I can assure you that I am NOT JamesK. Syntax or otherwise (?!) and no offense taken.

James.

The irony of Sanderson railing on about vilification is that it is the NYT that is especially guilty of vilification. I note just yesterday it vilified McCain’s wife and it stoops to base methods to bolster its prejudices and those of sycophants such as Sanderson:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021809.php

As for the NY Times? Wasn’t it the paper that was the Bush administration’s loudest cheer leader on WMD? So, seems to me they just follow the leader who best suits their own craven interests. Bush then, BHO, now. Expecting newspapers NOT to run a political agenda seems a tad 50’s to me.

Cheers

V.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/opinion/19rich.html?hp

I expressed the view that he has not done himself a service even if he wished a role in an Obama administration.

I expressed the view that the manner in which he has endorsed Obama and not the fact which is sad.

I notice other commentators have attacked Powell very aggressively but dingbat Sanderson still pops his silly head over the parapet for more punishment from me…… Gee thanks David!

Interesting to see the left wing nut commentariat (always echoed monotonously, inanely and repetitively by Sanderson,) foaming at the mouth about “vilification”.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Equating McCain with Bush must be especially repugnant to McCain. The irony is laughable.

And who could forget the shameful denunciations of Palin immediately following her appointment as VP candidate and prior to her speech at the convention?

And notice now that the race is seen as done and dusted, this puerile, supercilious and patronising arrogance is back in the ascendancy amongst this nauseating crew.

At least Obama’s (and McCain’s) personal conduct in this race has been exemplary quite unlike these rabid ‘liberal’ supporters.

The media’s role in this race has been lamentably partisan and such fueling of one sided accusations of vilification is especially disgraceful.

Lastly, abortion is a real issue in US politics. Many pro choicers believe that there is simply too much of it. Many believe in it being available under limited conditions. The recent Victorian legislation would not pass the US Congress.

McCain’s campaign made a remarkable public statement wrt the New York Times:

“Whatever The New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day impugns the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin. … Everything that is read in The New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective.”

The best in terms of an ‘argument’ you will ever see from him is an internet address.

In this case……..surprise, surprise, surprise……..it’s Frank Rich of the New York Times ….again!
A favourite of our fatuously leftist Sanderson

Do you mean THE Frank Rich? The one who uses lines like the “violent escalation of rhetoric” and “pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies” and says in the next paragraph that Ayers “connection to Obama is minor”. He says of Palin: “She wants to be president, she thinks she can be president, she thinks she will be president.”

And do you mean THE New York Times? Probably the pre-eminent example of what I referred to in my prior comment. Interesting that not a word of John Edward’s tawdry extra-marital affair never was mentioned in Sanderson’s beloved NYT but McCain’s supposed affair with a lobbyist was front page. One story true and the other false.

The New York Times is a disgraceful excuse for a newspaper. It is more partisan than almost any other MSM newspaper in the US.

Spare us your ‘rubbish-excuse-for-an-argument internet referrals’ David Sanderson!

On the Palin SNL thing? Come on Guy - lighten up. You mention talking points. Looks like you’ve been reading the ones offered by the totally humourless and oh-so-serious Huffington Post to the crazed left blogs who went absolutely FERAL over SP’s appearance. Give the woman a break. Sure, it wasn’t THE most polished performance nor was it uproariously funny - but so what? She showed great poise, a sense of fun and a capacity to poke fun at herself. Three qualities in desperately short supply in the political kingdom these days.

Can this campaign please end soon? This has been the longest media deification of a political candidate in living memory.

I really look forward to BHO having to front an actual press conference having to answer actual hard questions from the White House press core (assuming that may happen at some stage after November 4)?

It is true that, at a theological level, Christianity and Islam have things in common (especially in their more fundamentalist versions) but that is irrelevant to what ‘Muslim’ means in this election. Republicans use ‘Muslim’ a s a synonym for unAmerican, dangerously foreign and terrorist. To deny that they have been doing that is a pointless lie. Theological debates are quite absent from their thinking and similarities in thinking about abortion are utterly irrelevant. John James’ “sweet lady” especially has no interest in inter-faith dialogue. She comes from a strand of Christianity which uses its faith as a cover and justification for a xenophobia which is particularly virulent when directed at Muslims..

JamesK’s feeble attempt to trash Powell’s reputation because he dared to think for himself is answerable with a couple of points. Firstly, McCain and Powell are friendly political colleagues and not close personal friends. Powell is also entitled to believe that while he has adhered to some core values, McCain, in his desperation to become president, hasn’t. Secondly, a ‘soldier’, as JamesK describes him, with forty years service, is as entitled as anyone to put the interests of his country first. That is what Powell has done.

And I watched Sarah Palin on S.N.L. At least she looked pretty.