Comments on: Hiding Sarah

By: jr

jr — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:32:17 +0000

I love how the “patriotic” cons are all defending a secessionist. Secessionists were the original 9/11 truthers

By: Vanessa

Vanessa — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:28:36 +0000

They might switch V.P.s, or they might pull an October surprise (bombing Iran, for instance). They are desperate, and they have been shown in the past willing to do whatever it takes to win.

Which is why each one of us is out registering voters, mobilizing supporters and preparing for a fight come November, right?

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:19:42 +0000

“Pathetic. We’re gonna win.”

They might switch V.P.s, or they might pull an October surprise (bombing Iran, for instance). They are desperate, and they have been shown in the past willing to do whatever it takes to win.

By: Repack Rider

Repack Rider — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:40:38 +0000

I just caught Tom Ridge “explaining” to Chris Matthews why Hillary voters might switch to Sarah. He had to concede that they are pretty far apart on the issues — all of them. Women who valued Hillary’s positions on the issues are not going to switch to someone who opposes those positions.

So it came down to, “She’s a woman.” No duh!

This guy is supposed to be an adult, and an important member of the GOP, and that’s all he’s got after four days to come up with something.

Pathetic. We’re gonna win.

By: Southern Quaker

Southern Quaker — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:50:25 +0000

Despite the stipulation going away, people in the state still wanted to use the funds. She instead put the money towards other, more important projects.

Um Jay? You realize that this statement pretty much puts the kibosh on the idea that Palin is some sort of reformer who turns down nasty federal earmarks on principle, right? She basically took the money and ran.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:31:17 +0000

And the earmark did not die. The stipulation that it was to be used for that bridge did.

Uh, Jay? That’s what an “earmark” is. It’s a stipulation that the money is to be used for a specific purpose. And this one died more than a year before Ms. Palin took office. So she never had the opportunity to say “Thanks, but no thanks” to Congress.

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:20:08 +0000

Um Quaker? You do realize that “bridge to nowhere” was a STATE project correct? And the earmark did not die. The stipulation that it was to be used for that bridge did. Despite the stipulation going away, people in the state still wanted to use the funds. She instead put the money towards other, more important projects.

Nice try though.

By: Enlightened Liberal

Enlightened Liberal — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:17:47 +0000

“I think this is clearly somebody in the McCain campaign who doesn’t understand where the votes are coming from,” Schlafly said. “They only told me this at 10 o’clock last night, and it was a call from somebody down the line in the McCain campaign.”- Phyllis Schlafly, who has personally set back the woman’s liberation cause 100 years.

Yes indeed, McCain doesn’t understand where the votes are coming from.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:54:04 +0000

Remember, she “told Congress ‘Thanks, but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere!”

Thirteen months before she took office apparently. The earmark for the BTN died in Congress in November, 2005. Palin took office as governor in December, 2006.

I like a VP who can change history!