The Roanoke Times: RoundTable

Comments

# 1

[September 5, 2008 12:20 PM]

Blue John

Dum-De-Dum-Dum

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26558445

# 2

[September 5, 2008 12:47 PM]

Josh

Today's column by Ellen Goodman echoes the oft-repeated liberal claim that Sarah Palin was chosen to "reel in disaffected Hillary voters". Do these liberals really think everything revolves around them?

Mrs. Palin was brought aboard to excite the conservative base which McCain needs in order to win. She apparently is doing that extremely well. Why on earth would you try to court a bunch of liberal Hillary voters?

Time for these folks to get over themselves.

# 3

[September 5, 2008 12:58 PM]

Will

Josh...

Probably to win an election...much for the same reason that conservatives seem to think that the world revolves around them.

Whether you like it or not, it is still one United States of America.

# 4

[September 5, 2008 1:00 PM]

Henry

House Ways and Means Chairman Chuck Rangel(D-NY) failed to report $78,000 in revenue from his villa in the Dominican Republic. His committe writes the tax code. He even reported some of the income to Congress but not the IRS.

Pelosi will have to ignore this scandal too. I guess this year won't be good for ending the "Culture of Corruption" just like last year with William Jefferson hanging over her head.

# 5

[September 5, 2008 1:14 PM]

Dan Radmacher

You're right, Josh. Why would anyone think McCain and Palin have any interest in attracting Hillary Clinton voters?

# 6

[September 5, 2008 1:55 PM]

Josh

Oh, sure, McCain of course will take any Hillary votes who can't stomach Obama, but to say that was the main reason for her choice is absurd. If your big goal was to attract liberal nuts, would you put up a pro-life pro-family, fiscally responsible conservative?

# 7

[September 5, 2008 3:00 PM]

Henry

Obama didn't need his VP adding to his negatives so he opted for the safe old white guy. The only problem is that Biden brought nothing to the table. Hillary would have energized the base but added negatives to the ticket.

McCain needed to answer Obama's freshness so he picked Palin. Palin added a bunch of freshness to the ticket. It also added a question mark because she is an unknown just like Obama. She polling well in the young crowd for now.

# 8

[September 5, 2008 7:03 PM]

Jim

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” - Obama

“I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security issue, maybe it’s comforting to pretend that everyone else was wrong, too.” - Palin

You gotta love the little lady. I think she's going to rip Biden's face off in the debate.

And my favorite blog quote of the day:

"Bullwinkle Hussein Obama just found out that its moose hunting season.
Bullwinkle Obama…. now I like the sounds of that…

CC

CapedConservative on September 5, 2008 at 2:27
PM

"Motion seconded,
motion carried…

…sound of gavel banging.

Bullwinkle Obama it is!!!

petunia on September 5, 2008 at 2:31 PM

# 9

[September 5, 2008 9:52 PM]

Will

Before all you sanctimonious Republicans start beating your drums...you better take a very close look at Mr. McCain's speech last evening.

Even the most conservative of Republican pundants claimed that McCain virtually divorced himself from the Republican party. Touting the need for change after the Republicans have held the White House for the past eight years is telling in and of itself.

It seems to me that McCain is merely echoing the same change message that Obama has been talking about. Perhaps the idea for change isn't as new to the Republicans as one might suspect it is. If McCain has indeed set himself up as yet another candidate of change, what does that tell you about what's been in Washington and the White House for the past eight years?

Hello??????

# 10

[September 5, 2008 10:29 PM]

NoComment

...and now McCain and the Republicans are calling for change... after 7 1/2 years of disaster and the 8 previous years trying to destroy the Clintons, our country be damned, they have to do a lot better than a Republican in sheeps clothing to get my vote back. I was a Republican for 30 years and now I'm ashamed to admit it. Thanks guys.

# 11

[September 6, 2008 12:09 AM]

Josh

Will,

I would assume the change McCain is talking about is putting a stop to the wasteful earmarks the Democrats promised to end in 2006, but never did. Proof that this is his intention is by choosing Sarah Palin, the well-known slasher of wasteful spending.

# 12

[September 6, 2008 7:35 AM]

Dan Radmacher

A well-known slasher of wasteful spending? I think you meant a well-known procurer of wasteful spending:

"Just this year, she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million — more, per person, than any other state."

This, even though the federal government is facing huge deficits and Alaska is so flush in cash from the increase in oil prices that the state gave $1,200 back to every citizen.

She went after earmarks with gusto as mayor of a small town, too: "Before she left office, Wasilla, with aid of the lobbyist and the blessing of Stevens and Rep. Don Young, got $27 million in earmarks, according to the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense." That's for a town of less than 10,000 people.

And let's not forget that she was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. Oh, and she may have turned down the bridge, but she didn't turn down the money.

Palin is a fraud. The American public won't be fooled.

# 13

[September 6, 2008 8:04 AM]

Danny

"the state gave $1,200 back to every citizen"

There's where the problem is, Dan. It's the fact that the government (gasp!) actually gave money back to the people.

And Palin is a fraud? What about your candidate? Wasn't is brought out that Biden was a plagerist? Isn't that closer the the definition of a fraud?

# 14

[September 6, 2008 8:56 AM]

Henry

I think you mean 8 years of Chicken Littles claiming the sky is falling. In reality, we have 8 years of steady growth, low unemployment and relative peace.

It's funny that Dan mentions earmarks but doesn't mention Joe Biden and Barack Obama's dealings with earmarks. He just focuses on Palin yet again. I guess there is no objectivity in journalism today. It exists solely to elect Democrats to office. It's like the cheerleading squad for Obama.

Welcome to the "We Hate Sarah Palin" club.

# 15

[September 6, 2008 9:21 AM]

Dan Radmacher

Henry,

It's funny that rather than address the blatant hypocrisy of Palin attempting to paint herself as an anti-earmark reformer when she's chin-deep in the trough that you try to divert attention to Obama and Biden and me.

Explain the disconnect between your candidate's rhetoric and actions, Henry.

I don't hate Sarah Palin. I just think she's not being honest.

# 16

[September 6, 2008 9:38 AM]

Josh

"Just this year, she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million — more, per person, than any other state."

I love the semantics sleight of hand, Dan. It's the 'per person' that exposes you. Alaska is unique in its huge size and special needs, coupled with relatively, as the MSM reminds us, low population. For Alaska, there are few mechanisms in place other than earmarks for funding necessary projects.

Most of the earmarks asked for were for transportation. Alaska, by necessity, has 732 airports (4th most in the U.S.) which that need maintained. The Alaska Railroad alone asked for $80 million, nearly half of the total of the $180 million your article mentioned. Compare that to the $44 million Governor Kaine wanted Virginians to pay for pre-K alone.

Let them drill in ANWR, Dan. Then you won't have to gripe about Alaska not paying it's way.

# 17

[September 6, 2008 10:09 AM]

Henry

"I just think she's not being honest"

But you don't seem to have a problem with Joe Biden's dishonesty. I believe that is called " blatant hypocrisy ".

You are gagging on a gnat and swallowing a camel here, Dan.

# 18

[September 6, 2008 10:23 AM]

Dan Radmacher

Let's see, Henry: Biden lifted a couple of lines from a British politician 20 years ago.

Palin is misrepresenting her position on earmarks right now, painting herself as a reformer when, in fact, she proudly got her tiny town $27 million in federal "wasteful spending."

I think you got the gnat and the camel mixed up, friend.

# 19

[September 6, 2008 4:22 PM]

Jim

Yeah, I picked up on that per capita misrepresentation as well. Basically, the RT just wants Obama to win, so they'll go to any lengths, even lying or passing along misinformation to do it.

Remember that time the RT tried to say that the Iraq war was our most expensive? In fact, if you combine the Gulf War with Operation Iraqi Freedom, it's the least expensive war as a percent of GDP we've ever undertaken.

Since the left, which the RT is an established part of, has nothing Palin, they resort to misrepresenting the facts. Dan says Palin is a fraud, but she got rid of waste and stood up to corporations for her state's fair share of support. No fraud there.

BUT the Democrats have this junior politician since 2004 :) who wanders outside of the country for God knows why, who flips on oil drilling, who flops on wire surveillance, flips on funding, and flops on Iraq. He has absolutely no legislative or policy depth and has hung out with anti-American political radicals for tens of years. Now THAT is a fraud and a danger if I've ever seen one.

# 20

[September 6, 2008 10:30 PM]

Henry

Obama created an earmark that went to the University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics. His wife then received an equivalent amount in a raise.