Palin still not ready for Meet the Press

[telcoman]

But she did make SNL

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21...77666

Perhaps after the election when she is no longer in the news she'll try Meet the Press?

Telcoman

[HashiriyaS14]

Yeah, there's no way she'll go on Meet The Press before the election.

McCain's no dummy, he knows she'd get eaten alive on that show.

Notice how McCain never stepped it up and went on a "liberal" talk show? Obama did O'Reilly, but we didn't see McCain go on Olbermann. What gives with that? He knew he'd get crunched.

Hell, he could barely handle "The View".

[Cold_Zero]

John McCain did go on the Ellen Degenerate show. I really dont keep up on what goes on, on the Cable News shows nor the political shows. To be honest, I can't stand any of them. I would much rather sit and listen to Michael Savage rant than those idiots on TV.

Consequently, Sarah Palin packed Verizon Wireless Music Center. Code Pinko was even at the event in the lawn section (flanked by Hamilton County's finest). You can attack her all you want guys, she is doing her job in rallying the base. bud

[HashiriyaS14]

she is doing her job in rallying the base.

I certainly won't argue with that.

I will, however, argue that a "rally the base" strategy won't work in 2008, and we can in fact see that it is not working. It worked fine in 2000 and 2004, but the GOP brand is too tarnished this year and the "base" is too small.

The far right needs to learn how to get revved up for a centrist GOP candidate. You don't see the highly liberal opting out of elections when a moderate Democrat like Clinton runs, do you? No, because they know the lesser of 2 evils when they see one. Why was anyone afraid that the "base" was going to stay home in November if McCain picked Lieberman? Is it really that fragile a coalition? Are abortion and anti-gay-marriage amendments really *that* important to these people, that they'd risk an Obama Presidency just to thumb their nose at the GOP?

[telcoman]

Are abortion and anti-gay-marriage amendments really *that* important to these people, that they'd risk an Obama Presidency just to thumb their nose at the GOP?

Yes and thats why they are going to lose the election.

Unfortunately there are still too many racists among them and the huge outpouring of newly registered voters will out number them.

[HashiriyaS14]

Well, I'm not going to go so far as to chalk it up to being a race thing.

I don't ascribe to the view that the GOP is somehow inherently more racist than the Democratic party is.

[ishkabibble]

You can attack her all you want guys, she is doing her job in rallying the base.

She can rally the base all she wants; it is pointless. Palin rallying the base is like Greg trying to get me to sign up for NICO.

What seemed like a coup in choosing Palin has backfired for the right due to her lack of substance at this level. The honeymoon is over.

[audtatious]

YNotice how McCain never stepped it up and went on a "liberal" talk show?

He was on The View in which Whoopie asked him if she should be afraid of being a slave again.

[AZhitman]

Unfortunately there are still too many racists among them and the huge outpouring of newly registered voters will out number them.

Oh good Lord. More race-baiting ignorance from "the land of racial harmony".

[audtatious]

Just remember, Democrats are not racists if you ignore their history.

[Cold_Zero]

Sarah Palin also gave SNL their best ratings in the last 14 years. Talk about going into the lion's den.

[Jesda]

She can rally the base all she wants; it is pointless. Palin rallying the base is like Greg trying to get me to sign up for NICO.

What seemed like a coup in choosing Palin has backfired for the right due to her lack of substance at this level. The honeymoon is over.

I kind of agree, however, McCain did a poor job of winning over his own party. Due to a series of bad chess moves, McCain became the nominee, with many Republicans justifiably reluctant to accept him.

[Jesda]

Yes and thats why they are going to lose the election.

Unfortunately there are still too many racists among them and the huge outpouring of newly registered voters will out number them.

Gosh, that explains Governor Jindal.

[HashiriyaS14]

Just remember, Democrats are not racists if you ignore their history.

^^Nailed it.

This is why I'm so hesitant to ascribe racist tendencies with any one political party, because the membership of those parties has changed so profoundly over time.

Admittedly, if you had to pick a region of the country most prone to racial tension, it would almost certainly be the Southeastern United States. This used to be SOLIDLY Democratic before the rise of the Moral Majority, it was called "The Solid South". It wasn't until the social conservative movement in reaction to the 1960's counterculture that it started becoming slowly Republican.

Whichever party is the "party of the South" always tends to be pigeonholed as "the racist party", and right now that happens to be the GOP. Again, I think that's BS, I don't think either party is or has been inherently racist.

As Jesda mentioned, reference Bobby Jindal.

That guy was SMART for staying out of this Presidential Race (and VP slot) by the way. He knows a losing year for the GOP when he sees one. He'll sit down there, content being a dynamite Governor, and then he'll throw himself on the national stage in a year in which the GOP can actually win. He's an ardent social conservative and I disagree with a good deal of his politics, but he is also among the smartest cookies in the GOP and I'd give him solid odds of being a future President.

[Cold_Zero]

Gosh, that explains Governor Jindal.

And JC Watts and Michael Steele

[AZhitman]

Admittedly, if you had to pick a region of the country most prone to racial tension, it would almost certainly be the Southeastern United States. This used to be SOLIDLY Democratic before the rise of the Moral Majority, it was called "The Solid South". It wasn't until the social conservative movement in reaction to the 1960's counterculture that it started becoming slowly Republican.

Whichever party is the "party of the South" always tends to be pigeonholed as "the racist party", and right now that happens to be the GOP. Again, I think that's BS, I don't think either party is or has been inherently racist.

There's some slivers of truth to this, but it's pretty generally a perpetuation ofold stereotypes. You'd have to live down there to really grasp it tho - it's a weird dynamic.

I guess the best way to describe it is this: Everyone knows where they stand in the South. The 'segregation' is self-imposed, and no one really questions it, nor do they like someone from 'the outside' meddling in their way of life.

There's some pretty clear-cut divisions, tho, but they seem to run along socioeconomic lines rather than race. Poor whites and poor blacks seem to do just fine together, and wealthier whites and wealthier blacks as well. It's when EITHER group meanders into the others' backyard that things get hinky.

The weirdest thing for me, having grown up in AL / MS (up to age 13), was going BACK to the South after being in MA / KS / AZ for another 2 decades... Gimme a bit to think about how I want to describe what I noticed.... I keep trying to type it and it comes out wrong.

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[Encryptshun]

I'm really starting to think that Telco is a double-agent whose assignment is to push the sympathy/backlash vote to the Republicans.

Telco, if your intentions are genuine, you might want to do the Democrats a favor and stay off their side.

[telcoman]

Admittedly, if you had to pick a region of the country most prone to racial tension, it would almost certainly be the Southeastern United States. This used to be SOLIDLY Democratic before the rise of the Moral Majority, it was called "The Solid South". It wasn't until the social conservative movement in reaction to the 1960's counterculture that it started becoming slowly Republican.

.

The south turned Republican after the passage of the civil rights act in 1965

[Cold_Zero]

LOL with a script?

Yeah, I am sorry that some things dont find your own personal little paradigm. So what if she uses a script? Most politicians at conventions or rallies use scripts. Who cares?

[sensibleS13driver]

Haha, yes, my crazy personal little paradigm of real news wherein SNL isn't the political "lion's den".

[Cold_Zero]

In the days where politically, candidates have branched out into other media and done appearances on Late Night Talk Shows, SNL and Daytime Talk Shows, I dont think you can purely measure the validity of an appearance to only the Cable News Shows or the Sunday Morning Talk Shows.

Yet, there are people on this forum that think that The Daily Show is true American Journalism. Hahahaaa.

Has Obama been on SNL? I know that Hillary, Huckabee and Palin have.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

The south turned Republican after the passage of the civil rights act in 1965

You timing is a little off. Your logic behind why the South became Republican is probably faulty (ie: that the South turned Republican in response to blacks voting). In case it is, here's a brief history of Southern politics:

1) Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves.2) Reconstruction policies bred contempt among whitey. Republican policies.3) Southern whites remained bitter toward the Republicans, and voted Democrat, despite the rapidly left-moving Democratic party. This is where "Southern Democrats" or our modern "neoconservatives" come from.4) Jim Crow laws prevented Republican voting blacks (Lincoln was a Republican, remember?) from voting (or via manipulation of the primaries, making their vote useless, anyway).5) The Civil Rights movement arrived. Republicans, seeing an opportunity, allied themselves further with southern blacks and began to win elections.6)Equilibrium was achieved until southern blacks realined themselves with the Democrats, and the Southern Democrats moved toward the Republican party.

Southern politics is a weird, weird thing.

Also, the Republicans of 1965 aren't anything like the Republicans of 2008. Both parties have been sliding left for decades.

[HashiriyaS14]

There's some slivers of truth to this, but it's pretty generally a perpetuation ofold stereotypes. You'd have to live down there to really grasp it tho - it's a weird dynamic.

I guess the best way to describe it is this: Everyone knows where they stand in the South. The 'segregation' is self-imposed, and no one really questions it, nor do they like someone from 'the outside' meddling in their way of life.

There's some pretty clear-cut divisions, tho, but they seem to run along socioeconomic lines rather than race. Poor whites and poor blacks seem to do just fine together, and wealthier whites and wealthier blacks as well. It's when EITHER group meanders into the others' backyard that things get hinky.

The weirdest thing for me, having grown up in AL / MS (up to age 13), was going BACK to the South after being in MA / KS / AZ for another 2 decades... Gimme a bit to think about how I want to describe what I noticed.... I keep trying to type it and it comes out wrong.

I think we're having a misunderstanding.

I'm not accusing the South of being racist, but I'm saying that it's PERCEIVED as being racist by a large part of the country, or at least as being *more* racist than any other defined area. Thus, whichever party is stronger in the South at any given time is thus also PERCEIVED as having more racist tendencies.

I have a lot of buddies and family in the South (mostly GA), I love it down there, and I think that the stereotypes are bull, personally.

the Republicans of 1965 aren't anything like the Republicans of 2008. Both parties have been sliding left for decades.

In terms of social issues, I'd say this is untrue, but only because most of these social issues weren't issues back in 1965. The norms were defined, it wasn't until the late 60's when they were upset and the GOP started to define themselves around social issues.

I'd argue that today's GOP is also, at least in rhetoric, more fiscally conservative than the "Rockefeller Republicans" of days past.

They obviously can't deliver on their promises of lower spending and smaller government, but they make it a more important issue than, say, Nixon did. Nixon-era Republicans merely tried to slow the rate at which government grew rather than trying to actively shrink it.

I'd also argue that the Democrats have slid well right, on average, from where they were with JFK and Johnson (i.e. the "Great Society", or New Deal Part Deux). Clinton moved the Democratic consensus towards the center, although 8 years of Bush 43 have exacerbated leftist tendencies a bit of late (hence the preference for Obama rather than Hillary, who was more centrist despite her primary campaign populist rhetoric).

[C-Kwik]

He was on The View in which Whoopie asked him if she should be afraid of being a slave again.

I'm not sure I'd call that show purely liberal. It does lean to the left, mainly as there is only one co-host that stands well to the right. But that question from Whoopi was in the context of clarifying what he meant when he said that he would appoint justices that would uphold the original intent of the Constitution. It was probably unnecessary, but it wasn't an accusation that he was racist that came out of left field. Not sure you meant it that way, but that's the way I took it.

[Cold_Zero]

If Obama or McCain had balls, they would go on the Michael Savage show. But they wont. Because they know he is not in the bag for any political party or candidate.

This all reminds me of the SNL spoof of the Democratic Presidential Debate sponsored by CNN. They kept throwing softball questions to Obama while maligning Hillary. It pretty much sums up my view of the 'Mainstream Media.'

[Cold_Zero]

I was listening to the Dennis Miller Show today and they referenced this post.

http://hotair.com/archives/200...ather/

[audtatious]

I'm not sure I'd call that show purely liberal. It does lean to the left, mainly as there is only one co-host that stands well to the right. But that question from Whoopi was in the context of clarifying what he meant when he said that he would appoint justices that would uphold the original intent of the Constitution. It was probably unnecessary, but it wasn't an accusation that he was racist that came out of left field. Not sure you meant it that way, but that's the way I took it.

She was making a stupid and snide remark about it. I took the insinuation that if Republicans pressed for a more constitutional view then we would re-institute slavery which is totally asinine.

[ishkabibble]

I was listening to the Dennis Miller Show today and they referenced this post.

http://hotair.com/archives/200...ather

Lieberman said almost the exact same thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgrvdZbUgmg

Edit: So did the White House: http://www.democracyarsenal.or....html

Dennis Miller still has a job? How unfortunate.

[C-Kwik]

She was making a stupid and snide remark about it. I took the insinuation that if Republicans pressed for a more constitutional view then we would re-institute slavery which is totally asinine.

While I agree it was a lame question, I disagree that she was implicating some underlying Republican agenda or some rediculous McCain agenda. It was an extreme point to make, but still a point that the original intent of the constitution is not necessarily the direction we need to go with this country. But it did bring a heavy contrast to his statement. Most people in this country, Democrats and Republicans, would reject the notion of bringing African Americans back into slavery. I doubt Whoopi is seriously worried about becoming a slave in this America....