Comments on: Ten Questions follow up: Blue Star Mom Deborah Johns

By: Final Frontier

Final Frontier — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:01:20 +0000

Seriously? Why vet Joe te Plumber? Becuase they made him a centerpiece of McCain’s debate, that is why!!!! It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that maybe they should check up on the guy before Mccain mentions him 8 times in a debate. Duh. As for Bristol Palin, please show me where the Obama campaign was anything but nice. Obama established early on that families were out of bounds, and they did nothing about this. So if you want to go off the campaign reservation and look at what supporters did rather than the campaigns themselves, your side looks far worse. far worse.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 16:46:19 +0000

Okay, FF, here’s my questions for you.

What did Bristol Palin’s pregnancy or the fact Governor Palin has a five-month old child have to do with her qualifications to be VP? Is that only going to be directed at female candidates? If so that’s pretty sexist.

I believe the poll regarding 60% disapproval of Palin was pre-election while the poll that 89% of Republicans who said Palin either had no effect on or helped the ticket was post-election.

When did Obama release his medical records? He must have done that late in the game.

Now about negative campaigning. I’ll cheerfully admit that I don’t recall seeing a single McCain spot on TV and the Obama ones I saw were reasonably positive. Honestly, I watch very little TV. However, when you talk about the Harris/Kratovil race, the spots provided by outside organizations tended to be the negative ones, but both candidates provided their share from their own campaigns.

Unfortunately, negative camapigns work. I don’t like them but they seem to sell.

Now let’s discuss Joe the Plumber. If Barack Obama had come up to me and talked about something I questioned, believe me I would have asked something along that same line. But Joe didn’t become an icon because of his question, Barack Obama made him an icon because of his “spread the wealth” answer. It showed Barack’s true intentions.

But why would you have to vet a private citizen who didn’t work for the McCain campaign, had no official position there, and simply wanted to ask a man who would be President a question? Is there now a rule that asking a liberal candidate who is a darling of the press a question the press wouldn’t dare ask gives implicit permission to dredge up any foibles of his past? We found out more about Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher in three days than we found out about Barack Hussein Obama in eighteen months insofar as his private affairs go.

There was a saying in the eighties – “Question Authority”. Is that not allowed under the Messiah? (Not my words, those were Louis Farrakhan’s.) Well, then call me guilty as charged.

By: Final Frontier

Final Frontier — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:19:09 +0000

Give me a break! The media hounded Palin? She got a free pass for the first 2 weeks, and then had to answer really, really tough questions like: which newspapers do you read? Answer: all of them. Follow-up: can you name a single newspaper? Answer: no. Did you see Palin’s medical records? Nope. She was the only one who did not release them, but the press gave her a pass on that. When was the poll taken that you cite, about Palin’s approval rating? I’d love to know if it was before or after the election. Negative campaigning? Seriously, you want to try to argue that the Obama campaign was even close to as negative as the McCain campaign? Wow. You are a smart guy. If you cannot see that the McCain/Harris campaigns’ focus on the negative was a significant factor in their defeat, then you might not be as smart as I think you are. In all honesty I think I saw 1 or 2 positive McCain ads (defined as those that explain what the candidate intends to do rather than focuses on attacking the other guy), and I saw loads of negative ones. Obama never attacked Palin, and Biden never suggested she was not fit to be vp. The closest to a negative ad I saw was Obama’s suggestion that McCain’s healthcare plan sucked. Notice hte difference: Obama went after a proposed plan, not after the guy. You snide comment about the 57 states is a perfect example of what you all did wrong: all thinking human beings understand that Obama mispoke. You guys, however, tried to suggest that the past editor of the Harvard Law Review didn’t know how many states there are. It undermined your credibility and made you look petty while Obama was discussing issues of substance (even if you disagree with them–how were wwe to know since your focus was on negativity rather than issues?). Then you elevate Joe the Plumber to iconic status without vetting him—the guy skips out on a campaign rally and makes McCain look foolish! Joe the Plumber is all about himself, not McCain. Kinda like Sarah Palin. I know this is all Monday morning quarterbacking, but I cannot believe you seriously think the negative campaigning was even close.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 03:56:57 +0000

See, FF, the problem with your theory is that you’re thinking of how the world is here and now while I’m pondering what things may be like four years hence. Oh, and by the way, 20% had no opinion either way so only 11% said she hurt the ticket – they must be all disgruntled McCain aides.

If the media had hounded Barack Obama anywhere near as badly as they hounded Sarah Palin, Obama’s negatives would have skyrocketed as well. Witness the screaming headlines about Palin’s so-called ethics violations compared with the probably page B-19 paragraph – “oh, Palin was cleared of any wrongdoing on that.”

And how did Barack Obama’s 51st through 57th states vote, anyway?

I will agree on the part about negative campaigns, but your side goes first.

By: Final Frontier

Final Frontier — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 01:53:06 +0000

AP announced that Kratovil defeated Harris! Yay!
Here’s some “helpful” advice from a liberal: keep running negative campaigns, go ahead and run Palin. You will get crushed. All we will need to do is mention the giant shopping spree and she is done. Not to mention leaked info about her lack of knowledge (Africa is a continent Sarah, really it is), and Tina Fey’s killer impression. If 69% of Republicans said it helped the ticket (when was that poll taken, by the way–before or after the election?), that means 31% said no. Add to the polls that show Palin’s unfavorables dramatically increasing as time wore on, and the fact that she chased away moderates in both parties and women all over. Yep, that sounds like the candidate for you!

By: Joe Blow

Joe Blow — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:45:17 +0000

Mike:

69% ain’t bad — it’s more Republican support than Dr. Andy Harris got in the election.

By: Inquiring Mind

Inquiring Mind — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:12:50 +0000

It’s elementary, Dr. Watson: 69% of Republicans is not a majority, or even a viable plurality.

Even with a crash course, would she be able to detect a fake phone call by “Nicholas Sarcozy” by then? Maybe she could do a stint as a presenter on “Entertainment Tonight” after she’s been voted out of office up north.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:28:44 +0000

Why would we ditch our most popular figure? 69% of Republicans said Palin helped the ticket. And when we’ll have a 4 year record of Obama/Biden to contrast a record of however long Sarah Palin remains Governor of Alaska, the choice will be clear.

It’s interesting that these moderate-to-liberal folks continue to give the Republicans “helpful” advice.

By: Inquiring Mind

Inquiring Mind — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:15:15 +0000

Sir:

You have answered my question of yesterday — the wake up call this week has gone unnoticed. If the GOP can’t understand or appreciate the situation, its fate is fixed.

An immediate action: ditch Palin — give her a big air-conditioned igloo with a special closet for her new wardrobe, or anything needed to keep her off the national stage.