Gibson the Loser

Great interview Charlie. You really showed everyone just how smart you journalist types are. And so very polite. You did everything you possibly could to try to intentionally trip up Sarah, but you failed.

You also failed the journalism test. You were not supposed to be the star of the interview. Your job is not to attempt to make people look foolish. Your job is not to have your silly little glasses perched out on your silly little nose looking as effeminate as possible. Your job is not to pretend to know more than the person you are interviewing, especially when you do not.

However, and let us be clear on this, I hope you and others in the left-wing media keep it up. Every single time you act unprofessionally toward Sarah people notice it and they don’t side with you. They side with her. So, your ineptitude and inability to perform your job without prejudice is actually helping the very person you are trying to destroy. Nice work. Good job. Please continue.

I find it amusing that “journalists” think of themselves as oh so very smart and oh so very, very important. Nothing could be further from the truth. You have not accomplished a single thing in your life that actually matters to anyone else. Your haughty, supercilious manner is not becoming someone who is so smart and great and wonderful. Your mommy must be very proud, Charlie. Very proud.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 11:34 | Posted in Measure 37 | 45 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • dean

    One has to wonder….if she can’t handle Charlie Gibson how is she going to handle Putin?

    Lighten up Jerry. He did not make Palin look foolish. She accomplished that all by herself. He simply asked questions about subjects she does not have a clue about, even after her 2 weeks of intensive tutoring. Give her a few more weeks and maybe she will have an actual answer to a question.

    “People” don’t side with Palin Jerry. Some do, some don’t and some are still trying to figure her out. You think the Gibson interviews are helping Palin? Maybe so. Time will tell.

    For someone who disdains journalists as much as you do, you spend a lot of time watching, reading, and commenting on them. If they are so non important, why don’t you just ignore them?

    “You think you’re so smart” is a pretty childish critique of someone who has actually taken the time to study, learn about, and be able to analyze national and international issues. But not to fear. Hannity is next and we know he does not think he is smart…. right?

    • Gene

      Personally I thought that Gibson really showed his distain for Sarah Palin and all she stands for. He would not look directly at her. He reflected just how much he thought that he, a ‘superior’ being already had correct answers to all questions he asked. It did not matter WHAT answer she gave, he would look down his nose and show his ‘superior’ knowledge.

      You write like you feel the same way. SUPERIOR PERSON that you are. Insulting Jerry’s thinking is not the way to make friends and influence people.

      AS an aside, I am a voter with NO party affiliation; I vote for who I think is the better person and reflects my beliefs, my wants or my needs.

      • dean

        Ok….I re-watched the interveiw. I saw him lright into her eyes as he asked the quesions, then back at his notes, and so forth. His angle of view was “down,” I suspect because they were sitting in the same height chairs (her own chairs in her own house, not chairs ABC brought for the occasion) and he happens to be taller than her, giving him a longer torso, hence giving him a higher head position. Maybe this seemed to you like he was acting “superior.” I have no idea whether Gibson thinks he is “superior to Governor Palin. Given his position and salary, I imagine he feels pretty good about where he has gotten to within his profession, as he should, and as she should about her own acheivements.

        Two questions for you Gene, if you don’t mind. First….shouldn’t we want to ask questions of candidates for president and vice president that help us figure out whether they are “superior” in intellect, judgement, and temperment compared with the rest of us? Isn’t “superior” in this sense the same as finding out who the “better” (Your word) person is?

        Second question. How do you go about figuing out who the “better “person” is, and how they reflect your own bleiefs, wants, and needs before you cast a vote?

        • Gene


          Look at the 6th comment written by John in Oregon. He states it correctly.

          YES–I do want to have lots of questions asked of politicians running for office, and…. we need to be asking incumbent office holders questions, but we don’t need news people to act like Mr. Gibson did. Left and Right wingnuts are mad at that fellow but that does not mean he did his job honestly or asked the correct questions. I for one do not want news people giving the answers; I don’t want to hear trick questions or ‘gotcha’ questions. But I do want to hear the answer from the ‘Horses Mouth’ so to speak.

          Your wanting me to tell you how I pick the person to vote for is a ‘strawman’ argument that I don’t believe I will answer.

          An Independent Voter

    • John in Oregon

      > *If they are so non important, why don’t you just ignore them?*

      Because, Dean, reporters *lie* or are wrong and often lazy. Then they need to be called on it.

      And that is happening. Within the last few weeks the New York Times found it necessary to do another down size.

    • Jerry

      I NEVER said he thought he was smart. I said he WAS smart.

      I was not being childish, but I can always count on you for the name-calling. Always.

      Your blind acceptance of Obama and Biden would be funny if it were not so sad.

  • Bob Clark

    My wife who is a blue belly (as opposed to a red belly) watched the Gibson/Palin interview, and even she thought Gibson was over the line, making the interview more of an inquisition than an interview. Personally, I think Palin held up well for a newbie VP candidate. She isn’t on par with a Ronald Reagan in terms of argument/debate capability, but then again she isn’t running for president but vice president. I am willing to cross my fingers and hope McCain lives several years as president, during which Palin moves up the learning curve.

    The election is entering its ugly stage now where ads on both sides are filled with half truths bordering on lies. Maybe the debates can be a fair forum to judge the candidates. It’s been interesting to see Obama moderate his populist positions to garner more moderate votes. It’s also interesting that the polls are so close when unemployment is ratcheting higher and the Republicans are the encumbent party. This would also make a third term in a row for one party to have the white house. The odds are still against a McCain-Palin victory. But I am hoping they pull off a miracle, and Palin comes up the learning curve as VP. This would give the Republicans a shot at controlling the White House for another 16 years. What are the odds of that? It’s probably at least two standard deviations away from the mean/median.

  • hapypacy

    I have no problem with Palin having a tough interview. I just wish the leftist media would pose the same questions, in the same tone, and under the same circumstances to B.O.

    Imagine Charlie asking B.O. to look into the camera and have the audacity to claim he has accomplished anything in his life that could remotely prepare him for the grownup issues that he needs to face.
    He reminds me of my young adult son who thinks he can talk his way out of anything, but obviously hasn’t learned enough in life to make wise decisions.

    Talking seems to be B.O.’s only solution to anything. I suppose talking the terrorist into putting down their suicide belts might work….if he could talk faster than they pull the trigger.

  • John in Oregon

    Dean, my objection with the Gibson interview has to do with the media and not Palin.

    First, Gibson asked a very general question about Palin support of “The Bush Doctrine”.

    *O* A bit later in the interview Gibson asserts that the “Bush Doctrine” is “the United States reserves the right, in the event of eminent attack, to respond with preemptive self-defense.”

    *O* I my self thought that Gibson was referring to the Bush policy that “the United States would no longer distinguish between stateless terrorists and states that sheltered or sponsored them.”

    *O* This morning Bill O’Reilly said on his radio program that he, Bill, thought Gibson was referring to the Bush policy that “the best defense from terrorism is to support the development of democratic governance.”

    *O* In a earlier conference call with reporters, Obama described the Bush doctrine of “only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States.”

    *O* And finally, the Bush Doctrine of “unilaterally exercising provisions allowing withdrawing from the ABM treaty.”

    President Bush made several statements no one of which were the “Bush doctrine”. There is no single written Bush Doctrine. All of the above can reasonably be thought of as the “Bush Doctrine”.

    Who got it right and who got it wrong? Lets go to the authority on the subject, Charles Krauthammer. He knows something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, he was the first to use the term. What does Krauthammer say?

    *”The New York Times got it wrong.* And *Charlie Gibson got it wrong.”*

    “There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. ”

    “He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?””

    “She responded, *quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous,* “In what respect, Charlie?””

    “Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.””

    How does Krauthammer described Gibsons answer?


    But there is more. Krauthammer continues;

    “Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And _at least she didn’t pretend to know_ — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, *he [Gibson} captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.”*

    Who did get it right? Well;

    The New York Times got it wrong.

    Charles Gibson got it worng.

    Obama got it wrong.

    I got it wrong, (red face)

    And Bill O’Reilly got it right

    But that isnt the worst Gibson distortion in the interview. That came when Gibson asked:

    > “You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S.
    > soldiers on a task that is from God.” *Are we fighting a holy war? “*

    To which Governor Palin said the following which was edited from the broadcast interview;

    > “You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

    In response Gibson peevishly assured Palin;

    > “Exact quote.”

    Well, Sorry Charlie, that was *NOT* her exact quote.

    What she said was: *”Pray that* our national leaders are sending our troops on a task that is from God…”

    Gibson is a professional journalist and I refuse to believe the above represents simple poor workmanship, if it does then the entire body of Gibson’s work is called into question.

    The only reasonable conclusion is that Gibson’s distortion of the quote was _intentional._ In plain language, it was a *lie.*

    This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that when Palin caught him at it, “You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”, Gibson then edited that from the broadcast interview.

    In other words, Gibson is intentionally trying to paint Palin as a religious zealot on a holly war from God. And that folks is what is known as manufacturing the NEWS.

    • dean

      John…let me respond with a couple of points:

      1: I agree the “Bush doctrine” question could have been interpreted in different ways by Palin, and I agree Gibson let her hang there to see what she did with the rope. That said, her response, once the definition was more clear, was like most of her responses, confidently expressed but very scripted and not enlightening. I got the sense she knows little or nothing about foreign policy related to terrorism, Iraq, and related subjects. Maybe as Bob Clark above suggests, she will be a fast learner. If elected, let’s all hope so.

      2: I don’t know what the correct God quote is or was. I’ve seen different versions. The key question about her remains unanswered, which is her propensity to mix her religion with our public policy. I thought the more important thing she said, and which Gibson failed to ask a follow up on, was about her “personal view” that abortion should only be allowed in the case of saving the life of the mother. That is about as an extreme a position as exists on this issue, and what I want to know is, does she intend to impose that “personal view” on my domestic partner, my niece, any 16 year old raped by her grandpa, and the rest of the women and girls of America who may not agree with her “personal view.” By all appearances John, she actually IS a religious zealot, and yes I am concerned she may take her positions as being God’s positions, as Bush appears to have done on occasion.

      3: I think it is possible that Gibson had one quote and she had another, because as I said there are several versions out there, and I don’t know which source has it correct.

      4: Her sole claim to getting this job seems to be her “reform” credentials, and those seem weaker by the day. She is as deep in pork as anyone, with her state getting 10 times per capita what Obama’s state gets. She backed that bridge boondoggle when it was the right politics, and stepped away from it when the plitics changed. And her response on research dollars for “crab mating habits” was also pretty classic. She is all for it. But not for big government. Go figure.

      Obviously, in my case I’m not voting for her and McCain, so I watched the interview from that bias point. Those of you who want to retain a Republican adminstration are going to vote for she and McCain regardless of how well or poorly she performs in the few interviews her handlers will let her do. The larger question will be how she continues to play with that portion of America that is on or very near the fence. My sense from this interview is that the McCain campaign had best keep her away from the working press outside of Fox News and hope they can run out the clock.

      She appears to be utterly unqualified to be VP or God forbid President. She has rarely left Alaska, and that is an incredibly insular state that as I have pointed out before, is financed by oil and gas, has almost zero minorities other than eskimos and Indians, is 99% managed by the federal government, and is really a state that is like a small city. Everybody pretty much knows everybody. Being able to glimpse Big Domede Island from Little Diomede Island is not a resume builder for foreign policy, especially since she has probably not even been to Little Domede Island.

      My view is also that on experience, Obama is also much less qualified than I am comfortable with, which is why I was supporting Biden early on. My vote for Obama is based on getting the Rs and their failed policies out the door for a while. Period.

      • Larry

        “2: I don’t know what the correct God quote is or was. I’ve seen different versions.”

        Are you an idiot or liar, dean?

        The video is all over the internet. See for yourself. John quoted it for you. If you doubt him, verify it for your self. The video can’t be faked (unlike the bikini AK photo).

        The FACT is that Charlie did not tell the truth, but instead he lied about the ‘exact quote’. The truth is ‘the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth. Charlie distorted the quote by omission, thus crafting a lie.

        It is all over the internet. Either you are an idiot and missed that gaffe, or you are a liar.

        • dean

          Larry, given that breadth of choices, I’ll go with idiot. There is more than one instance in which Palin has invoked God as backing her view, or her view as backing Gods. And either way amounts to the same thing in my humble opinion. So it depends on which quote from which interview Gibson was using, and in the end i for one still don’t know to what extent she thinks she has a direct pipeline to the big guys thoughts and plans. Do you?

          • dean

            This is the *exact quote* in context from a video where she was speaking on a stage, I believe at a church:

            “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

            2 ways to interpret this. She thinks it really is God’s, not just Bush’s plan to have us at war in Iraq. Or she thinks that by praying on it this will make it so. Either way….thanks but no thanks. I’d rather see her pray that God’s plan is for peace to suddenly break out in Iraq.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Um, I wouldn’t exactly follow this line of logic too much further Dean.

            Its going to lead you straight into good old Nancy Pelosi.

            Palin thinks our soldiers are on a task from God? Hmm, ok, that’s sort of wacky.

            Pelosi thinks she is here to save the planet, at least that was her mission last July, and thats pretty zany too.

            Last time I checked Speaker of the House was a more powerfull job than VP, but what do I know.


            I guess the big question is, if Pelosi is here to save the planet, will she be making use of a magic wand? Or can we expect her to stick with the more traditional cape and leotard look?

          • Larry


            Thanks for your 2nd comment (not 18:16 but 18:28), which you identify the EXACT full quote (not the many other times Palin speaks of God that are located on the internet). That is the quote in question. That is the quote that Charlie lied about (lie of omission), when he stated “exact quote”. Charlie is in fact a liar, on national TV. And that his producers edited out Gov Palin’s objections shows their hesitation.

            Back to your confusion on which way to take Gov Palin’s full quote:
            “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

            dean says:
            “2 ways to interpret this. She thinks it really is God’s, not just Bush’s plan to have us at war in Iraq. Or she thinks that by praying on it this will make it so. Either way….thanks but no thanks. I’d rather see her pray that God’s plan is for peace to suddenly break out in Iraq.”

            I disagree. I thought that she was saying that we should pray “that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” If we pray, and discover (prayer is kind of a two way conversation with God, we ask, God listens, then we wait and hopefully hear God’s reply) that God’s plan is different than what we thought it was.

            In other words, we should pray “that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” And if we hear from God “Nope. That is NOT my plan.” then we should (obviously) find out what IS God’s plan, and then follow THAT (God’s) plan.

      • Josh Reynolds


        Could you provide the Vice President Manaul so we can decide if Governor Palin is qualified?

      • Davis

        Please tell us, Dean, how in the world *anyone”, even a VP Palin, can impose one’s personal belief about anything on your “domestic partner, [your] niece, any 16 year old raped by her grandpa, and the rest of the women and girls of America who may not agree with her ‘personal view'”. Are you aware of some provision in the Constitution, unknown to the rest of us, that confers on the Executive the power to make laws? Until you can do so, her personal belief about the appropriateness of abortion is irrelevant to a determination of how qualified she is to govern.

        Also contrary to your claim, her reform credentials are no weaker today than they were on day 1. As a state governor she has no authority to control how Congress does its business. She still has no equal in changing how her state party, state government, and even Federal representatives do business. If she can persuade the majority in Congress that certain research is enough in the national interest to warrant special spending, so be it. Although I would disagree with such a decision, the fault lies not with Gov. Palin, but with Congress. As to the bridge: the only part of the saga worth mentioning is the hyperbole of her story. By the time she was running for governor the earmark was already moot since Congress had already given Alaska the money with no strings attached. Even her support for the project as drawn was qualified since she stated that the state should also consider less expensive alternatives. I completely agree with her present stance that the state should take total responsibility for improving the city of Ketchikan’s access to its airport.

  • mcrich

    Palin did better in the interview than Gibson. I have never seen anyone interview Obama with the same disdain. I did see O’Reilly interview Obama and thought that it was a tough interview but fair. O’Reilly joked with Obama, had some fun and was persistent. They both were engaged and it was a good interview. Obama did well.
    Gibson showed his stripes as Olberman did while covering the Republican convention.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Oh good lord, lets face it, Palin probably does not know a lot about foreign policy and Gibson took a cheap shot saying “Bush Doctrine” rather than the more lucid ” do you be leave in taking preemptive action as Bush did in Iraq/Afghanistan?”. Bush Doctrine is hardly a commonly used or readily defined phrase. For Gibson to act as if it has the clarity of say “The Monroe Doctrine” is absurd. Krauthammer rightly pointed this out.

    Lets also face the fact that although Gibson may have been hard on Palin, he was pretty tough on Obama during the nominee debates. He hammered Obama on the capitol gains tax issue and sort of left him looking like a nitwit when Obama maintained he would raise CG taxes even after Gibson repeatedly pointed out to him rate increases result in a loss of revenue.

    But anyway, Palin isn’t Hank Kissinger, So what?

    She would have plenty of time to learn, given that she is in the VP slot, a position not exactly noted for setting the foreign policy of the United States.

    Lets look at the opposite side on foreign policy.

    We have Obama, he does not really know anything more than Palin and certainly has no more experience in this regard. He has had some incredible gaffs regarding foreign policy however. He has said some absolutely inane things, such as invading Pakistan without any notice to their government if he suspected terrorists there. Hillary Clinton, and anyone else with any sense, rightly called this an incredible blunder.

    My all time favourite though was Obama’s incredible ineptitude regarding foreign policy that even a 10th grader would not have fallen into.

    Gee Obama, what would you do about the conflict in Georgia?

    Thankfully Obama did not pull a Merkley and had the good sense to know this was not a confrontation in within The Allman Brothers Band but his response was still amazing. Obama said he’d take the matter to the UN Security Council.

    Hey! Obama! Yeah you! Didn’t you learn Russia has a permanent seat on the security council or did you skip that day of school to go out and community organazize?

    I mean that one was amazing, talk about a Homer Simpson moment. And this guy wants to be president? Wow, good luck on making him out to be Mr. Foreign Policy guy.

    Any Obama supporters still want to make the case that Palin is not ready for the presidency? Fine, she is not running for president. McCain and Obama are. Get it through your heads. She will by definition have on the job training, Obama wont, and aint no way no how you are going to make Obama out to be any more experienced on foreign policy than Palin. The Republicans have experience at the top of the ticket, inexperience at the bottom, The Democrats have inexperience at the top and experience on the bottom. Any Democrat who is going to try and work that little scenario to their advantage is going to have a real tough time putting lipstick on that particular pig.

    • dean

      Rupert…I agree Obama has little experience in foreign policy. But he has lived abroad and has travelled abroad even when young and pretty broke. He has served on the Senate foreign relations committee for 4 years, which is more relevant than Big and Little Diomede Islands proximity to each other. And for having so little experience he seems to have gotten most of the big issues right over the past several years:

      1: He opposed the Iraq invasion as the wrong war that would go badly for us. Check.
      2: He said we needed more troops in Afganistan, which now everyone of note seems to agree with. Check.
      3: He said we needed a 16 month timetable from the date of his taking office to withdraw from Iraq, which Maliki and now even Bush seem to agree with. Check.

      He was wrong on the surge, or at least that appears to be the case at this time. But he had a lot of company. Apparently most of the Joint Chiefs felt the same way. And unfortunately things could still go south in a hurry, as even Petraeus pointed out the other day. Lets hope that won’t be the case.

      As for Georgia on the mind, here is the direct quote released from the Obama campaign right after the Russian invasion:

      “I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.”

      In other words…he did not say “take the matter to the security council.” He said negotiate, and said multiple parties, the security council being one, should support a peaceful resolution, which makes sense because that is the body of the UN that deals with wars. He also said “both parties” should show restraint. I think this was the right statement, because Georgia provoked the conflict by invading South Ossetia in the first place….very stupidly as it turned out.

      Here is the McCain campaign statement:

      “[T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences of Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave. The government of Georgia has called for a ceasefire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. *The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council* to call on Russia to reverse course. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen.

      In other words….McCain ACTUALLY DID CALL FOR THE SECURITY COUNCIL TO CONVENE OVER THE MATTER. OBAMA DID NOT. He also saber rattled, which was dumb and toothless considering we have no army left to fight with and Russia darn well knows it, as does Iran, Korea, and everyone else. See above about Iraq for the explanation. Of course, that did not stop Wailin Pailin from suggesting war with Russia over Georgia, which might make sense if it was OUR Georgia. Maybe she was confused? (And by the way, turns out she never did visit Iraq, or Ireland.) Her short resume appears to be shrinking.)

      On your Palin-Pelosi point, I don’t believe the latter invoked God as suggesting to her that she ought to do something about global warming. If you can show me that she did say God told her to do this, or even that she prayed to God for guidance over the matter, then yes, I would be equally concerned about it. In my view, if God was too busy or indifferent to stop Ghengis Kahn, Atilla the Hun, Caligula, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Dick Cheney, Hurricane Katrina and the development of atomic weapons, he or she probably is not intervening in Iraq or in global warming policy debates. We appear to be on our own regarding our affairs on earth. Hence we should go about electing smart, knowledgable people with good judgement and temperment to run things. including the judgement to pick a running mate who knows sh*t from shinola about the affairs of the world and the US economy.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Obama traveled abroad? Your kidding on that one right? I mean you really are having to dig down to stuff like that to prop him up? Thats kinda weak as a lead dont you think? Oh, so Mr. Ahhhh Ahhhhh Ah Ah Ahhhhh traveled abroad, okie dokey. Im giggling already.

        Obama opposing the war in Iraq – Might want to uncheck that one. Iraq appears to be going well at this point. It seems conceivable we might establish a democracy there. Obama’s opposition to the war was not based on any military strategy he laid out as to why it would be best not to enforce the Desert Storm surrender. Who knows where we would be now if we had not invaded. One can hardly make the argument that showing that we do not enforce surrenders, as Clinton did for 8 years, was a good strategy. Look what it got us, a saber rattling Saddam exporting terror.

        More troops in Afghanistan – Oh yeah, Obama was a real leader on that one. What is up with Democrats when they Monday morning quarter back and think that’s making a contribution? Neither Obama nor the rest of the Dems showed any prescience there, they merely were there to point out more troops would have helped after the fact. Sorry, that’s not leadership. Next!

        16 month timetable – Ok, this was another Homer Simpson “DOOH” moment for your boy. Yep, Obama did say 16 months, problem is, Obama announced it early in his campaign, when things did not look at all reasonable for such a withdrawal. He also did it in combination with opposition to the surge, so had we listened to him, we would have announced a 16 month withdrawal before any of our current success and would have compounded the error with not doing the surge, thus ensuring defeat. Homer Simpson at his best. I definitely would not bring this one up again to try and prop up Obama’s prescience or experience. I think even Obama is trying to stay away from this sort of thing as it is now quite clear to everyone that had Obama’s prescription been followed, the US would have had another defeat on its hands. Most people are not so partisan that they wish for defeat in a war simply to show up the other party. I realize your view and Harry Reids view are different on this however.

        McCain – Obama UN and Georgia – Yep, McCain said it as well. Homer Simpson moment for the two of them. However, the point was Obama – Palin, and Obama is the clear gold medal winner in that contest as far as foreign policy gaffs. Who knows, in time Palin might make quite a few. But in the “Doooh” head slap moment, Mr. AhhhhhAhhhh is the champion, I mean Obama is a gaff machine on his own, but now with Biden the two have a great symbiosis. With those two, its going to be The Gaff Squad in full effect. I mean I am still cracking up over Biden asking that guy in the wheelchair to stand up and take a bow. Oh God that brought tears to my eyes. Or when Obama had to be prompted by Steph, “Wait, your Muslim faith, you mean your Christian faith”, hooo boy. I love it.

        Oh, and the we have no more troops thing – Oh my God are you serious about that one? You seriously are saying you would send in US ground troops to that region? Wow, now that’s amazing.

        On Pelosi – Oh I get it, somehow someone saying God is bad, but someone saying they are here to save the planet is reasonable. Wow, that’s a hell of a standard. So the fact that Palin invoked God is what upsets you.

        Oh, and lets just look at this little tidbit, which I truly love:

        “If you can show me that she did say God told her to do this, or even that she prayed to God for guidance over the matter, then yes, I would be equally concerned about it.”

        Ok, so her just thinking she is a superhero and is capable of saving the planet on her own, well that’s reasonable.

        Well what if I told you Pelosi thought she was an instrument of gods will?

        What if I told you Pelosi hoped God would make her an instrument of his will?

        Gee, would you be concerned?

        No, of course not, you are Dean, and anything a Democrat does is always right and not to be questioned. Pelosi could stand up in the middle of the house and say she prayed for God to make her an instrument of his will and it would be ok with Dean its ok, she’s a Democrat, she was probably invoking a female earth goddess so that made it all right.

        Being Dean means never questioning Democrats, always defending them, and never making a straight up admission he was wrong or any Democrat was wrong.

        Face it, your girl said something equally silly as Palin and the God troops thing. Get over if, Democrats say dumb things too.

        And as far as picking a running mate with experience, remember, the inexperience on the Republican ticket is on the bottom, you have your inexperienced guy right at the top. Palin has actually run something, Obama, well he sat in the Senate and did a lot of nothing. Frankly just Palins experience being a mayor makes her more experienced than Obama. I mean lets face it, the guy is pretty much a “do nothing” empty suit, especially in his senate performance. The good thing is that people are starting to catch on to that fact.

        I told you not to try and put lipstick on that pig, and there ya go.

  • Anonymous

    “”2: I don’t know what the correct God quote is or was. I’ve seen different versions.””

    dean is aliar and an idiot.
    He uses this little stunt of his time and time again.

    It supposed to be a way to have it both ways where he can avoid aknowledging the lie and continue the critisism in twisted form.

    • Gene

      Here is a definition of a ‘Strawman Argument’, that is what Dean is doing. You will never be able to have him agree to anything you say.

      “A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.”

      • Rupert in Springfield

        That’s actually very true. Dean will never admit he is wrong and the straw man argument is one of his favourite tactics.

        When it is pointed out to him, he will feign non comprehension. That’s why I have come up with the phrase LTR. Which means Learn to Read. Dean will pretend to not be able to read, by either glossing over, or not understanding a simple sentence in your argument.

        This will go on for several rounds with Dean flailing about, continuing to not be able to read and eventually culminate with a sarcastic statement from him implying that your pointing out that he is using a straw man argument is somehow incredibly unreasonable and that you are using such obtuse wording that neither he, nor anyone on the planet could have understood what you were saying.

        He will even do this if your argument to him is one line. I once had an argument with him with the one line

        “several” is not the same word, nor does it have the same meaning as the word “all”

        Believe it or not, Dean actually did feign lack of comprehension of this simple argument ( he had changed the word several, for all in a statement I made and insisted it was the same thing ).

        At any rate, after the sarcastic statement Dean will consider himself the winner of the argument.

        Its incredible to watch and a should be a case study of some kind, I don’t know what. The predictability of result when cornered on a point is that of a first generation Nintendo game. To see it time and time again in a person is somehow mildly fascinating, at least to me.

        • dean

          Yes…Obama actually had enough curiosity about the world to travel a bit, read, talk to people, think about things and write about it. Palin did not have a passport until last year, though has been to Canada. We don’t know if she has read a single book or article on foreign afairs. We don’t know what she knows or thinks about anything outside of Alaska and abortion. We are being spoon fed chipper bromides about “reform.” We just had the experience of a very self confident president who was a proud know-nothing. I don’t care to repeat it.

          “Iraq appears to be going well at this point.” Yes…relative to how badly it went over the previous 4 years. And it still is apparently not going well enough for Bush to have confidence to scale down troop levels. Yes, it is “conceivable” a democracy of some sort will emerge there. Lots of other outcomes are equally conceivable, including a Shiite theocracy alligned with Iran.

          Where would we be had we not invaded? Likely in much better shape in Afganistan. Likely with a military that has not been depleted. Likely with 4000 plus US soldiers still alive and thousands not maimed and mentally screwed up with PTSD. Likely with a trillion dollars less of federal debt. Likely Sadam would still be on his throne, a paper tiger. I would take that set of conditions over what we have wrought, and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.

          Yes, Obama suggested a timetable early on. So did the Iraq study group. So did the Joint chiefs to Bush. Would withdrawel have been a “defeat?” I don’t think so. We toppled Sadam and oversaw 2 elections that formed an Iraqi government of their choosing. If they then chose to fight it out amongst themselves, that was on them, not us. We can’t have a defeat or a victory in someone else’s civil war unles we take one side and they win. And whatever we end up with at this point, it won’t be much of a “victory.” Even Petraeus says so.

          For someone who says LEARN TO READ often, I don’t know where you got any hint that I advocated a ground war in Georgia. That is what Palin advocated in her interview. And what McCain’s saber ratteling implied. Get out or face “grave consequences” means you need a grave consequence to deliver. Plus, I gave you direct quotes about Obama and MCCain’s responses to Russia’s invasion. One (McCain) actually advocated convening the Security Council. The other (Obama) did not. Yet you somehow read these quotes and determined they both advocated the thing that you initially critiqued Obama for, which he didn’t even do. Talk about not admitting error!

          Is not what you TELL me about Pelosi that matters. Its what you can SHOW me about her. SHOW me where she says that her advocacy of taking steps to stop global warming are based on messages she got from God and I will equate her with Palin and Bush. Thanks but no thanks. I would agree with the policy, but disagree with her rationale for why she is pursuing it.

          And no…I have disagreed with Democrats often. In fact, Democrats spend so much time disagreeing amongst ourselves we keep losing elections. So finding WHICH Democrat to agree with is often a challenge for me.

          But you want a for instance. OK….I don’t agree with Obama’s proposals on health care. I think they are better than what we have now, and better than McCain’s proposal, but far short of what is needed. I disagree with his defense of free trade. I think we are mostly getting screwed on trade agreements. I think he starts the tax raising at too low ($250K income). I would go down to $150K.

          I don’t think I ever claimed democrats do not say dumb things, but if you say so then I must have.

          Yes…the democratic ticket has the less experienced person on the top. THe difference is this. Obama ran a campaign for 18 months and won 18 million plus votes plus the number of delegates needed. Running that campaign was his first test of exectutive ability, and he passed. His next test was choosing a running mate who could do 3 things: 1) help him win, 2) help him govern, and 3) be able to be president should the need arise.

          McCain has been claiming for months that he ALWAYS puts country first. Then, he chooses a running mate who may help him win, but has no apparent skills to help him govern, and zero demonstrated ability to be president. So this is about McCain, not Palin. He is a hypocrite on the most important issue imaginable, which is looking out for us before he looks out for himself.

          Beyond that…your post below about Obama’s speaking style is silly. His audible pauses bother you. Big deal. Get over it. It has zero to do with his ability to govern.

          As for cc below. What is YOUR interpretation of Palin’s invocation of God?

          And no….I don’t have paranoia about religion, nor do I think anyone with believes is a zealot. Biden, Obama, and Pelosi are all religous. None are zealots. Nor is McCain for that matter. Palin is on record as wanting to prohibit abortion in all cases, even the case of a 14 year old raped and impregnated by a relative. She said in the inteview this was her “personal belief.” She did not say this should be the law of the land based on anything other than this belief. By definition, this is seeking to impose one’s religious beliefs on others.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Oh, and by the way Dean, on the Georgia thing – I gotta love the “outbreak of violence” thing.

    Hey, Obama, Russia invaded you idiot.

    Violence didn’t just break out their like a case of acne. Russia invaded far beyond the Ossetia region in question. 300 foreign policy advisors and Mr. Ahhhh Ah ahhhh is still this unclear on things?

    Good lord, if he is going to play all softball patsy like this it sure looks like any Obama meeting with Putin is going to be pretty close to Kennedy/Khrushchev.

    God forbid a guy this weak gets elected. Who knows though, maybe “Ahhhhhhh…ah. ahhhhhh…ah. ahhhhhh. ahhhhh” means something really scary in Russian.

    If I were Putin I would ask him to stop doing it. Hell, I don’t even need to be Putin, I ask people now if they start doing the Ahhhh Ahhh ahhh Ah thing with me to stop it. I consider it bad manners.

    “Look, could you stop saying Ahhhh Ahhhh ahhh Uhhh Uhhhh? What that means is you haven’t thought of what you were going to say before you started talking. That means you are wasting my time. Think about what you are going to say, then say it without me having to hear little Ahh Ahhh verbalizations of the gears turning in your brain sound. Do you understand me?”

    I make a great impression on the first date. I guess the good thing is, for all my abrasiveness I am real clear on things before a date, No Ahhhh ahhh Ahhh Ahhhh stuff, and in a four piece place setting, do you know which fork to use? In a five piece setting, are you still clear on things?

    For the Record I also cant stand

    “You know what I mean……… know what I mean…… you know what I mean” people

    The voice getting higher, trailing off and ending every statement in a somewhat interrogatory manner – people

    People who constantly shrug during a conversation, look are you sure about what you are saying or not? Make up your mind, because if you are constantly telling me things you feel unsure about, then why I am bothering to listen to them? Its like I am listening to them guess at things.

    People who do the tilt your head back, eyes half closed make your statement real slow thing – Oh god do I hate that one. It takes forever to have a conversation with them and with the closing the eyes thing I never know if that means they are afraid to look at me, or if they get sleepy when they think to hard or maybe they are trying to get in bed with me. Who the hell ever thought up that one?

    • dean

      Maybe I am “an idiot,” and maybe you missed some things. Yes…Russia invaded Georgia, but preceding that Georgia invaded South Ossetia. So “the outbreak of violence” preceded Russia’s invasion, and it was not Russia that initiated the violence, though they did compound it. I don’t think Obama was “unclear.” He was clear enough to recognize that this was not a black and white, right or wrong conflict. And he was smart enough to avoide empty saber ratteling, even though that might have scored him some political points he needs right now. McCain, that experienced pol on the other hand, seemed intent on escalating the conflict even when we had no means to do so, apparently to show how tough he is with other people’s lives.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Yep, Obama is a real wiz on the Georgia thing….Ahhhh…ahhh… Id go to the Un, Yep, that’s the voice of experience. How ingenious, I mean thats a solution that really requires experience, and who would have thought the solution of the UN would come from a lefty like Obama? I mean what are the odds?

        Unfortunately for you, and God help us the rest of the country if this nitwit is elected, Obama does have experience, but not foreign policy. His experience is with Liberal boiler plate. It sure worked with you didn’t it?

        A guy says take it to the UN and you are fooled into thinking that’s intelligence. My dog knows knows that when you want to keep the left happy, say you’d take it to the UN. It sure worked with you, I mean you are eating it up. Obama, Mr. Depth.

        Give up, this was about Palin and Obama, so far you haven’t shown jack that shows he is really any more experienced than she is. But you did throw up some nice straw man arguments though.

  • cc

    “”People” don’t side with Palin Jerry. Some do, some don’t and some are still trying to figure her out.”

    deanie boy, “people” in Jerry’s post is exactly accurate if you have a lick of sense (snort). Check the polls, the majority of “people” do “side with Palin”. What a hilarious “argument” you make about this inportant subject. This is much like your other arguments – full of humor and wisdom. How you can shift from not understanding plain English one minute to being a screechy, preachy, whiner the next is remarkable.

    “2. The key question about her remains unanswered, which is her propensity to mix her religion with our public policy”

    That question, were it actually phrased as a question (or even a sentence, for that matter), is based on your own paranoia about religion, dean. There’s no evidence that she has or would try to “impose” her religious beliefs on you or your “family”. ANYONE with regligious beliefs appears to be a “zealot” to you. Admit it, you’re just prejudiced against them. You lump them all together as “dangerous” based on that one characteristic.

    “2 ways to interpret this. She thinks it really is God’s, not just Bush’s plan to have us at war in Iraq. Or she thinks that by praying on it this will make it so.”

    Make that 2 ways to *misinterpret* this – although I’m quite sure you have your usual bagful of misinterpretations and logically faulty conclusions ready at hand. What a joke.

    99% of your “comments” aren’t based on anything in the interview (or reality, for that matter), they’re just rehashes of your pre-formed opinions, sprinkled with your usual nonsensical, off-topic anyalyses of view angles, obtuse “definitions” of terms and onanistic verbosity. When you do cite facts they are incidental to your “points” – which are are based solely on your opinions. Your “facts” are always couched in “…it appears…”, “…I got the sense that…”. They are a pathetic assortment of wilful misinterpretations and paranoid extrapolations of your own assumptions. How many bales of straw do you have there in that moldy barn, dean?

    You give disingenousness a bad name.

    • Anonymous

      Dean’s problem comes down to the fact, that “The word of God is as a two edged sword, cutting assunder the soul and the spirit.” It scares him because God knows him and he can’t deal with it.

  • John in Oregon

    Dean the discussion here is the misbehavior and Journalistic malpractice of the media. For you to turn the discussion to be about Palin is no different than blaming the girl for the rape, or blaming the patient for the medical malpractice.

    Dean you say the Bush doctrine > *question could have been interpreted in different ways.*

    Could have? .As though the facts are open to discussion? And you retain the right to blame Palin?

    The fact is she responded, quite sensibly to a question that is at best ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

    The fact also remains that Gibson acted in a way that was, in the best possible light, rude, and in the worst an example of Journalistic manipulation.

    Dean, you said that Palins responses were scripted. Well of course. As are Obamas, McCains, Bidens, Clintons, and any other politician you wish to name. Get used to it. It is part of the political game. But you reach miles too far that Palin scripted is equal to Palin the ignorant rube.

    > *I don’t know what the correct God quote is or was. I’ve seen different versions.*

    Sooo as long as you don’t know then Gibson didn’t lie?

    Dean I get it that you don’t understand prayer or those that go to church.

    I also got it that you don’t understand conservatives, traditionalists or the US heartland.

    Sadly I also thought your understood a compound English sentence. By the way, your quote has the words correct but the transcription from spoken to written English was incorrect, I have corrected that here.

    “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right, also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending out on a task that is from God.”

    A complex sentence conveys a series of thoughts around a single unifying theme. It breaks down like this.

    1] Oh Lord, Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right.
    2] Lord we also pray for this country.
    3] Dear Lord we also pray that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending out on a task that is from God.

    So, Dean, is your excuse for Gibson that he doesn’t have the ability to handle a complex English sentence?

    > *The key question about her remains unanswered, which is her propensity to mix her religion with our public policy.*

    Fair enough. Please state precisely when, where, and how her propensity occurred. You say it, now prove it!

    Here, unlike another Politician, Palin has a public record of governing from the center. (USA Today, 9-11-08)

    Sauce good for the goose is good for the gander. Since you brought it up would you like to discuss Father Pfleger and Reverend Wright? Isnt it interesting that Gibson asked Palin her personal views on abortion and asked Obama what his grandmother said when he won the primary?

    You comment about Palins personal views on abortion as > *an extreme a position as exists on this issue, and what I want to know is, does she intend to impose that “personal view” on my domestic partner, my niece, any 16 year old raped by her grandpa, and the rest of the women and girls of America who may not agree with her “personal view.”*

    Her public record demonstrates that she governs from the center in this regard. (USA Today, 9-11-08)

    Dean you throw around the word extremist with great ease. Lets examine that a bit more closely, what is extreme? Historically the court decision, Roe V Wade, originally permitted unrestricted abortion during the first 3 months. Now expanded to abortion on demand until the day of birth.

    That’s a bit past what is generally supported by the public. But just what is “Extremist”?

    On the pro-life side there are generally three positions. Exceptions for mothers life and rape, exception for mothers life, and no exceptions at all. I will leave it to the reader to consider the merits of each of those three positions based on the readers personal beliefs.

    The thing is Dean you have conveniently ignored the extremes on the pro-abortion side of the equation. The health of the mother (the mother has a headache), or that a baby that survives an abortion should be allowed to die.

    Here also there is a public record. One of the few for Obama, that he opposes the “Born alive protection act”. That’s an extreme position even among supporters of abortion.

    But the point is, Gibson asked Palin her views and did NOT ask Obama.

    • dean

      John…Obama has been interviewed, has debated, and has speechified on national and international issues for over 18 months, not counting his Senate voting record. He has had a web site up for that whole time that spells out his positions on all the major issues of the day. His pastor has been u-tubed, his every utterance recorded and dissected. He has written 2 books about himself and what his political philosophy is. The media and the public have had ample time to figure out his fitness for the job he has applied for.

      For Palin, up until 2 or 3 weeks ago I imagine 90% of Americans had no idea who she was. She burst onto the scene, made a speech written by someone else, de;ivered it well, then made more short speeches which were versions of what she said initially. Now she has been subjected to all of one interview. Gibson attempted to shed some light on her positions. She danced and charmed pretty well and avoided being pinned down, usinf well rehearsed talking points provided by others. She has written no books, no articles I am aware of, her paper trail is thin, and her entire knowledge and experience seem to be of, for, and about Alaska. A state that has little in common with the rest of the US.

      On abortion, I agree with you that I may have overstated “extreme in Palin’s case. According to a 2007 Fox News poll (the only one I found that asked the specific question we need here):

      70% say abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest
      21% say it should not
      9% are unsure

      So If this poll is reasonably accurate, Palin’s position is out of the mainstream by a wide margin. Is it “extreme”? We report, you decide. I’ll withdraw my characerization in the interest of cyber peace.

      I don’t know how you came up with “you don’t understand prayer or those who go to church.” I was raised in the Greek Orthodox Church, my parents, later in life were pillars of their congregation, my mom serving on the board and as the kitchen supervisor for their main fundraising events and festivals. I have plenty of friends and neighbors who are church or temple goers. My partner was raised fundamentalist Christian. While I am a commited agnostic (let the mystery be is my motto,) I think I know the difference between praying for some event or action to take place and assuming God has given someone a particular mission or task. Its the latter I am concerned about in Palin’s case, particularly after the Bush experience. If she thinks she has a direct God pipeline and is doing His will in public policy, then I have a problem with that, because that belief leads to a smug certainty that leads to trouble for you and me right here in River City with a capital T.

      Is that her position? I don’t know. I can’t tell from her answer to Gibson. Perhaps he should have just asked her directly: “Do you believe God is directing your decision and actions with respect to public policy?. But I expect she would have nuanced her answer. She is politicaly savvy enough to not let her antennas pop up in public.

      From what I have read (excellant piece in the current New Yorker,) it appears to be true that in her short stint as governor of what is essentially a very libertarian minded populace, she has not put forward any law or rule that would impose her religous views. (The library book thing when she was mayor is being over played by the left in my opinion). Imposing fundamentalist views would not fly in Alaska, and would risk her high popularity gained by raising taxes on the rich energy companies and mailing checks to everyone else. And all this makes me wonder. Is she the saviour that the Republican right wing seems to think she is? Or is she something new? A fairly libertarian minded politician who embodies the western frontier myth of rugged self sufficiency, yet also is trruly for the little guy against the big monied interest. I frankly don’t know the answer and am eager to find out over the next few weeks. So little is known about her that she is something of a rorschach test for Americans. My left is assuming the worst about her. Your right is assuming the best based on the very same ink blot. What independents ultimately assume is what will matter in this election. So far they seem to be leaning your way, but 50 days is a long time in a close election.

      You said the original post was about so-called “journalistic misbehavior.” I called BS on it. Gibson did not “misbehave.” He asked questions in the comfort of Palin’s living room. Some were softballs, some were harder. Her “in what respect” answer was deer in the headlights. She could have said “which Bush doctrine.” And her follow up sugggesting it was his “world view” was bizzare. Since when is a doctrine a wrold view? She was lost because she just has not dealt with any of these issues, and apparently has not even read much about them over the past 7 years.

      Anyway, the issue is not about Gibson,who is not running for anything, it is about Palin, who has been put forward for the 2nd most important political position in our nation. Who is she? What does she think or know about the affairs of the nation and world? What are her capabilities. What is her political philosophy? How does she reconcile her religion with her politics? How does she intend to actually “reform” Washington? How will she help McCain govern? Is she ready to be president should his 72 year old body or mind fail?

      Here is what I have determined to date:

      1) She seems inteligent enough, but knows very little about the affairs of the nation and world, or at least has not demonstrated any such knowledge to date.
      2) She knows a lot about Alaska and seems to embody some it its best and worst virtues (best: rugged individualism, physical and dare I say spiritual connection to place. Worst: pork barrel dependency on federal funding. Reliance on oil and gas revenues (from oil and gas from FEDERAL LAND) for just about everything (an ice bound sheikdom.)
      3) She has a “conservative” political philosophy, but it is unclear whether she leans more libertarian or more towards social control.
      4) She seems to have no clue about how to “reform” Wasington. She loved earmarks before she hated them, yet still does not really hate them. Beyond that….nothing yet. Unless she plans to sell Air Force One on e-bay and fire the White house chef.
      5) There is no indication yet that she can or will help McCain actually govern. I expect she would be shunted aside right after the election and given small tasks, like the VPs of yesteryear. She may have plenty of time for motherhood after all.
      6) She is very far from ready to be president. So if they win I will “pray” to whatever universal powers I can locate for McCain’s continued good health and suggest you do likewise.

      • Crawdude

        Dean, McCain picking her is looking like a great move. Obama and her experience is close and leaning a bit her way. Biden has been relegated to red eye news reports……articles say he can’t get reporters to fly on the same plane since hes a non-story.

        McCain is free to campaign while Obama and Palin duke it out. People don’t vote for vice presidents, Obama would do well to disengage from Palin and try to get her out of the media spotlight. Right now hes playing into the GOPs hand , like an inexperienced boxer fall prey to a vetereans jab.

        Obama is 4 points behind on likely voters and the feeble attacks on Palin by liberal media hacks are so tranparent that no one cares.

        Your boy is starting to flounder and thats with a huge dollar lead. He better get his head back in the game, and soon!

  • Larry

    Wow, I was ‘lost in that blizzard of words’ since yesterday at this time.

    So even though I replied upthread, I repeat myself for those who don’t look closely to see specific replies to specific comments (which I also don’t do).


    Thanks for your 2nd comment (not 18:16 but 18:28), which you identify the EXACT full quote (not the many other times Palin speaks of God that are located on the internet). That is the quote in question. That is the quote that Charlie lied about (lie of omission), when he stated “exact quote”. Charlie is in fact a liar, on national TV. And that his producers edited out Gov Palin’s objections shows their hesitation.

    Back to your confusion on which way to take Gov Palin’s full quote:
    “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

    dean says:
    “2 ways to interpret this. She thinks it really is God’s, not just Bush’s plan to have us at war in Iraq. Or she thinks that by praying on it this will make it so. Either way….thanks but no thanks. I’d rather see her pray that God’s plan is for peace to suddenly break out in Iraq.”

    I disagree. I thought that she was saying that we should pray “that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” If we pray, and discover (prayer is kind of a two way conversation with God, we ask, God listens, then we wait and hopefully hear God’s reply) that God’s plan is different than what we thought it was.

    In other words, we should pray “that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” And if we hear from God “Nope. That is NOT my plan.” then we should (obviously) find out what IS God’s plan, and then follow THAT (God’s) plan.
    # Larry on 2008-09-14 20:37 (Reply)

    • dean

      CD…we find ourselves in near total agreement. Obama has to get the campaign back to between him and McCain and their respective visions of where to take the nation, and let others deal with Palin. I actually think he is ahead of us on this point, but it will take days and weeks for the post Palin world to settle in and for him to get down to the business of spotlighting McCain. Given how close things are (closer than 4 points in most polls,) the upcoming debates are probably going to be what decides the election, and neither of the 2 main candidates is a great 1 on 1 debater. McCain has the big mo right now, but let’s see how long he keeps it. What with the latest wall street financial meltdown, things might turn the other way, particularly given his lack of an economic strategy beyond more free markets. A self-righting sailboat is a comfort when tipping over, but federal economic policy is supposed to prevent the over turning from actually happening, and we are listing pretty hard to starboard.

      Larry….I appreciate and accept your interpretation. My concern remains her actually believing she is hearing God say, “Yes, go for it Sister,” or “No…I wouldn’t do that if I were you.” If one reaches a conclusion about an action based on objective analysis and consideration of consequences, that is one thing. And if one prays one has made the right decision, no problem. That is how I understood the Lincoln quote. But if one bases her decisions on believing she has heard what God wants her to do after praying on it, then that in effect absolves her of the choice and puts the responsibility for the outcome on God.

      That is where I can’t go. The “hearing God’s reply” part. It leads to a false certainty and an inability to admit error, because God can’t possibly be wrong. See George Bush for the poster child. I want to know: does Sara Palin pray to God and wait to hear God’s voice before deciding on policy? If the answer is yes…I’d prefer to not have her in the White House, whether 2nd chair or 1st.

      But thanks for your thoughtful explanation.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Hey Dean, Running away again? What’s up, still trying to think of a defense for Nancy Pelosi after you criticized Palin?

    Oh, that’s right, because Palin used the word GOD.

    Look, we all know you only get scared if Republicans use God in their words. Democrats can say they are doing gods work all day long and you wouldn’t bat an eye. Never question your masters Dean.

    You’re a partisan pure and simple.

    If Pelosi stood up and said she hoped God would make her an instrument of his will, you wouldn’t be scared at all. She’s a Democrat and you never, ever, will criticize a Democrat, especially after criticizing a Republican for doing something close but less egregious.

    Why don’t you just flat up say it then?

    If Palin scares you because of her mention of God, why doesn’t it scare you when Pelosi does the same thing?

    Nancy Pelosi – Who hopes God will make her an instrument of his will. And Dean wont ever have a problem with that, because she’s a Democrat.

    That’s a gotcha Dean, caught again. You’re just a partisan, not a lot of thought there.

    Anything a Democrat does is right in Deans world.

    Do what master says Dean, don’t question your leaders. And I mean EVER!

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Oh Gee, and what else has Pelosi said? Oh, that’s right, she also said God has blessed us with Obama back in August.

    Gee, and Dean didn’t have a problem with that at all.

    Nope, no sireee.

    Remember, never, ever, question authority Dean.

    Pelosi said it, she’s a Democrat, its ok.

    Palin said it, she’s a Republican, that’s bad.

    Follow the boiler plate, avoid independent thought.

    Sometimes its like shooting fish in a barrel with you Dean, well, lets face it, most times. This time though is especially good for some reason, I guess because your partisanship is so ridiculously obvious.

    Ok Dean, I am having some sympathy for you, here is your “out”

    Try claiming its totally different with Pelosi because she is speaker of the house which is different than vice president. Cross at speaker of the house is a little more powerful job than veep.

    That might work Dean, who knows, art any rate, you have been caught again in your “Napoleon is always right” thinking.

    Of course you could always try the truth “Gee, I guess maybe you were right, I should have been just as scared of Pelosi saying those wacky God things as I was about Palin. That’s pretty lame of me to all of a sudden have this reaction to it because Palin said it”

    But of course we both know that will never happen. You are incapable of admitting when you are wrong, even when caught dead to rights yet again.

    • dean

      Rupert…your frantic writing on this topic leads me to believe you are working overtime to convince yourself, not me. Let me state it bluntly for you.

      I have no problem with political leaders, including Palin and Pelosi invoking God per se. “God help us,” God bless us,” “God D**m us” and so forth. Fine. I have no problem with them praying and talking about their prayers….for peace, for justice….to deliver Ahmidinijad a boil on his tushie….whatever.

      I have a problem with political leaders who think they are actually doing God’s work because they think they heard God’s voice telling them to do this or that. I don’t want people running the country who hear voices, even holding open the possibility that those voices could actually be from God herself..

      With the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, and we know how his presidency turned out, I can’t think of a single Democratic political leader who stated or implied that they were doing God’s work on earth based on mesages recieved. If you know of any, and can give me a citation, great. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke here.

      Republicans on the other hand, as the party of the Bible belt, have tried to co-opt God for their political purposes for years. Mostly I think they are just cynical and take advantage of their followers. I doubt Bush actually believes half of what he claims.

      I don’t know yet about Palin. Do you? Is she recieving direction from God? Has He told her to appoint Supreme justices who will overturn Roe vs Wade? Has he told her our nation is on a “mission from God” in Iraq? Or is she also simply a manipulator?

      You want to roll the dice on her with your vote… my guest. But based on your past posts that complain about liberals imposing all sorts of things on you, I advise you take a step back and be objective for a few moments, and listen to what she says in response to questions. That is unless you are hearing direct from God to vote for her. In that case let’s assume if God wants her in, he will talk to an additional 50% of voters so that his team can win the election.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Frantic? Not really. Just simply listing all the God stuff democrats have said recently that you didn’t have a problem with but now when a Republican does it, big problem.

    I just simply love pointing out your partisanship and non thoughtfulness, for some sick and twisted reason it gives me a lot of joy. Your “Napoleon is always right” attitude is funny to me, and I have never seen a clearer example of it in an individual as I have in you, I guess it just makes me giddy. It really does.

    Now examples. Oh gee, nice glossing over what I have already listed, now get to the point.

    Let’s see, I listed Pelosi. She claims to know God has blessed us with Obama. She said it just last month.

    Gee, and you didn’t have a problem with that, and that sure claims knowledge of Gods work.

    She also claims to be capable of saving the planet, I mean if she thinks its her mission, she must think she is capable of it. She didn’t cite the deity in that one. I guess its just her own magic.

    One thing you are right on, is you don’t know yet about Palin, I see that didn’t stop you from saying you were scared of her because of one God comment. Pelosi seems to have done a lot more, but yet you aren’t scared. Oh yeah, that’s right, Pelosi is a Democrat.

    As far as Palin imposing her values on me, get real, that Democrats who do that way more than Republicans. Al Gores and his moral AGW crusade ( he has said it himself, so don’t start going off on AGW not being a moral cause ), Obama’s idiotic morality with capitol gains taxes as well as his income redistribution programs (and don’t say those aren’t about imposing his morality, the haloed one himself has called them moral or basic justice issues ) all pose a far greater threat to imposition of morality than even the wackiest thing Palin has said.

    So anyway, there you go, why don’t you try sticking to the point and see if you can weave a good yarn as to how Pelosi claiming to know gods will is and different than Palins.

    Good luck, I know it will be interesting, and we all know you will never ever admit to judging Palin more harshly than Pelosi. Democrat good, Republican bad, follow your leaders Dean.

  • John in Oregon

    Interesting new pole data from Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll yesterday. This was the first poll including only surveys conducted after the first excerpts of the Palin-Gibson interview hit the news and it replaced the last day of surveys conducted before that happened.

    The results, McCain / Palin broke out of a week or more or less being tied with Obama to show a 3% point lead at 50-47%. It also marked the first *plus 50 day* for the McCain / Palin ticket. Obama has not yet crossed 50 on any day part pole.

    I don’t take much stock in poles, but I do wonder is this a Gibson bounce?

    Woo, Woo Gibson way to go. Nice job knocking down Sarah from the Sticks.

    Thanks Dean for leting us know that Alaska is the Sticks.

    • dean

      John…I didn’t know I said anything about Alaska being “the sticks.” What I do know about Alaska, based on 2 working visits and some research is that it is not like anyplace else in the United States. Here are a few factoids:

      1: 99% of the land is publicly owned and managed (state, federal, tribal)
      2: 70% of state revenue is from oil and gas extraction (Palin imposed a windfall profits tax on energy companies that significantly increased state taxes).
      3: No state sales or income tax.
      4: Anywhere you are in Alaska, you are within about a mile from a true wilderness that has large animals that may decide to eat you for lunch.
      5: There are basically 2 seasons, cool and light, cold and dark.
      6: Very non-partisan politics. Independents are in effect the largest party.
      7: Largest recipient of federal pork spending in the nation per capita, year after year.
      8: Very high alchoholism and spousal abuse. Way higher than anywhere else in the US.
      9: Marijuana is effectively legal. Hooray for that one.
      10: One of the lowest church going rates in the nation, if not the lowest.
      11: One of the highest, if not the highest percent of population as Native Americans.
      12: If you get lost, have a car breakdown, or sprain your ankle on a hike, you very well may die right where you are. This focuses your attention on preparation and self-sufficiency, which I think Palin exhibits with her self confidence, and this is an attribute I join you in admiring about her.
      13: There is very little farming or ranching, for obvious reasons.
      14: Nevertheless, one can grow huge fruits and vegetables because of the long summer daylight, but the taste of them is lousy.
      15: Just about everything costs a fortune bbecause it is flown in from afar. As rugged and self sufficient as Alaskans think they are, they remain utterly dependent on the rest of the US for all sorts of necesities and most luxuries.
      16: Fairbanks has a unique problem known as “ice smog” because they leave their cars running all winter and get air inversions. Yuk.

      My only point is that any politician, Democrat or Republican, who has spent their entire adult lives and career in Alaska would have little clue about the politics or lives of people in the rest of the nation unless they are avid students of “outside” as they call it in Alaska. From all indications, Sara Palin has not been an avid student of life outside her very large, very beautiful, very sparsly populated, and very remote state.

      Have you been there?

      Rupert….you are stuck on Pelosi. OK…she said God has blessed us with Obama? I’ll accept your claim. Its like saying God has blessed us with a sunny day today. I have no problem with it, regardless if uttered by a Democrat or Republican. She apparently did not say:

      “God told me he sent Obama here on a mission to clean up the mess left behind by the Republican Party: crashing financial system, crashing home values, heating planet, unresolved wars, mounting federal debt, inept and corrupt managers appointed to head federal agencies, deteriorating infrastructure, declining wages, increasing costs of health care, energy and food, and a world that increasingly hates and fears us.”

      Had she said all that, while I would agree with her critique, I would think she was a major loon for believing she was hearing direct from God. I would say to her…”Nancy, if God wants Obama to be president, why doesn’t he or she simply rig the voting machines in Ohio? Why go to all this trouble?”

      • Jerry

        Dean – you have, perhaps unwittingly, made the case for Sarah. Nothing about her is ordinary. She is from a tough place. She is tough. We like that.
        The less baggage she carries concerning “knowing” politics as usual, the better.

        One can hardly wait for the VP debate.

        Stand up Chuck!

        • dean

          Jerry…not unwittingly. The case for her is she is a new face with an admirable background and personal traits not hip deep in Washington toxic muck. The case against her is her policies appear to be exactly the same as Bush, and she is a know-nothing on national and international affairs. You like conservative know-nothings and I don’t. That is why we vote opposite.

          • Harry

            “You like conservative know-nothings and I don’t. I like liberal know-nothings who are clean, articulate, and black. That is why we vote opposite.”

            Just thought I’d make clear your preferences.

            To be against Obama (NOBama) does not make me a racist, just as being FOR Obama does not make you a racist.

          • dean

            Thanks for sharing.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)