Palin Delivered Speech With Malfunctioning Teleprompter
Halfway through Sarah Palin’s speech tonight at the RNC, people following the speech noticed she was deviating from the prepared text.
According to sources close to the McCain campaign, the teleprompter continued scrolling during applause breaks. As a result, half way through the speech, the speech had scrolled significantly from where Governor Palin was in the speech. The malfunction also occurred during Rudy Giuliani’s speech, explaining his significant deviations from his speech.
Unfazed, Governor Palin continued, from memory, to deliver her speech without the teleprompter cued to the appropriate point in her speech.
The legend grows
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1223 hrs- Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1238 hrs
What uh… happens uh… if the uh… teleprompter uh… stops working uh… when uh… Barry uh… I mean the messiah uh… is working his uh… verbal magic?
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1240 hrsHere is Ob"ah"m"uh" with teleprompter issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1249 hrsRegardless, she had the speech written for her by McCain and company. (A little nugget McCain campaign manager, Rick Davis, enlightened the press about.)
If I recall, from Speech class, it’s not too difficult to memorize a speech.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1325 hrs(A little nugget McCain campaign manager, Rick Davis, enlightened the press about.)
Wow. Was the press shocked?
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1329 hrsActually written by a Bushie ... now you can fly into full attacks of both BDS and PDS simultaneously
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1333 hrsDon’t know? Probably not too shocking, as they all do it...I’m guessing.
Davis also mentioned that they had to make it less masculine for her.
Pandering robots.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1335 hrsRedState did post a followup:
The Politico, which hasn’t exactly had a track record of accurate reporting, contradicts the broken teleprompter story.
But, MSNBC and Fox both report that there were problems with the teleprompter. They were, as I described them, that the teleprompter kept scrolling past Governor Palin’s stopping point during applause, forcing her to rely on notes and memory.
The McCain camp, last night, did tell me this happened during Rudy’s speech, but this morning is telling Fox News the teleprompter problems did not occur with Rudy’s speech, just Palin’s speech.
BTW, I’ve gotten one more clarification from the McCain campaign: by the end of the speech the problem had been resolved. But you can clearly see during the middle Palin looked at her text often.
And again, don’t miss this key point: compare her teleprompter malfunctions to Obama’s.
I think the last sentence says it all.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1336 hrsThis is supposedly where there might have been teleprompter malfunction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8qQqG4QDqs
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1343 hrsYes, truly poor form indeed for Palin to use words in a speech that she herself did not write!
http://www.slate.com/id/2184070/
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1346 hrsShe is a former professional telecaster.
With that background only a complete moron would not be able to deal with a minor technical problem with the teleprompter.
This is by far the dumbest thing I have read about today.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1353 hrsIs that why she lied so much?
(Cue the tinfoil hatters: you trust the associated friggin’ press??)
Posted by scott on September 04, 2008 at 1354 hrsGive it a rest, scott. Normal people realize there’s a difference between political rhetoric and lying. Could you please move on to page 3 of the liberal playbook?
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1411 hrsHow is her “thanks, but no thanks” line not a lie?
The “no thanks” part implies that she gave the money back or did not take it. The truth is she took and spent all the money that was originally eamarked for the project.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1442 hrsYeah, I know 3way - “Bridge to nowhere...Halliburton...Bush lied, people died...yada, yada, yada”.
I think it’s really funny that you guys are all worked up about “lying” when your hero Bubba actually elevated it to an artform.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1453 hrsit’s not a lie when she presents herself as a champion against pork barrel spending when she was in fact lobbying for and receiving record amounts of pork? That’s not a lie?
It’s at least misleading when she says Obama is going to raise everyones taxes when in fact middle class folks like myself will see a bigger tax cut under president Obama than under president McCain. I call it a lie, you can call it a deep tissue massage of the truth or something if you want.
Sure I get that lies get said at these events. But you know what else happens? People call them on it, and deservedly so.
Nice speech otherwise, though. Seriously.
Posted by scott on September 04, 2008 at 1458 hrsRise above your name cynical. She lied. Whining about Bill Clinton is nothing but a weak ass dodge.
Posted by scott on September 04, 2008 at 1459 hrsYour article is really light on facts, and very little meat too…
Palin: “The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.”
Article: “He (Obama) also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
So, in actuality, she didn’t lie there.
Palin: “I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere.”
Article: “As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million.”
So wait, as a mayor of a small town, she went to Washington to gain federal earmarks? That seems very odd to me. I can’t see the mayor of every small town in America doing this. I wish there were a source for this to find out more.
Article: “In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. ”
Again here, the author says “REQUESTED”, not approved by the federal government, and if approved, was it vetoed? She got lambasted somewhere else for using her line item veto to “slash funding for the Covenant House of Alaska”. I think it was the Washington Post where I saw that. Turns out the Covenant House went from federal grants of $1.9 million the previous year to requesting $5 million, and Palin changed it to $3.9 million. Hardly a slashing of funds,,, but I don’t expect you to grasp the irony of that dishonesty.
Finally regarding this, the requests for special federal funding usually come from the legislator. Oh, and the Covenant House veto I talked about just above shows that she did in fact veto wasteful spending. WOW.
The author of your source also neatly sidesteps the third statement in contention…
PALIN: “There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate.”
In all, about what I expect from you, heavy on rhetoric, light on facts and source, and mixed with a lot of spin. Tell me you have something more, please.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1533 hrsas a mayor of a small town, she went to Washington to gain federal earmarks? That seems very odd to me.
It seems odd to me, too. Here’s some things to read about.
(I know, I know! The LA friggin’ TIMES?? Am I kidding?!?!)
Posted by scott on September 04, 2008 at 1543 hrsYou lefties need a lesson on just exactly what a lie is.
Me thinks your former “leaders” have clouded your rationale and and you’ve picked up the playbook of argueing what the definition of the word “is” is.
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Ms. Lewinsky”
That is a lie. Its a prima facie lie. Its absolutely and unequivolcally not true.
“I told the Congress “thanks, but no thanks,” for that Bridge to Nowhere.”
Lie is a very strong word. Bill Clinton lied. In this instance, first, I’m sure that she didn’t really say “thanks but no thanks”. Its a FIGURE OF SPEECH. Second, what exactly does “thanks but no thanks mean” does it mean “eh, I looked at it, considered it, decided it wasn’t worth it and killed it” does it mean “hey, I I looked at it considered it, but when I realized how much money Alaska was going to have to kick in, that in combination with everything else, I decided the money is better used on a road to somewhere instead of a bridge to nowhere” We just don’t know exactly what went through her mind and how she came to the decision. We DO know she killed it.
So lets just drop this word “lie” because when coming to the conclusion that it is a “lie” you have to make a WHOLE bunch of assumptions, all falling in with each other all of which being the most pejorative of the possible considerations she made, its not a lie.
Is it the “whole” story. maybe, maybe not. But I’ll be honest, I haven’t heard a TV commercial or political ad from EITHER side that tells “the whole story”. This is sound bite politics.
You lefties and your incessant grasp at “lie lie lie OMG lie” is just pathetic. it demonstrates how little you have in the way of criticism to go on. Its very telling. Its beyond a “stretch”. And I ask.. If this is all you got, you ain’t got much…
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1551 hrsShe championed federal pork for her constituents. That’s a documented fact, so let’s not kid ourselves. And you know what? I get that it was her job to do such things. I do get that. But now, merely months later, she paints herself as vehemently against such things, well…
You call it whatever you’re comfortable with. To me it’s pretty plain. She’s misrepresenting her record.
It’s pretty plain what you all think, too, seeing how much of your responses are about Bill Clinton, Barack Obama or other people who aren’t governor Palin herself.
Posted by scott on September 04, 2008 at 1600 hrsSo scott, regarding 20, since you didn’t respond to anything else in my post #19, I assume you take it all at face value, and agree that she wasn’t lying during her speech.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1607 hrsBut now, merely months later, she paints herself as vehemently against such things, well…
Compared to most tax and spend democrats, she very much is.
Its all relative.
If she cuts more government spending than your typical democrat I think she has every moral justification to brag about her record.
Compared to my beliefs, she’s pretty damn liberal. Again, all a matter of perspective Scott. I know you lack that, but…
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1607 hrsYou guys are incredible! She. Loved. Pork. Asked for it. Got it. In record amounts. Bragged about it! And now the first frickin’ thing out of her mouth is that she’s a rabid watchdog against such spending? Prior to this I would have thought only Karl Rove himself had the balls to not only deny this obvious weakness, but blatantly misrepresent it and call it a strength. I stand corrected.
Posted by scott on September 04, 2008 at 1614 hrsPalin actually hired a federal lobbyist in her quest for earmarks for Wasilla. The lobbyist has close connections with indicted Senator Ted Stevens, Congressman Don Young, currently under federal investigation for taking bribes, and everyone’s favorite, Jack Abramoff.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1655 hrsOkay, scott, let’s try these:
Did Obama lie when he said Bill Ayers was just a guy in his neighborhood?
Did he lie when he said his grandmother was a “typical white person”?
Did he lie when he said he never heard “Reverend” Wright’s more ridiculous claims while attending the Sunday service.
Did he lie when he said he was conceived in Selma, even though the marches were four years after he was born?
Did he lie when he said he was a law professor?
Did he lie when he said he doesn’t accept money from PACs or oil companies?
Here’s more.
If you want, I’ll start quoting from his speech transcripts to point out his “lies”, but I think even you get the point.
I sometimes wonder if you’re deliberately obtuse, or just blinded by your own partisanship.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1656 hrsThe lobbyist has close connections with indicted Senator Ted Stevens, Congressman Don Young
Say it ain’t so, Steve! A lobbyist that has ties to...Senators...and Congressmen? That is earth-shattering news!
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1659 hrs"Lie”, “falsehood”, “fib”, “misrepresentation” who the hell cares what word we use to describe what she did? What she said about Obama’s tax policy, her history with federal spending, and the bridge to nowhere was deliberately misleading. If you can’t see that what she said was deliberately misleading you are a moron. Maybe it wasn’t as misleading as what some other douchebag have said, but what someone else said is completely irrelevant.
Are the Clinton lies the gold standard? As long as it isn’t as blatant as Clinton it is OK? How can you not even care that she is misleading the public? I guess integrity doesn’t really matter much anymore.
Last night on the nightly news they recapped her role in Trooper-gate and explained how she now “acknowledged” that she did play a role after saying she didn’t. I had to pause it and go on a rant about their use of language. She said one thing, then “acknowledged” that what she said was not true.
Normal people would call that admitting to a lie. If you are the media reporting on a politician you say they have acknowledged different facts. Infuriating.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1705 hrsIn an effort to add a little levity, may I present the Random Obama Lie Generator. Don’t worry, guys, I’m sure there’s a McCain version.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1710 hrs
I am actually glad 3rd way brought up Troopergate because I have wanted to weigh in on this.
If the people on the left had any brains at all the way they would have framed it would have been like this:
How in the world could Ms. Palin allow someone who:
Tased his 10 year old step son
Drank alcohol while on duty,
Threatened to kill his family-during the divorce/custody dispute.
Remain a State trooper, could it have been that Mike Wootens ex sister in law is the Governor ?but no the incompetent boobs in the press decided to run with the angle that they have been pursuing, and made her even more enduring to people on my side.
DOES THE MEDIA NOT THINK THESE THINGS THROUGH????????
By the way 3rd when you go running to DU and DK, and all your leftie blog sites would it be too tough to at least give me credit?
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1859 hrsOf course, Wooten remains a trooper. Palin fired her public safety commissioner over the matter after pressuring him to fire Wooten. She has a history of firing state employees that didn’t show absolute fealty to her personal whims, too, dating back to her time as mayor.
And even her husband got in the game. A high-ranking staffer was fired when he began a relationship with the soon-to-be ex-wife of a good friend of Palin’s husband. He was out the door without warning, finding out that he was fired when his state Blackberry stopped working.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1949 hrsAnd even her husband got in the game. A high-ranking staffer was fired when he began a relationship with the soon-to-be ex-wife of a good friend of Palin’s husband. He was out the door without warning, finding out that he was fired when his state Blackberry stopped working.
Are you going to share your source? Or is that a secret that only people at Oklahoma University, get to know?
Cuz I’d Kinda like to check it out.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 1958 hrsLOL. Hacks in action.
Defense & Diversion #1:
“Yeah but Clinton...”
Yeah, Clinton did lie. So did other Democrats. All the time.
Yet, believe it or not, whether Clinton and other Dems lied actually has no bearing on whether or not Ms. Palin lied by claiming she said, “Thanks but no thanks”.
Does anyone disagree with that?
Now, someone explain to me how you can say, “Thanks but no thanks” to an earmark, and yet not return the money.
In detail. Without any diversions/deflections/other pathetic justifications.
Face it, someone with the wrong letter after his or her name does the exact same thing and s/he is a liar and a flip flopper.
Humor me, deny it.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 2018 hrsYou’ve been on this all week on every thread. It’s boring, quite frankly. Regardless of what her supporters say, you call it a diversion/deflection/blah/blah/blah/blah. Are you hoping we’ll say “OMG, you’re soooo right, I’m voting for Obama!!”?
She didn’t lie. She killed the bridge. The money was used for higher priorities. Deal with it.
Humored yet?
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 2031 hrsFunny thing is, I think the lefties are confusing disagreement with indifference. They keep yelling, but nobody else cares.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 2042 hrsThat’s a carload of BS Tony. Congress had killed the funding for the project a year before she got into office. She told Congress crap, and now she’s telling you crap, and you’re lapping it up.
But when you look at her record, maybe she’s not your gal afteral, or do you do what your told.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 2046 hrsSo the teleprompter did not break. Boy you people love to lie.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 2050 hrsGetting scared yet, lefties? It’s tied up again, and McCain hasn’t even given his speech yet.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 2053 hrsBoy am i late, you guys are really going at it over something that don’t mean a damn thing.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 2345 hrs
They all lie, but which sides lies have screwed up our country and our tax system for the next generation? Go ahead rightys and blame the lefties but you know that this damned expensive war is costing more than we can afford and if you think either candidate can get us back on track without raising taxes you are a fool.
We are going bankrupt and should start learning chinese because they aren’t as tolerant as we have been with the mexicans. How is that for fear? Our country is in the worst shape ever, EVER, and your fighting over which politician is lying. FACT, they all lie, why deny any of it?Who voted for those stupid bridges anyway? I’ll give you one guess.
I’ll also give you one guess as to who voted to kill an amendment that would have spent the money on aid for victims of Hurricane Katrina instead.
So, please, keep talking to your friends and neighbors about Sarah Palin’s lies about the Bridge to Nowhere - because sooner or later it turns out to fundamentally be a story about the Bridge to Nowhere and how it came to be and whether John McCain supported it or Barack Obama supported it.
That’s a debate that will sink in with the electorate, not this petty she lied, she didn’t lie silliness that Palin’s opponents want to get stuck on.
Posted by on September 04, 2008 at 2356 hrsTony, of course I don’t expect you to support Obama, but I would hope you’d have the intellectual honesty to admit she’s being misleading.
Your emotional attachment to party still prevents you from doing that, doesn’t it. It won’t allow you to say, “you know, you’re right, it’s misleading and she should stop”.
Every circumstance is the same except the letter after her name, and you’re just like me, pointing out how misleading or dishonest her talking point is.
Doesn’t it make you feel kind of dirty to know that?
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 0521 hrsplease, keep talking to your friends and neighbors about Sarah Palin’s lies about the Bridge to Nowhere - because sooner or later it turns out to fundamentally be a story about the Bridge to Nowhere and how it came to be and whether John McCain supported it or Barack Obama supported it.
Good point, Publius. She mentioned this last Friday, got this reaction from the onset, and then repeated it Wednesday night. I can’t source it anymore, but in the run up to the speech, I read one of the “pundits” intoning that she would need to clarify it or ignore it completely. So, what does she do? She says it again! Either that is incredibly stupid (which I doubt, I’m sure every word in a prepared speech is nuanced) or an awesome strategy.
Seems like they have gotten the reaction they wanted and everytime someone brings this up, it “imprints” the concept that Congress needs to be reined in by some outside mavericks.
So, keep the issue alive & carry water for the McCain campaign.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 0649 hrsplease, keep talking to your friends and neighbors about Sarah Palin’s lies about the Bridge to Nowhere - because sooner or later it turns out to fundamentally be a story about the Bridge to Nowhere and how it came to be and whether John McCain supported it or Barack Obama supported it.
No, I don’t think it becomes that at all. When you do A and then make a big, big deal about doing B, the story inevitably--necessarily--becomes about you and your prevarications on the subject. It does not become an issue about Obama or McCain, because no matter how they voted on it, they aren’t the ones loudly claiming the exact opposite thing in front of forty million people.
In the grand scheme of things, it’s not a big deal. I’d still vote for her if I agreed with her policy positions. It just so happens that I don’t so I won’t. But she not only being dishonest, but she herself is the one volunteering and crowing about it. That is, after all, what brings the scrutiny: the blatancy and willfulness of the dishonesty. She’s like a manufacturer well known for making products that do not last, who suddenly starts a multimillion ad campaign about how her goods are the most durable in the industry.
Posted by scott on September 05, 2008 at 0826 hrsIn the grand scheme of things, it’s not a big deal. I’d still vote for her if I agreed with her policy positions. It just so happens that I don’t so I won’t.
Finally.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 0830 hrsHell, I admitted as much before. I don’t expect that your admission of her dishonesty about this point should necessarily cause you to vote for Obama. I think I made that clear once already.
Two things really bug me about this issue. First, it’s the blatant nature of the dishonesty. Why would you choose to specifically and loudly proclaim to be a pork hater--out of the whole universe of political virtues you could claim--when in fact it is quite well documented that you have a history of being one of the worst offenders? Second thing is the fact that so many of her supporters here are unable to the more sensible thing--either keep their mouths shut or admit the truth--but instead vehemently deny the obvious facts of the matter. You’re just like her: Perfectly willing to claim, and even believe, that the sky is green and that down is up, if only it allows you to advance your ideological aims.
Posted by scott on September 05, 2008 at 0904 hrsI think your side is practicing selective outrage, scott. I’d be much more inclined to believe you’re being objective if I have ever seen you harp about these “lies” from the Democrat side of the fence.
when in fact it is quite well documented that you have a history of being one of the worst offenders
That’s just silly. Do you really want me to take a look at Joe Biden’s earmarks over 30+ years?
And when did she suddenly develop a “history”? I thought she was inexperienced and unqualified?
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 0935 hrsShould be “...your being objective...”.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 0936 hrsCrap! I incorrectly corrected my own post! D’oh!!
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 0937 hrsAt least I usually have the intellectual honesty to say “yeah, that’s true, but...” or, failing that, at least I have the decency to keep my mouth shut about it.
Posted by scott on September 05, 2008 at 0943 hrsShe. Loved. Pork. Asked for it. Got it.
Am I the only one that got slightly distracted thinking about Ms. Palin and this comment out of context…
Yeah, Clinton did lie. So did other Democrats. All the time.
Yet, believe it or not, whether Clinton and other Dems lied actually has no bearing on whether or not Ms. Palin lied by claiming she said, “Thanks but no thanks”.
Does anyone disagree with that?
My point ATV, is that as a matter of degree, there are prima facia lies, and then their is spin, and then there are judgement calls.
I wasn’t playing the “hey you did it too” card. thats childish.
I was making a point that a flat out lie is different than “spin” and its different than a judgement as a matter of perspective.
No one can say that Ms. Palins comment was a flat out lie. She killed the bridge to nowhere. Thats a fact. Why she did it is a matter of perception and judgement. If you assume the pejorative, then maybe its a lie, but that relies on YOUR assumption, not the facts of the case.
As for scotts contention that she “claims to be a vehemently against pork, but championed it” that too is a matter of perception and interpretation.
Now YOU tell me you can’t see the difference between a prima facia lie and her comment.
Lastly…
Now, someone explain to me how you can say, “Thanks but no thanks” to an earmark, and yet not return the money.
I’ll tell you how.
I’m VEHEMENTLY against social security… I think its wrong, I think its socialism, I think its an aggregious loss of value for the american taxpayer. I think it takes good money, rolls it through the government machine, wastes most of it, and returns a fraction of the value it could have had for the person who paid it. I’m against every part of it. I think its the worst most aggregious socialistic program in the history of our country.
But you BET YOUR ASS when I retire, I’m going to take my social security! Because its MY MONEY. I paid in.
Do I hope they do away with social security! Hell yes!
That is how I find moral justification to keep money from the feds from a program while still being against the program.
Until they change the system, I’ll take my money back thank-you.
The same comparison works for states. The money from earmarks has already been taken from the taxpayers. To send it back to washington where they can just blow it on more pork is stupid.
If I was her, and I could take that money that was for a pork project (like a bridge to nowhere) and use it for needed “worthwhile” taxpayer serving projects, HELL YEAH she should keep the money. Get some value for the taxpayers out of what would have been pork.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1000 hrsYou know, I get what you’re saying. But when I read a carefully worded, seemingly thoughtful phrase such as
a flat out lie is different than “spin” and its different than a judgement as a matter of perspective.
I just can’t reconcile it with your more stark, absolute statement
She killed the bridge to nowhere. Thats a fact.
also
The money from earmarks has already been taken from the taxpayers.
The money wasn’t taken from her taxpayers. That’s redistributed money from states that give plenty but receive far less in the way of pork spending per capita than Alaska.
Look, I’m not blaming her for taking the money. I think her claim to have killed the bridge is a big stretch, but I’d even let that go. But like I said, she loudly and publicly claimed the mantle of the enemy of pork spending--out of all the other things she might say about herself--when in fact, Wasilla and Alaska are huge recipients of it. There is ample evidence, too, that Wasilla didn’t recieve all that much in the way of pork spending until she showed up and hired a lobbyist to get it. There’s even evidence written in her own hand which indicates how delighted she is to have acquired it. And this wasn’t a decade ago. This was months ago. I just find the whole thing just a little too doublethink/doublespeak for my taste. It’s like the Clear Skies act which relaxed pollution limits, etc.
Posted by scott on September 05, 2008 at 1015 hrsIf I was her, and I could take that money that was for a pork project (like a bridge to nowhere) and use it for needed “worthwhile” taxpayer serving projects, HELL YEAH she should keep the money.
That has to be the most absurd, cognitively dissonant comment I have ever read on this site. I understand (but don’t agree with) your argument against social spending as theft, but that runs completely contrary to what you just said. You can justify taking your social security check based on the principal that you are taking out less than you paid in. But the principal is directly opposite in the case of Palin and these earmarks. Wisconsin pays in more to the federal kitty than we take out, Alaska takes out way more than they pay in. Palin advocated for and took our money to build a bridge to nowhere, when that bridge was politically dead she took our money and built a road that leads to where the bridge would have stood.
Now she claims she is against such earmarks and refused the option of the bridge. If a Democrat ever pulled such a stunt you guys would be calling for their head.
I realize that most politicians are two faced bastards, but in the case of Palin this is all we have to base our opinions on. The only things we know about her is what we have learned from her record and what she has said in her speeches. Those two reference points don’t align, yet everyone is gaga over her. I don’t get it.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1053 hrsThis was months ago. I just find the whole thing just a little too doublethink/doublespeak for my taste.
Still different than a lie. I think its an overstatement for you guys to run around “She lied”
But like I said, she loudly and publicly claimed the mantle of the enemy of pork spending--out of all the other things she might say about herself--when in fact, Wasilla and Alaska are huge recipients of it. There is ample evidence, too, that Wasilla didn’t recieve all that much in the way of pork spending until she showed up and hired a lobbyist to get it.
This might be something you don’t understand (and I don’t mean that in an insulting way) but as a matter of perspective, I don’t think you wake up every day (figuratively) as irritated at the money you send to the government as conservatives do (I hesitate to use conservative because people equate that to republican, and I’m not, but)
Anyway… I know I do (and other conservatives do) wake up every day and see the money that the government is spending daily on all kinds of things we don’t think they should be… To “get as much back as you can” seems justified. While at the same point if the ‘whole system’ was different, it wouldn’t be justified.
Thats the problem I have with government spending all this money on social spending. If government spending was limited to the things that I believe are clearly spelled out in the constitution as legitimate roles of government. I’d be PROUD as hell to pay every penny that I was suppose to, to the government. But when I think well over half the money I pay is being used inappropriately, I want it back however I can get it. And I damn sure want ‘my moneys worth’ of services because I paid more than the average persons share.
Thats the problem with the government redistrubuting money. We have discussions and fights like these about the spoils. Thats the problem with government doling out SO much money is that peoples ‘betterment’ becomes not just striving to earn as much as they can, but also having to “play the game” to get as much as you can back from the government.
So as mayor of Wasilla, if she went about getting all the money she could and spending it for the BEST value she possible could in the best interest of her constituents, I have no problem with that as a matter of principle.
I believe that her and her husband owning a business probably experience the very same frustrations I do when they see how much money gets sent to government. Its unbelievable.
So as mayor, she got as much money back from her constituents as she could and if she spent it as wisely as possible. I’m fine with that.
As governnor if she got as much for her constituents as she could and spent it as best as possible, as a matter of principle i’m fine with that.
As VP her constituents become the entire country, and she’s finally at a level where she can change the system so people don’t HAVE to ‘play the game’ to get as much back from government as they can and instead re-write the books so people keep more of their hard earned money…
I think it all fits (as a matter of principle)
If she does what she can for the taxpayer (and it seems like she has) then I don’t see the hypocrisy.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1059 hrsThat has to be the most absurd, cognitively dissonant comment I have ever read on this site.
I highly doubt that.
Oh, and for the record, I’m not agreeing or stipulation to all you lefties accusations of her being the ‘champion of pork’ merely responding to the concept of how I could as a matter of principle deal getting fed dollars.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1123 hrsBasically what you’re saying is that, while you abhor taxes, you’re all for taking more federal dollars than you put in.
Posted by scott on September 05, 2008 at 1125 hrsGetting back to the original subject of this post regarding the amazing phenomenon of a professional telecaster not being flummoxed by a minor glitch in a teleprompter I though it was hil-fucking-larious when I saw another story this morning about her amazing teleprompter skillz.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/04/mo os.nuke.that.word.cnn
The speech writers spelled words phonetically for her. I guess so she wouldn’t mispronounce one of the key aspects of McCain’s energy policy as she did previously.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1143 hrsGuess we’re moving into the next page of the lefty playbook - “she must be dumb”. Keep it up, I’m sure that’ll work well for you.
You guys just have no shame.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1152 hrsI don’t think she’s dumb. But I think you guys are for believing that her telepromtper malfunctioned and that she ad-libbed that speech, or even significant portions of it. It didn’t malfunction and she didn’t ad-lib anything except the lipstick line.
Repeat: It means nothing to me one way or the other. But the way everyone rushed to fawn over her incredible skill is funny, as it turns out not to be true.
Posted by scott on September 05, 2008 at 1158 hrsscott, I dare you to find one comment, other than the original post, that fawns over her regarding the teleprompter issue.
I go back to my comment #36 - you carp about it but nobody else cares.
Okay, 3way, whenever you’re ready, please insert either the “she’s a whore” rumor (well, maybe you already covered that by smearing her daughter) or the “she’s mentally ill” one.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1207 hrsC’mon Cynical take a step back for a minute.
A bogus story about a broken teleprompter and her adlibbing the speech sends conservative hearts all a flutter. In reality she delivered a prewritten speech with things phonetically spelled out from a working teleprompter.
You have to admit that is at least a little funny.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1209 hrsOkay, I guess my “you guys” is limited to Owen, Matt Drudge and a bunch of other conservative bloggers, and some news outlets--but not the commenters here. Mea culpa.
Nobody cares about the fact that she chose to take an obvious weakness and deceptively portray it as a strength? Yeah, I get that you don’t care. I’m not confused about that.
Posted by scott on September 05, 2008 at 1211 hrsI am not the one spreading rumors here. I am debunking them. She didn’t kill a bridge and she didn’t adlib a speech.
I don’t think she is a whore or dumb. She seems like a nice lady, and pretty smart. Incredibly misguided and a little ill-informed, but she seems like she has the best interests of everyone around her at heart.
She doesn’t seem like the most honest person, but I don’t think anyone completely honest could ever make it into the white house.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1216 hrsI agree. She’s no demon. I don’t care much for her far right views on abortion and social issues, but other than that she seems like an intelligent well spoken person. I do like her a lot less than McCain himself, but she’s no Dick Cheney.
Posted by scott on September 05, 2008 at 1220 hrsI am not the one spreading rumors here.
Okay, that was funny!!
The truth is, most everyone in televised politics and the broadcast media uses a teleprompter. I find that neither a strength nor a weakness.
In my opinion, Sarah Palin appeared to be a very effective public speaker. I have the same opinion about Obama.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1223 hrsQuite true. Obama’s significantly better, but she’s good as well.
Posted by scott on September 05, 2008 at 1226 hrslol - you’re just like a little kid, scott!! No - he’s not better! And my mom can kick your mom’s butt!
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1227 hrsThere’s nothing juvenile about me recognizing what most others probably think, too: Obama’s a remarkable public speaker. She is good, but not that good.
Posted by scott on September 05, 2008 at 1230 hrsFinally,
Scott has listed the Obama’s great accomplishment.
“Obama’s a remarkable public speaker”.
Site still down? Maybe you should be working in it.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1236 hrsEvery circumstance is the same except the letter after her name, and you’re just like me, pointing out how misleading or dishonest her talking point is.
Doesn’t it make you feel kind of dirty to know that?
If you are of the opinion that people who are just like you should feel kind of dirty, you may be dealing with some self-worth issues that I don’t feel sufficiently qualified to comment on.
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1508 hrsSite still down? Maybe you should be working in it.
And I’m the one acting like a kid? Sheesh.
Posted by scott on September 05, 2008 at 1521 hrsWhy should you be the only one who gets to act like a kid..
Your problem is that your site goes down almost as much as a crack whore on the North side of Milwaukee.
I got some phone numbers in case your interested.
One other point, you may want to watch what you post to the net, and make sure its protected. Anyone can take the pictures of your girl friend, and do what ever they want to them.
Set the page to not allow the images to be copied or downloaded, just viewed.
If you need help let me know.
Seriously..
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1535 hrsIf you are of the opinion that people who are just like you should feel kind of dirty
That reminds me of something my inquiring mind wants to know:
How does the pecking order work at the local Democratic party when it comes to driving all those smelly ACORN-recruited street people to the polls (we know that voter turnout is what really will determine the election)? Is it people with new Prius’s? People from Shorewood with leather seated Volvos? Or do they have “people” to do that for them? UWM students that don’t know when they are being used as a “tool”? Will the riders be allowed to smoke the free cigarettes in the car?
(I can relate - many years ago I worked for a county social service program & we had to use our personal cars to transport our clients - always had to use my “2nd” car)
Posted by on September 05, 2008 at 1614 hrs
Ol' Army
