Top Line: Dick Armey: Palin More 'Cheerleader' Than 'Captain'

[bigwave48]

Sarah Palin is more of a fixture in the background. Not a good person to be the leader of the free world. I'm sure she's a nice lady, but I could never bring myself to vote for her

[ReliableInsider]

It is very strange to hear Dick Armey accusing the McCain campaign of undermining Sarah Palin DURING THE CAMPAIGN.

I think you call all of that "friendly fire".

[gbrady3434]

Palin More 'Cheerleader' Than 'Captain' - - is a sexist comment. Shame on Dick Armey.

[ReliableInsider]

Actually, George W. Bush was more cheerleader than captain, too.

There seems to be a pattern developing in the Republican Party of having candidates who will hand power over to some other pre-selected person if they get elected.

Kind of bait and switch.

Which undermines the entire process in a democracy of having leaders chosen by The People rather than by a political party.

[gbrady3434]

Bush referred to himself as "the decider". The 'Captain" is almost never the "brightest" but is usually the most "effective" politician (or cheerleader if you must). I know it's unpopular to say 'now a days' but I liked VP Dick Cheney and I thought his pick for VP was an excellent "decision" by our then "cheerleader and chief". I believe Palin is correct on the issues and have no problem with her being elected President as long as she surrounds herself with the "best and brightest".

[ReliableInsider]

Palin is fascinating because she's just so weird, but she's not qualified.

Problems like the war in Afghanistan or North Korea present many different options NONE of which are acceptable. We need intelligent leaders who can discern which adviser is right now more than ever.

[gbrady3434]

If by "not qualified" you mean "too inexperienced" than perhaps you're correct. But I'd still rather have an inexperienced politician who is correct on the issues (agrees with me) than an inexperienced politician like Obama who is wrong on the issues. It is the experience and principled ideals of the presidential team that matter to me. Look at who surrounds our current president if you don't agree.

[ReliableInsider]

Why are Republicans, who have historically turned up their nose at African-Americans being admitted to private universities or working for large companies because they somehow weren't "qualified" suddenly so open-minded when it comes to choosing the leader of the free world?

[gbrady3434]

Are you saying that "racism" is historically "Republican"? And are you saying that Republicans are racists? You need to check your facts.

[ReliableInsider]

I pretty much am.

George W. Bush's father campaigned AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Strom Thurmond had to switch from being a Democrat to being a Republican where he felt much more comfortable.

Affirmative Action has been consistently opposed by Republican members of Congress and right-wing think tanks and supported by Democrats.

I'm not talking about racism. I'm talking about using the argument that blacks are unqualified as a justification for opposing affirmative action.

[ReliableInsider]

I don't actually think Republicans -are- racist. It's worse than that.

Nixon's Southern Strategy was to exploit racism to win votes in the South even though it meant alienating and ultimately losing support in the North, and, of course, the black vote.

[ReliableInsider]

This country is full of women who are brilliant and women who wear glasses who are in good shape.

Which pool should we be drawing from on election day?

[gbrady3434]

Part of some people's problem is that when they see a woman that doesn't agree with them either socially, politically, religiously, intellectually etc... they can't resist diminishing them in a sexist way by attributing only physical qualities to them like you just did by mentioning her "good shape" and her "glasses" as if those things matter.

[ReliableInsider]

When I say good shape and glasses, I'm doing two things at once: trying to analyze objectively and trying to be nice.

If I stopped being a nice liberal, I'd just say she's a normal person. Our governor's and our Presidents have to be more knowledgeable than the average man on the street.

[gbrady3434]

You say that you're not a "hater" and that your comments about Palin were not meant to be "sexist" and I believe you... why shouldn't I? Based upon your comments that I've read I have no doubt that you are a decent person therefore I should and "will" treat you as such.

[ReliableInsider]

The truth is that both she and Carrie Prejean have been playing "the victim card" or "wallowing in victimology" or however you want to put it since they fell from grace.

They're probably starting to merge into one celebrity, in a lot of people's minds.

[gbrady3434]

It's interesting that when thinking of Palin your mind then turns to Carrie Prejean..... Too many people stop looking at individuals and instead lump them into a group. It is easier to hate them that way. And I'm guessing it is because of what they issues they represent. At the moment, my friend, the pendulum is swinging towards "them".

[ReliableInsider]

I don't hate anybody. The Democratic Party is about peace, love, and understanding.

I am incredibly irritated about the torture and the global economic collapse and I'm pretty angry at Dick Cheney for the role he played in it all. But I'm not a hater.

If I say, What do they represent? Masturbation and teen pregnancy? That's not me hating anybody. It's just my questioning what this whole movement is all about. I don't understand it yet.

[gbrady3434]

"The Democratic Party is about peace, love, and understanding. " You've got to admit that that sounds a little naive.

[ReliableInsider]

How so? 

Which of them are you against?

[gbrady3434]

Hey, I'm for all three. But which piece of legislation being promoted is for "love"?

[ReliableInsider]

I listened to Palin's speeches during the campaign. She expressed a great deal of hate. She implied that Obama was some kind of socialist or terrorist or not a good American, which was all nonsense.

[ReliableInsider]

Somehow we've got to change the tone in Washington. Negative campaigning works because the voters are frustrated and angry, in part, no doubt, because their wages have been stagnant for thirty years and our corporate media has created a popular culture for us that is spiritually unfulfilling and meaningless and morally nihilistic.

[ReliableInsider]

I keep trying to change -my- tone. I'm not against anybody. But I feel as though the new Republican Party has introduced a note of thuggishness into our culture that is driving out all good ideas and is making the normal process of national conversation about real issues impossible.

[gbrady3434]

I, too, am concerned with the "tone" of our "national conversation". There is a very unhealthy "polarization" in our body politic. It is this astounding polarization that dictates the tone. I don't have a solution to the problem but I do know that we will get more accomplished if we are civil with one another.

[ReliableInsider]

I feel as though the new Republican Party has contempt for voters. For citizens. And doesn't want us to interfere anymore in the political process.

[gbrady3434]

Wow. I admire your stamina. It was interesting what you wrote about the Republican Party... As I was reading your comments I kept thinking that this is how I feel about the Democratic Party! Truly!

[ReliableInsider]

It's an accusation that has been leveled by the leaders of the Republican Party . . .

but, like many of their accusations, it applies more to them than to the Democrats.

[ReliableInsider]

So it sends out people like Glenn Beck, who calls himself a rodeo clown, to try to distract the American People by waving a red cape at us as if we were the stupid bull. As if all the real decisions were supposed to be made by leaders of the GOP meeting with lobbyists behind closed doors. As if Fox "News" viewers weren't supposed to have any role in democracy at all other than holding rallies with lots of Nazi swastikas in order to squelch any kind of serious discussion of real issues.

[gbrady3434]

Concerning Glenn Beck and Fox news:

I have seen the Glenn Beck show and I disliked it at first (I thought his presentation was too emotional) but now feel it is an important show. He talks about what is most important to "fiscal" conservatives and that is our "economy" and our government's "over-spending". And Fox News is less "one-sided" than MSNBC in my opinion... and neither is simply "straight" and unbiased.

[ReliableInsider]

That frustrates me. 

To me, Glenn Beck is taking the insincere economic claims of the Republican Party (which did nothing but spend while Bush was in office) and presenting them in a way that makes Beck seem crazy.

Emotional, yes. In ways that make it harder rather than easier for the viewer to think clearly.

[ReliableInsider]

He tries to short-circuit the viewers rational thought process and his arguments are a jumbled mess riddled with slanderous insinuations.

And worse. Hatemongering.

The polar opposite of civility.

[ReliableInsider]

NONE of this is personally your fault. At all.

Except that you keep -voting- for these guys.

This is not your father's Oldsmobile. I mean, Republican Party.

[gbrady3434]

It is easy to pick apart someone's words, positions and motives... it is harder to acknowledge the "good" and "common ground" and to move forward. Newt Gingrich is someone who is trying to do just that.

Newt Gingrich is pragmatic compared to most other major national politicians. He has written a couple of books recently where he suggests policy changes that both major parties can agree on. He hasn't gotten much traction because of the polarization between the two major parties.

[ReliableInsider]

In 1995, Newt Gingrich shut the federal government down.

He gained a majority in the House by claiming that there was a House Bank that was being stolen from . . . which was almost entirely a lie.

[gbrady3434]

To be precise, it was in late 1995 and early 1996 during a budget standoff between Congressional Republicans and Democratic President Bill Clinton. Speaker Gingrich and the new Republican majority rightly wanted to slow the rate of government spending! Gingrich allowed previously approved appropriations to expire on schedule, thus allowing parts of the Federal government to shut down for lack of funds.

If only the current leader of the house was as fiscally responsible....

[ReliableInsider]

He led his party in an eight-year smear campaign at the end of which all claims that high crimes or misdemeanors were committed were dropped and he raced to publish salacious details about the President and then Gingrich himself mysteriously resigned in what turned out to be a sex scandal which the media politely declined to report even though it made him the biggest hypocrite in human history.

[gbrady3434]

And you said you weren't a hater... I mentioned his book because he wants to solve problems, not just continue on in this same fruitless vein.

[ReliableInsider]

He says he wants to solve problems.

When he was actually Speaker, I didn't see him solving problems.

I saw him impeaching a president who a Republican-controlled Senate ended up finding not guilty on all charges.

Even Ken Starr admitted that after six interminable years that there was "no substantial and credible evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors".

Ken Starr.

[gbrady3434]

Are you blaming Gingrich for Clinton's behavior? It wasn't Newt that was lying to the American people "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski". I am a social liberal and don't care who is blowing who but I do care if my president lies to my face or in a deposition. I didn't need to hear about Bill's seed on Monica's dress, really! Man, you are truly living in the past!! How are we going to change the tone when you bring out this old shit???

[ReliableInsider]

No, I'm sort of blaming Newt Gingrich for 9-11.

[gbrady3434]

Are you okay?

[ReliableInsider]

Yes, I'm fine.

It's a connection that the corporate media doesn't make (so it can't be true, right?), but Gringrich was distracting Clinton with Monica, Monica, Monica and the allegedly liberal media was covering nothing but . . .

just at the time when Osama bin Laden was putting his plans for 9-11 together and Bill Clinton was dropping missiles on bin Laden's head.

Gingrich was a serious distraction just at precisely the wrong time.

[ReliableInsider]

That's the danger of a false impeachment claim.

It is an extremely serious threat to national security.

Right?

If we HAD a liberal media, they would have talked about nothing but, after September 2001.

[ReliableInsider]

When a Congress impeaches a President, either the Congress is guilty or the President is.

In 1999, the Republican-controlled Senate ruled that it had actually been the Republican-controlled Congress that was guilty.

The net result of the Republicans claiming that everyone in the country should be focused 24 hours a day on nothing but Monica, Monica, Monica?

9-11.

[ReliableInsider]

What was so stunning about Gingrich was that, after seizing power in 1994, the man who bills himself as a scholar and an intellectual ran out of ideas.

He said in an interview after he resigned that he had put so much energy into winning a majority that, once he was Speaker, he had no idea what to do with it.

I think he and Lee Atwater did more than any other Americans to CREATE polarization between the two major parties.

Didn't he?

[ReliableInsider]

Your brother worked for Lee Atwater???

He must have been very saddened to lose someone who was so full of life.

[ReliableInsider]

I know I'm in danger of "becoming just as bad as my opponents", but I think it's important for people to see how harmful the political consultants and lobbyists who have taken over the Republican Party have been.

It would be wonderful if the RNC were being honest about what the Republican Party stands for, but it isn't.

[gbrady3434]

What do you think it stands for?

[ReliableInsider]

It used to stand for fiscal conservatism, and a conservative approach to sexual matters, and serving the needs of businessmen.

Now it just sells it's soul to the highest bidder even if it's a health insurance corporation trying to block needed health care insurance reform or a bank trying to stop desperately needed banking re-regulation or a military contractor trying to talk the White House into self-destructive imperialism.

[ReliableInsider]

The Republican Party pretends to stand for what it's political consultants tell it to stand for.

But it doesn't.

In reality, it stands for whatever the lobbyists tell it to stand for.

In other words, the Republican Party doesn't exist anymore.

I don't understand why conservative or Republican -voters-, who are very good people--I've met and/or dated many of them--vote for the party that calls itself Republican and pretends to be conservative.