by Bill Levinson
Ted Belman posted “Palin Eviscerated Obama,” to which we would add “like a salmon.” The following cartoon (copying and circulation is encouraged) elaborates on this concept.
Sarah Palin teaches John McCain the joys of salmon fishing
Obama and Biden: Like a moose in the headlights
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
© 2005-2008 by Domain Owner. Some Rights Reserved. All views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the site owner or the rest of its participants.
Israpundit is proudly powered by WordPress using a theme designed by someone no longer associated with this site. Technical support provided by Andrew L. Jaffee.
She blooded their noses and broke their bones. What a lady!! Margret Thatcher was know as the “Iron Lady”, be Sarah was more than a match.
Comment by Ed D — September 4, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
I am with Ed, Sarah Palin has become the new Iron Lady, someone needed to take the mantle.
Comment by NoNameDenton — September 4, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Palin hopefully has quick learning skills.
No doubt in these several weeks, if she is going to be able to stand up toe to toe with Biden, she had better be able to learn a massive amount of information on the key issues of foreign policy and American security with the collateral issue of immigration, the economy and health care.
She will also have to learn both the broad and detailed McCain policy solutions in respect of each of these problems and issues as well as have an in depth understanding of how Obama/Biden see the problem and the merit or demerit of their solutions.
Finally she will have to learn enough to be able to speak intelligently, forcefully and convincingly on how the McCain/Palin assessment of the problem and issues is superior to the Obama/Biden assessment and solutions.
If Palin fall short on these key issues, not only Biden but the media will pick her apart and she will lose her lustre.
I am pulling for Palin, but only time will tell whether she will be informationally up to the formidable challenge that awaits her.
Comment by Bill Narvey — September 5, 2008 @ 8:27 am
You should read my blog
Hale DeMar faced a life or death decision on December 28, 2003.
That night, the fifty-nine-year-old Wilmette, Illinois resident woke up to find a burglar attempting to break into his home. He had experienced a burglary not long before
As he explained in his letter to the Chicago Sun Times:
“For me, the seconds until I found my children still safely tucked in their beds were horrifying … The police were called and in routine fashion they came, took the report and with little concern left, promising to increase surveillance. Little comfort, since the invader now had keys to our home and our automobiles. The police informed me that this was not an uncommon event in east Wilmette and offered their condolences …”
DelMar confronted the criminal and shot him; the criminal subsequently fled.
While Cook County prosecutors determined that DelMar acted lawfully, the village of Wilmette prosecuted him for violating the handgun ban.
The people of Illinois were outraged. The Democratic-majority legislature passed a law that would allow people who use handguns to deter o defend against intruders into their homes to assert self-defense if prosecuted for violating local handgun bans; the House passed it by 86-25 and the Senate passed this by 38-20. Clearly, the Illinois legislature saw the plain need for change in Illinois’s laws.
Senator Barack Obama voted against this law. This was change he did not believe in.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — September 5, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Palin doesn’t come close to Margret Thatcher. Don’t get ahead of yourselves, Palin has yet to prove anything, all she did was make a speech.
Comment by Laura — September 5, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
In the interests of freedom of expression I thought I would reproduce an item by Felix who is usually barred from Israpundit on tuesday and then reinstated in thursday with arepeatinf cycle. Agree or disagree it makes for interesting reading,
Comment by h peskin — September 5, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Felix if you are listening, I have a few questions of you.
1. Regarding your statement
I won’t disagree that a number of American government policies and positions run counter to Israel’s best interests.
The fact remains that America alone supports Israel in a number of ways and in a number of forums. That support is both financial and political and that support is expressed in a number of ways, be it direct financial guarantees, selling Israel munitions, standing by Israel at the U.N. and in a number of other ways.
I appreciate that American government support does not come free. America expects some value for its support.
Still the key thing is that the American government does support Israel more then any other Western nation and Israel is the stronger for it. Further it seems that a very large number of Americans, if not a majority are favorably disposed to Israel and some, such as 50 million Evangelical Christians give active support for Israel. I say this recognizing that some Evangelical Christians do expect that such support gives them the right to missionize their faith in Israel, but that is another matter well canvassed on these pages so I needn’t get into that here.
Given that Felix, I have difficulty going along with your above quoted blanket statement and ask whether you believe such blanket statement is warranted and if not, how would you otherwise state your point?
2. You stated, “Leon Trotsky who was the BEST friend that the Jews had in the 1930s;…..But Imperialism and Stalinism has always sought to hide that history.”
What relevance to today does it have if you are correct that Leon Trotsky was the best friend the Jews had in the 1930’s?
If Russian imperialism and Stalinism have sought to hide Trotsky’s friendship to Jews, do you concede they have done a pretty good job?
Do you also recognize that Russian imperialism that is still very much alive today, has within it a systemic antisemitic prejudice?
3. In spite of the fact that American government support of Israel comes at a price which I have alluded to, the fact remains that only America gives the level of support it does for Israel.
Do you agree that without American support, Israel would be the weaker and perhaps mortally weaker and vulnerable to extinction at the hands of the Muslim Middle East?
If you do so agree, is it not appropriate for you to be thankful for small mercies extended by America to Israel, which mercies are bound up in American support for Israel?
Comment by Bill Narvey — September 6, 2008 @ 6:56 am
I like Felix and I think he has done good and interesting work on Israpundit calling attention to the folly of America paving the way for an Islamic Kosovo in Europe. He and I also agree that Bush is not to be trusted when it comes to protecting the Jews of Israel (although in truth, this is not in the president’s job charter).
Where Felix and I diverge is that where he sees the evils of American “imperialism” at work, I see the amorality of American capitalism driving the equation forward. Where he (like Alex Eisenberg) sees a deep-seated conspiracy fueled by American corporate interests to dominate foreign resources and peoples, I see a natural and relentless quest to open up additional markets and expand free trade. Does capitalism demand this? Yes. Does it sometimes conflict with principled positions and the short-term interests of the American people? Yes again. Are there those in power who exploit the system for personal material gain? Unfortunately, yes. Has anyone discovered a better, more efficient method for raising living standards across the globe and encouraging ntaions to trade with rather than conquer one another? No.
Where Bush and his cronies have gone terribly wrong is in clinging to the currency of oil and in deluding themselves into believing that in a choice between a 1,400 year-old ideology and plasma television, the barbarians will choose the latter over the former. Rather, they will simply opt to watch their beheadings on wide-screen.
Though they are powerful levers for the production and distribution of goods and services, economic systems — capitalism or communism — are no match for religion. They provide no sustenance for the soul, no guidance on how to cope with life’s adversities, no salvation in death. Religion has the corner on that market. Only when Islam undergoes a genuine reformation, surrendering its medieval, violent, and imperialistic tendencies, will its adherents enter the modern world and submit to the logic of the golden rule.
Thus, America must be playing offense, not defense. Successive US presidents should be doing everything in their power to pressure and coerce the Arab world into reformation. We are largely powerless to do this when the Arabs hold us over a giant barrel (pun intended). So we must start by freeing ourselves from the slavery of their oil. This is where the Saudi-beholden Bush most failed America and where a no-nonsense, patriotic pit-bull like Sarah Palin can be so effective.
Comment by Charles Martel — September 6, 2008 @ 8:40 am
What say you, Pesky.
Comment by Ted Belman — September 6, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Ted: Please give me a break. I have enough on my plate at this time fending off the attacks of Yamit and his posse. Give some time to respond.
Regarding Quigley’s blog, it was presented for the purposes of promoting discussion only.Please remember, I am not responsible for the accuracy and usefulness of the information provided and the views expressed does not necessarily reflect my own .
Hope this will suffice for now.
Comment by h peskin — September 6, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Peskin, I earlier advised you, if you do not attack Yamit and others personally, they will be less inclined to attack you.
In other words whether you started it first or not, you have become responsible for the very problem you complain about.
Just make a fair and square comment backed up with facts and people will usually engage you without attacking you personally.
Comment by Bill Narvey — September 6, 2008 @ 10:26 am