McCain on Palin over Obama. John McCain has disgraced himself in stating, on Fox News Sunday today, that "of course" Sarah Palin could defeat President Obama in 2012 if she chose to run against him. I left a bunch of comments in reply to pre-existing comments at the Huffington Post/AOL news story about that statement. The following 32 comments, comprising 1,880 words, are representative. I also put up a few others more concerned with things like improper language in some people's remarks.

---

McCain is still trying to rationalize away something for which he was never guilty, the choice FOR HIM of Sarah Palin as VP candidate, which was made by the Invisible Hand, the collective Republican Presidency that saddled us with the actor Reagan (the most brilliant actor in the history of the world, who had billions of credulous people believing he was really the President of the United States) and the marionette Dubya. McCain's campaign was flailing about, and about to fail, when the puppetmasters chose McCain IF he would let them name the VP candidate. THEY chose Palin, one of their very rare blunders of consequence; McCain had nothing to do with it. He checked her out only minimally, then signed on the dotted line, selling his political soul to the invisible, nameless cabal of Republican powerholders without whom he had no chance of winning the nomination. If he were a man of honor, he would have answered the question about Sarah Palin with, "Don't be ridiculous. There's no way in hell that that boob could win the White House." He should then have told the world his shameful secret, that he was so desperate to win the nomination that he'd have chosen Bonzo the Chimp (if that were legal) if the powerplayers demanded it. But no, it seems he'll take that shameful secret to the grave, and not expose the role of faceless, nameless powerbrokers in the Republican Party in deciding who gets the nomination -- virtually every time.
*
How sad, to think so absurd a thought is reasonable. What astonishes me is that so-called CONSERVATIVES think that electing a WOMAN President and Commander-in-Chief is somehow CONSERVATIVE, when it is actually RADICAL LEFT, lesbian feminism. Plainly we are seeing not Conservatism at work, which defends our traditions -- which do not include a woman President and Commander-in-Chief -- but TRIBALISM, in which anyone from among "Us" is better than anyone from among "Them".
*
How is Radical Feminism traditional Americanism?
*
"The media" are not a monolith but include diverse voices, including conservative newspapers, radio talk shows, and Fox News Channel. So you are talking nonsense.
*
Republicans from Reagan to Bush II OCTUPLED the national debt, borrowing from COMMUNIST China, and you're complaining about Obama's budgetary attempts to mitigate the Great Recession?
*
If Hillary Clinton, an able, intelligent woman, was defeated for the Democratic nomination, what chance has Sarah Palin of capturing the Republican nomination?
*
That has ALWAYS been U.S. policy. As it is, "Israel" got about 60% of Palestine, a country they stole right out from under the people who had lived there for centuries. How can they complain that they need to steal even MORE of Palestine?
*
A hostile article in Britain's Daily Mail newspaper said of that Spain trip: "The exact cost of the trip is unclear as Mrs Obama, 46, and her friends are footing personal expenses themselves - which is just as well"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1300852/Spanish-police-close-public-beach-Michelle-Obamas-250k-Spanish-holiday.html#ixzz1Nm9XlERz

So which is it: you want the First Lady to be a prisoner in the White House? Or you want the President's family to risk assassination whenever and wherever they travel?
*
So you are pretending that it is the President's "agenda" that you are concerned about. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?
*
Why can't the Radical Right ever get anything right? January 2009 to May 2011 is NOT three years. Your political reasoning is no better than your math.
*
Israel may be the country you identify with, but Americans don't give a fig about Israel.
*
Rush Limbaugh has been divorced THREE TIMES. That's "family values", in your view?
*
She QUIT mid-term, in the office of a governor of a state with fewer people than my COUNTY.
*
I guess you're a Radical Zionist if you are so blinded by your ideology that you cannot see that it is OBAMA who schooled Netanyahu. And you know why? Because the President of the United States can DESTROY Israel any time he wants, simply by NOT sending it U.S. taxpayer dollars and NOT defending it in the UN or in the event of a military attack from the Arabs, Russia, and China. Netanyahu puts on a brave face, but he is shaking in his hobnail boots.
*
How do you people keep repeating the same nonsense year after year about Obama never having had a real job? The man is 49 years old and has been out of law school for 20 years, supporting himself (and making MILLIONS of dollars as an author). He practiced civil-rights law, taught law at the college level, and was an Illinois State Senator before becoming President. How is the practice of law, the teaching of law, and holding public office in a state legislature not having a real job? You people make no sense, but you keep repeating the same NONsense year after year, as tho you think that people actually believe it.
*
In all fairness (and Liberals must be fair, always), Ms. Palin actually said that you can see Russia from an Alaskan island (Little Diomede), which is true, at least on a clear day, since Russia's Big Diomede Island is only 2.4 miles away. It is Tina Fey on SNL who gave us the silly "I can see Russia from my house" line, and it was intended to be comic hyperbole, not to be taken seriously.
*
He could, and should, have said "I'm not going to comment on that. No one can see into the future."
*
But if Palin WERE the nominee, it would be great for the economy, with the Radical Right and corporations wasting hundreds of millions of dollars but in the process employing thousands of people to print the useless posters and make and air the useless political ads. It would also empower Democrats to redirect some of the Presidential campaign and PAC money to Democratic candidates for both houses of Congress. So it would do some good for the Nation, tho not for the Republican Party. Wouldn't that be sad?
*
What is not obvious is why Congress has not extricated itself from the morass of corruption by money from donors who demand favors in return for their campaign contributions, simply by enacting public financing of campaigns and forbidding the Supreme Court to rule against restrictions on private money by putting that law beyond judicial review (which Congress can do in accord with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution). Do they PREFER to be bullied by the rich, to being able to vote their conscience, always, and not fear that they won't have enuf money to run for re-election? I wouldn't.
*
Most days she would only have to find her way from the living quarters to the West Wing of the White House, and some butler or Marine guard could help her out.
*
"I read them all." "What do you mean by ...?" Etc., from the Katie Couric interview as only one example of a public display on her part of vast ignorance. Of course ignorance is NOT the same as stupidity, but the two do tend to go together.
*
Who, exactly, do you think currently does the fiting? The rich? No, it's all those people at the bottom of society, who just barely reach adulthood without starving, thanks to those "entitlements", who fite the wars, and staff the police departments and fire departments that keep us safe. Do you really believe the rich will consent to be drafted and sent to the wars they are all for, until they are told THEY will have to fite?
*
No one has to answer any question he doesn't want to. There's always the pithy, "No comment", you know.
*
I give up. For whom does the Huffington Post/AOL work? Senator McCain is a member of Congress. Congress was consulted on intervention in Libya; the UN authorized that action; the President acted. What is your problem with that? The last declared war was WWII. Yes, we should always declare war before going to war, but few of us have been adamant about that in every case. I'm one of them. If going to war is the right thing to do, then Congress should be glad to declare war. As for the Patriot Act, I have to check what provisions were renewed and see if those are the ones that Liberals were concerned about. The Act was very sweeping, and few people objected to some of its provisions. But if the onerous, oppressive provisions were extended, then Liberals must campaign against Obama -- not, however, to the point of working for Palin.
*
$200,000 a year, or, a figure I heard in 2008, $179,000 a year, is NOT "a modest income". This is the same nonsense the Radical Right uses to defend lower taxes on people who make $250,000 a year and more, the idea that such wealth is "a modest income".
*
No, a ghost writer wrote a book with Palin's name on it. And Palin makes THOUSANDS of dollar per speech on an endless speaking tour, as many dates as she can book.
*
Tho Obama has alienated most Liberals in some degree, there is plenty to show for Obama's tenure thus far, including health-insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, and coverage for kids still in college, under their parents' insurance; reining in abusive fees by credit-card issuers; and other policies that show concern for the poor and middle class. Since the Republican Party shows no such compassion, it would be extremely difficult for Liberals and moderates to vote Republican. Thus, unless Democrats can run a real Liberal to replace Obama as the candidate, it is most unlikely that any significant number of Liberals and moderates will be able to vote Republican.
*
You do know, of course, that "thug" is code? Now, pls tell me of a single national campaign that has NOT looked for "dirt" (typed right) about ALL competitors? Since "dirt" would be indications of a lack of character on the part of a candidate, it is an OBLIGATION of all campaigns to look for "dirt" that reveals unfitness of character.
*
Spare us military rule, thank you.
*
The President has NOTHING to do with the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) formula, which has been in place for many years. The formula is wrong, and Congress should act to fix it, but that has nothing to do with the President. Obama did NOT freeze Social Security payments; Congress allowed that to happen, and Congress has to fix it. Why isn't anyone agitating for Congress to act now?
*
The bridge was not to "nowhere" but to an airport. She could have defended it on that basis, except that the costs per passenger were too high.
*
What economy are you talking about? The U.S. economy is $14.2T, not $4T. And of COURSE you can run an economy on any energy source that works. Windmills and solar panels, geothermal, hydro, and other nonfossil energy sources, work fine. The only way oil and coal can compete is thru being allowed to deduct all costs of production and distribution as pre-tax expenses. If all the costs of installing renewable energy were ALSO deductible as pre-tax expenses, renewables would wipe out nonrenewables in a matter of months.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,454 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 8:46 PM