The Republican Thread

[lostfan]

McCain knew that was a bad word choice and immediately stopped saying it.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.ldnews.com/letterseditor/ci_10436829

 

We need to save the sinking ship

Editor:

Lebanon Daily News

 

 

As a Republican and strong McCain supporter in 2000, I was disappointed and saddened in 2004 when McCain permanently traded in his maverick credentials and sold out his principles to support George W. Bush. I now find it equally disturbing to see him gamble our security and future with a reckless choice for a running mate.

Gov. Sarah Palin clearly has a bright future in politics. She may even have the depth and diversity of experience to be a vice-presidential candidate four years from now.

 

The McCain ticket, with all of its newfound “freshness” and despite all of the claims, has quickly devolved into the politics-as-usual that we have come to expect in the last eight years. McCain and Palin quickly emerged from the rhetoric of their convention as the uniters of dividers.

 

I talk politics with a lot of people from all walks of life. I find it compelling that many of the ordinary Republicans I talk to understand that their families cannot afford another four years like the last eight. We all deserve better.

 

Christopher Tarsa

 

Lebanon

 

Tarsa is chairman of the Lebanon County Democratic Committee.

[lostfan]

lol, that's hilarious.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.ldnews.com/letterseditor/ci_10436829

There are a bunch of stories going around the conservative blogs that Axelrod is behind all this astroturfing. Posts pop up from 'jim', or 'mary' that all follow the same script. And when the bloggers track down the IP's of some of the various posters, they often popo us with multiple names on the same IP, or with and IP in Chicago, when they represented themselves as 'a concerned Wasilla resident'.

 

1. The Pledge: I'm a conservative/I'm a Christian/I'm a conservative Christian

 

2. The Turn: My heart is with you guys, really... but I have these concerns...

 

3. The Prestige: I hear all these great things about Obama and/or did you hear this horrible stuff about Palin?

 

 

 

[Soxbadger]

The more I read about it the less I think its actually anything more than poor word choice to begin the statement.

 

I believe that Mr. Tarsa intended to say that:

 

"I have been a life long Republican up until 2000."

 

I think thats why he states that he was a McCain supporter in 2000, and not a Republican or W supporter in 2000. It seems pretty odd that some one who is the Chairman of the Democratic Party would try and hood wink the readers when in a small community like Lebanon he is probably pretty widely known.

 

But this has given Republican's an opportunity to act as if this is some sort of Obama scheme, when it very well could just be a man telling the truth. It would turn out really bad for Republicans if Mr. Tarsa has a Republican voting record (I cant pull that information if anyone perhaps is a law school student with LexisNexis I believe that you would have access to voter records database and could find out prior to the year 2000 what Tarsa was registered as.)

 

The reality of the situation is that I dont think either side should be to quick to jump on these things. If Tarsa turns out to be telling the truth, a lot of people are going to look pretty silly.

 

On the other hand if Tarsa was lying just to try and influence people, then he is getting all the attention that it deserves.

 

One thing I havent seen mentioned is why did the liberal news reveal this?

 

I thought that newspapers were controlled by the left, so why would they post the part about him being on the Democratic Committee?

 

I guess maybe the media isnt as biased as the right likes to believe.

 

{Edit}

 

Points up, as you can see its already happening. Obama is being blamed for the actions of others when there is no proof. Even ip logs popping up Chicago dont prove anything. For all people know its just people in Chicago doing shady things that have no connection to the Obama campaign.

 

Would it be fair to blame Pods personall for getting elected to the All-Star game because a bunch of people in Chicago voted thousands of times?

 

Once again, unless you have actual proof some of these arguments are pretty strained.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Soxbadger

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.ldnews.com/letterseditor/ci_10436829

 

So you're saying its impossible for someone to switch their party and get involved within 8 years?

[Soxbadger]

No one has ever switched parties in the United States history.

 

(hears whispers)

 

No one besides the great Teddy Roosevelt has ever switched parties in the United States!

[EvilMonkey]

The more I read about it the less I think its actually anything more than poor word choice to begin the statement.

 

I believe that Mr. Tarsa intended to say that:

 

"I have been a life long Republican up until 2000."

 

I think thats why he states that he was a McCain supporter in 2000, and not a Republican or W supporter in 2000. It seems pretty odd that some one who is the Chairman of the Democratic Party would try and hood wink the readers when in a small community like Lebanon he is probably pretty widely known.

 

But this has given Republican's an opportunity to act as if this is some sort of Obama scheme, when it very well could just be a man telling the truth. It would turn out really bad for Republicans if Mr. Tarsa has a Republican voting record (I cant pull that information if anyone perhaps is a law school student with LexisNexis I believe that you would have access to voter records database and could find out prior to the year 2000 what Tarsa was registered as.)

 

The reality of the situation is that I dont think either side should be to quick to jump on these things. If Tarsa turns out to be telling the truth, a lot of people are going to look pretty silly.

 

On the other hand if Tarsa was lying just to try and influence people, then he is getting all the attention that it deserves.

 

One thing I havent seen mentioned is why did the liberal news reveal this?

 

I thought that newspapers were controlled by the left, so why would they post the part about him being on the Democratic Committee?

 

I guess maybe the media isnt as biased as the right likes to believe.

 

{Edit}

 

Points up, as you can see its already happening. Obama is being blamed for the actions of others when there is no proof. Even ip logs popping up Chicago dont prove anything. For all people know its just people in Chicago doing shady things that have no connection to the Obama campaign.

 

Would it be fair to blame Pods personall for getting elected to the All-Star game because a bunch of people in Chicago voted thousands of times?

 

Once again, unless you have actual proof some of these arguments are pretty strained.

Actually, I never said Obama did it. I said there are stories going around about Axelrod being behind a lot of astroturfing going on on blogs and websites. You think the Messiah is gonna get his own hands dirty? That's what he hired Alexrod for. And with the veracity of some of his supporters, all it takes is a little hint and the nutroots will take the ball and run.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...0314_121054.htm

Edited September 16, 2008 by Alpha Dog

[southsider2k5]

So you're saying its impossible for someone to switch their party and get involved within 8 years?

 

Context is a whole lot different with that little tidbit at the bottom of the article.

[Cknolls]

Interesting to note that the most clean campaign ever really isn't again... As usual taking a sentence out of context, or just not using the full sentence.

 

"The fundamentals of our economy are still strong but these are very, very difficult times. I promise you we will never put America in this position again."

 

Sounds way different than the crap you have been hearing ad nasuem the last few days, doesn't it?

 

 

Racist

 

 

Looks like both sides play with words.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Cknolls

[Rex Kickass]

Racist

 

 

Looks like both sides play with words.

 

If you wanna play with words, that last phrase is most damning.

 

"We will never put you in this position again," sounds like a confession that he put them in this position. Doesn't it?

[Cknolls]

The New York Times, September 15, page C-1, "A Frantic Weekend That Wall Street Won't Forget," paragraph 5: "...Greenwich Avenue, which usually bustles on Sundays, was eerily quiet."

 

Stamford Advocate, September 15, page 1, "Go Speed Racers: Soap box derby hits the Avenue," lead sentence: "The town's first soapbox derby in 23 years drew hundreds of fans to Greenwich Avenue on Sunday to watch 24 budding racers speed their handmade cars from Starbucks to Richards."

 

 

 

All the news thats fit to make-up.

[EvilMonkey]

If you wanna play with words, that last phrase is most damning.

 

"We will never put you in this position again," sounds like a confession that he put them in this position. Doesn't it?

"We", as in the government, which he, and Obama and Biden are all a part of. But you knew that.

[Soxbadger]

I see nothing in that businessweek article that suggests Axelrod has hired people to post fake things on websites...

 

The article mentions ads on tv, I really do not see any connection besides the fact that Axelrod has run ads on tv that used:

 

the firm helped set up front organizations that were listed as sponsors of public-issue ads. I

 

So is the argument that because Axelrod set up front organizations for public-issue ads that Obama now must be using "fronts" for hundreds to thousands of posters on the internet to parade as fake republicans?

 

One of them (the fronts for ads) is a sophisticated operation that requires millions of dollars.

 

The other (posting anonymous messages on an internet board) could be run by myself out of my apartment.

 

The connection is illusory at best.

 

It would be like saying McCain is a Republican, Nixon was a Republican, McCain must be up to something like Watergate.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

I see nothing in that businessweek article that suggests Axelrod has hired people to post fake things on websites...

 

The article mentions ads on tv, I really do not see any connection besides the fact that Axelrod has run ads on tv that used:

 

 

 

So is the argument that because Axelrod set up front organizations for public-issue ads that Obama now must be using "fronts" for hundreds to thousands of posters on the internet to parade as fake republicans?

 

One of them (the fronts for ads) is a sophisticated operation that requires millions of dollars.

 

The other (posting anonymous messages on an internet board) could be run by myself out of my apartment.

 

The connection is illusory at best.

 

It would be like saying McCain is a Republican, Nixon was a Republican, McCain must be up to something like Watergate.

Again, you are not reading. I said there are conservative blogs suggesting Alexrod was seeding the comments, and that Axelrod is known for astroturfing, which includes seeding the sites with comments that go your way.

[EvilMonkey]

Have a listen. 'Progressive' radio Pacifica Radio interviews former Democratic Senator Gravel, trying to get him to dish bad on Palin. He says nothing but good things about her. The hosts keep trying to shut him up, and he says to let him finish, and then does. The hosts just seem to get madder and madder that he isn't agreeing with their criticisms of her and defensive of their own opinions as he challenges them a bit. I think some booker is going to get a smackdown after that.

[Soxbadger]

Im not reading???

 

Here is what I said in my first post:

 

But this has given Republican's an opportunity to act as if this is some sort of Obama scheme,

 

You then respond:

 

I said there are stories going around about Axelrod being behind a lot of astroturfing going on on blogs and websites.

 

You then link a businessweek article that does not support that statement. To me it seemed like you were implying that the businessweek article was a story about Axelrod being behind the scenes posting on blogs and websites, when in reality the article talks about astroturfing in a completely different way.

 

So basically you just wanted to agree with me?

 

Because my first statement on this point was that this is going to give Republican's an opportunity to act as if this is some Obama scheme.

 

And your last post says:

 

conservative blogs suggesting Alexrod was seeding the comments, and that Axelrod is known for astroturfing, which includes seeding the sites with comments that go your way.

 

Which is basically just a different way of saying "Republican" blogs.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

Im not reading???

 

Here is what I said in my first post:

 

 

 

You then respond:

 

 

 

You then link a businessweek article that does not support that statement. To me it seemed like you were implying that the businessweek article was a story about Axelrod being behind the scenes posting on blogs and websites, when in reality the article talks about astroturfing in a completely different way.

 

So basically you just wanted to agree with me?

 

Because my first statement on this point was that this is going to give Republican's an opportunity to act as if this is some Obama scheme.

 

And your last post says:

 

 

 

Which is basically just a different way of saying "Republican" blogs.

First, in regards to your last line, 'progressive' is just another way to say 'libtard'. Get over yourself.

 

Now, as for the rest of it, we are at the mercy of the reporter here, aren't we? YOU took it upon yourself to just imagine her adding a whole descriptive sentance to her piece that would explain everything. But you have no way of knowing of that is true, you just want it to be. maybe she DID have that line in there, and it was selectively edited out due to space considerations. Maybe that little tagline at the end was put in on accident? or maybe on purpose by someone not bent to the left? If the story was meant to portray her as a 'former' republican who is now switching, I pointed to what seems to be an organized attempt at some REPUBLICAN blogs to add posts that favor the formay I posted. That is one of the many ways to astroturf. I also mentioned how these same blogs are suggesting that Axelrod was behind it, since his company does just that on every scale imaginable. Hence the link. Do a search. How many pro Obama and Anti-Palin and McCain blogs or websites can you find? TONS! Start 20, 30, 40 of these over a week, and leak a story to the media about the 'grassroots campaign for Obama exploding on the internet'. Start them off with some good Obama comments, a few digs and McCain, and a newsstory you now have. Make a few of the comments from 'former' Republicans, and you really have a story now.

 

"But this has given Republican's an opportunity to act as if this is some sort of Obama scheme, when it very well could just be a man telling the truth.", you say. My reply, "Actually, I never said Obama did it. I said there are stories going around about Axelrod being behind a lot of astroturfing going on on blogs and websites. You think the Messiah is gonna get his own hands dirty? That's what he hired Alexrod for. And with the veracity of some of his supporters, all it takes is a little hint and the nutroots will take the ball and run". Now, if you want to take 'Obama scheme' and have that mean 'a scheme by Obama supporters, official and/or unofficial', then sure, I'll agree with you on that one. I don't think anyone believes that Obama thought that up while getting a pedicure one day

[Steve9347]

What a waste of time this all is... onto the debates! I don't care if Obama has 15 different AIM names and is rocking chatrooms... it doesn't matter.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Steve9347

[Soxbadger]

First, in regards to your last line, 'progressive' is just another way to say 'libtard'. Get over yourself.

 

What?

 

Is that some sort of personal attack, because Im really losing the relevance of that statement.

 

Now, as for the rest of it, we are at the mercy of the reporter here, aren't we? YOU took it upon yourself to just imagine her adding a whole descriptive sentance to her piece that would explain everything. But you have no way of knowing of that is true, you just want it to be. maybe she DID have that line in there, and it was selectively edited out due to space considerations. Maybe that little tagline at the end was put in on accident? or maybe on purpose by someone not bent to the left? If the story was meant to portray her as a 'former' republican who is now switching, I pointed to what seems to be an organized attempt at some REPUBLICAN blogs to add posts that favor the formay I posted. That is one of the many ways to astroturf. I also mentioned how these same blogs are suggesting that Axelrod was behind it, since his company does just that on every scale imaginable. Hence the link. Do a search. How many pro Obama and Anti-Palin and McCain blogs or websites can you find? TONS! Start 20, 30, 40 of these over a week, and leak a story to the media about the 'grassroots campaign for Obama exploding on the internet'. Start them off with some good Obama comments, a few digs and McCain, and a newsstory you now have. Make a few of the comments from 'former' Republicans, and you really have a story now.

 

Okay this is really confusing.

 

Who is her?

 

What article are you referring to?

 

Are you referring to the OP-ED piece written by Christopher Tarsa?

 

http://www.lebanondemocrats.com/aboutus/execcom.shtml

 

Im really confused here because the article written in Businessweek was by Howard, and the Op-Ed (no reporter just an Op-Ed piece) was written by Christopher Tarsa. Neither of these people are women, so Im not sure which article you are referencing.

 

"But this has given Republican's an opportunity to act as if this is some sort of Obama scheme, when it very well could just be a man telling the truth.", you say. My reply, "Actually, I never said Obama did it. I said there are stories going around about Axelrod being behind a lot of astroturfing going on on blogs and websites. You think the Messiah is gonna get his own hands dirty? That's what he hired Alexrod for. And with the veracity of some of his supporters, all it takes is a little hint and the nutroots will take the ball and run". Now, if you want to take 'Obama scheme' and have that mean 'a scheme by Obama supporters, official and/or unofficial', then sure, I'll agree with you on that one. I don't think anyone believes that Obama thought that up while getting a pedicure one day

 

Once again this seems a some what trivial argument. You dont deny that its given some Republican's an opportunity to try and some how connect it to Obama, so what is the beef?

 

Are you just upset that I proposed an alternative theory that Christopher Tarsa was at one point a Republican and perhaps changed?

 

Im really confused about your argument because I dont know what article you are referencing when you say "she". And I dont know what "reporter" you are talking about either. The Tarsa comment was an op-ed (open editorial), I could write in if I want. The tag line is to give context to the author. Just like i wrote in to an op-ed it would say something like "XXX is a _____ in Chicago."

 

Whatever this is pointless, I just think that its crazy how many people are out to get Tarsa, when it could have simply been a poorly written article. Hes not a reporter, hes not a columnist, hes just a person who has an opinion. Right or wrong, Americans have the right to express their opinion.

[Steve9347]

Just like i wrote in to an op-ed it would say something like "Soxbadger is a libtard in Chicago."

 

We're all libtards!

Edited September 16, 2008 by Steve9347

[Soxbadger]

According to classical conservative theory you would be 100% correct Steve.

 

I doubt many have even heard of Michael Oakeshott.

[EvilMonkey]

. Right or wrong, Americans have the right to express their opinion.

Yes they do, and since ours will not be the same on this, I will end it by eliminating some of your confusion caused by me. I misread the name and took Tarsa to be a woman, hence the 'she'. My turn to read, I guess.

[EvilMonkey]

Palin Troopergate emails released. What is the MSNBC headline?

Palin unlikely to meet 'Troopergate' investigator

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26727937/

[lostfan]

Palin Troopergate emails released. What is the MSNBC headline?

Palin unlikely to meet 'Troopergate' investigator

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26727937/

The front page of Yahoo says "GOP lawmakers sue to stop inquiry into Palin's 'Troopergate'"