Trump voters declared the Donald was the best candidate to "bring about needed change."
Have you seen the names being thrown about for Trump's cabinet?
It's a who's-not of has-beens and wingnuts. Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, David Clarke, Kris Kobach, Jamie Dimon, and Sarah Palin.
Now, this indeed may be change, but change for the worse, no doubt. But really, the change they want is to go back to political hacks that bankrupted the country (or their state), exacerbated the recession or have shown complete incompetence? These people are the poster children for cronyism and bad policy.
Oh, and one of their top priorities, repealing the Affordable Care Act, could cost the U.S. $41 billion.
For Further Reading:
Lobbyists abound on Trump transition
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Friday, August 24, 2012
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Palin & Breitbart's Alternative Reality
This posting from Crooks & Liars should keep every Wisconsin leftist agitated and active until we've recalled all Republicans in the state, especially Scott Walker.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Palin Fatigue & Disintegration
Colbert, you magnificent bastard!
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Mika Brzezinski Experiences Palin Fatigue | ||||
| ||||
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Word - Disintegration | ||||
| ||||
Friday, December 25, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Drama Queen
Sarah Palin claims to not like drama. She’s much too sophisticated for such pettiness. Yet, every chance she has, she amplifies the drama.
This is all done, obviously, to keep her name in the media, to ensure book deals and speaking engagements, and to keep attention on someone whom, without such drama, would be a non-entity.
Update:
Stephen Colbert comments on Sarah Palin's "steaming pile of s@#%" that is her book.
For Further Reading:
Sarah Palin's Top 10 Falsehoods
The 18 Biggest Falsehoods in Sarah Palin's Book
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Kennedy Condolences
Sarah Palin’s Facebook friends attack Ted Kennedy upon his death. Kudos to Palin for a sympathetic statement regarding Kennedy’s passing. But her response to the rubes posting on her page will be much more telling of her leadership, understanding, and inclusiveness.
Is this the type of electorate we want in the majority? Is this the kind of decorum and high-mindedness we want in a mayor, governor, or vice-president?
Robert Scheer elaborates on all the "horrible" things Senator Kennedy did for his country.
If only we had more Ted Kennedys and less Sarah Palins.
For Further Reading:
Ted Kennedy's Legislative Accomplishments
Ted Kennedy: Keeper of the Liberal Flame
The Eternal Flame
Is this the type of electorate we want in the majority? Is this the kind of decorum and high-mindedness we want in a mayor, governor, or vice-president?
Robert Scheer elaborates on all the "horrible" things Senator Kennedy did for his country.
If only we had more Ted Kennedys and less Sarah Palins.
For Further Reading:
Ted Kennedy's Legislative Accomplishments
Ted Kennedy: Keeper of the Liberal Flame
The Eternal Flame
Friday, July 31, 2009
The (Ex)Governor's Goonsquad
Bill O'Reilly uses a comment from Bill Maher to smear lefties and to claim Sarah Palin did a good job for Alaska.
O'Reilly claimed Sarah Palin had a "solid performance" and ran Alaska fine. As far as Alaska is concerned, O'Reilly feels because Sarah left with a 54 percent approval rating [a year ago it was 86 percent approved, it is actually down to 47 percent now] she indisputably did a great job. This selectively ignores the facts - she has numerous legal clouds hanging over Alaska, the state is a huge welfare recipient, and Palin quit 15 months before the end of her first term. Is this what she was elected to do? Quit before her term was over?
Based on the precipitous decline in her approval rating, it appears the majority of Alaskans do not feel she has done a good job for Alaska.
And, O'Reilly asserts her intellectual credentials are just as impressive as all those elitist Ivy League liberals because she went to the University of Idaho (one of four colleges she attended). No one is claiming she is stupid because she went to Idaho. People claim she is stupid because they have heard her speak. As Mark Twain said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
There really is nothing to this. It's just another one of those oft-used, right-wing ramblings linking unrelated subjects, then springboarding that into one of their familiar rant themes: Liberals (the supposed slur for Democrats) are mean, smarty-pants, out of touch, tax-and-spenders.
This is just inciting anger into listeners that do not know any better. He is playing up the caricatures the right-wing has created. [You know] those elitist, latte-drinking, Volvo-driving liberals. There really is no point to this type of reporting other than riling up the base.
I can't believe some of the things these talking-heads say, do they seriously believe the vitriol they speak? The more I listen to O'Reilly and his cronies, I'm starting to think they don't believe it either. They are just salesmen. (Snakeoil salesmen, but salesmen nonetheless.) They're just doing their job: inciting fear and anger to attract viewers moved by the lowest-common-denomiator emotional pleas and invective, and trying to sell books. Spewing anger and hatred is quicker and cheaper than doing actual research, trying to add something constructive to the discussion, or trying reach a compromise and find solutions to issues facing us.
O'Reilly claimed Sarah Palin had a "solid performance" and ran Alaska fine. As far as Alaska is concerned, O'Reilly feels because Sarah left with a 54 percent approval rating [a year ago it was 86 percent approved, it is actually down to 47 percent now] she indisputably did a great job. This selectively ignores the facts - she has numerous legal clouds hanging over Alaska, the state is a huge welfare recipient, and Palin quit 15 months before the end of her first term. Is this what she was elected to do? Quit before her term was over?
Based on the precipitous decline in her approval rating, it appears the majority of Alaskans do not feel she has done a good job for Alaska.
And, O'Reilly asserts her intellectual credentials are just as impressive as all those elitist Ivy League liberals because she went to the University of Idaho (one of four colleges she attended). No one is claiming she is stupid because she went to Idaho. People claim she is stupid because they have heard her speak. As Mark Twain said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
There really is nothing to this. It's just another one of those oft-used, right-wing ramblings linking unrelated subjects, then springboarding that into one of their familiar rant themes: Liberals (the supposed slur for Democrats) are mean, smarty-pants, out of touch, tax-and-spenders.
This is just inciting anger into listeners that do not know any better. He is playing up the caricatures the right-wing has created. [You know] those elitist, latte-drinking, Volvo-driving liberals. There really is no point to this type of reporting other than riling up the base.
I can't believe some of the things these talking-heads say, do they seriously believe the vitriol they speak? The more I listen to O'Reilly and his cronies, I'm starting to think they don't believe it either. They are just salesmen. (Snakeoil salesmen, but salesmen nonetheless.) They're just doing their job: inciting fear and anger to attract viewers moved by the lowest-common-denomiator emotional pleas and invective, and trying to sell books. Spewing anger and hatred is quicker and cheaper than doing actual research, trying to add something constructive to the discussion, or trying reach a compromise and find solutions to issues facing us.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Pathetic Palin
Since Sarah Palin has such disdain for the Media (FOX, you don't count), maybe the Media should stop covering any/every thing she does.
Palin is one of the most incoherent speakers ever given such a national platform and megaphone. Somehow she is also mentioned as a front-runner for 2012. This is all very scary and sad, and should be especially embarassing to Republicans.
Her hyprocrisy, half-truths, delusions, broken English and utter nonsense are dumbfounding, to say the least.
She hates government, yet Alaska is the biggest welfare state in the United States. She hates the media, yet never passes up a chance to give a speech or do an interview.
She cares so much about Alaska and the U.S., she's quitting the governorship with 15 months left in her term, because of the [...wait for it...] mean, bitter partisan attacks she and Alaska would have to endure over that "lame duck" time-period.
So anyone whom is unpopular, facing tough choices and criticism at your job, should just quit. What a leader!
For Further Reading:
Palin's Welfare State
Welfare State
Palin is one of the most incoherent speakers ever given such a national platform and megaphone. Somehow she is also mentioned as a front-runner for 2012. This is all very scary and sad, and should be especially embarassing to Republicans.
Her hyprocrisy, half-truths, delusions, broken English and utter nonsense are dumbfounding, to say the least.
She hates government, yet Alaska is the biggest welfare state in the United States. She hates the media, yet never passes up a chance to give a speech or do an interview.
She cares so much about Alaska and the U.S., she's quitting the governorship with 15 months left in her term, because of the [...wait for it...] mean, bitter partisan attacks she and Alaska would have to endure over that "lame duck" time-period.
So anyone whom is unpopular, facing tough choices and criticism at your job, should just quit. What a leader!
For Further Reading:
Palin's Welfare State
Welfare State
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Missing in Action
John McCain really is a maverick. If maverick was code for incoherent, know-nothing, oddball liar. He suspends his campaign, yet his apparatchiks continue to slander Obama on the news networks. He decides he’s not going to debate the first scheduled presidential debate. Since when did we appoint John McCain to decide how our democracy plays out? If you want to run our country, you need to shows up for the interviews and take the tests, Johnny!
Enough is enough. If McCain is such a capable leader, he needs to be able to multitask – fix the economy (even thought McCain has admitted many times he doesn’t understand the economy) and debate. You know, run your campaign and also do your job as a senator. [Also, if we’re supposed to have confidence in your Alaskan soul-mate, let her face some questions and explain her qualifications and opinions.]
All of this staged, photo-op drama appears to be the usual Republican smoke and mirrors. Again, Republicans are using the fear-card to try and scare people into voting for two unfit leaders. It seems each and every day McCain opens his mouth he either has to get back to the reporter about the questions asked, he concocts some delusional contradictory explanation, or he does the usual sidestepping. Whichever, he usually sees a decrease in the polls after he open his mouth in a televised appearance. [The two interviews – here and here - Governor Palin has acquiesced to have been train-wrecks. It’s no wonder the campaign is trying to hide her.]
Josh Israel wonderfully encapsulates our presidential debate system in an article on the Center for Public Integrity’s Buying of the President 2008 website. [Excerpted below.]
“Sixty-six million viewers watched the nation’s premiere televised presidential debate, a September 26, 1960, primetime event featuring John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. It was paid for by three major television networks, but broadcast regulations prevented them from continuing their sponsorship in the next several elections.
In 1976, the independent League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to citizen education, took over. The League hosted three debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and one between their running mates, and sponsored debates in the 1980 and 1984 elections as well. The debates became part of the quadrennial election process, but the League’s management style ruffled some feathers among party insiders who wanted more control of the process.
Republican David Norcross, who helped form the Commission, called the League’s debate organizers “too dictatorial” and criticized them for “ignoring or avoiding the politics of the whole situation.”
The Commission on Presidential Debates began hosting televised debates in 1988. The Commission is a largely secretive tax-exempt organization, created and run by former chairmen of the two major parties, funded by a small group of unidentified major donors, and designed, it seems, to exclude nearly all third-party candidates.”
The Christian Science Monitor notes, “The Presidential Commission on Debates…requires a candidate have at least 15 percent of support in national polls to qualify for inclusion in debates. The commission does that so that it can accept corporate contributions within FEC rules.” It would be nice if this commission had some teeth, which it obviously doesn’t if John McCain can just decide not to participate. It appears the commission is more about controlling whom can enter into presidential politics, what issues will be discussed, and to make sure the corporate money keeps flowing to both parties. Is this our incessantly ballyhooed democracy we’re always trying to export?
If McCain doesn’t show up, the American people should respond to his quest for the presidency with a polite, “Thanks, but no thanks.” Obama vows to have a town-hall-style meeting with the audience if McCain chickens out and skips the debate. Barack has shown he is a real leader. He shows up, he explains himself, and he’s accountable. John McCain, body and brain, is missing in action.
Enough is enough. If McCain is such a capable leader, he needs to be able to multitask – fix the economy (even thought McCain has admitted many times he doesn’t understand the economy) and debate. You know, run your campaign and also do your job as a senator. [Also, if we’re supposed to have confidence in your Alaskan soul-mate, let her face some questions and explain her qualifications and opinions.]
All of this staged, photo-op drama appears to be the usual Republican smoke and mirrors. Again, Republicans are using the fear-card to try and scare people into voting for two unfit leaders. It seems each and every day McCain opens his mouth he either has to get back to the reporter about the questions asked, he concocts some delusional contradictory explanation, or he does the usual sidestepping. Whichever, he usually sees a decrease in the polls after he open his mouth in a televised appearance. [The two interviews – here and here - Governor Palin has acquiesced to have been train-wrecks. It’s no wonder the campaign is trying to hide her.]
Josh Israel wonderfully encapsulates our presidential debate system in an article on the Center for Public Integrity’s Buying of the President 2008 website. [Excerpted below.]
“Sixty-six million viewers watched the nation’s premiere televised presidential debate, a September 26, 1960, primetime event featuring John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. It was paid for by three major television networks, but broadcast regulations prevented them from continuing their sponsorship in the next several elections.
In 1976, the independent League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to citizen education, took over. The League hosted three debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and one between their running mates, and sponsored debates in the 1980 and 1984 elections as well. The debates became part of the quadrennial election process, but the League’s management style ruffled some feathers among party insiders who wanted more control of the process.
Republican David Norcross, who helped form the Commission, called the League’s debate organizers “too dictatorial” and criticized them for “ignoring or avoiding the politics of the whole situation.”
The Commission on Presidential Debates began hosting televised debates in 1988. The Commission is a largely secretive tax-exempt organization, created and run by former chairmen of the two major parties, funded by a small group of unidentified major donors, and designed, it seems, to exclude nearly all third-party candidates.”
The Christian Science Monitor notes, “The Presidential Commission on Debates…requires a candidate have at least 15 percent of support in national polls to qualify for inclusion in debates. The commission does that so that it can accept corporate contributions within FEC rules.” It would be nice if this commission had some teeth, which it obviously doesn’t if John McCain can just decide not to participate. It appears the commission is more about controlling whom can enter into presidential politics, what issues will be discussed, and to make sure the corporate money keeps flowing to both parties. Is this our incessantly ballyhooed democracy we’re always trying to export?
If McCain doesn’t show up, the American people should respond to his quest for the presidency with a polite, “Thanks, but no thanks.” Obama vows to have a town-hall-style meeting with the audience if McCain chickens out and skips the debate. Barack has shown he is a real leader. He shows up, he explains himself, and he’s accountable. John McCain, body and brain, is missing in action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)