That IS the question of the hour, isn't it? I know how surprised I was when I found out the powers of the Republican party "shelved" the thoughts of their candidates. I suppose this means there won't be any more appearances on the Sunday talk shows.


You're damned right! I never understood why supposedly intelligent politicians, actual office holders no less, should sneak around getting other people to write their speeches for them. It's....it's...despicable if you ask me. By god, if they can't write their own speeches I think they ought to resign.

The key word was "Bush's speech writer". I want to hear a speech written by McCain or Palin's speech writer... I guess for the moment that Bush speech writer is "the bridge to no where"...

Yes, yes, I agree. But that could be tricky too. I mean, what if someone who once wrote a speech for Bush back when he was the Governor of Texas slips through the cracks and ends up writing for Palen? We could...we could end up with a bridge to nowhere.

Since it's my understanding that the pool of presidential speech writers can included dozens of people over the years would it suffice to do word counts on previous Bush speeches and make sure only those who have contributed, oh say, 33% or more to any particular speech be banned from future speech writing or should the ban be total, included people who possibly corrected a spelling error or grammar usage, or maybe contributed a short paragraph reflecting their particular field of expertise within a give subsection of a speech?

If it were I... I would make certain my speech writer had all the facts correct before writing my speech. For instance McCain told the American people one of Palin's contributions to the well being of American Alaskans was selling a multi million dollar jet on ebay and making a profit. In truth, Palin only listed the jet on ebay and another government official sold the air craft for a loss.

When discrepancies like this are found through out a politician's speech, he is either ill informed or lying. I guess the question that then comes to my mind, is are these politicians (Dems included) simply vent dumbies with a speech writer. Who is the speech writer's Daddy?

This will probably require a DNA test, you suppose?

1. Do you believe it because you are a Republican, or are you a Republican bacause you believe it? If the former, do you believe everything in their platform? If not, or if the latter, is this the most important plank, over-riding the others?

2. Is the statement, "--god gave us that technology to help others." actually in the Republican platform? If "God" did so, which god is being referred to?


I assume your first sentence refers to stem-cell research, not abortion, right?

Since your god is not the god of the majority of the human race, do you think that they have no right under any circumstances to take take human life? If you were a politician, would you be in favor of imposing this view on those within your society that have a contrary view? In the second instance, would a simple majority vote by the legislature or by the public be enough to make it law? If not, what super-majority would be required to impose this on a minority?

How do your reconcile your views on the sanctity of human life with your present occupation rather than being a conscientious objector?


Absolutely. However, having been in a position of establishing pay level in a mixed gender environment, might I ask how you would establish "counterparts" other than in very simple repetative task jobs?

To extend this a bit. Would you be in favor of equal pay for all jobs, regardless of gender? If not, what do you see as the rationale for some jobs paying more--sometimes much more--than others? Should the government have responsibility for keeping pay disparity under control?

Is that in the Republican platform in those uncertain terms?

You have now been exposed to a sample of what you will find in FoolMoon. If you are up to it, this can be a learning experience for an aspiring politician, should you continue to have that goal.

Oh, by the way, any of the above subjects could be a good thread of their own, but how do you think Palin--the subject of this thread--would answer them? (That isn't a chastisement: it seems to be OK to briefly stray off topic, on occasion.)

Joe, while we risk drifting into a discussion more appropriate for the religious forums, I think it is worth pointing out that your observation is hardly biblical. The Christian holy book is rife with their god ordering the deaths of countless thousands and literally dozens of circumstances under which his followers are commanded to take a life. This is hardly in accordance with your statement that we have no right to take human life under any circumstances. A conservative American Christian might find your platform to be contrary to the will of his god as expressed in your holy book.

Stone, all you have to do is see the first part of O'Reilly's interview with Obama. He said that the surge was working far better than "we" could have dreamed. It's there. It's on the air. If I weren't lazy this Saturday I'd look up the URL of the video stream for you.

For completeness, I'll add that he said the surge hadn't totally worked yet, because it failed to achieve its stated goals of putting Iraqis in charge of Irag.

There are two very interesting editorials about Gov. Palin in the news today. The first is in the London Times and can be reached through Ray's tiny url in 'Is "Dear Leader" Departed?' and is titled 'This Cynical Choice Has Left McCain's Honour in Shreds." The second is in the Seattle Times, for Sun., Sept. 7, under the headline, Sarah Palin had turbulent first year as mayor of Alaska town.

They're interesting for a couple of reasons: what an American woman, born of a British mother and raised in England, has to say; what Sarah Palin's own words have to say. Y'all might want to read them.

Palin is no Margrette Thatcher ( The Ex British PM).