Originally Posted By DAR <<And guys like this one are calling the Democratic candidate "elitist".>> I attended the University of Wisconsin Madison, trust me people like that are allll ooovvvverrrr the place.
Originally Posted By dshyates Well, its obvious that you must be stoned on illegal drugs to disagree with the GOP platform. Duh! Do I need to mention Obama snorted pot and cocaine?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I'm past outrage at this point and have gone full circle to "amused".<< Welcome to our select club. Have a moose burger.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Well, its obvious that you must be stoned on illegal drugs to disagree with the GOP platform. Duh!>> But as I stated before I don't think these people exactly agree with Obama's positions either. These are kooks of the highest order. The difference being the left sends their kooks to the streets. The right keeps there's on a compound in Montana.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's not unusual for Hollywood celebrities to vote Democratic. But here's one who is getting politically active for the first time ever because he is so outraged by the inclusion of Sarah Palin on the ticket. <a href="http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/rocky11.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.animationarchive.or...ky11.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And another... <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/1/18/CaptKangaroo&Mr_Moose.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.sourcewatch.org/ima...oose.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By mapleservo I'm not terribly political (and I'm not even American) but I'm finding all this stuff pretty interesting... I came across this article from Salon's Glenn Greenwald regarding Sarah Palin's convention speech and some polls which looked at how she was received. <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/05/palin/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...dex.html</a> Amazing. I also thought her negativity would hurt her, but it doesn't seem to be doing so in the short term. The last few posts from Greenberg are pretty interesting as well. (I thought the little blurb about her pilgrimage to see Ivana Trump was pretty funny.) <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/03/halperin/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...dex.html</a> Just thought I'd toss this out there.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***But the idea that Americans instinctively recoil from negativity or that there will be some sort of backlash against Republicans generally and Palin specifically because of how "negative" their convention speeches were is pure fantasy.*** Yup. Negativity works, people like it. Enough people to make it highly effective, anyway. ***Every four years, the GOP unleashes unrestrained personality attacks on Democrats and exploits cultural resentments. Every four years, Democrats tell themselves that such attacks don't work and are counter-productive. And every four years, that belief is disproven. These "character" issues end up mattering largely because Democrats, in election after election, allow wars over "character" to be waged in a largely one-sided fashion.*** Absolutely agreed, 100%.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The RNC/McCain mistakes (intentional disregard for permission?) just keep coming. The infamous green screen, which at one juncture was the front lawn of the Walter Reed Middle School serving as a "homey" backdrop for McCain, was used without their permission. So what's the scorecard? How many songs, including Heart's Barracuda and now this? <a href="http://reedmstech.com/home/2008/09/05/republican-national-convention/" target="_blank">http://reedmstech.com/home/200...vention/</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <***Every four years, the GOP unleashes unrestrained personality attacks on Democrats and exploits cultural resentments. Every four years, Democrats tell themselves that such attacks don't work and are counter-productive. And every four years, that belief is disproven. These "character" issues end up mattering largely because Democrats, in election after election, allow wars over "character" to be waged in a largely one-sided fashion.***> Boy howdy. I'm thankful to read some of the moderates here saying the negativity in Palin's speech and others was a turn-off, but maybe we just have more thoughtful people on average than the general electorate. Because so often, that crap seems to work. I'm still of two minds about fighting fire with fire, though. Part of me says we should attack strongly, but only on substantive matters. Pound home the message that Palin does not have the record they're claiming for her, and that we don't want this woman one 72-year-old heartbeat from being most powerful person in the world. Pound home all of McCain's flip flops and his constant pandering to the far right in the last two years. Pound home how he supports Bush's policies down the line and, as inlandemporer said, being Bush without the corruption is NOT a fundamental change. Most of me says that, in fact. But I admit to part of me that wants to give it right back to them, the same cheap stuff that should have no place in a campaign, but often works distressingly well. It's like one of those Donald Duck cartoons where he's got "angel Donald" on one shoulder and "devil Donald" on the other, and they're each telling him what he should do...
Originally Posted By oc_dean Well .. I'm only to post 60 so far... but I want to say how brave I thought you all were for watching The Big Show. Because .. that's all it was. A show. I couldn't. I would have just wanted to spit. But why ruin my LCD tv? ;-) Now, I'd like to tell the McCain/Republican ShowStoppers... You're show was all nice and peppy ... but 'Put your "money" where your mouth is.'
Originally Posted By Elderp This clip from the GOP convention was hilarious: <a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/33480/the-tonight-show-republican-national-convention" target="_blank">http://www.hulu.com/watch/3348...nvention</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck Those young ladies are attractive and spunky, and did a great job on camera. Hey, they're qualified to be a Republican VP candidate!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Those young ladies are attractive and spunky, and did a great job on camera. Hey, they're qualified to be a Republican VP candidate!> I watched the Sunday talk shows, and that's essentially what the right-leaning pundits all said - Palin's "qualified" because shes attractive, spunky, and knows how to perform for the camera. A couple threw in the talking points "maverick" and "proven executive" and all that, but their hearts weren't even in it. It was all about how attractive and spunky she was.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>It was all about how attractive and spunky she was.<< It is THOSE kind of people who should have their right to vote revoked from them! There should be an "IQ" type test to show how intelligent a person is .. before the right to vote is given!
