I am sitting at my keyboard in a state of shock. I never believed that McCain would pick Sarah Palin as his V.P. choice. Palin is too much a classic conservative for McCain to find much in common with her.In other words, what Palin represents has little in common with the neocons which have taken over the party under the Bush administration(s).
Palin is both conservative and moderate in all the right areas.
For those of you who don't know Palin, she is a very impressive woman who, although opposed to legalizing gay marriage does have gay friends and is willing to listen to their concerns.
Although opposed to abortion, she ended up with a fifth child that has Down's Syndrome, and has chosen to raise that child with her husband, a native Eskimo. Her oldest son is in the Army, scheduled to enter Iraq within the next couple of months (however, this should be rethought as he would make a beautiful hostage.)
Palin has an amazing record of standing up to corrupt government, and sticking to her principles, no matter what it may personally cost her. What she lacks in experience she more than makes up for with intelligence and moxie.
As I wrote on April 25th of this year, "The press has been fawning over Barack for ages now, while the obvious sex-discrimination against Hillary Clinton continues unabated. This week, Lou Dobbs (CNN) sponsored a poll concerning this matter. Over 74% of his viewers believe that the media displays a sex bias against Hillary."
In this campaign, women have felt very disenfranchised, ignored, and dismissed.
Until now.
I was seriously considering sitting out the elections this year, but I have now made the decision to vote for McCain/Palin.
43 comments:
I don't know anything about her as of yet. But I can say that I like how the elections are so diverse in candidate selection. It is what America is all about.
Deb, I agree. As for Palin: From what I know of her, her views are identical to mine, so obviously I'm sold.
Glad to have you on the McCain bus now. I know very little about Palin. (read: Nothing) but I am a bit worried that McCain went with someone who is, like Obama, really not experienced enough or truly qualified for the job of President. Gov of Alaska really doesn't quite do it in my book. but hey, at least she is number two on the ticket.
I'm not sure what I should be thinking yet and I've been thinking about his selection for several hours now. On the outside, I think I could live with her as a VP.
Although new in the "high stakes" political world, it appears she has already let power corrupt her in her brief tenure as governor. (She has served less time as governor than Obama has been campaigning for president.) She is currently under investigation for trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police force while he was in a messy child custody case with her sister.
Another thing that crosses my mind is how in the world will Joe Biden, known for his chewing them up and spitting them out, going to debate her in the vice presidential debates, if they decide to hold any?
Saur, you know how I lean on issues and it won't matter if McCain picks Ronald McDonald for his running mate. It just won't. NoBama will win, and that's that, much to my chargrin. Personally, I'm looking ahead to 2012 when Colin Powell runs with someone. But the Mayan calendar says it all falls apart in December 21, 2012, so who cares.
Knot
Deb: Not arguing, but this is NOT what America is all about and I'm not talking about diversity.
The President doesn't make rules, never has, never will. He only signs or doesn't sign what is on his desk. We focus waaaay to much on the presidency and not enough on Congress and the Supreme Court. In effect we have gone against what the founding fathers wanted by making the president out to be a king.
It only changes with term limits and no salary for Congressmen and Congresswomen.
Knot
Knot, good points, but it IS very nice to see diversity in the candidates, as we're seeing it on the streets. On the other hand, diversity alone is worthless unless we have QUALITY candidates that are diverse.
In other words, I never approved of reverse discrimination (favoring someone due to their sex or race) any more than I approve of discrimination.
I truly hope you're wrong about Obama, but Mayan calendar or no, many people feel the end of the USA is coming because we've allowed too much.
Either the muslim extremists (which is the majority of the muslims) will overtake us relatively peacefully, as they may be doing in France and the UK, or we will fall violently. But it seems that we are growing old and ineffective, with poor leadership, poor values, low standards, and falling into stagnancy. I don't know if ANY leader can pull us out of the mire.
Of course that's what we said when Reagan was elected and he turned American around. So, there may still be hope(?)
Ed, good points (I know of them) and as for Biden, I don't think it will be difficult. He will show her diffidence and/or respect but he will be able to take her on. He's a competant debator. However, she is a very competant speaker and campaigner, and I think that this choice will be somewhat unsettling.
It's interesting how quickly Nancy Pelosi gave a vicious weigh-in. She can afford to be the bulldog because she's female, and not directly campaigning. Obama and Biden have been most gracious, while (I suspect) asking others to do their work for them.
Exmi, Well, she actually is more qualified for the Presidency than Obama, as she's served as a Governor and he's only been a Senator. It's a world of difference between the two, as you know.
You'd vote for McCain?
Jesus wept.
A man who represents a party that has sold the economy down the river, that has got your nation into 2 wars, that has lowered the bar on human rights and has lowered the worldwide perception of the US as a nation.
How ANYONE can consider voting Republican in the current climate based on the Veep pick of an inexperienced woman to blance out McCains old age and connection to the Bush regime.
Ypu've got the government you deserve for the past 8 years and I thini if the US people vote in another 4 years of GOP madness I think I give up on the whole bloody lot of you.
Daniel, I understand your viewpoint and there's no doubt that I agree with much of it. I suspect that many of us are hoping that McCain will kick the bucket and pave the way for Palin(?)
But as for her experience, she actually has more than Obama. So, we're pretty much even in the experience category there.
And if we want TRUE change, someone OUTside of the beltway is the proper choice, IMHO. The other three are all consummate politicos.
So you'd trust the running of the country to her? Even though she represents the party that has ruined it and you're hoping that it'll be a change of tack.
You can see her representing the US on a global scale?
Good grief, we know that true change is not possible but you need a Prez who can work with the world now and repair all the damage, McCain is not that man, Palin is certainly not that woman.
Much needs to be done, nevermind in America but far more outside of its borders.
Daniel, The Republicans weren't always bad. In the 80s, they made some powerful changes for the good. She represents THAT type of Republican - not the neocons that have ruined the country through their ineffectuality and close mindedness.
I think you'd be surprised. Have you had a chance to learn about her? She's pro drilling for oil and thus decreasing our dependency on foreign oil (both Russian and middle eastern) as well as other things that will make her very popular here.
Additionally, she's been in a position of being a mini President: A governor. That's something that Obama hasn't done. Senators have VERY different job duties/obligations on a much narrower scale. She has leadership ability, and a 90% approval rating in her home state which is almost unheard of in national politics (Congress and the President are at an all time low).
Daniel, BTW, if her anti-abortion stance is a deciding factor for you, it really means nothing in modern politics. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that Roe v. Wade would be reversed and if it was, it would revert to the states. So she's able to be anti-abortion and appeal to those of us that are anti-abortion without ever really needing to back that up with any action.
Most of the states would keep it legal and if a state chose to ban abortion, the citizens could always cross the border.
That's pretty much moot, though, as almost all experts agree that Roe v. Wade will never be reversed.
Besides, many Republicans are quietly pro-choice these days, as it's been proven that the crime rate has dropped significantly with the legalization of abortion. Of course the illegal aliens are raising it again, but it's still lower than it was pre-abortion.
"Either the muslim extremists (which is the majority of the muslims) will overtake us relatively peacefully, as they may be doing in France and the UK, or we will fall violently."
WTF???
Neither Muslims, nor especially Muslim extremists, will take over the United States, certainly not in your lifetime, nor that of Saurkid. Far more likely is that Christian extremists will take over using fear of Islam as a springboard (and even that's pretty iffy). Most of the damage that has been done to this nation due to "Muslim extremists" has been done to us by our own fear, aided, abetted and directed by a power-hungry and paranoid administration and their cohorts amongst media punditry and the "think"-tank culture.
Palin, by the way, may have "an amazing record of standing up to corrupt government", but does that include her own?
As for Roe vs. Wade, I'd just as soon give that one up since it's the issue that the GOP uses as a shield to prove its "morality".
I think McCain went back to the old theory that the office of VP is not worth anything.
I do not think she is not a neo-con. That all depends on what the talk radio people say on Monday. If they like her, then she is one of them. If they hate her then she is not one of them.
That is how the movement works. They only like you if you are one of them. Otherwise you are some sort of America hating liberal.
Anyhow I still think the Obama/Biden ticket is more likely to move the nation in a different direction. We do need to start building a new infrastructure, and I do not think McCain will get that done. He has been in the Senate for how many years and never even tried to get anything done?
I also do not think anyone in McCain's administration will give her anything to do. She will be the Anti-Cheney, left in her house of the navy base with nothing to do while all the men make all the important decisions.
They can ALWAYS justify it by citing her "lack of experience" - after the election of course.
Something here is just not right. And when something seems fishy, it usually is.
Oh yea, I would not say being Governor of Alaska is like being a mini President. Some states (like Texas for example) have a "weak Governor" form of government. Florida in the other hand has a strong governor model. I do not know what Alaska has. But it is also the least populated state.
We can not drill our way out. We can't. It is impossible. We use far too much oil and simply do not have the reserves.
So we want to elect two people who think otherwise? Actually I think they know, they just want to squeeze all the money out of the black stuff that they can before the wells run dry.
By the time that happens, McCain will be dead anyway - so what does he care? Assuming we have 40 - 50 years of world reserves left (if that) then we can just have a series of never ending wars to keep it flowing, and when it runs out the people in power now will either be dead or very close to dead.
In other words, it will not be their problem.
As for her experience VS Obama, Obama has been in the Senate. Obama has more education, he taught Constitutional Law at a good university. She has a BA in Journalism from the prestigious University of Idaho.
At least I have a BA in Finance, from a school nobody has heard of (FIU in Miami).
I suspect that a lot of neo-cons will hope McCain kicks the bucket in office. Which is why they wanted him to pick one of them. But he could not pick a well known one of them because the moderates would know what time it was. So he had to pick someone "safe" for the base and yet unknown.
Looks like he did just that.
When something seems fishy, it usually is.
If McCain wins, nothing will change for yet another 4 years. At least.
Dave, Dave, I'm surprised you'd give up Roe v. Wade. Really?! Why?
As for the link you included, it goes nowhere. I know of the situation you speak of, however. However, you can bet that McCain's people vetted her thoroughly. Unlike Obama, who has some pretty unsavory connections, including Jeremiah Wright.
And yes, I think the Muslim extremists are a very real threat. Anyone who doesn't is hiding their head under the sand. Wishing it were different just "don't make it so." Perhaps that threat won't continue, but it exists currently.
As for Christian fundies, please direct me to the news articles that report that they're hijacking airplanes, blowing up buildings, doing carbombings (and people bombings), etc. Nope - they're not in the same league. Sure, we've all heard of the rare abortion clinic bombings that happened years ago when a random nut would do it, but they were never sanctioned by other Christians, as Muslim terrorists are sanctioned by their fellow muslim extremists.
Iguana, all excellent points. Very well thought out, and I certainly appreciate them.
Time will tell. I admit we don't know everything about Palin, although I've tried to learn about her over the last 6 months or so (when she appeared on my radar). I know that in some ways she's untested. Of course, in some ways Obama is too.
I don't think she's a neocon. Whether or not she's corruptible or not remains to be seen, though. She might become one. Then again, she may become a true icon - a female Ronald Reagan (who was also a governor).
You are possibly very correct about McCain's hope to keep her doing standard non-visible VP crap when/if he's elected. But I don't think he'll be able to. Too many women will have high expectations, and frankly she's very pretty. That will keep the media watching her. Being pretty opens doors or, as our grandmothers used to say, "Looks give license."
As for Alaska being a small state, it is. And yes, that might mean that she didn't face the same issues as she would in other states. However, running a small corporation is sometimes MORE intensive than running a big one. Until we know what her duties were/are, I can't possibly say. And, either way, it's a sight more to become Governor than it is to be a senator, IMHO.
Dave, here is an article on the scandal you mentioned. Here's an excerpt:
The Alaska Legislature voted last month to investigate allegations that Palin dismissed the state's public safety commissioner after the official resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a contentious divorce from Palin's sister.
State Probe
The Legislature has hired a former district attorney to investigate the case and asked him to issue a report by Oct. 31, just before the Nov. 4 general election, state Senator Hollis French said in an interview.
The vote by the Legislative Council to authorize the probe was unanimous, said French, a Democrat from West Anchorage. The council conducts state business when the Legislature isn't in formal session.
Palin fired the public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, on July 11. Several days later, Monegan said he had been pressured by members of Palin's administration and family to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, according to the Anchorage Daily News.
French said it ``remains to be seen'' whether the investigation embarrasses Palin. The important issue, he said, will be whether evidence emerges that ties Palin directly to efforts to pressure Monegan.
Gerald McBeath, a political scientist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, said he didn't regard the probe as a serious threat to the governor.
`Small Potatoes'
``This is small potatoes,'' he said. ``This isn't going to detract much from her candidacy.''
French said he is serving as the legislature's liaison with the investigator, Stephen Branchflower.
"Small Potatoes"? Maybe so, but abuse of power does not diminish with an increase of power.
"As for Christian fundies, please direct me to the news articles that report that they're hijacking airplanes, blowing up buildings, doing carbombings (and people bombings), etc."
As terrible as those things may be, the real damage that any fundamentalist group does to the rest of the population is to restrict the general freedom in the interest of their own very narrow view of what God "wants". As bad as 9/11 was, the only restrictions to freedom that it resulted in came from our own government.
As for the deaths, 3000 people will die this weekend from accidents involving alcohol. Shall we declare Anhauser-Busch to be a foreign terror threat?
6 years ago a gang of thugs committed a terrible criminal act. Instead of treating like the crime it was, our "leadership" used their Bully pulpit to lash out like cowards at anyone that looked at them funny. Result: thousands more dead (of our own), trillions of dollars wasted, our world prestige collapsed like we were Philly cops, and a line of thinking that will keep the country divided for years.
The goal of a terrorist is to make the target population irrationally fearful, thus causing them to either change behavior more to suit the terrorist, or to do themselves damage in the midst of their fear.
Had you told someone twenty years ago that in order to prevent specific crimes from occurring, the government was going to tap everyone's phone, suspend habeus corpus, and restrict travel, you would have been laughed out of the room (or chased with pillows and barrels of tar).
And yet, here we are today, doing that very thing, because we're afraid that we might become another .0001% of the population that's been killed by terrorists. But why should they bother? We've damn near destroyed the country ourselves.
Saur:
I know that the GOP has not always been a force for evil (however, as a liberal I can't reallty buy into any of the ways of Reagan or Bush snr) but the current regime of 8 years certainly has and she, no matter what her stance, is associated with that party and that man McCain.
I've read some stuff on her but my initial response was based on your comment that McCain/Palin was for you, which shocked the shit out of me.
And don't start me on drilling for oil anywhere!
As for her role as governor, the last guy was one of those and he sure made a hash out of Texas and then the US.
Her anti-abortion stanc which I was unawre of, was not the reason for my response, that was based on what you said. I'm used to American politicians believing in odd things by now...well, just.
Also, I'm with Dave on the whole Muslim thing, which came right out of left field. I mean you know me, I think all religion is a nasty business but with Dave on the fact that nay world seems to be effected by people who believe in a whole mad varoety of religious nonsense and use my planet as a punch bag.
Peace out.
I have made no committment yet on my vote but I think picking Palin was absolutely BRILLIANT
This election is shaping up to be one of the more interesting ones in a number of years
Leaving Palin to one side a second (and I will deal with her later as now I've read stuff), McCain is a man who delcered Iraq won in 03 and has been doing so ever since then, then like a blind idiot.
Has verbally opposed torture but backed it in all the legislation and is part of a government that allowed New Orleans to die.
His foreign policy team (palin won't be allowed near that) is old school neo-cons and Henry Kissinger...Oh dear Lord.
Now for Palin: supported sub-human Buchanan in 99, she loves Obama's energy plan, met McCain only once before getting the Veep pick (which speaks volumes for the desperate, nasty tactic this is by a dying old man) and would not be a go-too VP but rather a device to get the old bastard into power.
A device that from some angles, very sadly, seems to be working.
As I said, you get the government you deserve...
You made my day!!!
Here's a post I did about giving up the abortion issue. There is method to my madness.
Hey there Saur, I came over here just because I thought you might have something to say about Palin. It's all very interesting... I'm just taking it all in.
I NOW know where the blind lead the blind. Starts with you, and then.....
Sry. about that Saur, but you are not on track with this one.
Old Hoss, we're buds. I can take it. ;o)
Jenn, it IS very interesting, isn't it? I've only known of her for 6 months, really, so I can't claim to be an expert. But what a switch!
Dave, Thank you! I'll check it out your article. See my note to you at the bottom of this long series of answers.
Jungle Mom, ;o) Fabulous! How's the new little one?
Daniel, I don't like McCain much, but what does "old school neo-con" mean? Are you trying to say he's like Reagan there? If so, then I like that part about him. There's so much to DISlike about him, truthfully, that that's a change.
Thanks for explaining your thoughts on Palin and I think you know me well enough to know by now that I really respect you and listen to your very intelligent, very liberal arguments. We often agree, sometimes disagree, and this will be one of those places where we disagree because Palin truly represents something that most of us thought was extinct: A classic Reagan Republican politico.
That doesn't mean we can't be wrong. It could turn out that the investigation she's under will prove that she's just another con. If so, I will be disappointed but not particularly surprised. I surely hope she will pass with flying colors.
The environment: I'm in agreement that the environment is WAY too discounted by conservatives. I can't tell you some of the charity and volunteer work that I do, but I've often been side-by-side with extreme 'liberals' due to the fact that we KNOW global warming exists. We KNOW we're making a negative impact that's measurable.
This is where conservatives fall very short. They are so busy justifying raping the land in the name of Big Biz that they will talk a blue streak to discount a very provable fact of global warming.
Interestingly, most conservative talk show hosts have abandoned this now and do admit to global warming, but are now saying that we have nothing to do with it and no responsibility... I've heard some idiots say that cows are the major source.
Well, cows can't do anything about it, but WE can.
OK, I'm stepping off my soapbox now.
Mal, agreed. ;o)
Dave, I agree that abuses of power would continue if she's convicted. As I said to Daniel, I hope sincerely that she is innocent but I can't vouch for that - only hope for that. I DO know McCain has thoroughly vetted her because she can make or break it at this point.
I agree with you about Fundies restricting certain things, but we all do. Everyone has opinions about what should and shouldn't be done in this world. Some win, some lose. That's why America's so beautiful - religion doesn't dictate policy all the time. In fact, it isn't supposed to at all (though no doubt it does at times).
Beer drinking: Well, if the 3000 dead of alcohol made that choice, what about the dead due to taking illicit drugs, overdosing, and committing other forms of suicide and homicide that are a result of their free-will choices? A-Busch has nothing to do w/ that. However (prepare for a shock) I would like to see alcohol made illegal.
I agree w/ you 100% on those last two paragraphs of yours.
Dave: re your abortion vs. torture article: (don't forget to check out my two notes to you above, as well).
There is a flaw in your reasoning, which is summed up here where you write "But an illegal abortion would be a choice that someone would have to make, as opposed to those who will suffer under the auspices of Lord Bush's Torture Policy."
Ultimately, that's significant of the communication gap that exists between anti and pro abortionists. We believe that there is overwhelming evidence that life begins at conception.
Life is defined as growth and/or change, isn't it? Rocks aren't alive. Trees, cancer, and people are alive because there is continual growth or change until death, when it stops.
So our argument is not choice vs. the no choice of torture. Our argument is that the baby has no choice in this at ALL.
So it remains that both torture and abortion involves unwilling people. However,in the case of torture, some may be deserving.
Note that I said deserving. That doesn't mean that torture should take place, necessarily.
Reagan is only billed as so great because of Nixon. His supposedly great economic plan set the stage for the lack of jobs today. Supply side was supposed to build the domestic economy - but what it did was make for the groundwork of unrestricted foreign investment. People and companies took their tax cuts and invested them overseas. Sure some sectors came up, but it was this period of time when American manufacturing jobs started to go bye bye.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that. Supply side is flawed. It may have worked before the emergence of the global economy - but it sure does not work now. It causes inflation, a drop in the value of the dollar, and eventually a recession. It did all these things in the 80s, only Bush Senior took the blame for the team so as to not tarnish the legacy of Reagan. Otherwise who would Republicans point to as the last great President? Eisenhower? NOPE! Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex, the current good friends of the Republican party. Herbert Hoover? NOPE! That whole Great Depression and his famous 1929 "it is not that bad" quote.
Teddy Roosevelt? NOPE! He sounds more like a liberal by today's standards. Pro labor, anti-trust, and he created the national parks.
Pretty much they would be forced to admit that the current political philosophy of the right leads to exactly what we see today. Recession and inflation.
By the way, how is your job search going? Bush tried the same economic plans as Reagan, so the economy should be going great. Cut taxes, increase spending, bankrupt the government, then when the budget is cut to pay for it all cut social services first. Undo the new deal at all costs.
The more I hear about McCain's VP pick the more I think she is just a lucky simpleton. I do not think she would have become Governor here, or in any other major State.
If I were a woman, I think I would be offended by the choice. So all women just have to not be ugly and they are "qualified" for a job? Really. Someone with just a BA degree and little of any other kind of experience can be the VP? He could not find any other women with a better resume?
Don't you at least have a masters degree? And I think you have worked as management. You may not have been Governor, but so what?
Saur:
You don't like McCain much but because he picked Palin you'd vote for him to run your country?
Surely, he is not the lesser of two evils?
By old school neo-con I meant determined, not Reaganite.
And I think it's cool we can have a reasoned debate, excuse my ire but I was shocked by your coming out for McCain and Palin.
McCain is the lesser of two evils. Palin just made is even less evil. No one is perfect, but in my opinion I would say she isn't evil at all. I will happily vote for McCain/Palin.
doing fine here in Paraguay!
Supplyside economics is a new name for an old idea: Give the rich everything they want and they'll "spread the wealth around" below them. Sure, just like the feudal lords did, just like the plantation owners did, just like the robber barons did. Money and power are tightly intertwined, and the greater the economic disparity, the lesser the democratic equality. Or, if you prefer, the greater the concentration of wealth, the greater the concentration of power. That is the legacy of the Reagan years, and Bush has been more of the same. McCain would be a continuation of those policies, and the only people who need that are the very rich.
The point of the article on letting Republicans win on the abortion issue actually had nothing to do with abortion itself (pro or con), but to do with the idea that the Republican Party has cornered the market on morality. They most certainly have not, failing miserably on every single front except that of abortion, yet they continue to claim the high ground because of that one issue. Take that issue away, and the party will be exposed for the naked emperor that they are.
Oh, and the GOP is quite willing to put Americans in harm's way to achieve or hold on to power, and your blessed St. Ronnie is no different.
As far as I can tell, according to conservative "experts", the Democrats only want to put America in danger, whereas there seems to be evidence that Republicans are more than willing to do it for real.
Dont mean to keep hammering, but this does get back to your original post. I read this idea in someone's comments:
"I have a theory that McCain might be engaging in some gamesmanship. The point of doing a vp announcement today was to take the headlines away from Obama. McCain could only do this with a big surprise pick. If he announced Romney it would have been announced with a big yawn by the press.
So instead he announces Sarah Palin. Headlines everyywhere. Nobody's talking about Barack's speech now. But what if that was the point? What if next Tuesday or Wednesday, after Palin gets beat up by the press a bit (which they will, the press *hates* candidates being put up for national office which they haven't brutally vetted first), she comes out to the podium and tearfully "announces" that she is declining the nomination for vp to spend more time with her five month old baby. McCain accepts her resignation the ticket, says he was proud to have picked a woman, and then picks Romney as her replacement.
McCain thus gets the headlines he wants for a few days, gets credit for picking a woman, AND ends up with Romney anyway. It could all be a plan, a deception. Sarah Palin then gets to go back to Alaska with a substantially raised national profile, and Romney gets many more people at the convention accepting him as vp because they are so glad it didn't end up being her. It works all the way around."
Makes sense to me, and gives McCain some lady-points.
Plus, apparently Palin's 17-year old daughter is pregnant (and Palin is one of those abstinence supporters). Talk about a rock and a hard place.
Or did they know this before he picked her?
Rock and a hard place? Even Obama states that family, especially children should be off limits. Obama's mother was 18 when she had him. Chances are she too was in high school when she was pregnant.
Yes, McCain knew before he picked her.
This isnt so much a question of family, as it is about Palin's policy. If there were no sex-ed issue with her, I would agree, but as a supporter of Abstinence Only sex ed (which studies show does not work) she has fallen victim herself to statistics, as it were. We're supposed to be choosing someone based on their ability to make choices, and she's not only chosen to support an ineffective policy, but has apparently had that policy bite her on the ass.
Whatever age Obama's mother was, it has nothing to do with either Obama's policies or his decision-making. With Palin, though, the connection could be made, and while this may be fairly minor, it ought not to be dismissed unless it were the only problem.
Teenage boy - Teenage girl. Do you seriously think there is a "policy" or any "sex-ed" that will work? Do you have a teenager?
Yes, I did have one (and have two more to worry about a few years from now), and I'm fully aware of that. And yes, I'm aware that no kind of sex-ed stops anybody, who really wants to, from having sex (nor does any kind make them want to more, which is the conservative rational for abstinence-only), but at least a full-disclosure type sex-ed makes them smarter about doing it if they feel they must.
I'm also aware that if Obama's girls were (quite) a few years older and it turned out that one of them had an abortion, that the GOP would lose no opportunity to connect that with Democratic "immorality" (and the implicit ungodliness), and Obama's unfitness to lead Family America. And isnt it interesting that I'm all of a sudden hearing a lot about the age of Obama's mother when he was born?
1. Had you even been aware previously that Alaska's governor had been vetted by McCain's vp committee? I heard nothing of that obscure possibility in the media, online or off.
2. Palin is an ingenious choice for McCain precisely b/c they (seemingly) have little in common--he's trying to reinvent himself as not an insider but a maverick, whereas she's conservative enough to keep the base happy. Perfect marriage.
3. I agree that Hillary was discriminated against b/c of her sex but also that her opponent benefited from HIS race. McCain will lose (with or without Palin) and we'll have our first affirmative action president.
Iguana, All good points, again. And yes, in some ways I might be better qualified than Palin but in many ways I'm NOT. I haven't been in any elected office, which is really the modern prerequisite. I WOULD make a fun candidate, though, as I have all kinds of scandalous things that would keep CNN busy for months. ;o)
I don't think Palin is a nitwit, though.
I agree w/ you about supply side economics.
Daniel, that's OK, I love you to death! No worries here - only mutual respect.
It's not that I'm going to vote for McCain ONLY because of Palin. It's that he was already the lesser of two evils, IMHO, but not enough to generate a vote from me. I've become very disenfranchised.
Daveawayfromhome, I do agree with your comments on supply side economics. And I also agree that Republicans should not have the corner on morality.
However, what have the Dems done to counter this? Very little, if anything.
Instead, the Dems have the reputation of being pro-sex outside of marriage, anti-abstinence, pro-abortion (which is a result of being pro-sex), pro-alternative lifestyles, anti-family values, etc. This is the party's own doing, and they will have to take a stand if they want any other type of reputation.
And please don't believe that I think Reagan was a saint, or that I don't have a realistic picture of him. But I DO think he was the best, most effective President we've had in over 50 years. I DON'T think he was perfect. There are certainly some things I disagree with.
Interesting point about McCain going with Romney after all. That WOULD be quite Machiavalian.
Michelle, You are completely correct. In addition, no one knows much about Obama's other brothers and sisters and promiscuous family members. It's a can best left unopened, which is why he's begging everyone to leave it alone.
m@, actually, McCain's committee DID vet Palin thoroughly, and she had to fill out a 40 page(!) questionnairre, which included this info.
I agree with your other points. Thanks!
No, of COURSE they vetted anyone they'd choose. I just meant that you probably had been unaware of her existence before the choice. :)
"Instead, the Dems have the reputation of being pro-sex outside of marriage, anti-abstinence, pro-abortion (which is a result of being pro-sex), pro-alternative lifestyles, anti-family values, etc. This is the party's own doing, and they will have to take a stand if they want any other type of reputation."
That is not the platform of the Democratic party, nor is it their "belief system". That is how the Republican party has labeled the Democrats, and their flunkies in the pundit world (and their respective media outlets) have hammered that concept into the general discourse. The Democrats are not so much for any particular kind of sex as they are for the government keeping it's nose out of everyone's sex lives, and for those sex lives, whatever they may be, not to be the basis of any kind of discrimination.
It is less a case of them supporting, say, a gay lifestyle, than it is of them saying that it shouldnt matter what these people do with their private lives.
Which is odd, when one considers that is supposed to be the conservatives who are for minimizing interference.
This is just for funsies.
I had been thinking that there was no choice for president. I could not find a candidate I could vote for but Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air. I like that she is inexperienced. I think she is closer to the average American than her running-mate or their opponants. I think she will do well for America. So I would be voting for Palin/McCain.
Post a Comment