That seems fair. I'm rarely proud of those whitey politicians myself.

:lol:

McCain didn't choose Palin. He wanted Liebermann, but the party wasn't having it, so they dumped Palin on him.

The results were predictable, and more than a little hilarious.

1.) We already covered that fallacy last November. But if you'd like to take tw's version of events over Newsweek, that's your prerogative.

2.) If you think Palin lost the election for McCain, then you must not be that well-acquainted with many Republicans. They liked her more than McCain, and still do. The economy crashing just before the election is what pushed Obama over the top.

You don't win the presidency by winning your base over. You should already have them. That dizzy twit from Alaska had pretty much everyone that isn't a conservative Christian uber-right wing republican either laughing, embarrassed, or horrified.

Palin cost McCain the middle.

EDIT: Also, Newsweek is a worthless rag.

Somehow Bush won using the exact opposite of your logic.

"Having" your base is not the same thing as inspiring them to get off their asses and vote for you. It's all about who shows up.

It is the growing independents/middle of the roaders who determined the recent outcome and will likely have the greatest impact in the short term.

The Democrats have opened their tent and expanded their constituency....The Republicans have rallied around their base and shut the center out.

:lol2:

She sure lost him my vote.

That doesn't invalidate the "Palin lost the election" theory. Palin did round up the Republican base and brought many people who were not going to vote to the voting booth on November 4th but with the help of other factors, Palin really only hurt McCain when it came to swing voters. It may have evened out and maybe Palin actually did help McCain compared to other potential candidates, we can never know (maybe???), but there is no doubt that Palin did not help McCain in many respects.

If McCain did win, there would be much uneasiness on how she would do, even more then Obama IMO, and her further polarizing the political landscape, while not exclusively, did nothing to help the situation as well.

No, he didn't. Bush won over a little more than half of the middle, both times.

...And now the Dems are doing their level best to lose in 2010.

What the hell is wrong with them? They're acting like caricatures of 1980s Dems.

Jindal Admits Katrina Story Was False
 

:rolleyes:

Gee another politician who lied - unfortunately a much too common occurrence. Who's next?

From what I heard, the Neocon faction of the GOP had been trying to court Palin as far back as the summer of 2007. Whether that was because they wanted to run her more nationally, or just as part of their inter-conservative tussle with the Paleocons (Palin had been a Buchanan supporter, once) is still unclear, however.

Either way, the wannabe Philosopher-Kings don't look especially smart.

I've never assumed that the current crop of republicans is particularly intelligent. More like 40-60 year old half-bright frat boys with inherited money.

Two words can ruin the Neocon pretension to superior intellect forever more.

"Douglas Feith".

That sounds like a description of a bunch of bankers/stock brokers.

There can only be one!
\
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/i...ghlander_l.jpg

Maybe. But I think it's possible. We never come up with cures anymore, we only come up with treatments, which benfits drug companies. Hell the FDA and pharma cos have been trying to shut down vitamin and herbal companies for years, because it cuts into their profit margin.

And I have to say, (another thought here), how can anyone say anything with a straight face against marijuana or other illegal drugs, when all we have on TV is commercials from pharmaceutical companies promoting (pushing) drugs? They now make drugs to make other drugs more efficient. It is a racket, and a worse racket than the illegal drug trade, IMHO.

The only "cures" we have ever come up with are vaccinations and bacteriophages (pennicillin, etc...IOW, antibiotics).

New antibiotics are developed every year.

You just made Nancy Reagan cry. :sniff:

So what does that say about Bobby Jindal? That he is an inspiration for antibiotics or the reason antibiotics are necessary?

Yes.

We cured polio. Or maybe eradicated is a better word, at least in this country. And TB, although it is on the rise again. Leprosy. Small Pox. Should I continue? We don't even have a vaccine or cure for herpes.

And bacteria are becoming more resistant to all our antibiotics. Even syphilis and gonorrhea are on the rise again, and the new strains are very resistant to antibiotics, probably because ranchers and chicken farmers put them in the food supply, and doctor's write prescriptions for them when they shouldn't. But that is another topic.

Huh? Which is it? We do or don't?

We used to. We don't anymore. Which is why I said, it is more profitable for pharmaceutical cos to treat rather than cure, and why they no longer find cures, but treatments.

It ain't gone til it's dead.

So far, we've wiped out smallpox. That's it. Leprosy is still around, though recent work with the old boogeyman drug Thalidomide is showing real promise in treatment.

TB is back. Not coming back...back. You can thank both parties hamstringing the INS for that one.

You get my point though, right? If we could eradicate a disease in THIS country, we should have been able to eradicate it in the world. And, we aren't eradicating anything anymore.

An exception: malaria.

A discussions about diseases should always differentiate between bacteria, virus, and Jindal.

:lol: