Sarah Palin pt 2

The one thing that strikes me about the RNC in general is how…deluded is not the right word but it’s the first word that comes to mind. I don’t mean they’re insane, delusional. I mean they have the ability to say something and believe it with all their heart, even though all their actions leading up to that point are in direct opposition to the statement.

Guiliani and Romney said some things I seriously could not believe. And they said it with a straight face. Guiliani had the BALLS to claim that Democrats want BIG BROTHER watching you. The party that passed the Patriot Act and still does illegal surveillance on us! Seriously! What’s the emoticon for brain exploding?

I’ll use examples from Palin’s speech, since hers was basically a … let’s use the word hodgepodge…of every other Republican’s speech. Which was nice, because if you missed Rudy or Mittens live, you still were able to hear their speech.

After going through her personal biography, where she makes it seem as though being mayor of a small town and Governor for less than 2 years, qualifies you to be Vice President, she went to the meat of the subject.

[what follows is one of my favorite ways to dissect something: Their words, then mine.]

First, she brought up the “bitterness” thing. “We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man.”

I grant her that John McCain has the same molecules and atoms, no matter who he talks to, but there’s way too much video of McCain saying, “I never said that.”, to one interviewer, while another has video of him actually saying it.

“The right reason [to run for office] is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.”

Obviously they don’t get the news in Alaska, since McCain intends to keep the status quo, and the nation is worse off now than it was 8 years ago.

“I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.”

This is widely reported to not be true. She said she was proud of Ted Stevens work and the infrastructure he was bringing (i.e. this bridge to nowhere). That’s Ted Stevens of the “series of tubes” and 7 felony indictments.

“With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.”

Actually this is a great reason not to be using oil and gas at all! And she apparently doesn’t know how the oil system works. Or, she’s exploiting American ignorance for political gain. Pick whichever makes your brain hurt less.

“Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already.”

I’d like to point out that she said this right after everyone was chanting “Drill, baby, Drill”, which I think makes the point that they [republicans] actually do think drilling will solve our problems.

“Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay ... he [Obama] wants to meet them without preconditions.”

Funny, one of the bills Obama sponsored was on loose nukes. And that “preconditions” thing was debunked a long time ago. Anyway, you were saying.

For the next part let me summarize: He’ll raise your taxes. Since she was speaking to a group of rich Republicans, she was probably right. But the Obama plan is mostly for closing loopholes and rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%, not to mention taxing windfall profits from oil companies, which all can be considered tax increases, but not on you and me.

“In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.
And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.”

Yes, by voting with their party over 80% of the time (check the Washington post website, it has a great congressional vote page). That’s change you can 20% (or less) believe in.

“Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.”

Yeah, you wouldn’t want a crowd of people to support great things.

“Senator McCain's record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen…”

work in his campaign!

“…have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency - from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.”

If by fought you mean now support with millions of dollars, then yes again I concede your point.

“He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.”

Which is why he picked an uber-conservative as a running mate, and embraced Pastor “New Orleans-deserved to drown” and the other “agents of intolerance”.

She ends by talking about McCain’s P.O.W. record. This makes me really angry. What happened to John McCain was horrific and should never happen to anyone. I think the Republican party would agree. So why are they letting the U.S. do the same thing to people who may be guilty of nothing more than being turned in for money. This party with it’s torture survivor should loudly proclaim: The U.S. does not torture! And unlike the current President, actually mean it.

That’s all she had to say, and that’s all the energy I have to write.

So, Darwin bless you! And Random Chance bless, America!