Um, that's not quite right, Sarah

Lisa, I understand that the Fresno Bee has typically had a goal of publishing at an eighth-grade reading level for audience purposes but even the content of your post here is staggeringly ignorant. (So Bee editors now get their news from anonymous Yahoo stories? That does a lot to explain the state of your editorial page.)

Apparently, Sarah Palin knows a lot more than you about the plain language of the U.S. Constitution. And you don't need to have worked on Capitol Hill to know that the Senate (as well as the House) both re-write and adopt all of their internal operating rules and procedures every two years at the beginning of each Congress. (Did you even know that each Congress lasts 2 years?)

The Vice Presidency is an elected Constitutional office in itself and neither the President nor any Senate party leaders can dictate how the Vice President conducts his or her stated Constitutional rights and responsibilities. There is significant contemporary legal debate about whether it's even accurate to consider the Vice President a member of the so-called executive branch, the legislative branch, or a hybrid of both.

If you want to try to turn the conversation to 'tradition' (and why should Palin or any other Vice President be bound by that?), you should remember that the Presidency itself was initially intended to be only a ceremonial and administrative position, while Congress was intended to run the country. Things change, and Palin is more perceptive than you (or Joe Biden, or your anonymous Yahoo author) about the potential of the office she's running for, and her own ability to fit it to her own skills and talents.

Her comments to the little boy indicate to me that she is not afraid to get in there and work for the better of our country. Not afraid to get her hands dirty and try to work with people. We have not seen many VPS want to do that.

Tony, you're calling Lisa "ignorant" because the Senate could theoretically rewrite its rules to give Palin a legislative role that no Vice President has exercised in more than 200 years?

I understand your need to defend Palin, but that's pretty weak.

Tony, The source of the blog is not "an anonymous Yahoo story." Yahoo! News published an Associated Press article that has moved on the wires and is appearing on news sites across the nation, including CNN, ABC, CBS and The Washington Post.

Lisa,

Palin got the same question about 4 times and did not answer it correctly. It was not a fluke nor a "gotchya" question.

Either she is too lazy to find out what the Office responsibilities are or she is sorry to say, inept. If I was going to work at a position at wallmart and was going to be interviewed I would pretty much do some research to find out what some responsibilities are.

The Office reponsibilities of the VP is in our Constitution and Palin did not even vaguely memorize anything, even after she messed up the first, second, third, time.

Sarah apparently has lower poll numbers then President Bush and that is BAD. I would suggest Bush help McCain's campaign and Palen go hunting for moose for a few more weeks. Is it moose hunting season?

Lisa seems like the defenders of Palin are resorting to sniping the messenger. Your article could have been more painful for those who support Palin. They should consider themselves lucky for not reading the painful facts I was more then willing to share, that she messed up the same question 3 times before!

Okay, Lisa, call it "an anonymous Associated Press story" instead of "anonymous Yahoo story." Remember, you're the one who posted the link to Yahoo instead of to the ap.org website, which apparently to your mind would have made a difference.

Mike, what I wrote was crystal clear: the Senate already rewrites its rules every time a new Congress is convened. There's nothing theoretical about it. The only thing theoretical is the role of the party leaders. The Vice President and the Senate President Pro Tempore (not the Majority Leader) are written into the original Constitution. Look it up.

And why is an activist Vice President so hard for you to conceive? From Mondale to Gore to Cheney modern Vice Presidents have greatly expanded even the 'traditional' scope of Vice Presidential authority. Ignorance was the right word -- ignorance about history, about the U.S. Constitution, and most certainly about Sarah Palin.

Tony, I didn't dispute that the Senate periodically rewrites its rules (although there are rarely any significant changes - its a pretty stable institution). But you either intentionally or negligently left off the point of my sentence - that it is only hypothetical that the Senate will ever rewrite its rules FOR THE PURPOSE OF giving the VP more of a role. The chances that the upcoming Senate will do that for Palin are probably about as remote as the chance of the Bulldogs winning the BCS championship this year. Why would they? Her legislative experience to date consists of serving on the Wasilla City Council.

Wow!...Obviously a not ready for prime time player.We could fill up a month of blogs if we gave GaffeMasterJB(Biden) the anal exam you pathetic twits are giving Gov.Palin and Joe the Plumber.Keep drinking the kool-aid you Bee-lievers and the papers and socialist media wonder why they are losing what little credibility they have(not to mention numbers).I hope Nurse Lisa is the next to go.She's useless.

Your most recent post here Mike makes a lot of sense (excluding your gratuitous dis' to the Bulldogs). The answer is that Palin does not need any 'rules' to be rewritten in order to take exactly the role that she described in her own words in the video.

Unfortunately, Lisa and her anonymous AP author weren't thinking about Constitutional law, let alone about Senate protocols and political odds, when they leaped to mock someone who is far more familiar with the office of the Vice Presidency than they are, though they are the ones being paid every day to provide quality information to the public.

Brian is right, local media bias is extreme, shameless and transparent. How many blog posts have Lisa, Jim, or Russ posted about Joe Biden (J-O-B-S = 3 words? FDR was on TV? Who was President during the 1929 crash? The U.S. drove Hezbollah out of Lebanon?) or Obama (57 states and 1 more to go? They speak Arabic in Afghanistan? His father served in WWII? He is on the Senate Banking Committee? The embargo of Cuba started in 1947?)

Palin made an informed, thoughtful statement about the job she's running for and what she plans to do in it, answering a child's question. The above examples by Biden and Obama are not slips of the tongue, they are revelations of basic ignorance of history, geography, and current events. Though Brian is also right that to add also the list of all of their slips of the tongue as well would fill a book.

Wow indeed Brian. Imagine how many more people might not have instantly discounted everything you had to say in that comment had you not insulted anyone you might have had discourse with on the topic. At best, all you'll get now is anger and maybe an "Amen" from Bart.

Tony, I wouldn't necessarily call blogs, even those corollary to a mainstream newspaper, "quality information" dispensers. Places like these are meant to be more informal and conversational and thus biased.

Going on a blog and demanding or at least expecting objective news reporting is a bit much I think.

Well, if Palin interpreted the question as asking what she fantasized doing as VP, her answer might work, Tony (she does have a history of answering the question she would like to have asked, rather than the question actually asked).

Although the role of VP as president of the Senate is mostly ceremonial, and has no real power other than casting a tie-breaking vote, I suppose she could dream that the actual leaders of the Senate will invite her to play an active role in crafting legislation.

But if you believe that, you might as well reserve your ticket to Miami to cheer the Bulldogs on at the BCS Championship.

adam the underlined

Apparently you find fault with my simple agreement. Sometimes truth once spoken is enough, twice can be cruel. For your own edification, I will agree with anyone who makes a case that in my opinion speaks to the plain truth of any matter whether political or social. In the meantime try to differentiate this space from your own legendary realm.

Adam...I make no apologies and it is not my intention to convert anyone.If there is any anger in me it is because of the constant manipulation by the left wing media to tell us what is news and what is not.Where are the blogs by the Bee about Obama's shady connections,campaign money,outright lies,ineptness and gaffes.Why aren't Chris Dodd and Barney Frank getting an anal exam.You heard nothing about Tim Mahoney(D)in Florida and his bad behavior but we were treated to 5 weeks of Mark Foley(R) during the last election-Oh and by the way did you know all charges against him were dropped.Of course you didn't.These folks aren't professionals in the media...they are second rate hacks and the people that trust them and believe them and repeat their garbage are fools.

I try and keep an open mind I really do...but when I see Sarah Palin unable to come up with ANY Supreme Court rulings, that is ridiculous.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/palin-couric.html

In a perfect world we would have five effective leaders running for President. It would not be a money making machine for the media. We would simply choose based on experience, intelligence and leadership skills.

Instead we are handed a two party system that is broken. It is in the politicians interests to keep the status quo. It is in Big Buisness interest to keep the status quo. I do my duty as a citizen, I vote.

Then I pray.

Tony writes: “… to fit it to her own skills and talents.”

Like playing the flute or the swimsuit competition?

"The Vice Presidency is an elected Constitutional office in itself and neither the President nor any Senate party leaders can dictate how the Vice President conducts his or her stated Constitutional rights and responsibilities."
posted by Toni Gastelum

Mr. Gastelum's version seems not be in agreement with the United States constitution which limits the
powers of the Vice Presidency, and relegates other functions to the will of the President. There seems
to be the uncomfortable indication that the Conservatives and Neo-Cons are ready to tinker with the
constitution as they see fit, in order to weaken congressional powers. But as pointed out in another
post, 200 years of the constitution are not easily scuttled to accomodate the ambitions of Sarah Palin.

"Duties"
"The formal powers and role of the vice president are limited by the Constitution to becoming President should the President become unable to serve (e.g. due to the death, resignation, or medical impairment of the President) and acting as the presiding officer of the U.S. Senate. As President of the Senate, the Vice President has two primary duties: to cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock and to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College. The informal roles and functions of the Vice President depend on the specific relationship between the President and the Vice President..."

Lisa,

...And how would YOU explain to 3rd graders our complex gov't structure?

Bart, I find no fault in your simple agreement. I've made simple agreements here before. I've just observed a tendency for you and Brian to find agreement on a wide swath of points, regardless of how harshly either of you put other people down.

Brian, I certainly wasn't asking for an apology. As far as your search for unbiased blogging, you'll never find it. Regarding Opinion Talk, it's obvious this forum is authored by those who lean to the left. I shared my thoughts with Tony already. If you're here for objective news, you're in the wrong place. In fact, if you're looking for objective news anywhere...you're out of luck. Whether it's Fox News or the New York Times or the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman in Wasilla, it's going to have a slant.

So, really, pointing out that something is biased here is really a red herring. If you read something, deal with it, then respond to the points. Going on about how something isn't written to suit your view certainly isn't spending your time wisely. It's clear they don't delete comments here. Use the threads to share your opinion on the topics rather than opine on the unfairness of it all.

I have no idea how Lisa Boyles would explain the basic structure of United States Government. It really is not that complicated. I would introduce the term Checks and Balances (the heartbeat of US government) Then I would go to the blackboard and show the triangle: Congress on top, one corner Supreme Court and on the other President. And then I would fill in with 5 arrows, to demonstrate the inter-connection of the three. How they ride herd on each other and that why it's called Checks and Balances. Third grade students are very smart and perceptive, unspoiled by hormones like High School students. And then it's but a small step to the job of the vice president.

Perhaps we could get out of the rink's right corner ; out of the left corner and
meet on a platform where we can amicably agree to disagree. After all, we
all have divined by now that we are contributing nothing to the community
at large. The beehive is a medium for self-indulgent uncensored expression,
but it should not be a free subscription to being uncivil. That is not a lecture,
but born of disgust for some of the stuff that had been appearing on the PC
screen lately.

Well said Adam.

As for the Bee and those implying Palin is stupid I think you are missing the point. She knows the VP supports the Pres. she said that in her response. The VP is President of the Senate. That would mean nothing to a third grader but being "in charge of the Senate" does means the VP has power. They have the tie-breaking vote; that's power. Palin has never answered a question without being fully aware that a bigger audience is watching and she has repeatedly made additional political points beyond the question asked; which I believe is what she's done here. I'm sure she is aware that the VP has no official powers; however, to think she has no power is naive. She will be the eyes and the ears to the Pres about what the Senate is doing. To think well placed lobbying of the Senate isn't going to have any effect is silly. The Constitution does not regulate her access to the Senate. In fact to cast a tie-breaking vote she'd better have a finger on the pulse of the Senate. "Traditionally" VPs have left the day to day activities to the Senators but Palin has repeatedly said she will not be traditional. The Bee states, "In the past the Pres determines the role of the VP in an administration." So what's to say they he won't ask her to function in a less traditional manner. Is "President of the Senate" defined in the Constitution? If it's not, then there is indeed some latitude as to how much impact a VP may have without casting any vote at all. She wanted to get in the political statement that she is going to Washington to promote change. Simple as that. She's not stupid. Frankly, it irritates me how both Democrats and Republicans speak about our President and those running. We show no respect in regards to the people who do and may soon be running our country. We don't have to agree with them or vote for them. We can fight against their policies but why can't people do that with respect? If our own country shows no respect to our leaders why should other countries respect them?

Kim's post is absolutely right, on every point.

Before slashing Ms. Boyles to pieces, readers should pause and reflect. I'm a lawyer who knows a bit about how Congress operates.

I disagree with the comments above that the Senate re-writes its operating rules every two years. While the House re-writes its rules every two years with every new Congress, the United States Senate is a "continuing body." The same rules continue in effect in perpetuity until they are amended. To quote from Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, "The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules."
Read Rule V here: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule05.php

The Senate's status as a "continuing body" has a major point of contention in the 1950s and '60s civil rights debates. Pro-civil rights forces wanted to change the Senate's standing rules to make it easier to overcome Southern opponents. Southerners argued that it took a super-majority, not a simple majority, to change the Senate's rules. Rule 22, the "filibuster" rule, was at issue.

Kim nailed it.

Now, can we talk about Joe Biden's satement that Obama will be challenged during the early months of his administration, and that Obama will respond in a fashion that we won't think is appropriate?

Specifically, Joe said that Obama was going to have his mettle tested during the initial months in office. He then said: "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Wow.

I don't see what you're trying to cull from those words Jeff. Are you offended by the idea that the next President is going to have an extremely uphill battle?

Obama will not need help finding his old seat in the senate chamber. It is on the same side of the isle as the two senators who will cost him the election, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

Its NOT OFTEN THAT I agree with Brian but I am with him on this one in that the media has ripped Sarah Palin a new a--hole and turned her inside out but nothing on Biden or Obama. It is said that McCain is attacking Obama but everyone is attacking him and Sarah. You can find dirt on even Mother Teresa if you tried. I can't wait for Nov 5th.

I think the statement by Biden is just as logical as Palin's VP answer. Both Obama and McCain, whomever fills the seat, will be challenged in the beginning. Look at the mess he will be taking on. Things have to change radically and let's face it; a large portion of people don't like change. He's going to have to make fiscal changes that the Senate and the House aren't going to like. Pork needs to be cut. Programs need to be cut. Partisan politics need to be overcome. He's going to get a lot of flack for it and resistance. It's the same with all Presidents. It's always an uphill battle fighting the two party system. So yes, he does need support of the people to remind our representatives they work for us, not their own ajendas. When it's new and radically different from the status quo it won't be apparant that it's the right path until their plan starts working. So, I don't think Biden's statement is such a Wow, I think it is common sense applicable to anyone. Just like with Palin's comment... there is no drama there either.

Oh please, is there anyone in here who doesn't think the next president will be tested?

Ah Jackie, I didn't expect that from you. You and Brian are suffering from selective memory or maybe the right wing mudslinging against Obama and Biden has become so repetitive and error filled that it's not noticeable anymore. Both sides are taking the hits equally, it just depends on the media sources you're watching.

And guys, can you cool it with the anal exam references? I realize at Brian's age they are stark medical reality so perhaps it's in the forefront of his mind but still... we get the point.

Biden wasn't talking about the tests that every President faces. He talked about a young President and put it in the context of President Kennedy being tested by the Russians (most of which tests he failed). Biden wasn't talking generally about the difficulties of being President or the challenges that all Presidents face. He was talking about the fact that Obama was going to himself draw crises that are designed to test his personal mettle.

He also, most importantly, stated in that context and on that issue that Obama would respond in a fasion that won't be readily apparent is the correct way to respond.

The only thing I can take from that is that he was talking about foreign policy, not pork barrel spending, he was talking about a direct challenge to Obama's foreign policy approaches, not to the general challenges all President's face, and he was talking about the fact that the response that Obama will provide "it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Obama has tried to recast the context of Biden's remarks. But, it was clearly about Obama's response to an early foreign policy challenge designed to test his mettle that he won't respond in a fashion that the country will feel comfortable with.

"Obama was going to himself draw crisis that are design to test his personal mettle"...

That is McCain's SPIN on what Biden said. I took his comment more as "Murphy's Law" that something is going to happen (with our luck that's all we need...) not that Obama would make it happen or adversaries will test him because of who he is. Even speaking only to foreign policy as you said, my argument still stands. Biden said Obama was up to the challenge and will show a "spine of steel". Obama has said all along that the status quo way of dealing with things isn't going to work and I think he means that with foreign policy as well. In his debates, he clearly told us he doesn't agree with current foreign policy; more focus should be in Afgahnistan for example. I have seen the spin McCain and Palin have put on Biden's comments and they spin it to their own advantage but I still think Biden's comments require no drama.

Now you bring up a very interesting point that my husband and I have discussed repeatedly. I think the context of Kennedy being young and inexperienced is a truthful correlation with Obama. Kennedy made many blunders early on and it was just dumb luck that kept us out of BIG trouble. He learned fast and became a good Pres. I think he would have been a great Pres. if he was given the chance. As a Democrat, I acknowledge this is one leap of faith that we make with Obama. I counter this with we have learned a lot from history and Obama has a good grasp of it. I also suggest that no one truly knows what they are in for until they sit in the hot seat themselves AND any President, Obama or McCain, does not work in a vacuum, there are plenty around that can provide perspective that either may need and Obama is smart enough to search it out. A leap of faith, yes, my son is nearing military age; it scares me. I'm not convinced that McCain will respond in a way I like, to an outside, crisis either. The same leap of faith goes with McCain. Not inexperience, he's served his country but maybe "stuck in his ways?" There's the rub.

Jeff Reid - it has been a pleasure speaking with you. We don't have to agree but we don't have to fight either. Thank you for blogging on a civilized level.

Sorry Kim I watch many different channels and listen to a vareity of radio programs. I see no attacks on Biden just Palin and they compare her and her experience against Obama but she is running for VP and he isn't. Everyone has McCain with one foot in the grave when he seems to be perfectly healthy and his mom is a vibrant 96 yrs old.Palin answered the youngsters question at a level for him to understand.

KT&T(aka.Kim)...what do you base that big lie on? It's the opposite of what I saw on Fox based on an independent media study of negative spots...McCain/Palin 76% Obama/Obiden 40%.Maybe it was in a dream you had and how generous of you to compare Obama/Obiden supporters to third graders.One of your more intelligent utterings.

Lisa and The Bee just delight themselves in coming up with all the tidbits of information to demean Palin and/or McCain. Being that The Bee likes to scour the bottom of the barrel for any dirt, it should do a two-page layout on Barack Obama and his past associations, his wife, his advisers, etc. However, we all know that he's sacrosanct and this newspaper already has cast its support for Mr. Obama. Lisa, keep your antennae up and see what other dirt you can find on either Sarah Palin or J. McCain. That will be your job until November!

All right Jeff, let's say your interpretation is right on. For one, you have to assume that McCain is just as likely to be tested by some foreign military or some country or organization. In fact I expect it...no matter who wins the election. Joe's not dumb when it comes to foreign relations. And I think most people in here also could easily concede that something is likely to happen in the next four years. McCain keeps saying "I've already been tested my friends." And then that grin...I hate that grin and I hate the "my friends" thing. Anyway, he's an idiot if he thinks he won't face big foreign relations issues, implying that he won't need to be tested because he's been tested. Don't be stupid John, it's going to happen. So at any rate, it's really a non issue.

That said, I would bet that Obama handles it a little differently than McCain or Bush would. I'm sure that's all Biden was eluding to, if in fact that's what he meant. I would hope Obama handles it differently than McCain probably would. McCain tends to think like Bush and I haven't agreed with anything Bush has done as far as foreign policy. That's just me though, many people do agree with his decisions. Another argument for another time and I'm sure we all know how everyone stands.

The problem is that the right is jumping on something Biden said trying to make it a big deal. Low and behold the left does that to Sarah Palin and we're picking on her. At any rate, go ahead and pick on Biden, he can take it.

Here's a radical thought. I think we should make friends with Iran. I agree with CIA operative Robert Baer, they should be on our side. Now watch this Jeff, everyone's going to pounce on me for that just because it's a radical thought. That's the knee-jerk reaction. But when you research it and look at it from all angles and all considerations, it can make sense, in an odd sort of way. It's outside-the-box thinking and could make a huge difference to our security and that of the region.

Anyway, that's what I take from Biden's comment. Don't be surprised if Obama looks at things a little differently. That's also sort of what Powell was referring to when he said Obama represents a "transitional leader." A new way of thinking for the 21st century. That will certainly blow the heads off the right. Watch this.

Brian let me speak slowly so you will understand. I said what I interpreted Biden to have meant. If it is my opinion it can hardly be a lie. Just like Jeff's interpretation is his own; not a lie, just different than mine. I never compared Obama/Biden to third graders. You do read english don't you? We've already established on other blogs that the mud slinging is the same on both sides. Go back and read those. This poor me thing you've got going is tiresome. We were having a nice discussion before you showed up. I noticed you didn't have any comments on the post I made about Palin. So.. if what I say fits your agenda then I am fine but if it doesn't I'm an idiot. You are transparent and you're manner has lost you all respect. Bugger off Murray.

Scot: I agree that it would be great for the US to be friends and allies with Iran once again. It should only happen, however, if and when Iran renounces in word and deed their intention of wiping Israel from the face of the earth.

Being eager to make friends with nations that want to destory your allies and thereafter your democracy and freedom isn't really a new and radical approach to foreign policy. In fact, before the 1930's the term appeasment wasn't even a pejorative.

The problem is those that are too eager to do so and the concessions that they will make which endanger their allies and their nation in order to accomplish those goals.

My impression is that Obama tends to be too eager in those matters.

Kim,

All that Bible reading messed up his head.

Speaking in tongues like Palin's religion can do it.

Rich the anonymous and apparently overly insulated business guy.

So do you do business with members of the Penticostal church or not?

Bart,

NO I'm not in the insulation business, and I have NOT accousted any memeber of a Church.

Bart,

NO I'm not in the insulation business, and I have NOT accosted any member of a Church.

Rich I was thinking, now that is unlike Scot to say something so cheeky and insulting. Then I scrolled up to verify but obviously it didn't register and you undeservedly inhereted my enhanced description intended for someone else. I owe Scot an apology so here it is: Scot, the businessman I apologize. Please forgive me for dragging you into this. Now I hope Rich who evidently does not believe he has insulted anyone intentionally or not will change his mind and follow my lead.

Terrorism is unlike any "war" this world has ever fought before. The standard ways of dealing with the enemy don't always apply. My Papa taught me to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." This way of thinking has sure served me well. Talking does not mean making friends nor does it mean being too eager to make concessions. I'm willing to see how Obama handles things. Like I've said before, with ANY President we are taking a leap of faith. There is just as much chance that McCain will be too much of a Maverick and tick someone off, escalating a fight that needn't be fought. I agree with Scot we need to think outside the box.

Kim Tanksley | October 24, 2008 5:44 PM | "Terrorism is unlike any "war" this world has ever fought before.
The standard ways of dealing with the enemy don't always apply."

The lead-in is historically incorrect. Throughout history, there were many of such un-standard
wars. Except each had a different name; a different cause. The only ones who called themselves
terrorists were the French (in translation) Terrorist Brothers of World War II. The others choose
loftier names like the opposing factions in Ireland. And then we have all the other anti-German
organizations operating in the occupied countries during World War II; like Tito's partisans.
Let us get back to this nation's beginning. The Red Coats who were bushwhacked by the Colonists
considered them terrorists. The Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi rose up against Austrian rulers in
un-standard war, Andreas Hofer (Austrian peasant against Napoleon) and shot by a French
firing squad at the Fortress Mantua; Adolf von Luetzow's Hunters rose up against Napoleon
in East Prussia for the purpose of braking the blockade. Even back in antiquity we have them
at each other's throats in un-standard operations. And so many others. Different causes but
same killing for different languages different religions, different turf and dominance at sea.
Pirates are terrorists. And the outcome is very standard, a lot of people being killed, often not
knowing the reason why.

"...how many dead will it take till we know that too many people have died? The answer my
friend is blowing in the wind..."

In this beehive, I have been called Marxist stooge, socialist who should go back to her native
country, I have been called vulgar names referring to human anatomy. None really hit the nail
on the head. I would not deny it if I were called a peacenik. I am a follower of the teachings
of the young carpenter from Nazareth who preached that we must not only abide by thou
shall not kill, but make peace with those who aggrieve us. IT AINT EASY!

Good morning everyone, I see the honeymoon is over.

Well, geeze Isabell, when you put it that way of course you're right. However, it was the Colonists who attacked the Redcoats that popped into my head when I said we need a different way of approaching war. Their method was new to warfare and worked for them but just as solutions have changed through time, so to has war and we need to keep trying new methods because tried and true ways may not be applicable any more. O.K., I'll accept that my comment on terrorism was simplistic; however, I stand by my assertion that one should "keep their friends close and their enemies closer" and I am ready to have a leader "think outside the box." It is possible that Obama may have some new ideas and also possible McCain may not.

Bart, I think you were commenting on Isabell's rebuttal to my comments. Don't scoff now... you of all people would really like Isabell if you got to know her. She has lived the history we have only read about. Part of the fun we have together is the fact that we don't always agree on things. I likely wouldn't have fostered a friendship with her if she was merely a "yes man." I like women with a little spunk to them and not afraid to tell me when I say something dumb; she in turn expects the same from me.

Hi! KT! If you would not have invoked the "world" but narrowed it a bit,
I could have saved myself a post , and had a ten o'clock cup of coffee
instead. Your dad gave you very sound advise. I have no quarrel with it.
And I stand by my conviction that Sarah Palin is no shining example of
integrity that should ever be on the bridge of this Good Ship USA.

I don't remember who you told to "bugger off." But I am going to plagiarize
that fond farewell and post it to Bart Turnipseed, the beehive's own oracle.

KT&T(aka.Kim)...the big lie was about both campaigns taking hits equally.Not so... and type slowly(not speak) so I can read(not hear)and understand.If I make a mistake or error I admit it...McCain/Palin 57% negative-Obama/Obiden 40%.Take Fox out of the equation and one would think the disparity would be even greater.So..."Ye Auld Windbag" would rather see "The Terrorist's Pal" and "Master Gaffe JB" at the helm rather than McCain/Palin.No surprise there.If the O'Brothers are elected we can get nostalgic and bring back "The National Malaise" and "The Misery Index"...Good times indeed!