Palin? Really?

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Palin? Really?

Postby Rspaight » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:23 am

So the McCain campaign, which has relentlessly pushed as its primary (and perhaps sole) talking point against Obama his relative inexperience, has selected as VP (for a 72-year-old nominee) someone who's been governor of a small state for less than two years and before that mayor of some town in Alaska no one's ever heard of?

Way to get off-message, guys. I'm eager to hear their answer to the question of "what makes Palin qualified to be one 72-year-old cancer patient's heartbeat away from the Presidency?" and then ask why whatever they come up with can't be applied to Obama (who, for the record, I do feel is light on experience but not enough to make me vote for McCain).
Last edited by Rspaight on Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:29 am

Enjoy.

http://www.issues2000.org/Sarah_Palin.htm

Sarah Palin on Abortion
* Pro-life. (Nov 2006)

Sarah Palin on Budget & Economy
* Aim to reduce general fund spending by $150 million. (Jan 2007)

Sarah Palin on Civil Rights
* Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)

Sarah Palin on Corporations
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Sarah Palin on Crime
* If legislature passed death penalty law, I would sign it. (Nov 2006)

Sarah Palin on Drugs
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Sarah Palin on Education
* Fully fund K-12 and support early funding of education. (Jan 2007)

Sarah Palin on Energy & Oil
* Stranded Gas Development Act no longer applies. (Nov 2006)
* Get ANWR open. (Nov 2006)

Sarah Palin on Environment
* Provide stability in regulations for developers. (Jan 2007)
* Convince the rest of the nation to open ANWR. (Jan 2007)

Sarah Palin on Families & Children
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Sarah Palin on Foreign Policy
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Sarah Palin on Free Trade
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Sarah Palin on Government Reform
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Sarah Palin on Gun Control
* Supports Constitutional right to bear arms. (Nov 2006)

Sarah Palin on Health Care
* Flexibility in government regulations to allow competition. (Nov 2006)

Sarah Palin on Homeland Security
* Promote from within, in Alaska's National Guard. (Nov 2006)

Sarah Palin on Immigration
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Sarah Palin on Jobs
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Sarah Palin on Local Issues
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org. [/b

Sarah Palin on Principles & Values
[b]No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.


Sarah Palin on Social Security
* Fund the Seniors Longevity Bonus Program. (Nov 2006)

Sarah Palin on Tax Reform
* Repeal "nuisance taxes" including the tire tax. (Jan 2007)

Sarah Palin on Technology
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Sarah Palin on War & Peace
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Sarah Palin on Welfare & Poverty
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:52 am

This is a riot.

"Can somebody tell me what the vice president does?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pak-rH0dCeA&eurl
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

David R. Modny
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Parma, OH

Postby David R. Modny » Fri Aug 29, 2008 1:19 pm

This was obviously an 11th hour, "maverick" switcheroo move by McCain and company after last night's triumphant Democratic event. They had to scramble to re-think their strategy and talking points - the whole "inexperience" thing. Fortunately, it isn't going to fool much of anyone. At best, it fires up some of the ranks that they already had, or who were on the fence (i.e. True Believers, Evangelicals, etc.). But once the dust settles, even *larger* numbers will probably bail or stay home on voting day.

In my opinion, there are just too many potential negatives in this situation for the McCain campaign to overcome. I can't see Mr. Joe Republican envisioning Gov. Palin just a heartbeat away from the presidency - particularly in light of McCain's age. And...Hillary's supporters should be positively insulted by this cheap, transparent move. At least, the ones who give a damn about the issues that matter most to them. The McCain/Palin ticket may snag a few flies...older voters perhaps...but they were probably "lost" for us Dems anyway.

I don't see how this can amount to a long-term positive for the McCain camp, or something that ultimately strengthens their ticket. The media will have fun with it for awhile -- probably focusing on a few token PUMAS -- then reality *should* come crashing down.

Plus, it appears this Ann Coulter wannabe is under investigation in Alaska...

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:43 pm

The media will have fun with it for awhile -- probably focusing on a few token PUMAS -- then reality *should* come crashing down.


If the PUMAs vote for this ticket (two firebreathing pro-lifers), then we'll have hardcore 60s-era feminists actively helping to strike down Roe v. Wade, and I'll just have to disconnect the irony meter because it'll never work right again after that.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

David R. Modny
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Parma, OH

Postby David R. Modny » Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:33 pm

Rspaight wrote:
If the PUMAs vote for this ticket (two firebreathing pro-lifers), then we'll have hardcore 60s-era feminists actively helping to strike down Roe v. Wade, and I'll just have to disconnect the irony meter because it'll never work right again after that.



It would be positively sickening. And again, this is something every single female voter in Hillary's camp needs to be aware of.

I really find it hard to believe that our society has been reduced to treating our candidates like they're contestants on some reality TV show, when so many issues are at stake. As Hillary herself said to her base during her Obama endorsement speech: "Were you in this solely for ME?"...vs. something much higher and much more paramount to all of us.

Then again, I've seen some of the most ludicrous, infantile posturing by various movements in this election that I can ever remember. Stuff that goes against all degrees of logic. As I mentioned in another thread, if these things come to pass, a lot of people are going to realize -- too late unfortunately -- the gravity of their apathy or misguided/misinformed pride.

John Paul Stevens...88 years old. That's sobering. When it comes down to throwing personal ideology, or these greater stakes, out the window in order to make some sort of spiteful statement, it really does make one wonder...

Bennett Cerf
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm

Postby Bennett Cerf » Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:14 am

Some decisions seem misguided on so many levels that I feel like I must be missing something.

Are they crazy for thinking Palin's a good pick, or am I crazy for thinking she's about as bad a choice as they could make?

David R. Modny
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Parma, OH

Postby David R. Modny » Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:42 am

Bennett Cerf wrote:Some decisions seem misguided on so many levels that I feel like I must be missing something.

Are they crazy for thinking Palin's a good pick, or am I crazy for thinking she's about as bad a choice as they could make?


You're not crazy. Once the "shock and awe" wears off with the media -- and it already appears to be doing so -- the fact will remain that this will go down as McCain's ultimate pander. It appears that Rove and his cronies pretty much threw in the towel in trying to capture the bulk of the (sane) undecided middle and, once again, are going to try and divide this country by rallying up the wingnuts. Won't work this time though - at least in the numbers they're clinging on to some hope for.

It's also being reported that McCain met Palin exactly *one* time, ever, before his announcement today. Again, the transparency of everything being painfully obvious.

Bennett Cerf
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm

Postby Bennett Cerf » Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:22 pm


Bennett Cerf
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm

Postby Bennett Cerf » Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:04 pm

Image

Image

David R. Modny
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Parma, OH

Postby David R. Modny » Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:35 am

Funny stuff!

I will say one thing though: We Dems have to be careful not to play into their hands and make *too* big a deal about the whole "experience" thing. Just like the above photo implies, my stock answer is simply going to be "Hey, WE never made the issue of experience to begin with. It was the *Republicans* that initially did, and *they're* the ones that are now backpedaling." Those buttons capture this perfectly!

Reason being: My fear is that Rove & Co. are going to try and paint her as some sort of modern day Erin Brockovich type. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Which means she'll probably shout, rant and pound her fist quite a bit during the VP debate, and then they can say "see, she's a fighter who will go to bat for all of us" (BTW, when we Dems do that...we're branded as "angry." When they do it...they're "fighters.").

After that, they'll try and play that card as a way of mocking and devaluing the "she's not experienced enough" cries from her critics. My guess is that Rove would just love to twist things around, making her the victim of this election...and this election all about HER. He's the master of confusion and conflict. Her virtual anonymity with the American public makes it all the more easier to mold her into whatever they want. We still need to (mostly) make it about Obama and McCain. I'm hoping that as the reality of just who she is and what she stands for sinks in, she and the ticket will start to implode on their own (a nice scandal wouldn't hurt either). We cannot help them create a "movement." Obviously, the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and now apparently Pat Buchanans of the world will be attempting to do the latter on their own.

I also think that Hillary can be of the greatest benefit to our campaign when it comes to Palin. If *she* goes after her, it'll carry enormous weight with certain voters and almost completely take away that piece of the pie. The Republican Party needs to be nakedly exposed for the radical right entity that they've become. A party where puppets pull the strings. A party with little to no respect for women's issues and rights. Most importantly, a party that has to resort to pure theatrics to try and skew reality. In the end, those are the *only* eggs I want left in their basket. McCain can then witness the full price of his pandering stunt, and Rove can become a sad blurb in history with his divide and conquer agenda:

The guy who destroyed the Republican Party.

(Ideally, Rush wouldn't be far behind him. A man can dream? No?) :)



Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Am I completely off-base?

User avatar
Jeff T.
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:28 am
Location: Blueberry Hill

Postby Jeff T. » Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:56 am

No David, I think you are pretty on the money there. This election is so important and the youngest voters are hip to it all this time and not happy. Had the economy not tanked so badly it might have been different. There is just so many unhappy folks out there I expect a landslide victory. But I'm not one to think that an election can't be stolen (again). Your take on this is encouraging, and you are not the only one. Hillary is going to be visible I expect to a fairly large degree.

I have some clients that are Republicans who are voting Obama this time. Or at least one lady and her husband are. We both agreed that this administration has wrecked the (that) party for at least two elections. She said even a Dem is better than what we have just been through. And there is a larger group of young folks voting this time who are fed up, as well as Reps. going Dem, your thoughts as written are astute, I have little to add, but I share your opinions about that R party being a mess of puppets pulling strings in a game of deceit and deception. And the common folks know about it, and are pissed.

It's a big deal this time for many who normally snooze through elections. I'm optimistic this time. And believe that after the election we will see an economic improvement however small, fairly quickly after the win - out of pure joy to close a very dark chapter in Amercian politics.

David R. Modny
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Parma, OH

Postby David R. Modny » Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:05 am

Thanks Jeff.

The thing is - I'm also realistic enough to know that Obama isn't going to instantly cure all things economically related, or suddenly become the patron saint of liberalism that I and some others might hope he would. I do believe in baby steps though, and truly believe that we really are teetering on the edge of pure disaster here. Our nation has never been more divided or more collective in its feeling of a sense of hopelessness. Do I like absolutely *everything* about Barack (and Joe), or agree with every *single* bill he (they) ever voted for or against? No. But, I feel that he is the one candidate who is optimistic enough to, at the very least, try and turn things around. The fact that we are on the verge of making racial history here will just be a very nice bonus. Something that will help restore my faith in mankind, and what we're supposed to pride ourselves in being as Americans.

What I'm really tired of seeing though is the demonization of my (Democratic) party's core values over the past quarter century by those who are the living contradiction of nearly all things good. The opposition can say what they want, but this country was a heck of a lot happier in its collective spirit during the 1990's - both economically and socially. The sheer hypocrisy of the Republican and/or Neocon platform is absolutely staggering. Not to mention the sheer meanness of its puppeteers. These folks are flat-out mean!

And, unlike the Naders of the world, I'm not *quite* cynical enough, or willing to sell out what precious little we Dems have left in order to make some sort of grand statement. Not yet anyway.


So, do we have a good chance here? I think we do.
Last edited by David R. Modny on Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:11 am, edited 2 times in total.

David R. Modny
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Parma, OH

Postby David R. Modny » Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:57 am

Oh...and by the way Jeff, please ask your Obama-leaning clients if they would temporarily mind relocating from California to -- and registering in -- either Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado or Michigan? Rumor has it that they're needed there immediately...lol!

Matt
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
What color are leaves?: Green
Spam?: No
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Postby Matt » Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:45 pm

Jeff T. wrote:It's a big deal this time for many who normally snooze through elections. I'm optimistic this time. And believe that after the election we will see an economic improvement however small, fairly quickly after the win - out of pure joy to close a very dark chapter in Amercian politics.


You know, this is the first time I have considered not voting. I'm not impressed with either one of the candidates.
-Matt