My opinion is as I said. She would only possibly be acceptable considering how absolutely execrable most other candidates are to me. Even then, that’s a pretty hard maybe. I’m currlrently going reluctantly and bitterly Nader, unless Bob Barr shows some evidence he’s not just some fat old Republican guy who couldn’t go anywhere in his party and switched to the Libertarian party as a result. Because other than his change of opinion on the War on Drugs, I don’t see much of any.
I think this is a product of the modern media and elections, in that every slightest statement, action, or association will be brought to light against a candidate. This makes every one of those missteps completely worthless, though, since it is replaced by another that causes everyone to forget about the former in light of their newest outrage.
This is a step up from the debate, wherein both Obama and McCain refused to tell me even things I already knew.
You’re already aware that I am of the opinion that there is virtually not any difference between the two candidates, not nearly so much as they would have us believe, but I will, for posterity, state it again. However, I do agree that the inclusion of Vice Presidents essentially changes nothing. First, from my own cynical perspectives, both are blatant attempts to pander to crowds, and so obviously thus that anyone who took high school civics can point it out. Biden is there so people don’t bitch about foreign policy experience (Ironic, since McCain is the one who does not seem to be aware that Czechoslovakia is not a country), Palin is to nick Clinton voters who are stupid enough to decide to vote for the McCain because some people voting for Obama might have been sexists (as if the entire Republican party were made of feminists, either). Secondly, as you say, most people who are decided would not have been truly moved by a vice presidential nomination unless it was something truly extreme.
Despite voting for the PATRIOT Act, Barr has become one of its more vocal opponents. He’s been criticizing its use since 2004 or so. Concerns over his belief in Libertarian values is of course warranted given Barr’s past support for War on Drugs, PATRIOT Act, and Defense of Marriage Act. However, out of all Congressmen, he has spoken out the strongest against what happened at Waco, which is still a sore point among many Libertarians. Still, it’s hard to separate what he says he believes now from what he actually voted for while in office.
Haha, those are both awesome.
I’ve been hearing this for quite a while, the belief that McCain chose Palin to get Clinton voters who are so embittered that they’d vote for McCain and Palin. I think it’s a bad interpretation of events. McCain knows darned well that he’s not going to get a mass amount of voters from that segment of the population and he surmised, correctly, that there was a chance that the DNC was going to be able to get it’s act together and build a coalition.
No. The Palin pick was necessary because John McCain needed a signal to the conservatives that he was okay. It’s no more cynical than the Biden pick to try to curb the inexperience argument. I’ve probably stated this before, but I went to State Convention and people were ambivalent about McCain. The people who went to the Convention are the most diehard folks (you people for the trip yourself) and when those people aren’t enthused, your not going to win an election.
I remember I was rooting for Rob Portman for VP, but I believe in Palin. She can do it. It’s alright, no one’s going to believe me - no one has too. I’ve become used to the idea of being the double minority.
I hear conjectures but I don’t see a foundation for them to thrive on. First off, this is a small town we’re talking about and it was a pretty tough election. The fact that you have a police chief, head librarian and others publicly undermining you as the campaign went on isn’t something you want to have to deal with as your Administration goes on.
Your also wrong; Palin didn’t fire the head librarian. The lady stepped down of her own accord. Also, the letter requesting she resign was sent to numerous individuals in order to give those who wanted a way out a chance to get out of Palin’s mayoral Administration early; a “loyalty test” is what she called it. The spoils system has been around since Andrew Jackson so I don’t see how you can credibly make it such an insidious issue.
This “massive history of lying” is also just something else you inserted without any kind of proof. However, your the perfect example of the kind of voter that we really should just shrug our shoulders about at this point. I don’t mean to be dismissive, but it’s pretty obvious that you associate social conservatism with characteristics which would lead you to not trust a candidate. Troopergate hasn’t come up with any kind of connection with Palin - all there is, the only thing there has been, is someone who was a part of the Palin Administration pressuring the trooper to be fired. Palin didn’t do it. Perhaps even more telling is the fact that the trooper in question, Palin’s ex-brother in law, isn’t trying to get involved. He has no animosity towards Palin.
You don’t trust Palin because of how you interpret events not because of hard facts, which is fine. I don’t trust Obama either, with my same kind of biases. It’s the way of the world.
Why do you believe in her?
I really, really can’t understand this. McCain I can at least see reasons people might be convinced he’s a breath of fresh air.
She’s just…god. Where do I even start?
She’s just…what? What are your issues with her? Are they based off of a couple of bad interviews and conjecture or are they based off of her record? Are they based on rumors or own facts you’ve investigated yourself?
I believe in Palin because I trust John McCain’s judgment and I don’t believe he would have chosen someone he wasn’t comfortable with taking the role of the Presidency if necessary. I believe in him because he stuck to his word that he’d rather lose the election than lose a war and I truly believed him on that point.
McCain vouching for her wasn’t enough; I watched the Alaskan debates, I read newspapers in the state of Alaska which criticized her or gave me insight into how she ran the government there. I truly believe that she is an independent-minded woman. I believe that when she stepped down from a powerful position on the Alaskan Oil Committee, disgusted with it’s corruption and then proceeded to take on her own party members successfully. She held her word and cut the number of earmarks received by her state. When I see Palin, I take notice of something I don’t see in Obama - results, substance, events that make me believe she’s capable.
So yes, I believe in her. Not only that, but I also believe in the state of this party and it’s chance to unify and lead this country.
Actually, a fairly large amount of voters from that segment of the population actually mentioned at least considering McCain as a result of Obama beating Clinton.
I think this is part of it, too, but there are social conservatives who are far better known (and for that matter, not dumber than a 40-something kindergartener who has hit her head on the slide every single day). I mean, there’s a reason Palin is the specific person he picked (social conservative, woman, too dumb to actually challenge him or do anything but parrot what he says, like a woman should), but all the parts of it are totally cynical.
It’s not a matter of disbelieving, it’s a matter of disagreeing. I think the thing that will be least all right is if she turns out to be actually competant. I’d personally love a leader that dumb. Ineffective dictators are the only way freedom really works.
I tend to associate saying you never supported the bridge to nowhere even though everybody knows you did and even have pictures of you in a t-shirt supporting with not trusting a candidate, personally.
As for trusting her judgement, McCain shows his trust by retracting other peoples’ statements for them, I guess.
Her record, knowledge of the issues, position on issues, the fact that she is being investigated are just a few reasons I don’t like her. She was a poor choice in a candidate and someone who was selected to attract Clinton supporters away from Obama, that is it. She was purely an election tool. She touts having international relations with Russia, but hasn’t talked with anyone from Russia, only Canada. I don’t trust McCain blindly, I think he really just wants to get elected. Biden may not be my favorite choice for VP, but at least he could handle the position and wasn’t picked just to secure votes.
Of course they did. Clinton people have been up in arms for months, but you rarely hear about that now. You fail to mention when you heard this; Hillary and Bill Clinton did a great deal to make strides towards unifying the place at the DNC.
McCain didn’t pick Palin for Clinton supporters directly in mind. Those Clinton folks were partisan to the core and when they see McCain and his policies and how they are drastically different from Clintons they won’t vote for him. Obama has the nearly the same policies anyway.
I think this is part of it, too, but there are social conservatives who are far better known (and for that matter, not dumber than a 40-something kindergartener who has hit her head on the slide every single day). I mean, there’s a reason Palin is the specific person he picked (social conservative, woman, too dumb to actually challenge him or do anything but parrot what he says, like a woman should), but all the parts of it are totally cynical.
First of all, the insult’s uncalled for and unwarranted. It also demonstrates how much you don’t know about Palin. The woman has run her state well enough to have the highest approval rating in the country so I think she’s a lot smarter than you give her credit for. Although, I’m fairly sure you’ll come up with a way around that in your reply.
He chose Palin, once again, for the right. McCain has treated the Republican right like a jilted bride for a long, long time. He had to make concilatory strokes. Yes, people were going to say he’s turned into a totally different person, but the man was going to have no chance of victory with the kind of atmosphere he had with the base. Trust me. Compared to the base supporters, McCain cares little to nothing about the chance of netting Clinton voters. The few he gets are a bonus.
Besides, it’s not like Biden’s pick isn’t anymore cynical than McCain’s choice of Palin, although I don’t know what cynicism has to do with anything here; what we’re dealing with is pragmatism. Obama picked a blue-collar, foreign policy wonk, who was white because he has trouble with blue-collar workers and white males. That’s not cynical that’s smart, and that’s pretty much the same kind of reasoning that helped determine McCain’s choice of Palin.
What’s interesting to note is your claim that there were more famous social conservatives which could have been chosen. It’s ironic, not just because it’s true but because you state that like it’s a good thing. John McCain didn’t want somebody already on the radar. Mitt Romney once supported abortion, but more importantly, there would have been a deluge of ads featuring Romney lambasting McCain in the debates, in the same manner that the McCain campaign began using Clinton’s attacks on Obama against him. Being famous and well-known isn’t really a plus, because it gives you a background. Obama is a blank slate - had he got a chance to actually, you know, pass some key legislation in Congress reflecting his liberal nature after a few years he might not be in the position he is now.
There’s also the issue that it wasn’t just a matter of finding a social conservative, but someone who could excite the base. Sam Brownback is a great social conservative, but exciting? No. Plus, he has a record, and as we can see from Obama’s ascent, having a record isn’t a plus in this election. He needed someone who could possibly appeal to moderates and independents as a result of obscurity while being comfortable with the base. Bobby Jindal is too busy taking care of Louisiana (coughPreparing for 2012cough) and Palin was just dynamic enough to make it. Plus, she accented his campaign’s message of reform. The woman did do a lot of cleaning house before and during her time as Governor.
I tend to associate saying you never supported the bridge to nowhere even though everybody knows you did and even have pictures of you in a t-shirt supporting with not trusting a candidate, personally.
Ah, but she never said I never supported it. She said, “I told them 'No thanks”, to the Bridge to Nowhere." There’s actually good reasons for this. When the earmark came to town and the bridge was going tobe built the amount of money it would have cost to build the Ketchikan bridge went up by millions of dollars according to the estimate. So, Palin decided to pull the plug and used the federal funds on other endeavors like roads and other infrastructure. She supported it until it was no longer reasonable or feasible.
As for trusting her judgement, McCain shows his trust by retracting other peoples’ statements for them, I guess.
Please. If the media was paying half as much attenion and scrutiny on Biden as they are on Palin right now, Obama would be retracting statements or asking the good Senator to go ahead and do it for him. The helicopter that went down because it was shot down? Yeah, that’s really because it was snowing. The “we don’t support clean coal” statement? Yeah, actually, Obama said your Administration would.
When someone makes a mistake and correct them, that doesn’t mean you don’t trust them, it means your trying to help them. But eh, whatever floats your boat.
Geez, and Obama is a paragon of integrity? He’s just as calculating as McCain. He chose Biden for the same reasons McCain chose Biden; for demographics and to secure votes. What, Obama is going going along for the ride? The only person who might have not been trying to get elected, it seems at times, was Fred Thompson.
Obama was investigated just a few months ago for Rezko. Biden has been under suspicion of wrong doing with the credit card companies in Delaware. If an investigation is what scares you off, it seems unfair to limit it to Palin.
She touted having relations with Russia, but you can’t disprove that she hasn’t spoken with Russian officials before, and I doubt very much your going to find anything that proves Obama has spoken to Russian diplomats. Heck, if anything, this is where Obama and Palin are on even ground; Obama has a seven day marathon trip around the Middle East on his resume where he spoke to foreign leaders. That’s it. Palin went to New York and spoke to foreign leaders like PM Nouri Al-Maliki as the United Nations convened. They both aren’t foreign policy wonks.
In conclusion, I still think this was a gutsy and wise pick. People complain and moan about how she doesn’t have foreign policy experience when they know darned well that had McCain picked a fellow foreign policy wonk it wouldn’t have made a lick of a difference; it would have been redundant since McCain already has that experience. Romney, considering the financial crisis, may have been a good pick, but something tells me that it wouldn’t have been as simple as people think. I also know it wouldn’t have excited the base as much as it was.
Is there any major discrepancy in Biden’s pick? FISA would be a better example, but not exactly beneficial to the Republican argument either. McCain did a 180 on Roe vs Wade; he even said he wouldn’t vote for his own immigration bill. McCain’s judgement is the same judgement that led you into Iraq. His campaign, the campaign for the presidential office, considers a sound argument that Alaska being near Russia somehow is a pro for Palin. That’s sheer irrationality. But is she gets elected I’ll be happy to offer my expertise on Egypt, Libya and Turkey. I can recruit another 10 million experts should the need arise. They tried to pull the same one off saying she had military experience as a governor when she had nothing to do with it othen than the title, according to the actual commander there.
This “massive history of lying” is also just something else you inserted without any kind of proof.
You don’t trust Palin because of how you interpret events not because of hard facts, which is fine. I don’t trust Obama either, with my same kind of biases. It’s the way of the world.
Here they are. Also. And there’s more floating around. For instance, she said she put the jet on eBay, McCain said she sold it on eBay for a loss, but actually the Speaker of the House sold it for minimal loss.
She held her word and cut the number of earmarks received by her state. When I see Palin, I take notice of something I don’t see in Obama - results, substance, events that make me believe she’s capable.
Total Government Expenditures Increased 63 Percent Under Palin. In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the total government expenditures of Wasilla, excluding capital outlays, were $7,046,325. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the
budget—the expenditures were $4,317,947. The increase was 63 percent. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 1]
According to Citizens Against Government Waste, www.cagw.org, under Palin’s tenure as Governor the state of Alaska has asked for $589,599,715 in pork barrel projects. [2007 and 2008 Pig Book, www.cagw.org]
Oh, and McCain’s proposal to give more free money to the rich?
“The proposal to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%would cost about $100 billion a year.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08] That’s the socialist rag WSJ. And the earmarks he’s been opposing as the devil will cost $18 billion. Big picture thinking here.
What gets me is that she was approving the city budgets that included charging for the rape kits to victims. They were mostly trying to get money from the insurance companies but a) if you weren’t insured you were doubly humiliated and b) according to the head of the police it would have cost $15000 a year. Palin taxed $14,7 million to build a sports center (on land Wasilla didn’t own leading to years of litigation) and left behind $19 million in debt from none at all. Oh, and charging for the rape kits was later outlawed.
You can believe in her, but that belief isn’t supported by facts. And I’m afraid that your party not only pisses on you, but doesn’t even pretend doing otherwise.
I never said Obama was perfect and had perfect integrity. Biden may been to help secure votes, but he isn’t a publicity stunt like Palin. Biden does actually have experience. He doesn’t have anything outstanding about him to try to attract a whole new demographic. Besides, Obama is more willing to something unpopular that is needed, raise taxes. With 2 major wars, minor conflicts elsewhere, and now this huge economic problem, Obama is willing to raise taxes to help the problems. Hell, that is one thing that hurt Bush senior from getting re-elected. The economy was having problems and we just finished a war and he chose to go against his platform and raise taxes since they needed to be raised.
As for Palin, having a formal investigation for abuse of power is pretty high up there for me, which is also in a different ballpark from credit cards. Besides, abuse of power shows a lot more about leadership than dealings with credit cards. YEAH. let’s give someone who abuses their power even more power, that sounds like a good idea! Also, there was an article a day or so ago that said that the Russian in charge of relations with Alaska tried contacting her, but he got no reply. If I find the article I can prove she hasn’t had relations with Russia.
Here they are:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/29990584.html
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/542833.html
There are more news outlets that carry the AP story, but that was just a quick search that turned up those stories about her experience with Russia.
This “massive history of lying” is also just something else you inserted without any kind of proof.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-lies-and-li.html
<i>Shazaaaaammmmm!</i>
Looks like one of us has the internet skills. My bad. I forgot you have ideological blinkers on large enough to block out several small suns, much less the first couple of results any search engine will give you. You say you’ve done research on Palin, but you must have needed to try to have avoided any of this negative stuff I mention. If I’m taking a mocking tone, it’s precisely because my criticisms of Palin take practically no political erudition at all - this is stuff that’s floating out in the open.
The lady stepped down of her own accord. Also, the letter requesting she resign was sent to numerous individuals in order to give those who wanted a way out a chance to get out of Palin’s mayoral Administration early; a “loyalty test” is what she called it. The spoils system has been around since Andrew Jackson so I don’t see how you can credibly make it such an insidious issue.
Contradictory. The lady stepped down of her own accord <i>after</i> facing a loyalty test? Please. Pressure is pressure. If the very phrase “loyalty test” doesn’t make your skin crawl in the first place after 8 years of Bush (where competent federal attorneys got fired and replace by looney wingnuts from some degraded religious yahoo’s joke of a law school), reread those two words and then the rest of history until you make the connection. Luckily here it was only the Big Bad <i>Town Librarian</i> frightening poor, persecuted little Palin. I’m sure the <i>librarian</i> was actively throwing together some horrid plot of mis-scanning bar codes on children’s books to make Palin’s first term absolute hell. What brilliant foresight she showed in heading that one off.
It’s alright, no one’s going to believe me - no one has too. I’ve become used to the idea of being the double minority.
Knock off the persecution complex. I don’t go after what you post because of who you are, I go after it because what you say is hardly ever seems to match up with reality. Plus, you have a tendency when confronted with direct evidence to the contrary to deflect the implications to your main argument of being wrong by pointing out how you were right on another tangential but mostly irrelevant matter connected to the original subject.
Remember, sometimes when everyone disagrees with you, it’s because you actually are wrong.
Besides, it’s not like Biden’s pick isn’t anymore cynical than McCain’s choice of Palin, although I don’t know what cynicism has to do with anything here; what we’re dealing with is pragmatism. Obama picked a blue-collar, foreign policy wonk, who was white because he has trouble with blue-collar workers and white males.
The difference between Biden and Palin is that the reasons Obama picked him are <i>true</i>; he does have a great deal of foreign policy experience. You can say it’s good or bad, but it’s true. Contrast this with Palin’s Russia gaffes (see it from the window!), energy ignorance (doesn’t even know how much her state contributes to the country), earmark lies (she still used the money from the bridge), judicial ignorance (can’t name anything other than <i>Roe</i>), and many, many other wonderful examples where they claim she has knowledge and she’s either failed to show she doesn’t or actively showed ignorance. That’s the difference.
So, Palin decided to pull the plug and used the federal funds on other endeavors like roads and other infrastructure. She supported it until it was no longer reasonable or feasible.
This is not reform. She <i>kept the pork</i>.
If the media was paying half as much attenion and scrutiny on Biden as they are on Palin right now, Obama would be retracting statements or asking the good Senator to go ahead and do it for him.
Maybe if Palin actually gave the press the chance to ask some questions, they wouldn’t have to spend so much time unearthing the dirt from her time in Alaska. Biden shoots his mouth off but has a congressional record to actually support the claims he makes. And at least his gaffes (like getting Roosevelt’s timeline wrong) are made in English that makes syntactical sense, unlike Paling who disgorges nonsensical fragments of talking points in one jumbled babble of political banality, notable only for any part lacking a logical connection to any other. And let’s do note that even if Biden killed a kitten on national television in front of a group of prepubescent Amish children, it would not excuse Palin from her lies or ignorance.
you can’t disprove that she hasn’t spoken with Russian officials before
Your standards for evidence are going in the wrong direction. She made the positive claim; she has to prove it. She hasn’t given any evidence that she has ANY experience with Russia/ns at all. I could give a metaphor here, but I’m leaving it out in favor of just pointing out again how naively trusting you are of things that you want to believe.
Here’s a basic summary of my position on Palin: I don’t care if she’s a woman, only whether she is competent or not. The McCain campaign has been exploiting the fact that she is a woman while lying about the latter matter. It’s not hard to get a temporary high approval rating when you mail money to your voting public. However, an executive can’t count on windfalls to support their record forever, and you can see right now with Bush that that temporary salve to voter’s temperments doesn’t last. Palin initiated a new era in Alaskan politics by replacing its Congresspeople as the dominant power - good, they were corrupt. But she seems to have a petty vindictive streak going back to her mayorship which involves targeting individuals who disagree with her. She currently lies about these tussles as the above link should show. Once involved in the McCain campaign she has show NO ABILITY WHATSOEVER. She hasn’t been confronted by the press in any free Q&A sessions, and in interviews where she wasn’t fed only softball questions she’s devolved into uttering utterly illegible gibberish. Given that she’s shown nothing during the campaign to support her ability to do anything, the campaign’s relying on her perceived record in Alaska to back up her credentials. But even a cursory reading of that record shows problems - inconsistency on earmarks which doesn’t back up the claims of reform that she’s pushing now needs to be added to the vindictiveness explained above.
For the record, I don’t trust social conservatives because I can’t remember running into one that’s been consistent in their ideas. And there’ve been way too many of the national figures caught in sex scandals and the like that run directly counter to what they preach at the alter or microphone. Also, I like freedom and they don’t.
No insult against someone who believes governmental authority has moral legitimacy is unwarranted.
I could come up with the fact that being smart and popular are in no way coordinated? Or the fact that, if your point herein is valid, you have to give Valodya Putin way more credit, since approval rating is fucking ridiculous. For one thing, running Alaska is not that hard. You pay people to live there and appease a bunch of creepy militarist social conservatives while being obnoxiously polite and sickeningly sweet in public, and you’ve pretty much got it made.
Again, this is part of it. Again, he chose a social conservative nobody knows or cares about for more reasons than just deciding after meeting her for like twenty seconds.
I’m aware. I said it several posts before you did. You just didn’t start some nit-picky argument based on the delusion Obama actually cares about you like you did with McCain afterwards.
I was very excited by her failure at largely scripted interviews, inability to speak for herself without McCain taking it back for her, and dull, pat convention speech. I was even more excited by not knowing who the fuck this lady on my teevee that John McCain met like twenty minutes before he made this decision was.
I believe she distinctly said “never” during her Charlie Gibson interview, among other times. There is also the matter of connotation and denotation, in that regardless of what she has literally said, she has insinuated a lack of involvement due to ambiguous word choice.
Actually, I think Obama just has misplaced faith in Biden, who says almost half as much stupid shit as Palin (which is a lot), but Obama lets him say it without informing America that “No, no, he didn’t mean that. Jklols, folks. He agrees with me. Isn’t that right, Bidey-poo?”
So, like, when I change your quotes to make a mockery of your opinions and type “fixed” below them, it’s not condescending, it’s just trying to help? Because McCain essentially did that. For her. He retracted her opinion.
In less than five minures, if Palin manages to debate as well as she did in Alaska these complaints will be muted in the American public’s eyes. All she has to do is keep it up for two hours and the media will go crazy over her again and her perception as a competent leader will override her imperfections.
It happened with Obama.
RPT: I’ll be quick, since Ifill is starting this thing up. I’d say half of what Sullivan says is true and only a couple of them have any real weight with the electorate. No one’s going to care, except for those folks who’ve already made their mind.
…Ah, so far its very nearly the best of possible worlds. Biden isn’t attacking Palin, he’s just going off on McCain, which was expected according to some commentators. Palin just needed to staunch the bleeding; she hasn’t really been struck yet.
I understand. Lies are ok as long as you don’t pay attention to them.
I didn’t say that; I just stated that from what I’ve noticed with the campaign on both sides, Americans aren’t going to put a great deal of importance on Sullivan’s points. I’ve noticed that they forget a great deal of information. I’m merely stating an observation.
To be fair, Americans as a whole are pretty fucking stupid.