Now, I’m not very learned in matters of politics, but I read an article about the gist of her speech. Doesn’t it seem like…maybe, she’s dodged talking about anything important that qualifies her to be a VP, but instead, just took the opportunity to talk shit about everyone else?
She’s AG or at least was AG for a long time. The AG are Assemblies of God. The AG are interesting people. The AG are Pentecostal. The Pentecostals are the ones who strive to have a more direct relationship with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. The AG have several prominent higher learning establishments in my town.
I wanna leave. 
Yeah…this is why I think we’re screwed no matter who wins the election.
Aim for less screwed then. XD
I guess that’s what you get when you don’t vet your VP pick: A VP nominee who opposes your campaign’s positions:
“But under her leadership, the state of Alaska has requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million in next year’s federal budget, according to the website of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.” [LA Times, 9/1/08]
Giuliani, who never served in the military, said McCain “has never run a city, never run a state, never run a government. He has never been responsible as a mayor for the safety and security of millions of people, and he has never run a law enforcement agency, which I have done.”
That’s the same attack she used against Obama yesterday. Ew, indirectly attacking the guy she wants to put in the White House.
Your quoting Ted Stevens? Bold that “R” beside his name all you like, but it’s not going to solve his problems; he’s the one that tried to get the Bridge to Nowhere passed, he’s the one who’s under investigation for corruption, he’s the one that Senator Sarah Palin stood up against when she heard about the Bridge to Nowhere earmark.
Note something else; the Governor of a state doesn’t have any power to receive appropriations. Only the legislature has that power. She didn’t request those earmarks because she can’t. Ted Stevens is the one who would request and push for earmarks (which has a record for doing), not Governor Palin.
That’s probably why the quote states, “the state of Alaska has requested” not “the Governor of Alaska” has requested. The governor has control over the state budget, but the Senators are the ones who are going to have control over the federal appropriations.
If you want to take a conversation about what was said in the primaries, I’d be all for it. Clinton left us an arsenal of talking points; Giuliani’s statement pales in comparison. Also, there’s a reason why Giuliani wasn’t selected by the Republicans in the primary - all he’s got is his experience as a mayor, and with Bernard Kerik putting that spot on his judgement and some socially liberal positions, he was doing all he could to push his credentials.
During the primaries, it’s acceptable to hit your opponent hard as long as it doesn’t get too nasty (tell me what you like but the push polling in SC in 2000 was unacceptable) and then everyone buries the hatchet afterward. That’s what happened in 1980 when Bush '41 was selected as VP to Reagan despite the remarks about voodoo economics. That’s what happened in 2008 when Obama met Clinton at Unity, New Hampshire for a rally and selected Biden as his VP despite Bidens earlier claim in the primary concerning Obama’s inexperience. So, what you’ve got is Giuliani saying whatever he needs to say to try to become the Republican nominee.
In all actuality, that quote appllies way better against Obama than it does McCain.
Except she didn’t, and showed up in support of “nowhere.” Just google for the t-shirt pic.
Note something else; the Governor of a state doesn’t have any power to receive appropriations. Only the legislature has that power. She didn’t request those earmarks because she can’t. Ted Stevens is the one who would request and push for earmarks (which has a record for doing), not Governor Palin.
Even if she was completely detached from the process of governor (yeah right! Whip out those rose-tinted reading glasses you use for Republican dispatches), it doesn’t excuse the apparent millions she hired lobbyists to bring back to her town when mayor.
If you want to take a conversation about what was said in the primaries, I’d be all for it.
Can we focus on the outright lies in her speech? Particularly the one where she makes an accusation about how Obama doesn’t have an energy plan? Despite that being featured in his convention-closer?
The only thing that can be said about her speech is that when it wasn’t busy being outright false it was stunningly empty of any ideas or solutions. You don’t actually “reform” the government just by calling yourself a reformer.
- Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
The questionnare dealt with the issue in question. Notice that it was state funding she was concerned with; this gels completely with her claim that if Alaska wanted a bridge they could build it themselves.
It was a complicated issue. She did suppport it, but when the cost went upwards of 400 million dollars she realixed that the cost was reprehensible and changed her tune.
I love Xenogears, but if I agree to buy it, and then find out the price has gone to up two hundred dollars I’m going to decide against it. There’s no difference.
- Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
The questionnare dealt with the issue in question. Notice that it was state funding she was concerned with; this gels completely with her claim that if Alaska wanted a bridge they could build it themselves.
It was a complicated issue. She did suppport it, but when the cost went upwards of 400 million dollars she realixed that the cost was reprehensible and changed her tune.
I love Xenogears, but if I agree to buy it, and then find out the price has gone to up two hundred dollars I’m going to decide against it. There’s no difference.
I noticed she called it Bridge to Nowhere in her speech. Did they change its location as well? 
Even if we accept the executive branch is absolutely distinct from the legislative, the only problem remaining is that the Governor, Lt. Governor, Senators and State Representative are all Republicans. If you don’t want someone in your party, you throw him out. Intra-party antagonism doesn’t equal reforms.
You mean the Republicans haven’t been using talking points from Clinton’s campaign? He’s been smacked with inexperience, elitism* (I mean, lol here), what have you. Too bad that they can’t accuse him of being disconnected from Hispanics, as he whoops McCain there. My point is that Obama has had these accusations against him all the time, it’s nothing new. McCain has been playing as the experienced dude and his VP gets a remark made against him and addresses it to Obama.
*I thought it was Palin dissing the community organisers and McCain with his $5000000 remark and all these homes.
Neither guy will snap his fingers and make America a better place, but I wonder why you support the one who’s apt to screw America even more. Permanent tax cuts for the rich (i.e. not you)? A “tough” stance against Russia (bye bye support for soldiers in Afghanistan), the guy who sings bomb bomb Iran (if they try to invade, say hello to the draft), the “soldier-lover” who’d rather swipe under the rug reports of soldiers returning to PTSD rather than acknowledge maybe “victory is in sight” doesn’t solve all the problems, the guy who doesn’t have a plan for your education system and will continue slashing the research budget. What makes it worth voting for him?
edit: Yeah, Brzezinski is one bastard of an old-school “realist” advisor. From what I remember from one of his books (back in 2003?), he supported a US policy to Ukraine (according to his theory about a democratisation of the rest of Europe, I think), but he looked sensible enough to avoid major gaffes like a new Iraq or needlessy provoking Russia. He’s hawkish though, yeah.
Yes, and the ISS might become the Kremlin in the sky.
I am afraid that the USA-Russia relationship wouldn’t be much rosier with the Dems in power. Obama’s foreign policy adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski scares the hell out of me – maybe it’s just a bitter “aftertaste” of the Operation Cyclone.
Mind you, in an interview with Russia’s news agency, Interfax, he sounded almost comforting about missile defense systems in Poland and Czech Republic. He was hinting that the Democrats in Congress might save the day: “There is no urgency in the immediate deployment of U.S. missile defense elements in Eastern Europe… It would be absolutely justified for the next U.S. Congress to again have a critical look at these proposals.”
And yet, just before this interview, Brzezinski was comparing Russia’s maneuvers in Georgia to Hitler’s tactics.
Let us consider Mullenkamp’s statements for a moment, on a more elementary level; he stated the Obama camp supported “radical change.” He has a very poor sense of scale, or does not know a damn thing about what “radical” or even “change” actually mean.
There is always the chance, however, that I could be as reasonable a person as you and just came to a different opinion of Obama’s policies. If you wish to adopt a divisive tone, however, that’s fine by me.
I consider a health care system that’s a step away from a mandated bueracratic system to be a radical way of changing the system; rather than trying to fix the system we already have, we’re just supposed to throw the whole thing away.
I consider a foreign policy that consists of leaving Iraq within sixteen months come heck or highwater for political expediency and without regard to the situtation on the ground to be radical and foolish.
I consider a higher tax on business, the heart of our economy, when we are in a time of economic crisis to be a foolish and radical step. Whether that business is large or small, the reprecussions of such an act would be massive.
What’s important to note is that Obama isn’t the major issue here; it’s the mandate the American public will be giving the liberal agenda if Obama wins. We’re going to lose Republicans in the Congress with the general election. It’s only going to take a few more for us to lose our ability to filibuster (as if we use it often anyway, but still) and after that happens, there’s no such thing as a true loyal opposition.
Obama has shown no real bipartisanship effort that makes me believe he has the capability to stand up to his party. The best he’s got is the bill that was passed with Senator Lugar I believe concerning nuclear weaponry, but it was hardly an issue that Republicans were clamoring to defeat on the floor of the Senate or House. Where McCain drew ire during the Gang of 14, his immigration bill, campaign finance reform, and more, Obama has nothing to demonstrate his independent spirit.
What this means is that we’ll have Democrats running the government with no need or incentive to compromise in order to pass legislation. Yes, I know full well that the Republicans had control of the Congress and the Presidency for the last eight years, but that’s exactly my point. The Republicans lost their way, which McCain admitted in his nomination speech. The Democrats will make the same mistake.
I’m advocating for a divided government. Let “ambition counter ambition” as Madison declared in the Federalist Papers. It’s not like McCain hasn’t worked extensively with Democrats before. McCain’s campaign was dead after taking a stance counter to the popular view of immigration on the side of the right but he stuck by it. That means something to me; it means that no one owns him, that he’s going to stand up for what’s right for the American public.
I believe in that strongly and I’m sure you disagree; that’s fine, this is America, differences of opinion is what makes us interesting, right?
Having been in both US and Canada, both medical systems have horrible problems, but I have to admit the US one is in worse shape than the Canadian one, no matter how much I hate Canada. This isn’t a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact when you look at statistics on access to health care and the consequences from the lack thereof. Considering the wealth and technological advances in the US, its mind boggling what’s happening to people. What I’ve read about Obama’s stand on health care is really not that extreme and your beloved system is not getting thrown away. The changes the Bush administration created only made things worse.
There is a vast disparity on our sense of scale when it comes to “radical.”
So, when do you ship out to help 'em win the war on the ground?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/palin.abc/index.html
Sorry, but this seals the deal in my opinion. To extend NATO membership to countries already involved in military conflicts with super powers is to voluntarily submit us to war. In the article, when someone mentions this to her response is a nonchalant “Perhaps so”.
I feel kind of livid. We’re still at war with terrorism and she just wants to jump into another conflict? Does this make sense to anybody?
Say, has anyone here seen this?
http://unbearablebobness.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/08/governor-sarah-palin-quotes.html
Yes, those are fake quotes, Palin never said any of those- but the thing is, they are being quoted all over the Net WITHOUT making clear that it was a joke. (The site did not originally have a disclaimer.) And the scary thing is, there ARE people who actually agree with those “beliefs!”
:eek:
Sorcerer, you are forgetting a vital point: Alaska is next to Russia, she knows how they think.
(Or view it as a game-theory example. She wants to boost the negative outcomes in case the Russians break a “deal” (they invade) which would work if you oversee that the Russians probably* consider a NATO membership a dealbreaker by the US and have already decided to offer the US a more negative outcome on their side.
More realistically, as long as it’s good for the campaign polls, who cares?
*hint: the recent Georgian war.)
edit: Or maybe she’s lying and the McCain campaign doesn’t care.
I just wanted to remind everybody that there’s been even more things about Palin coming to light that deserve mockery. Where have the barbs been the last two weeks?
—Sin—
Its like laughing at a kid in a wheel chair. Its so bad that its almost inhumane. There is just too much , from the fact she needs to be sheltered for the debate, she is prepped for all her interviews by people like Henry Kissinger at the UN and she was protected from evil Liberal curses in a religious ceremony. I don’t even know what to fucking say about that.