said:

    In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.” She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.
    An AP article also makes it clear that Palin hasn’t pushed the idea in Alaska schools. Here’s the point, one which the AP seems to have missed themselves. (Another rant for later is on the state of science education among journalists.) “Creationist” generally has a lot stronger meaning than simply believing in a Creator. It’s usually used for people who reject the notion of evolution at all. Palin’s strongest statement on this has been “I don’t pretend to know how all this came to be.” But pretty much anyone who believes in a Deity will end up with some kind of “intelligent design”; even a complete Cosmic Clockmaker Deist thinks of a Designer, a Grand Architect of the Universe. Both Obama and Biden are professing Christians, who believe in a personal Deity, a Creator. So what’s the difference? Only what people have made up about what they think Palin must believe.

    no, she didn’t try to force the schools to teach it; she said if someone brought it up, it was an appropriate subject for debate. She did, however, say it shouldn’t be part of the curriculum.
    No, she doesn’t believe in “abstinence only” education. Yes, she thinks abstinence is an effective way of preventing pregnancy. Duh. Yes, she believes kids should learn about condom use in schools.
    Yes, she did smoke marijuana, when it was legal in Alaska. Yes, she apparently did inhale.
    yes, she kills animals and eats them, and wears their skins
    yes, she was a beauty contest contestant
    yes, she was once a sportscaster
    yes, she has a college degree in Journalism, but I won’t hold that against her, as she seems to have found honest work as well
    yes, she sometimes wears her hair up; no that’s not a “beehive”
    yes, her husband is Not A White Person (he’s a Yup’ik; an Eskimo but not an Inuit as my Inuit cousins have taken some pains to explain)
    yes, she has on occasion, as Mayor, tried to get money from the federal government.
    yes, she did finally turn down the money for the bridge. Yes, that meant changing her mind about it.
    yes, she was vetted extensively, not just in three days — I’ve got links to press reports about people coming to Wassila on 29 May, and we had her on our Veepstakes at PJM from the first day we ran it.
    yes, she want to a bunch of colleges before getting a degree. No, that’s not illegal. Yes, she seems to have made something of herself anyway.
    no, they didn’t talk to a lot of the R’s power structure during the vetting; that probably has to do with the fact that she beat them in elections and sent a bunch of them to jail caused a couple of them to leave the government, admit wrongdoing and pay fines. (Corrected because they didn’t apparently actually go to jail. Thanks to Frank for the correction.)
    Yes, Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech was written by a speechwriter. Duh. No, none of Obama’s, McCain’s, nor Biden’s speeches were impromptu off the cuff things either.
    Yes, she did put the Governors plane on eBay. No, that’s not how it was finally sold. Yes, McCain did say it wrong. Bad McCain.
    No, Sarah Palin doesn’t have such control of Alaskans that people are afraid to say bad things about her. (What, are you nuts? Look at this list.) No, I don’t think it’s likely that she called Obama “Sambo”. (Good God, man, I’m ten years older than she and I barely remember “Little Black Sambo.”) Yes, it seems unlikely to me that she’s be real racist and marry a Yup’ik (or a part Yup’ik.) But yes, people are capable of amazing things. Yes, I’m sure there are people who don’t like her — I’ve talked with some myself. And no, I don’t think this waitress would have been thrilled to be called an “aboriginal”. And yes, if she called Hillary a “bitch”, I’m pretty confident is wasn’t the first time anyone in politics has said that.
    No, she’s not a “global warming denier”, and when the crush dies down remind me to explain why the very phrasing “global warming denier” is anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, and a clear sign of a desire to impose your beliefs by coercion. But in the mean time, while I do believe that she has expressed some skepticism that warming is wholly human-caused, the existence of the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet and the Alaska Climate Change Strategy work demonstrate that she’s considering the problem and has brought together people more expert than she to advise her.
    Yes, Todd Palin did have a DUI. Twenty-two years ago. Get a grip.
    No, Sarah Palin’s brother isn’t in jail. Yes, there was a rumor that her brother was in jail. (If he were, it would seem she was in good company with a brother in trouble, see, eg, Billy Carter and Roger Clinton.) But in fact no one seems to have a source for this except for comments posted places like CNN; many of those comments have now disappeared. (Thanks to Galynn in comments.)
    Yes, Sarah Palin’s pastor apparently does believe that gays can “repent” and be cured of homosexuality. No, believe it or not, even fundamentalist Christians don’t have to believe every litle thing their pastor believes. Yes, Palin seems to be more libertarian about this. In any case, according to the interview with Greta van Susteren, this isn’t something he emphasizes.
    Yes, contrary to press reports, Sarah Palin’s mother-in-law plans to vote for her and the R ticket (when interviewed on Inside Edition.)
    No, the fact that some 17 year old was arrested for malicious mischief at the right time doesn’t mean Track Palin was. One of the actual perpetrators was interviewed by the New York Daily News, and he says unequivocally that Track wasn’t involved. The National Enquirer says “unnamed judicial sources” say otherwise. You pick which you believe.
    No, she didn’t try to charge rape victims personally for rape kits. This is one of those complicated ones with a tiny hint of truth behind it. First, the Chief of Police in Wasilla (not Palin) did apparently have a policy of asking a victim’s health insurance to pay for the rape kit as part of the ER visit. This, it turns out, is policy in a number of states, including Missouri and North Carolina. Second, the way this became an issue was after the then-governor of Alaska signed a bill forbidding it; this law was signed before Palin was Governor and no one tried to reverse it while she was Governor. Third, what the CoP in Wasilla wanted to do was charge the perpetrator as part of restitution.
    Yes, she did say that she figured if “under God” was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it was good enough for her. No, in context I don’t think that means she thinks the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge of Allegiance.
    No, she didn’t violate operational security when she mentioned her son was to be mobilized for iraq on 11 September. That was an announced, public departure ceremony. The way this works is you’re mobilized, then go to a US base for conditioning and final training,and then actually go overseas.
    Yes, she is apparently against an expansion of casino gambling in Alaska. No, she hasn’t tried to make home gambling illegal.
    No, Palin didn’t institute a “windfall profits” tax on the oil companies. She modified the existing severance tax, which works more or less like a sales tax on resources taken out of the ground. (A windfall profit tax, of course, is based on profits.) Just by the way, how is it she’s both “in the pocket of the oil companies” and supposedly instituting a windfall profits tax anyway?
    Yes, Todd Palin works for BP Oil. There is a rumor around that he was some kid of executive; it’s not true. He was originally a plant supervisor, and after the concern about conflict of interest, voluntarily was reduced to be a night shift plant operator, a regular technician job. In any case, he took leave from BP when Sarah became Governor, since she would be negotiating with BP, in order to remove the potential conflict of interests.
    No, British Petroleum/BP wasn’t the sole sponsor of her inaugural. It was among 20-odd sponsors. In any case, they certainly didn’t get their money’s worth if they were trying to use the inaugural to buy influence; Palin’s renegotiation of the severance tax cost them a pile of money.
    No, Palin didn’t eliminate or “void” the Alaskan WIC program as Newsweek claimed. Warren Throckmorton explored this in detail; the truth is that the WIC funding increased during Palin’s time in office; what was cut was a $15,840 separate line request for office supplies and literature. Based on his work, Newsweek was forced to issue a clarification.
    No, Trig isn’t an alien either.
    No, Sarah Palin doesn’t think that dinosaurs walked the earth with Adam and Eve 4000 years ago, In fact, this was a purposeful satire that comes from a post actually entitled Fake Governor Palin Quotes. This has, however, kept neither Matt Damon nor Maureen Dowd from propagating them as fact.
    No, Palin never said she and Todd would kill as many as 40 caribou at a time. That was from the same damn collection of fake quotes. No does it make any sense: can you imagine field-dressing 40 caribou?
    No, she did not cut the Special Olympics funding in a recent budget, except in the Washington sense of “didn’t increase it as much as someone wanted.” Warren Throckmorton shows is was actually a 10 percent increase over the previous year; voxitar in the comments gives a link to the previous year’s budget of $250,000.
    These have gotten sort of silly, though: she has a line-item veto power, and every last one of the cuts she made can be spun, by a political opponent, to say that she is hurting something that sounds good. She cut a new fire station building; she must be against fire departments. She cut an audio system for a grade school; she must be against education.
    But then, if she cut nothing she wouldn’t be a fiscal conservative, would she?
    Yes, she did bill the Alaska State Government for per diem on days when she was “home.” This is how it works: she is maintaining two households. The state law defines her official residence in Juneau as “home”, so when she’s up in Wasilla, she’s “traveling”. That’s the way the law is written, and it appears that she has documented and handled her expenses legally and appropriately, even if it seems odd. And yes, her expenses have been anywhere from a third to a fifth of the expenses of the previous Governor. The Washington Post suggests this calls into question her claim to be a fiscal conservative; personally, I think cutting expenses by 70 to 80 percent seems like a pretty good claim to the title.

    Nutcase bloggers will have to find another smear against Sarah Palin … again. Did you hear that Todd Palin’s former business partner tried to get his divorce records sealed? Conspiracy theorists immediately began speculating on line that Sarah Palin — that vixen! — must have had an affair and broken up the marriage. Why else would the partner suddenly act to seal his records?
    As the Smoking Gun discovered, Scott Richter wanted them sealed — to protect himself from conspiracy theorists (h/t: William Amos):
    So when the blogosphere discovered today (via an online court docket) that Scott Richter, a Palin associate, personally filed a sealing motion in Alaska Superior Court, well, conclusions were jumped to. Was Sarah Palin named as the other woman in a messy divorce action? Well, since Richter’s September 3 motion, a copy of which you’ll find below, was denied yesterday, his divorce filings remain open to the public. And a TSG review of the 98-page file shows that the Palins are only mentioned in Richter’s sealing request.
    According to the filing, Richter wanted the documents deemed confidential in a bid to cloak details about his home, workplace, and phone numbers because “reporters and news agencies” were using that information to contact him. Richter, a 39-year-old contractor, noted that he is “friends and land owners in a remote cabin” with the Palins and, as a result, journalists were intruding on the “cabin life and private life” of him and his 11-year-old son.
    Isn’t that an extra dollop of irony? Mr. Richter wants to protect his son from lunatics. What happens? The lunatics use that as “evidence” that Palin had an affair with Richter and descend on him to get the dirt.
    The desperation of Obama supporters keeps becoming ever more clear. We’ve now had them smear Palin and her daughter as sluts, notably Conan O’Brien and his crude “crease” reference on his show last night. Palin’s mothering quality has also been slandered, and her decision to have a successful career derided by those who would normally sneer at stay-at-home moms.
    Keep it up — please. Keep informing the public that women have to stay on the ideological reservation or they have to stay in the kitchen, and that they’re not really free to have their own minds. Keep punishing those who express their own opinions and defy the media with despicable slurs and innuendo and by all means keep attacking their children. None of that will have any effect on Palin’s credibility — but it will strip her critics of theirs.
    Update: Charles Martin at Explorations has the list of debunked slurs and innuendo, and it’s getting pretty lengthy. Coming up next: Sarah Palin is an extraterrestrial looking to infiltrate human society! Where’s the Weekly World News when you need it?
    Update II: Just spitballing here, but what stereotypes of naughty women have the media and the lunatics missed? So far, they’ve made her out to be a slut, a b***h, a beauty-queen airhead, and an unfit mother. She’s obviously not frigid, so that smear won’t work. How many other demeaning gender-based slurs can they throw her way?

  45. noMcSame-or-PLAIN

    Ugh Palin looks like an uglier version of Tina Faye, and is hott only by comparison to McCain.

    Anyways ppl need to realize that if McCain is elected and is unable to complete his term, this entire nation will be left in the hands a woman who would clearly not capable of leading us. Beyond the superficialities of appearance and gender or even race there is NOTHING that indicates Palin is suffice to fill the role of VP (2nd in command!). Voters’ seriously need to think twice before placing ourselves in such a vulnerable position especially when our nation is in such a fragile state right now. Think before you vote!!

  46. Jim

    I know I’m a couple years late here, but Nobama is a homo

  47. Most Liberals think Tina Fey is funny and that that her portrayal of Palin is spot on and deserving of their IRE in fact, I would venture to say that most all liberals would find it funny to some degree.

  48. motorcycle fairing
    motorcycle fairing parts
    suzuki motorcycle fairing
    motorcycle windshield
    motorcycle windshield parts

  49. motorcycle fairing motorcycle fairing parts motorcycle fairings motorcycle parts fairings motorcycles fairing motorcycles fairings yamaha motorcycle fairing suzuki motorcycle fairing kawasaki motorcycle fairing motorcycle fairings aftermarket fairings for motorcycles motorcycle race fairing fairings for motorcycle kawasaki motorcycle fairings suzuki motorcycle fairings yamaha motorcycle fairings fairing for motorcycle motorcycle fairing kits motorcycle fairing kits motorcycle race fairings fairing for motorcycles motorcycle windshield motorcycle windshield parts motorcycle windshields windshields motorcycle motorcycles windshield motorcycle windshield accessories motorcycles windshields windshield for motorcycle yamaha motorcycle windshield windshields for motorcycles suzuki motorcycle windshield kawasaki motorcycle windshield motorcycle windshield trim windshield for motorcycles windshields for motorcycle motorcycle windshield fairing suzuki motorcycle windshields yamaha motorcycle windshields

Leave A Comment