Huh??? You confusing me with someone else again?

Oops! I did it again.

DC, DC.

This article is by Charles Krauthammer, the writer who coined the term "Bush Doctrine".

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

She also "defended" earmarks for Alaska. Gibson cited earmarks which, as Governor, she lobbied for and accepted. In response she stated that they were obtained because they were not slipped into unrelated Congessional bills. So, she does favor certain earmarks.

Yes Olivant, you are absolutely correct. I stand corrected. I used the word VOTE when I should have said propose or supported, and also failed to correctly say that as mayor she voted along with city council to lower taxes. But I do believe that the point I was trying to make was actually made.


note :I've gone back to edit my post and replaced the words vote with the correct terminology.

Interesting article by known Liberal Camille Paglia, who continues to support Barack Obama but nevertheless appreciates the impact of Sarah Palin's VP nomination. And I understand she's been getting alot of flack for this from her hypocrite Liberal colleagues:

(I've edited this slightly for space but link to FULL article may be found via Drudge Report...)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index1.html

*****
Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.

In the U.S., the ultimate glass ceiling has been fiendishly complicated for women by the unique peculiarity that our president must also serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. Women have risen to the top in other countries by securing the leadership of their parties and then being routinely promoted to prime minister when that party won at the polls. But a woman candidate for President of the U.S. must show a potential capacity for military affairs and decision-making. Our President also symbolically represents the entire history of the nation -- a half-mystical role often filled elsewhere by a revered if politically powerless monarch.

As a dissident feminist, I have been arguing since my arrival on the scene nearly 20 years ago that young American women aspiring to political power should be studying military history rather than taking women's studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances...Hillary Clinton, with her schizophrenic alteration of personae, has never seemed presidential to me - and certainly not in her bland and overpraised farewell speech at the Democratic convention (which skittered from slow, pompous condescension to trademark stridency to unseemly haste)....

...Over the Labor Day weekend, with most of the big enchiladas of the major media on vacation, the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics - which has already caused a backlash that could damage Obama's campaign. When liberals come off as childish, raving loonies, the right wing gains. I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it. I don't see her arrival as portending the end of civil liberties or life as we know it.

...It is certainly premature to predict how the Palin saga will go. I may not agree a jot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin's boffo performances at her debut and at the Republican convention, where she astonishingly dealt with multiple technical malfunctions without missing a beat. A Feminist that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn't worth a warm bucket of spit.

That is interesting, Apple. It actually leads me to wonder whether she'll actually vote for Obama or if she's just paying lip service to her party. As I stated in an earlier post, I really think there are a LOT of people telling pollsters that they'll vote for Obama, but won't in the end.

I heard Paglia do a radio interview earlier today...she made it crystal clear that she does not like John McCain, never has, and that she WILL vote for Barack Obama and wants Obama to win. I happen to believe her.

I've been listening to Paglia for a number of years & believe she's much too forthright and opionated to say one thing and do another.

Too bad I can't say the same for my ol' favorite Peggy Noonan, who if she DIDN'T care for the choice of Palin might as well have made it known before an open mike caught her off-air.

Apple

Of course, and that's what gets me with those who want to support Mccain for his anti-earmark campaign.

Notice that people in general hate so-called earmarks, but LOVE them when they are applied to their local regions or states.

It's the same when people polled think traditionally that every Congressman OUTSIDE of their district is a dishonest politician crook, but their guy/gal is awesome.

Yeah, that was really bone headed on her part. I must admit, she's an excellent journalist. She wrote a sensational book about Pope John Paul II a few years back.

Governments typically finish in the red each and every fiscal year, there's nothing abnormal about that. The question is, how much. You say it's 5 trillion. And I say when you combine the 800 billion spent for the war (+) additional 800 billion or so that must be borrowed to make up for the 800 billion taken away from 'programs' and allocated to the war (-) about a 1/2 trillion from that 5 trillion figure that is interest accrued (+) about another trillion or so used for homeland security here at home and at our bases and embassies around the world: you end up with a deficit of about 2 trillion and not 5 trillion, with the remaining 3 trillion (rightfully) used in the 'war on terror'...Point Being: Republican is the party of economists, not Democrat. [/quote]

Where do you get these figures? They're hugely exaggerated and wrong. Where did you get 2 trillion, or 3 trillion or 5 trillion that you cite? Why do you refer to them as deficits. Do you uinderstand what a budget deficit is? It is the annual difference between what the federal government spends and the revenue it takes in. Do you understand what the national debt is? It is the unretired debt which the US Treasury owes to those who have lent funds to the federal government. The Congress has authoriized a national debt of $10.5 trillion. When President Bush took office the national debt was about $5 trillion. From then through 2006 while the Republicans were in control of the Congress, that debt rose to almost $10 trillion. Those annual Congresses made spending decisions (such as Earmarks) that greatly exceeded anticipated revenues.

By the way, someone posted that the last budget surplus was under Nixon in '69. Not so. The federal government experienced surpluses 1998-2001. Also, interest on the national debt is estimated at about $250 billion annually.
[/quote] [/quote]

Bottom line: the new Democratic Congress is on pace to borrow just as much if not more than the Republicans did.

Dude, I wrote that Nixon was the last to BALANCE the budget, unless I'm mistaken.

You are mistaken. The 1969 federal budget was not in balance. Its revenues exceeded expenditures by $19 billion. Since President Nixon was in office during 1969, he took credit for the surplus (the last one until 1998 under Clinton). However, that year's budget was prepared by President Ford's staff.

Then who was the last then? I mean for curiosity's sake.

Clinton in 2001.

I didn't catch SNL last night, but check this out. It's hilarious. They are both very good. Tina Fay has Palin down to a tee.

TIS



http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/

Tiny Fey looks so much like her. I didn't think it was all that great of a skit though.

Great stuff, TIS. Tina Fey is brilliant. She's just the type of role model that young women should emulate more. Smart, pretty, career and family oriented.

On the other side of that, I really wish celebusluts like Lindsay Lohan and Pam Anderson would shut up about Sarah Palin. We really don't need them on the side of the Democrats. I really think they could end up chasing swing voters over to the Republican side.

She looks exactly like Governor Palin. It's astounding. The thing is, you have to figure that Hillary really IS about to shoot herself. She worked her ass off, and this woman, who for all her poise and intelligence barely knows her way to the mainland, is credited for making history and re-energizing the campaign!!

Just heard that Obama raised $20 million more than McCain in August and McCain has reached 50% in the Gallup tracking poll.

McCain is at 47% in the latest Gallup Daily Tracking Poll. (47-45)

Gallup Daily Tracking Poll

If you're going to make fun of Sarah Palin, don't use terms that describe Hillary. Thanks.

It's Rasmussen that has McCain @ 50%.

By the way, the President requested an FY 2009 budget of $3.1 trillion. The Congress approved $3 trillion. The shortfall of revenues is expected to be at least $340 billion. Of course, the budget does not include funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

This is scary, considering New York is one of the most heavily Democratic states in the nation.

Siena Poll: 5 Points Separate Obama And McCain In NY

By Elizabeth Benjamin, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

September 15, 2008

The latest poll from the Siena Research Institute finds Barack Obama leading John McCain 46-41 among likely New York voters with just 50 days remaining in the presidential campaign.

Obama's lead in the Democrat-dominated state has dropped steadily - from eight points in August, 13 points in July and 18 points in June when he led 51-33.

Voters said they thought Obama would do a better job on the economy, the Iraq War, health care and education, while McCain leads when it comes to protecting the US from terrorism and enhacing America's strength in the world.

Overall, McCain was perceived as more qualified than Obama (79-67), while Joe Biden easily trumps Sarah Palin in this department (70-47).

In state politics, Gov. David Paterson's favorable and job approval ratings remain high (59-13 and 51-37, respectively) and the margin between the governor and Mayor Bloomberg in a hypothetical head-to-head match-up in 2010 has shrunk from eight points in the mayor's favor last month to five points.

In a match-up against Rudy Giuliani, Paterson wins, 50-40 - the same as in an August Siena poll.

Asked if they would prefer re-electing Paterson or someone else, 35 percent of voters sided with the governor, while 25 percent said they'd like a change, with no specific alternative in mind, and 39 percent didn't know. This, too, is practically unchanged from last month.

On whether the state Senate should remain in GOP hands or flip to the Democrats, voters are split 44-44 with 12 percent undecided.

That's good news for the Republicans, as the response last month favored the Democrats, 47-42 with 11 percent undecided

McCain has peaked.

So much for Rudy's popularity in NY.

The guy is just very tiresome, and quite frankly, he's not that easy to look at.

It looks like it. His +6 Convention/Palin bounce is down to +2 in both the Rasmussen and Gallup Polls today. Time will tell if Obama get his lead back. Obama still have a fairly significant Electoral Vote lead when "leaners" are factored in.

Governor Paterson has never complained.

I stand corrected. Obama's Electoral lead has shrunk:

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carrie Dann
*** The map 50 days out: The Palin bounce has erased Obama's lead in the national polls, and it has now cut into his electoral-vote advantage, according to NBC’s latest map. Obama holds a 233-227 edge here, down from his 228-200 advantage from last week. The biggest changes: We moved Florida -- with its 27 electoral votes -- from Toss-up to Lean McCain, and New Mexico from Toss-up to Lean Obama. We also shifted Oregon and Washington from Likely Obama to Lean Obama, as well as Alaska, Georgia, North Dakota and South Dakota from Lean McCain to Likely McCain. The good news for McCain is that the map looks better for him than at any point so far in this race, and many of those red states that looked like opportunities for Obama (AK, GA, IN) look to be longer shots for him. The bad news for McCain is that given the wave his campaign has been riding from the Palin bounce, is this as good as it gets? If he isn’t leading in some states now, he might not ever lead in them. Bottom line: You'll know the map is starting to move in one direction or the other if either Pennsylvania or Florida moves back into Toss-up before Election Day.