Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Her voice occasionally makes my spine hurt, like when 10 year old girls go supersonic.

But there is a market in the tea parties. That is a growing force that is not being covered by the maintstream media. Much as the Repblicans woul.d like to catch a hold of it they haven't. Both Rick Perry and Cornyn (US Senator and a bit of a power) were booed at the recent one they went to. People misperceive big time whats growing with that movement. It may be a nascent 3rd party. Frankly we need new blood, anything to get rid of the Washington Party.

There is a similar feeling abroad in the UK and EU generally, that big time politics has ceased to truly serve the interest of mere citizens and become a lucrative career option for a particular section of the power elite.

Sarah Palin's impact was due to her apparently being a 'down-home' wide and mother who wasn't part of the political insider system.

yep.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Sarah Palin's impact was due to her apparently being a 'down-home' wide and mother who wasn't part of the political insider system.

you betcha

Frazzled wrote:Attacking her children had nothing to do with basic knowledge in national politics. The mainstream media crossed the line with her family, something they would never have done with any Democrat. Attacking her clothing purchases was sexist as well.

Thats what gave her support. Had they indeed, attacked her like any other candidate, much of that support would have fallen by the wayside.

Honestly, when she runs as "a family candidate" and never shuts up about what a great mom she is, that MAKES her family something that the media will look into. I'm betting they would have done it if the Democrat used parenthood as a qualification to run a country.

In response to the clothing purchases, they attacked Edwards for how much time/money he spent on his hair. Vanity is an easy thing to attack in either sex.

I'm going to agree with Fraz about the clothes. It was an unfair attack. When you jump into the national eye, you need the clothes to match.

dogma wrote:I'm going to agree with Fraz about the clothes. It was an unfair attack. When you jump into the national eye, you need the clothes to match.

Indeed, if they attacked every other Presidential candidate at the time for it, I would have been ok. You didn't think Obama's wardobe was something he threw together from the closet did you? It was sexist and caddy.

Women always take more flak than men on account of their wardrobe, hair, etc. And it is always sexist.

Michelle Obama buys off the rack. Obama's suits look like they are not new, and maybe they fit him better before the campaign added a few pounds.

The bigger issue than clothes or hair or answering civics questions is Palin bail'n mid-term. A preview of how unstable any administration headed by her would have been or would be.

Gobbla wrote:Michelle Obama buys off the rack. Obama's suits look like they are not new, and maybe they fit him better before the campaign added a few pounds.

The bigger issue than clothes or hair or answering civics questions is Palin bail'n mid-term. A preview of how unstable any administration headed by her would have been or would be.

I call blinding levels of bull .
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090501123025AAQ9bzz

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQmHcNZdSneEDrnU2F-DaS1yEDng

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/30/2009-06-30_michelle_obama_and_daughters_enjoy_paris_privilege_barred_to_millions_in_france_.html

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Her voice occasionally makes my spine hurt, like when 10 year old girls go supersonic.

But there is a market in the tea parties. That is a growing force that is not being covered by the maintstream media. Much as the Repblicans woul.d like to catch a hold of it they haven't. Both Rick Perry and Cornyn (US Senator and a bit of a power) were booed at the recent one they went to. People misperceive big time whats growing with that movement. It may be a nascent 3rd party. Frankly we need new blood, anything to get rid of the Washington Party.

Yeah, the American version of the BNP doesn't get much media coverage. The left wing prefers to act like they are just country bumpkin extremists (as they usually are) and the right wing prefers to pretend they don't exist because they are country bumpkin extremists. Amazingly enough the tea parties got huge right wing coverage due to foxes financial and media support of them, which is hilarious because they did so much to further hurt the image of the splintering conservative base. The right really needs to find it's center before it's extremists and moderates tear the party in half.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the BNP is a racist / isolationist / nationalist movement right? And you're claiming that those attending tea parties are the same? Garaflo style? The tea parties started because people are angry with the reckless spending of their tax dollars, hence the tea party name "taxation without representation" for the current administration and congress being so out of touch with the American people's desires. It has since evolved to include people who are unhappy with policies outside of taxation and usage of that tax revenue.

If you are suggesting that the tea party movement is racist, isolationist, or nationalist you are wrong. It has been a smokescreen tactic of those who oppose the tea parties because it's easier to claim they are monsters than to address the issues they bring to light.

Tyras wrote:
If you are suggesting that the tea party movement is racist, isolationist, or nationalist you are wrong. It has been a smokescreen tactic of those who oppose the tea parties because it's easier to claim they are monsters than to address the issues they bring to light.

I'd say the tea parties represent the very definition of nationalism. As in people expressing loyalty to the nation (a group of people defined by a common cultural heritage), as opposed to the state.

However, they certainly aren't racist. Nor are they necessarily isolationist, though given the current fascination with the 'evils of socialist Europe' I imagine there is a high rate of correlation.

I guess by nationalism I was referring to a less than favorable definition used by some to describe those who seek to "purify" their nation in accordance to what they have of their nation's image to the express exclusion of anybody that does not fit that image like immigrants, persons of a paticular religion etc, often by violent means.

Yeah, the Nazi's pretty well scarred that word.

Tyras wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Her voice occasionally makes my spine hurt, like when 10 year old girls go supersonic.

But there is a market in the tea parties. That is a growing force that is not being covered by the maintstream media. Much as the Repblicans woul.d like to catch a hold of it they haven't. Both Rick Perry and Cornyn (US Senator and a bit of a power) were booed at the recent one they went to. People misperceive big time whats growing with that movement. It may be a nascent 3rd party. Frankly we need new blood, anything to get rid of the Washington Party.

Yeah, the American version of the BNP doesn't get much media coverage. The left wing prefers to act like they are just country bumpkin extremists (as they usually are) and the right wing prefers to pretend they don't exist because they are country bumpkin extremists. Amazingly enough the tea parties got huge right wing coverage due to foxes financial and media support of them, which is hilarious because they did so much to further hurt the image of the splintering conservative base. The right really needs to find it's center before it's extremists and moderates tear the party in half.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the BNP is a racist / isolationist / nationalist movement right? And you're claiming that those attending tea parties are the same? Garaflo style? The tea parties started because people are angry with the reckless spending of their tax dollars, hence the tea party name "taxation without representation" for the current administration and congress being so out of touch with the American people's desires. It has since evolved to include people who are unhappy with policies outside of taxation and usage of that tax revenue.

If you are suggesting that the tea party movement is racist, isolationist, or nationalist you are wrong. It has been a smokescreen tactic of those who oppose the tea parties because it's easier to claim they are monsters than to address the issues they bring to light.

"Taxation without representation" makes me laugh every time. I have no problem with these tea parties nor do I think that they are organized or attended by fascists or anything similar. But using the imagery of the Revolution is wildly inappropriate. I'm sorry that your side doesn't have a majority, but you are still represented in every branch of government. The other problem is that FOX supports them and distorts the facts surrounding them, especially by representing them as "grassroots" and lying about how many people attended. Other than that stain of FOX support, nothing wrong with them. Certainly nothing racist/isolationist about it.

Frazzled wrote:Attacking her children had nothing to do with basic knowledge in national politics. The mainstream media crossed the line with her family, something they would never have done with any Democrat.

You mean people noting that Bristol got pregnant? To the extent that Palin continued to talk about abstinence only sex education, it is was reasonable to point out that her own teen daughter got pregnant, so it didn't work in at least that case.

Or do you mean something more vicious than that? Because I haven't seen anything more vicious coming from the mainstream media, unless you've decided Letterman counts.

Because there are all sorts of nasty attacks levelled by peripheral figures against all the candidates (see the purple heart bandaids and John Kerry, or the secret Muslim not really an American citizen gibberish and Obama). Which is ugly, but quite irrelevant to the campaign and political dialect. Whenever I see people complain about the viciousness of the attacks against Palin, they end up quoting anonymous bloggers on sites with about a dozen hits.

Attacking her clothing purchases was sexist as well.

Except that those attacks came from within the Republican party, when they were trying to allocate blame for the election defeat.

Thats what gave her support. Had they indeed, attacked her like any other candidate, much of that support would have fallen by the wayside.

Perhaps that's why Palin spent so much time making as big a deal of any criticism as she possibly could?

Frazzled wrote:

Gobbla wrote:Michelle Obama buys off the rack. Obama's suits look like they are not new, and maybe they fit him better before the campaign added a few pounds.

The bigger issue than clothes or hair or answering civics questions is Palin bail'n mid-term. A preview of how unstable any administration headed by her would have been or would be.

I call blinding levels of bull .
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090501123025AAQ9bzz

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQmHcNZdSneEDrnU2F-DaS1yEDng

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/30/2009-06-30_michelle_obama_and_daughters_enjoy_paris_privilege_barred_to_millions_in_france_.html

Really? An expensive pair of shoes, bought OFF THE RACK, and a one dress a piece for Momma and the two girls, bought OFF THE RACK. All presumably paid for by the Obamas. That elevates my post to blinding BS? Really?

Gobbla wrote:
Really? An expensive pair of shoes, bought OFF THE RACK, and a one dress a piece for Momma and the two girls, bought OFF THE RACK. All presumably paid for by the Obamas. That elevates my post to blinding BS? Really?

Yeah, a clothing rack stocked by designer merchandise. You tried to use the phrase 'off the rack' to conjure up images of spending on a budget, the simple fact that Michelle bought a $500 pair of shoes completely eliminates any relevance your post might have had.

Also, Palin's clothes were paid for by the campaign. Not tax payers. I find it ridiculous that you would consider it any way damning with respect to her character.

Why shouldn't Michelle Obama buy a $500 pair of shoes?

It doesn't matter how much her shoes cost. The point was that Palin's clothing purchases are not anomalous with respect to national politicians.

I doubt anyone ever got elected by buying their clothes secondhand from the Salvation Army charity shop.

I hear Obama just wore a robe and sandals.

Ba-dum ksh!

You have presidential elections where both sides spend around a billion dollars. Which makes the cost of wardrobing slightly irrelevant.

But it needs to be remembered that story about Palin's shopping came from within the Republican party, by elements of the McCain camp who were not happy with how she conducted her part of the campaign. The relevance of Palin's shopping spree was that it was reportedly done without party approval - it was indicative of a loose attitude to regulation and control. This has been strengthened by the wide number of ethics complaints put forward about Palin during her short stint as Governor.

dogma wrote:

Gobbla wrote:
Really? An expensive pair of shoes, bought OFF THE RACK, and a one dress a piece for Momma and the two girls, bought OFF THE RACK. All presumably paid for by the Obamas. That elevates my post to blinding BS? Really?

Yeah, a clothing rack stocked by designer merchandise. You tried to use the phrase 'off the rack' to conjure up images of spending on a budget, the simple fact that Michelle bought a $500 pair of shoes completely eliminates any relevance your post might have had.

Also, Palin's clothes were paid for by the campaign. Not tax payers. I find it ridiculous that you would consider it any way damning with respect to her character.

Guess I'm glad you don't get to decide the relevance of my posts.
Secondly, "off the rack" means exactly that. Michelle Obama is famous for wearing non-designer, non-custom made clothes that can be purchased off the rack by any woman so inclined. Not a clotheshorse, not a big spender on clothes. Obviously, you nailed her with a pair of sneakers that you consider too expensive.
Finally, I didn't say anything about Palin's clothes; I thought that was all debunked. I was responding to this comment about Obama from you:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm going to agree with Fraz about the clothes. It was an unfair attack. When you jump into the national eye, you need the clothes to match.

Indeed, if they attacked every other Presidential candidate at the time for it, I would have been ok. You didn't think Obama's wardobe was something he threw together from the closet did you? It was sexist and caddy.

Every other Presidential candidate gets attacked, often unfairly. Getting attacked for clothes purchases pales in comparison to getting accused of palling around with terrorists. Palin can dish it out, but she really does not take it well. Her supporters find her behavior refreshing and original. To me, she comes off as petulant and erratic.

Gobbla wrote:
Secondly, "off the rack" means exactly that. Michelle Obama is famous for wearing non-designer, non-custom made clothes that can be purchased off the rack by any woman so inclined.

Yes, any woman so inclined and possessed of a enough large sum of money. Even custom made clothing can be purchased by any woman so inclined given a large enough sum of money.

Also, off the rack clothes with designer labels are still designer clothes. No one in the world is going to claim that your Versace suit is not a Versaci suit because Giorgio Versace didn't make it for you himself.

Gobbla wrote:
Not a clotheshorse, not a big spender on clothes. Obviously, you nailed her with a pair of sneakers that you consider too expensive.

I don't care how much money they cost. You claimed that Michelle Obama bought clothes which were demonstrably different from the ones purchased by Sarah Palin. That is a nonsense claim because both of them have been shown shopping in designer stores.

Gobbla wrote:
Every other Presidential candidate gets attacked, often unfairly. Getting attacked for clothes purchases pales in comparison to getting accused of palling around with terrorists. Palin can dish it out, but she really does not take it well. Her supporters find her behavior refreshing and original. To me, she comes off as petulant and erratic.

The difference is that 'palling around with terrorists' would be a pretty big deal if the accusation turned out to have merit. Wearing designer clothing is irrelevant regardless of its truth.

dogma wrote:The difference is that 'palling around with terrorists' would be a pretty big deal if the accusation turned out to have merit. Wearing designer clothing is irrelevant regardless of its truth.

The difference is that Palin said 'palling around with terrorists'. It is an accusation she is personally responsible for. To be willing to make accusations like that, but then cry foul about her spending habits? That's pretty silly.

For other people to talk about how she was treated harshly by the MSM when the story came from within her own party, and only came out after the election? That's plain crazy.

The story actually came out within days of her speech Sebster.

Note I am not defending Palin (see the voice/grating spine thing), but I am wholly attacking media attacks on a politician's family, of any political stripe.

I like the story best when a critic attacked Truman's daughter, who was giving a piano performance. According to stories he SHOWED UP at the paper and noted that said critic would get the old punch in the face if he did that again, that attacking him is fine but attacking his daughter would insure the old knuckle sandwich.

All the titans have gone and we are left with dwarves for heroes...

sebster wrote:
The difference is that Palin said 'palling around with terrorists'. It is an accusation she is personally responsible for. To be willing to make accusations like that, but then cry foul about her spending habits? That's pretty silly.

True enough. Personally I would have been amused if the counter had been "But McCain pals around with state-fed Russian oligarchs". It wouldn't have been affective, but it would have amused me.

sebster wrote:
For other people to talk about how she was treated harshly by the MSM when the story came from within her own party, and only came out after the election? That's plain crazy.

I agree. I don't think she was treated unfairly during the campaign. I think this specific accusation was unfair, but that doesn't necessarily describe my opinion of her overall reception.

You are right though, it was interesting because it came from within her own party.

Without all the attention of the MSM, there is no Sarah Palin. They made her a rock star politician.

According to Fox News, the reason Palin is leaving office early is that she can cash in on her celebrity. They calculated she can earn $20M this year with her book, TV appearances, and giving 50 speeches at $100K each. She can't take money for any of that while still in office. So, she will be able to buy her clothes anywhere she pleases. I don’t grasp how a politician who is popular with her supporters because she is down–to-Earth can stay popular with the same supporters after quitting mid-term to make big bucks.

Of course, in Palin’s mind, when the job gets tough and stops being fun, a “quitter” stays on till the end, and a “fighter who loves a challenge” quits.

Maybe she only wants the $20 mil and doesn't care about political popularity.

Let's wait and see what she does over the next few years.

Frazzled wrote:I like the story best when a critic attacked Truman's daughter, who was giving a piano performance. According to stories he SHOWED UP at the paper and noted that said critic would get the old punch in the face if he did that again, that attacking him is fine but attacking his daughter would insure the old knuckle sandwich.

All the titans have gone and we are left with dwarves for heroes...

OT. Truman is a vastly underrated President.