Let’s all remember this as the road for Palin get rougher.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/did-palin-call.html

Scott, possibly, it’s a ‘great strategy’, IF she can take the heat, if she wears, carries the coals without a problem, is a fighter, and comes across as insightful, then it will probably pay off.

But again, ‘high risk, high reward.’

That’s a lot to ask for. But who knows? She may do it, she may stand against the media Goliath and have a sling.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Doug, Palin’s off the circuit for the same time period that Biden was pre-convention speech. It’s no big deal, and it’s a great strategy to let the shockwaves roll out and let the waters calm before stepping into the talk shows.

I think you’re probably, mostly right, but you’re also ignoring something: every little thing she does gets watched and reported on ad nauseum now, and that reporting takes away reporting on Obama (something he’s had WAY too much of this year).

As to change desired…that’s interesting. BHO and Bush and McCain have the same foreign policy, so where’s the change? Nah, some themes (change for example) resonate well with some demographics (democrats), but to win over Republicans you need something different, and to win over independents, something else. Let BHO stick w change, and he’ll only be kissing up to one demographic that he’s already won over.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Given that…and given the foreign policy challenges of Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, etc., I’ll take more of the McSame.

You may take more of the McSame, but last night’s speech’s didn’t reflect that stance:

(TPM) Yesterday was President Bush’s big night at the GOP convention, but you wouldn’t have known it if you were, you know, there.

We just checked all the full texts of the speeches from last night’s festivities that are on the GOP convention’s official Web page. The word “Bush” appears exactly zero times. The word “president” doesn’t appear anywhere in connection with Bush.

That’s why this election’s selling point is ‘change’, and why it’s nearly become a ‘name brand’ issue on who owns it; it’s all about who is further from Bush this election. It explains, too, an awful lot why Palin was chosen.

In regard to Palin, now she has to work that ‘selling point’, she needs to deliver the goods on ‘Change.’ Yet, presently she ain’t selling anything. She’s still sealed up, tight, insulated from the national media, no interviews granted– she’s a church mouse …appears she’s won’t talk until after the convention.

As I see it, by that time there will be so many questions for her it’ll be a ‘pile on’.

Two things will come from it. She’ll either _lose_ her image as an agent for change, or, the there may be public reaction that the media is being unfair to her. Of course, too, both could happen. She may even be not the kind of change desired.

Bumpy ride in any case.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The dems and the media have been as obstructive as they can be. If Bush is for something they are against it. If Bush changes his mind and decides to try it their way they change their minds and are agsinst what they were for before. They have meddled in foreign policy from the Iraq war to Pakistan. They have trashed our allies and made negotiation difficult for Bush.

The housing problem is only on the coasts where property has been astronomical. I haven’t noticed any change in my area at all. I get a letter from a local real estate every quarter and there is absolutely not change. The same number of houses are bought and sold at about the same prices.

The problem with the mortgage companies is that the govenment enacted a law that would not let the companies refuse people who could not make their mortgage payments. The dems will not allow drilling in this country which is why gas is so high which in turn makes everything else sky high. And the dems and the media have talked down the economy until some people believed it and stopped buying. The dems will do any thing to gain power even to the point of bringing down this country and even the whole world into a depression like in the 30s.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Don’t rise to the bait, guys. I live amongst the common folks. They know BS when they see it. They’re a lot smarter than you think. Let the retards have their slogans. It’s called elevation -90. That’s shooting yourself in the foot for those not familiar with field artillery.

As my barber says: “Half full? Half empty? Depends on whether it’s Budweiser or horse piss.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The media wants us all to believe that the American economy is “BAD”. But in reality, after 20+ quarters in a row of domestic growth, a couple of bad quarters is suppose to “scare” the American man and woman into believing that the War in Iraq caused all the problems we are now confronted with like the housing crisis, gas crisis, etc.. Guess what, the problems of our current economy have NOTHING to do with the war! The problems arose long before the war began. We needed to get stability in the Middle East and President Bush stepped up to the plate and swung away to get the ball in play. Now, we need a man to keep it in play! BHO is NOT that man.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Doug, you’re pretty close to the mark.

I’d say that if one wants to look good, the focus should be on unity. Senator Obama has almost never done it, and has never had the political courage to go against the party line where as few sentors in American history have been referred to as Mavericks.

The biggest problem I’m having w this election is keeping track of Senator Obama’s omniscience re Iraq and his policy of the day. As Doug’s pointed out elsewhere, Sen McCain has been LONG against the idea that victory should be set on a calender and then declared (ie the idea of unconditional timelines). He’s also been among the few who called for more troops and a focus on counter-insurgency operations for years now. His track record isn’t unblemished, but at least the Washington Post hasn’t seen it necessary to keep a history of back and forths so that people can keep up with the Iraq for/against/kinda for/kinda against shifting that Obama’s done.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html

When it comes to GWB and Iraq…yeah, I got to agree with the generals who’ve been there the most, the leaders on the ground, and even the NYT….popular or not (no war should be a woohoofest), he did the right thing, he stuck it out despite bad polling, and he’s bringing success where no one thought possible. When the NYT sucks it up and says the war is being won…’nuff said.

Only losers see success as impossible.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I think you are failing to acknowledge Bush’s approval ratings and how low they are:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

and the adjacent particular ratings about the handling of the war and whether it was worth it; they certainly are ‘mixed’ up in that low approval rating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

In the end, your thesis:

Iraq should be a political winner for Republicans. Not a losing talking point.

…is an idea filled with land-mines.

Further, since you’ve defended Bush throughout most of your piece, your thesis might probably have been clearer if it stated: Bush and Iraq should be a political winner for Republicans.”

In any case, the reasons above explain why you are forced to use the the modal verb ‘should’, instead of ‘will’.

Like or Dislike: 0  0