Once the initial defensiveness re: Palin dies down...

[groverat]

What the fuck are Republicans going to say to justify this obviously-political pick?

I don't know much about her, and that isn't for lack of trying. She's been on the short-list rumor mill for months now and there's just nothing about her. Say what you will about Obama, but he has over a decade of documented political philosophy easily available, including 2 books outlining his ideas about the world, one of those specifically dealing with policy issues (and another one coming). Joe Biden... nothing needs to be said about Joe Biden on the "experience" front.

So she's an unknown quantity, which can be fine. If McCain picked a person he knew and trusted as a legitimate presidential stand-in for him based on personal knowledge of the candidate, even if the candidate didn't have the obvious bonafides, I'd understand...

But McCain doesn't know this woman. He's "known" her for 6 months, and I put that in quotation marks because he hadn't talked to her in those 6 months except an initially meeting and a phone interview 6 months later asking if she wanted to be his Vice President.

No matter what Palin turns out to be, and I don't want to prejudge her, what on earth does that kind of decision-making process say about John McCain as a potential president of the United States?

[SpamSandwich]

This is John McCain's superb decision-making at work... confuse the hell out of the enemy, then slit their throats while they sleep. :lol:

[Jubelum]

What the fuck are Republicans going to say to justify this obviously-political pick?

Obviously political? Newsflash... it's an election. It's the epitome of politics. Everything for the last two years in this arena is "obviously political." It's politics.

Joe Biden... nothing needs to be said about Joe Biden on the "experience" front.


Oh, yea... an obviously political pick for gravitas. It's the usual balancing of the ticket, and now both sides have done it.

So she's an unknown quantity, which can be fine. If McCain picked a person he knew and trusted as a legitimate presidential stand-in for him based on personal knowledge of the candidate, even if the candidate didn't have the obvious bonafides, I'd understand...

If McCain has enlisted any of the people that he is good friends with, he would have immediately ceded the election to Obama. Most of them are democrats, and the few Republicans are RINOs like Grahamnesty, which would show he's willing to forgo the GOP base. And make them stay home.

But McCain doesn't know this woman. He's "known" her for 6 months, and I put that in quotation marks because he hadn't talked to her in those 6 months except an initially meeting and a phone interview 6 months later asking if she wanted to be his Vice President.


I'm not sure how much we know, or will ever know, about the steps leading to this pick.

No matter what Palin turns out to be, and I don't want to prejudge her, what on earth does that kind of decision-making process say about John McCain as a potential president of the United States?

Hmmmm. Good question. I guess one take on it is that he can build bridges between diverse opinions.

[edit] OMG. I just heard Palin say "nukular."

[Bergermeister]

[edit] OMG. I just heard Palin say "nukular."

That is going to seal it for many.
:lol:

[jimmac]

What the fuck are Republicans going to say to justify this obviously-political pick?

I don't know much about her, and that isn't for lack of trying. She's been on the short-list rumor mill for months now and there's just nothing about her. Say what you will about Obama, but he has over a decade of documented political philosophy easily available, including 2 books outlining his ideas about the world, one of those specifically dealing with policy issues (and another one coming). Joe Biden... nothing needs to be said about Joe Biden on the "experience" front.

So she's an unknown quantity, which can be fine. If McCain picked a person he knew and trusted as a legitimate presidential stand-in for him based on personal knowledge of the candidate, even if the candidate didn't have the obvious bonafides, I'd understand...

But McCain doesn't know this woman. He's "known" her for 6 months, and I put that in quotation marks because he hadn't talked to her in those 6 months except an initially meeting and a phone interview 6 months later asking if she wanted to be his Vice President.

No matter what Palin turns out to be, and I don't want to prejudge her, what on earth does that kind of decision-making process say about John McCain as a potential president of the United States?

What the fuck are Republicans going to say to justify this obviously-political pick?



Ahem! Best Tom Jones voice : " She's a lady! Woa, woa, woa, she's a lady!".:lol:

[jamac]

She's already practicing to be in the white house:
yup, yup, yup I am ready (http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/492964.html?loc=interstitialskip)

Food choices: Caribou and Moose burgers are everyday dinner.
Wolves must be eliminated from the landscape ( I wonder how all this goes with gods creation ...) God hates wolves and bears and nature. God only likes hunters and war and the mentally ill.

[jimmac]

She's already practicing to be in the white house:
yup, yup, yup I am ready (http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/492964.html?loc=interstitialskip)

Food choices: Caribou and Moose burgers are everyday dinner.
Wolves must be eliminated from the landscape ( I wonder how all this goes with gods creation ...) God hates wolves and bears and nature. God only likes hunters and war and the mentally ill.


:lol:

[mydo]

She's already practicing to be in the white house:
yup, yup, yup I am ready (http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/492964.html?loc=interstitialskip)

That trooper used a tazer on a 10 year old. Not exactly your ideal victim. If this is the best scandal we can come up with then it aint looking good.

[jimmac]

" Talk'in about a little lady! ":lol:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/begala.palin/index.html

[jamac]

Mayor of Wasilla is by far the most demanding executive job in the US (Hawaii, Guam and Puerto Rico included).
Wasilla (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=49)

[jamac]

That trooper used a tazer on a 10 year old. Not exactly your ideal victim. If this is the best scandal we can come up with then it aint looking good.

linky?

Bush used the US army on an imbecile (Saddam) he is still in office.

[BRussell]

Ladies and gentleman, the 45th president of the US:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/astrologicalmusings/images/Sarah-Palin-Vogue.jpg


[edit] Oops, I just found out that this isn't a real photo. She was really in Vogue, but not on the cover. Yes, I should have seen that it was an obvious photoshop job.

[SpamSandwich]

Ladies and gentleman, the 45th president of the US:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/astrologicalmusings/images/Sarah-Palin-Vogue.jpg

Hey, I don't hold anyone's good looks against them, but she is clearly under-qualified and more "inexperienced" than Obama. Hillary supporters should be outraged at this shallow tactic by McCain.

As for us Ron Paul supporters, we could give a hoot.

[Jubelum]

Mayor of Wasilla is by far the most demanding executive job in the US (Hawaii, Guam and Puerto Rico included).
Wasilla (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=49)

As opposed to Milhouse, who has never been an executive at all... sa-weet.
I'm all for the Dems bringing up the experience issue. 142 days. 142.

[jimmac]

As opposed to Milhouse, who has never been an executive at all... sa-weet.
I'm all for the Dems bringing up the experience issue. 142 days. 142.

Me too! I look forward to the debates!

[BRussell]

I'm all for the Dems bringing up the experience issue. 142 days. 142. Dems won't bring it up. But apparently the theme for the RNC convention - and presumably the rest of the election - was going to be how "dangerously inexperienced" Obama is. I don't see how they can keep this theme now. Dems are very happy simply to talk about issues. Every election, Dems believe Americans agree with them on the issues, but Repubs succeed in instead making it about how Gore is a liar and Kerry is an elitist and Obama is inexperienced. If that is taken off the table, and it makes the media stop chattering about it, Dems will be happy.

[Akumulator]

Hillary supporters should be outraged at this shallow tactic by McCain.

I agree. In fact, I'd go as far as saying John McCain is sexist for choosing his VP based soley on her sex. It's like choosing the only black guy to be on your basketball team without even knowing if he can play based soley on his race.

[jimmac]

Dems won't bring it up. But apparently the theme for the RNC convention - and presumably the rest of the election - was going to be how "dangerously inexperienced" Obama is. I don't see how they can keep this theme now. Dems are very happy simply to talk about issues. Every election, Dems believe Americans agree with them on the issues, but Repubs succeed in instead making it about how Gore is a liar and Kerry is an elitist and Obama is inexperienced. If that is taken off the table, and it makes the media stop chattering about it, Dems will be happy.

Good response!

[mydo]

linky?


Please don't take this the wrong way and with all due respect I suggest that you do your own research on Palin so that you know the basic details of the discussion. This woman is running for VP and and it's worth knowing about her no matter which side you are on. Within a short night of google searching I read about Palin's "TrouperGate" and learned that although she may have abused her power it can be easily deflected.

So go find your own "linky".


Bush used the US army on an imbecile (Saddam) he is still in office.

Yea. That's the guy that got reelected! So I don't know why everyone thinks Obama is a slam dunk when Bush was reelected.

[jimmac]

I agree. In fact, I'd go as far as saying John McCain is sexist for choosing his VP based soley on her sex. It's like choosing the only black guy to be on your basketball team without even knowing if he can play based soley on his race.

Absolutely! Obama could have taken the low road by picking Hillary to hedge his bets. However this would have contrasted with his platform of " Change " on many levels.

So who's more real here? Also because of this aspect I think this will count against McSame. Something he didn't expect I'm sure.

[jimmac]

Please don't take this the wrong way and with all due respect I suggest that you do your own research on Palin so that you know the basic details of the discussion. This woman is running for VP and and it's worth knowing about her no matter which side you are on. Within a short night of google searching I read about Palin's "TrouperGate" and learned that although she may have abused her power it can be easily deflected.

So go find your own "linky".




Yea. That's the guy that got reelected! So I don't know why everyone thinks Obama is a slam dunk when Bush was reelected.

That's because back in 2004 some were still buying his act. As you can see in 2006 things had changed fundimentally.

[addabox]

Please don't take this the wrong way and with all due respect I suggest that you do your own research on Palin so that you know the basic details of the discussion. This woman is running for VP and and it's worth knowing about her no matter which side you are on. Within a short night of google searching I read about Palin's "TrouperGate" and learned that although she may have abused her power it can be easily deflected.

So go find your own "linky".

You must have special Google that reveals how being shown to have abused one's power can be "easily deflected." Does that Google also indicate the triviality of having lied about abusing one's power? I ask because I know how the right is very adamant that lying about one's misdeeds is far worse than the misdeeds themselves.

I think it's kind of funny that you think it's now the job of every American to dutifully go Google Palin's bio to fill themselves in on the basics. I would have thought that would have been McCain's job.

But, I guess when you have political points to score, you can't waste any time with silly stuff like due diligence.


Yea. That's the guy that got reelected! So I don't know why everyone thinks Obama is a slam dunk when Bush was reelected.

I don't know anyone that thinks Obama is a slam dunk. I've encountered guarded optimism ranging to transfixed terror.

I have seen, however, a lot a thought to the effect that, in a better world, Obama ought to be a slam dunk, given the grotesque clusterfuck of recent Republican "governance."

[Jubelum]

Absolutely! Obama could have taken the low road by picking Hillary to hedge his bets.

Hillary is the low road. That ought to keep the PUMAs going.

However this would have contrasted with his platform of " Change " on many levels.


As opposed to the six term liberal lion who is the very antithesis of "change" that he did pick?

This is so dumb... this talk about the purely political calculation that McMoron made in his veep choice. Einstein in a bathrobe, people, this is a political race, you know, in politics. Do you see that Obama chose that inside-the-beltway-solid-old-DNC-liberal Biden to add something to his ticket as well? Obama needed gravitas, he got it. McCain needed a conservative, he got her. Nothing to see here.

What a pathetic critique... "Waaaaa waaaaaa he chose someone that is attractive to the women and conservatives he'll need to win!"

[Jubelum]

I have seen, however, a lot a thought to the effect that, in a better world, Obama ought to be a slam dunk, given the grotesque clusterfuck of recent Republican "governance."

You know, that is spot on. Obama should be up by 15 points in every state, at least.

So the reason he's not... hmmm.. it will come down to a) his whacko Alinskyite liberalism b) republican attacks c) concerns about experience d) overt racsim.

To this point, this race has not been Obama's to win, it is his to lose. I have to say, I was surprised with the bounce after Denver... I was looking for a bigger one. We'll see what Gustav and St. Paul bring, but Palin is currently rallying the GOP base in a big big big way.

[addabox]

Hillary is the low road. That ought to keep the PUMAs going.



As opposed to the six term liberal lion who is the very antithesis of "change" that he did pick?

This is so dumb... this talk about the purely political calculation that McMoron made in his veep choice. Einstein in a bathrobe, people, this is a political race, you know, in politics. Do you see that Obama chose that inside-the-beltway-solid-old-DNC-liberal Biden to add something to his ticket as well? Obama needed gravitas, he got it. McCain needed a conservative, he got her. Nothing to see here.

What a pathetic critique... "Waaaaa waaaaaa he chose someone that is attractive to the women and conservatives he'll need to win!"

Have you ever noticed that you only get the "it's all politics" religion when the right does something stupid? When the left practices politics, it seems to strike you as a sign of demonic possession.

The way you work it, the country can never be any better than the worst thing the Republicans do, because the one iron-clad rule is the liberals must never, ever be seen to in any way be superior to the right. Therefor, the worst things the Republicans do must always be declared to be business as usual, and quite typical of the left.

In other words, by your lights, the Republicans can single-handedly ratchet down what is possible and good, in America. Bush murdering babies on the White House lawn? Sure, it looks bad, but don't try to tell me it's anything out of the ordinary! Everybody does it!

Why do you hate America, again?

[Jubelum]

Have you ever noticed that you only get the "it's all politics" religion when the right does something stupid? When the left practices politics, it seems to strike you as a sign of demonic possession.

Calm down adda. You need to reread my post.

You did not see me on this board slamming Obama re:Biden as a "purely political pick." The simple fact is that this is the political realm, where people are competing for votes, so it should come as no surprise that candidates make POLITICAL decisions in the course of politics. This has nothing to do with partisan anything, and you've obviously missed my point in the hope of calling me out on something you've conjured yourself. You make it sound like I'm trying to cover for some deviant behaviour for "my side" by saying "everyone does it." There is nothing deviant or wrong about picking a veep that helps you make a better case to the voters. You are smarter than that, adda. I think you know full well what I meant.

Let me try this again. My point is regarding the stupidity of people who call out one party for making a "political pick" in the course of politics... after the other party just did the same thing. There is nothing to see here. The fact that a Prez candidate picks a person who will benefit his or her ticket should not come as some scandalous surprise. It's common fscking sense. Every cycle, in every party... Presidential candidates pick veeps that bring something to their ticket. What a huge "DUH."

[jimmac]

Hillary is the low road. That ought to keep the PUMAs going.



As opposed to the six term liberal lion who is the very antithesis of "change" that he did pick?

This is so dumb... this talk about the purely political calculation that McMoron made in his veep choice. Einstein in a bathrobe, people, this is a political race, you know, in politics. Do you see that Obama chose that inside-the-beltway-solid-old-DNC-liberal Biden to add something to his ticket as well? Obama needed gravitas, he got it. McCain needed a conservative, he got her. Nothing to see here.

What a pathetic critique... "Waaaaa waaaaaa he chose someone that is attractive to the women and conservatives he'll need to win!"


A VP is supposed to balance the ticket. You know! To satisfy those people who aren't sure about new ideas and want a background of experience also.

If you aks me it's much more valid than just choosing any woman to catch what little votes you can. It's a poor addition to an already poor platform with McSame.

[Jubelum]

A VP is supposed to balance the ticket. You know! To satisfy those people who aren't sure about new ideas and want a background of experience also.

If you aks me it's much more valid than just choosing any woman to catch what little votes you can. It's a poor addition to an already poor platform with McSame.

"just choosing any woman..." :???:

I think it is a bit sexist how you are paying 100% attention to her gender, and not her conservative credentials. McMoron needed that MUCH more than her gender. Please be aware of how the single-minded focus on her chromosome shape is a bit of a put down, because it emphasizes a physical trait over deeds or character. That's a big no-no.

Biden brought experience.
Palin brought the conservatism that McCain lacks in a huge way.

[jimmac]

I think it is a bit sexist how you are paying 100% attention to her gender, and not her conservative credentials. McMoron needed that MUCH more than her gender. Please be aware of how the single-minded focus on her chromosome shape is a bit of a put down, because it emphasizes a physical trait over deeds or character. That's a big no-no.

Biden brought experience.
Palin brought the conservatism that McCain lacks in a huge way.

Her credentials? Lame at best!

As for her gender I couldn't care less except that it surrounds why McSame chose this desperate avenue.

He hopes Palin will bring exHillary votes. Nothing more. If I was a woman I'd be insulted. Even so it offends me. This was so shallow. As I've said with McSame it's all about winning. Not what's right for the country.

I can understand. The Neocons are about to lose their grip on Washington DC.

[addabox]

Calm down adda. You need to reread my post.

You did not see me on this board slamming Obama re:Biden as a "purely political pick." The simple fact is that this is the political realm, where people are competing for votes, so it should come as no surprise that candidates make POLITICAL decisions in the course of politics. This has nothing to do with partisan anything, and you've obviously missed my point in the hope of calling me out on something you've conjured yourself. You make it sound like I'm trying to cover for some deviant behaviour for "my side" by saying "everyone does it." There is nothing deviant or wrong about picking a veep that helps you make a better case to the voters. You are smarter than that, adda. I think you know full well what I meant.

Let me try this again. My point is regarding the stupidity of people who call out one party for making a "political pick" in the course of politics... after the other party just did the same thing. There is nothing to see here. The fact that a Prez candidate picks a person who will benefit his or her ticket should not come as some scandalous surprise. It's common fscking sense. Every cycle, in every party... Presidential candidates pick veeps that bring something to their ticket. What a huge "DUH."

What is surprising is when a presidential candidate names a veep choice for purely political reasons, as in the case of McCain's pick.

Certainly there is political component to the Biden pick, but does anyone doubt that Biden could step in and do a credible job as president, if need be? Does anyone doubt that Biden brings genuine foreign policy expertise to an Obama administration? You can claim that it's merely "politics" when Obama seeks to "shore up" his foreign policy credentials, but notice it's a type of politics that hinges on his admins competency in a core aspect of governance. Palin shores up..... a demographic. There is literally no thought there to a McCain administration's ability to govern. Which is, of course, right in keeping with the last eight years.

Eight years of one of the most vacuously political administrations in American history has forced the right to pretend like there's no such thing as substantive policy, no such thing as a genuine desire to "do good", no such thing as the actual ability to use government, competently, as a tool for national betterment. There are only politics, and the deeper the right goes down the rat-hole of a fact free Rovian shit world the more strenuously they must declare that nothing more is possible or even desirable.

To mitigate the astonishing disaster of the Bush administration, it becomes necessary to declare all of American politics, all of American governance, all hope, all possibility, and all desire for something better to be stupid myths. The smart money is on ever more cynical manipulations, ever less competence, ever shriller divisions.

I wonder if most folks on the right even think McCain would be anything more than a mediocre president, at best. The things is, I don't think they really care.

[Jubelum]

What is surprising is when a presidential candidate names a veep choice for purely political reasons, as in the case of McCain's pick.


I think that claiming that it is purely political, again, misses the point. She is a conservative that would bring perspectives and values to the McMoron administration that it currently lacks. Another... "duh." She's spent more time in an executive capacity than Obama has, if experience is your beef.

To hear some intellectually shallow hacks claim that "its a woman for the woman's vote" is a bit over the line and demonstrates some sexist tendencies... i.e., seeing physical trait over values and action.

Who she is, not what she is.

And BTW... McCain would be a mediocre president. It's just that Obama would be a socialist disaster.

[jimmac]

What is surprising is when a presidential candidate names a veep choice for purely political reasons, as in the case of McCain's pick.

Certainly there is political component to the Biden pick, but does anyone doubt that Biden could step in and do a credible job as president, if need be? Does anyone doubt that Biden brings genuine foreign policy expertise to an Obama administration? You can claim that it's merely "politics" when Obama seeks to "shore up" his foreign policy credentials, but notice it's a type of politics that hinges on his admins competency in a core aspect of governance. Palin shores up..... a demographic. There is literally no thought there to a McCain administration's ability to govern. Which is, of course, right in keeping with the last eight years.

Eight years of one of the most vacuously political administrations in American history has forced the right to pretend like there's no such thing as substantive policy, no such thing as a genuine desire to "do good", no such thing as the actual ability to use government, competently, as a tool for national betterment. There are only politics, and the deeper the right goes down the rat-hole of a fact free Rovian shit world the more strenuously they must declare that nothing more is possible or even desirable.

To mitigate the astonishing disaster of the Bush administration, it becomes necessary to declare all of American politics, all of American governance, all hope, all possibility, and all desire for something better to be stupid myths. The smart money is on ever more cynical manipulations, ever less competence, ever shriller divisions.

I wonder if most folks on the right even think McCain would be anything more than a mediocre president, at best. The things is, I don't think they really care.

I agree on all points. The notion that it's " Ok " because it's what everyone does now is just stupid. America is based on better values than that. It's time we got out of this rat- hole!

[addabox]

I think that claiming that it is purely political, again, misses the point. She is a conservative that would bring perspectives and values to the McMoron administration that it currently lacks. Another... "duh."

To hear some intellectually shallow hacks claim that "its a woman for the woman's vote" is a bit over the line and demonstrates some sexist tendencies... i.e., seeing physical trait over values and action. Who she is, not what she is.

How would Palin's "perspective and values" assist a McCain administration in matters of governance? Does she show up at cabinet meetings and say "abortion bad" and McCain looks thunderstruck and says "tell me more"?

What do the Vice President's "perspective and values" have to do with running the country, beyond assisting McCain in tailoring his message to key demographics? How is that not just politics?

[jimmac]

I think that claiming that it is purely political, again, misses the point. She is a conservative that would bring perspectives and values to the McMoron administration that it currently lacks. Another... "duh." She's spent more time in an executive capacity than Obama has, if experience is your beef.

To hear some intellectually shallow hacks claim that "its a woman for the woman's vote" is a bit over the line and demonstrates some sexist tendencies... i.e., seeing physical trait over values and action.

Who she is, not what she is.

Unfortunately the way I see it is that she's a hood ornament! Something to parade around to voters before the election. One wonders what she'd do if McSame wins after the election. The same relationship doesn't exist with Obama/Biden. I really don't think with Biden's experience he'd be ok with that.

As I've said before if I was a woman who cared about women's rights I'd be very offended by this dog and pony show.

[Jubelum]

What do the Vice President's "perspective and values" have to do with running the country

I pause to wonder if you have ever thought or posted anything even remotely like that in the last seven years with regard to Dick Cheney. :lol:

[addabox]

I pause to wonder if you have ever thought or posted anything even remotely like that in the last seven years with regard to Dick Cheney. :lol:

I'm less interested in Dick Cheney's values, terrifying thought they may be, than in what he does. What he has been doing is plenty bad for me, without exploring the fundament of the man's psyche.

If you want to talk about Palin's "values" in the same context as Cheney, I would need to know her stance on foreign entanglements, free trade, monetary policy, taxation, energy use, immigration, etc. I would have to know if she has any interest or aptitude for addressing those issues legislatively. I could care less if she likes puppies or goes to church a lot or is a good mom or has the common touch.

"Values" are a bullshit distraction cooked-up by a Republican party whose policies are relentlessly fail.

[Jubelum]

I'm less interested in Dick Cheney's values, terrifying thought they may be, than in what he does. What he has been doing is plenty bad for me, without exploring the fundament of the man's psyche.

He's been rather terrifying in both thought and action, that much is certain.

If you want to talk about Palin's "values" in the same context as Cheney, I would need to know her stance on foreign entanglements, free trade, monetary policy, taxation, energy use, immigration, etc. I would have to know if she has any interest or aptitude for addressing those issues legislatively.

Some of those can be addressed legislatively... by not legislating or repealing exist law. Such is her conservative position. Making a law is not the answer to every problem. I, too, want to hear more about her substantive positions on the issues you listed. And more.

"Values" are a bullshit distraction cooked-up by a Republican party whose policies are relentlessly fail.

No, real "values" guide behaviour. Every politician, even Saint Barack, use the term "values" in their schtick. Pelosi even uses "American values" to justify wealth redistribution. Behaviour matters, as you stated about the Big Dick. "Values" is just another door-to-door, Fuller-brush style device, like "change" or "fairness" or "common sense." It's how politics is now the process of populist semantics, not simply policy execution.

[addabox]

He's been rather terrifying in both thought and action, that much is certain.

Agreed


Some of those can be addressed legislatively... by not legislating or repealing exist law. Such is her conservative position. Making a law is not the answer to every problem. I, too, want to hear more about her substantive positions on the issues you listed. And more.

But to return to my original contention, to consider Palin anything more than a purely political selection, we would have to imagine that McCain, after some deliberation, decided that he needed the wise council of a political lightweight to help him understand when he might do best by doing least. I think that's kinda a stretch.

We can always ruminate on what Palin might or might not bring to the office of the Vice-Presidency. My point is that, in terms of reasonable expectations, it's hard to see what might have motivated McCain beyond short-term political gain.


No, real "values" guide behaviour. Every politician, even Saint Barack, use the term "values" in their schtick. Pelosi even uses "American values" to justify wealth redistribution. Behaviour matters, as you stated about the Big Dick. "Values" is just another door-to-door, Fuller-brush style device, like "change" or "fairness" or "common sense." It's how politics is now the process of populist semantics, not simply policy execution.

But after the election comes governance. "Values" within the context of governance have no meaning outside of action (I think most people would agree that that's true of day-to-day life).

When someone professes "values" I have know way of knowing their degree of sincerity outside of observing how they conduct themselves-- so much so that the declaration of values is relatively worthless, to me, as an indicator of merit. Show me the action.

We've had years of an administration, and a party, which shouts its values from the roof-tops while behaving like feral pigs, so you'll forgive me if I find that term a little suspect when it comes to evaluating the mettle of a nominee.

I'll take clearly stated policy goals and a demonstrated willingness to, you know, govern. Politicing is politicing, what does Palin bring to the table beyond being suspicious of the very apparatus she is vying to become second in command of?

[Jubelum]

We've had years of an administration, and a party, which shouts its values from the roof-tops while behaving like feral pigs, so you'll forgive me if I find that term a little suspect when it comes to evaluating the mettle of a nominee.

I think that is completely understandable. I find myself there re: the GOP as well. Bush did this to many of us on the right. Yes, he did behave consistent with the values he told us about for awhile, but the last few years have been a sell out of almost all of them. Things like smaller government. Law and order. Respect for the Constitution and civil liberties. Border security. I think every voter should be suspicious of every candidate. They are there for one thing... votes. There is no altruism in politics... anyone who believes that is a damned fool.

There is always something I wonder about in the mind of people who seek high elective office. I think it draws in people, by its very nature, that are seduced by the prospect of massive power and they sometimes are apt to see exactly how much power they have. Inside the Beltway, they call it "growing in the job."

[mydo]

You must have special Google that reveals how being shown to have abused one's power can be "easily deflected." Does that Google also indicate the triviality of having lied about abusing one's power? I ask because I know how the right is very adamant that lying about one's misdeeds is far worse than the misdeeds themselves.


My google search is not special. My google search tells me that the trouper that Palin tried to fire tazed a 10 year old, which is exactly what I said. Flash forward to the VP debates: Bernard Shaw, "Governor Palin did you abuse your power when you tried to have that trouper removed because of personal reasons?" Paliin, "No I had that trouper removed because he used a government issued tazer gun on a 10 year old". Who's going to win that one?

I think it's kind of funny that you think it's now the job of every American to dutifully go Google Palin's bio to fill themselves in on the basics. I would have thought that would have been McCain's job.

I expect members here that want to discuss Palin and the trouper to know the basics. Think about what you wrote though. You think voters should get their information about Palin from McCain? Are you insane? If someone is going to vote for someone I think at a minimum they should do 8 to 16 hour worth of their own research.


But, I guess when you have political points to score, you can't waste any time with silly stuff like due diligence.


As always I'm an Obama voter and vote Democrat. I'm just not Hopenotized like the rest. I see elections as strategic and have an ability to put myself on the other side of the isle. When people cry "scandal" I look to see how the other side will deflect it.




I don't know anyone that thinks Obama is a slam dunk. I've encountered guarded optimism ranging to transfixed terror.

I have seen, however, a lot a thought to the effect that, in a better world, Obama ought to be a slam dunk, given the grotesque clusterfuck of recent Republican "governance."

Read this (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=89540&page=3) thread to see the "slam dunk" attitude.

[Aries 1B]

"just choosing any woman..." :???:

Palin brought the conservatism that McCain lacks in a huge way.


She has a lifetime membership with the NRA.;)

Of the 4 people in the race, she's the only one with any gubernatorial/executive experience.

Only 600,000 people in Alaska?

Size, as I'm sure she'll tell you, doesn't matter.

She was successful in Alaska and Threw The Rascals Out.

I'm intrigued and want to learn more.

She also looks like Mary McDonnell (President Laura Roslin of the 12 Colonies of Man), so she'll get the Battlestar Galactica vote. So say they all.

There are people who will vote for her on that basis alone. Sadly, you know that I'm right.

http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/yhst-79908670051176_2011_572510


V/R,
Aries 1B

[addabox]

My google search is not special. My google search tells me that the trouper that Palin tried to fire tazed a 10 year old, which is exactly what I said. Flash forward to the VP debates: Bernard Shaw, "Governor Palin did you abuse your power when you tried to have that trouper removed because of personal reasons?" Paliin, "No I had that trouper removed because he used a government issued tazer gun on a 10 year old". Who's going to win that one?

It's not a matter of "who wins" in some glib-off in a debate. She's being investigated, there's appears to be pretty compelling evidence that she lied about pressuring the trooper's boss to fire him, and she had clear personal motivation to do so. Plus, the guy she selected to replace the guy she fired turned out to be a sexual harasser. I can't see where any of this is much of an upside, and "but the trooper she wanted fired tazed a kid in addition to divorcing her sister which is why she fired his supervisor and lied about it and hired a sexual harasser instead" doesn't have much of a ring to it, does it?

I expect members here that want to discuss Palin and the trouper to know the basics. Think about what you wrote though. You think voters should get their information about Palin from McCain? Are you insane? If someone is going to vote for someone I think at a minimum they should do 8 to 16 hour worth of their own research.

My point being that one might have expected McCain to nominate someone that didn't leave us all scratching our heads and scrambling for Google just to get any sense at all of who the hell the nominee is.

I think 8 to 16 hours grossly overstates the necessary time investment, however: given the brevity of the woman's time on the public stage, I would think that 20 minutes with a smoke break would turn up all that is to be known, at least at the level of Google. If I were the McCain camp, I would be very uneasy about whether or not my "not around long enough to have left evidence of anything too heinous" gambit was going to work out.

As always I'm an Obama voter and vote Democrat. I'm just not Hopenotized like the rest. I see elections as strategic and have an ability to put myself on the other side of the isle. When people cry "scandal" I look to see how the other side will deflect it.

I don't think you have to be "hopenotized" (that's a hideous neologism, by the way, you should be savagely beaten for using it), to recognize that nominating a complete unknown currently under investigation for abuse of power carries some downside. Of course the right will have "answers" to such concerns, that's a given. That doesn't make them effective or persuasive answers.

Read this (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=89540&page=3) thread to see the "slam dunk" attitude.

Don't really want to read the whole thing, but at a scan, really not seeing it. I see a lot of "weak choice, doesn't help" though.

[Bergermeister]

That trooper used a tazer on a 10 year old. Not exactly your ideal victim. If this is the best scandal we can come up with then it aint looking good.

The article talks about Wooten, who as in a custody battle with Palin's sister. There is nothing about a taser.

and about Monegan, who was fired.

again, nothing about a taser.

Could we have that linky, please?

[addabox]

Interesting. Here's a new Obama ad (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1185304443?bctid=1761990756).

It looks like, for the time being, at least, they're just going to sort of ignore Palin as irrelevant and continue to run against McCain.

I think that's fairly smart. Palin's negatives will play out in the side-channels, no need for the Obama campaign to go straight at her. And, in point of fact, outside of narrow political considerations, she is irrelevant.

[Gilsch]

We'll see what Gustav and St. Paul bring, but Palin is currently rallying the GOP base in a big big big way.

Fairly obvious from reading your posts. ;)

And the part about this election being Obama's to lose is ludicrous. The guy is black, with a "funny" name. Nice try.

[Bergermeister]

Is there something odd about a candidate who is anti-abortion yet in favor of gun ownership and enjoys killing animals?

How do the Republicans balance these fairly inherently polar opposites?

[Akumulator]

I think you mean pro-life... but yeah, I know what you mean. It's weird.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/1585/225pxsarahpalincropuf4.jpg

[SpamSandwich]

Unfortunately the way I see it is that she's a hood ornament! Something to parade around to voters before the election. One wonders what she'd do if McSame wins after the election. The same relationship doesn't exist with Obama/Biden. I really don't think with Biden's experience he'd be ok with that.

As I've said before if I was a woman who cared about women's rights I'd be very offended by this dog and pony show.

True enough... This was McCain's attempt to counter Biden's heft with Palin's weightlessness.

[mydo]

The article talks about Wooten, who as in a custody battle with Palin's sister. There is nothing about a taser.

and about Monegan, who was fired.

again, nothing about a taser.

Could we have that linky, please?

Okay so this is how google works. You type "keywords" into a "search engine" and it searches the web for the information you want. For example I used the keywords Sarah Palin trouper (http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Sarah+Palin+trouper&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title) and the very first article that comes up is here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/30/AR2008083002366.html)

On the day that the governor's younger sister filed for divorce -- April 11, 2005 -- Palin's father, Chuck Heath, a retired teacher then in his late 60s, called state police to file a complaint about Wooten. He handed the phone to his daughter Molly, who told state police that her husband had threatened her father's life and had drunk beer while driving his police vehicle home. Later, she told police that Wooten had shot a "cow moose" without a license and Tasered his 10-year-old stepson.

Wow that's interesting but that article is allegations only. Let's try to use the "search engine" again. This time I'll use Wooten taser (http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&um=1&resnum=1&nolr=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Wooten+taser&btnG=Search+News) and find this (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/monegan_to_palin_maam_i_need_t.html).

An investigation sustained the allegations regarding the moose hunt and the Taser, and later also sustained the drinking charge after at first finding it unsupported. Documents say Wooten was reprimanded and suspended.

So you see when I heard about the scandal I said to myself, "I'm going to read up on this so I know what this is all about". So I used the internet for more than just DailyKos and HuffPo to gather information.

[groverat]

Why did Palin lie about pressuring the guy to fire her ex-brother-in-law?
Why are the e-mails about it suddenly missing in action?

We don't know much about this woman, and the little we know isn't all that impressive.

From the WaPo article:
"Wooten was not a model trooper," Monegan said. "On the other hand, the allegations pre-date her election. So, there is some issue about whether it was truly motivated by public safety concerns, or it was vindictiveness."

mydo, I don't think that article is as supportive of your position as you think it is.

[mydo]

No I think when she's pressed about this guy she can pull the whole "HE TASED A 10 YEAR OLD" out of her pocket follow by "As governor I'm responsible for the safety and well being of the state's children and I take that seriously".

They already wrote the response and she already committed it to memory.

[Bergermeister]

Then she goes of to kill a few moose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/30/AR2008083002366.html?hpid=topnews

[groverat]

The narrative of a vindictive woman abusing her power by firing an innocent man in an attempt to get her sister's ex fired isn't a good one, mydo, no matter how she tries to spin it.

The trooper may have deserved it, but it's ridiculous to gloss over the fact that the man Palin fired did absolutely nothing wrong.

[mydo]

Maybe but I don't think that will play with Hockey Mom's and Jill Six Pack.

We'll see video of her on a snowmobile with a hunting rifle or some shit like that.

I think the "ignore her" route is the best way to go.

[Bergermeister]

When Palin saw (through a window) her brother-in-law make a threat while wearing his gun, why did she go to a meeting without calling the police?

Hmmm....


Sounds like very good VP material.

[groverat]

Hell hath no fury and all that jazz.

[midwinter]

I think the "ignore her" route is the best way to go.

Indeed.

I have to admit that the more I think about this, the more bizarre it seems. McCain, who has been pounding on Obama's lack of experience, has chosen someone even more inexperienced than him to be next in line for the office in an admin that would boast a 72 year-old man as President. If he's going after disaffected HRC voters, and he doesn't seem to care about experience, why not just go an pick Ann Coulter or Laura Ingrahm?

Nevermind the question of what she doesn't bring to the table (her stunning resume as a hockey mom, mayor of a small town, and governor of a state with less than 700,000 people notwithstanding) the visual of her there next to a man old enough to be her father can only serve to amplify McCain's OMG-HE'S-REALLY-RATHER-OLD-ISN'T-HE-ness....

oh holy shit.

I just got it. Palin completes the GOP daddy complex (http://firedoglake.com/2008/05/15/sorry-john-mccain-youre-not-our-strong-daddy/) tableau.

I will say that it's going to be very interesting watching Obama roll out HRC to explain why people shouldn't vote for THAT woman....

But yeah. Ignore her. She's less qualified than Dan Quayle was, she's married to the oil industry (in the same way that McCain has a "cabin," and she's such a maverick™ that she sold a jet on ebay, recommended drilling in ANWAR, is anti-abortion, and loves shootin' stuff.

[Bergermeister]

If McCain makes jokes about cigarettes and Iranians, how might Palin joke?

Horrible to consider.

[mydo]

I don't know. I'm watching you tube videos of her. I think I get why McCain would pick her.


Here she is on TrooperGateII (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pak-rH0dCeA&feature=related)

She's good at staying on message. Plus she can go into Michigan, Ohio and West By God Virginia as "working class republican". I think Florida will like her.

Why couldn't McCain pick Fuckabee and make it easy?


I'm over stating it. I think the VP is unimportant. Bush won with Quale, Clinton won with Gore.

[addabox]

Early polls (can't be bothered to find the links right now, sorry) suggest she's pretty much a wash. Some up, some down, mostly don't care.

What's she supposed to do, show up in swing states and say "Hey, ya'll, I'm pretty average, much like you. What does the Vice President do, again? Nah, I'm just kiddin', I'll probably be against big gummit and for guns and shit. Well, see you in January!"

Is she some kind of gifted orator? Does she have a compelling vision of conservative governance? Is she going to draw on her years of outspoken advocacy? Or, as has been suggested, is she entirely ornamental, with nothing to do but repeat her lines and try to avoid being questioned too closely on the issues of the day?

Is the base really so lame that all it takes someone who is pro-life, pro-gun and pro-God to get them fired up? Does "the base" actually not care about the economy, the war, social security, energy or anything at all outside of seeing themselves reflected in their candidate?

If that's the case, why didn't he pick a Walmart manager from the midwest? I'm sure a woman or two have busted through to upper-level management. I mean that sincerely: since experience means nothing, why not just pluck a citizen from the crowd with the requisite ideology? That would sure put the heat on those fancy pants Democrats, wouldn't it? How much more mavericky could you get?

[Bergermeister]

Problem is, I don't understand why anyone would consider McCain in the first place.

I am still waiting for a thread on reason to vote McCain, but alas, one never appears.

[midwinter]

She's good at staying on message.

That would be a real advantage if the McCain campaign had a coherent message.

[addabox]

Problem is, I don't understand why anyone would consider McCain.

I am still waiting for a thread on reason to vote McCain, but alas, one never appears.

For that matter, I'm not really seeing much in the way of threads explaining exactly what it is that Obama would do, as President, that would be so horrifying.

We are instructed to hate him because he's arrogant, a celebrity, has known people we are advised are bad, secretly hates America, is a cipher, has no plan.

The fulminating on the right is amazingly content free, even by recent standards. When all anyone wants to talk about is character, and not even the upstanding character of their guy at that, but just the suspect character of the other guy, you really have to wonder just how dry the Bush years have left the ideological tank.

Is the Republican Party actually for anything, at all, any more? Or has it become fully a mechanism for spreading fear, resentment and anger? Maybe giving Rove the rolodex wasn't that great an idea, after all.

[midwinter]

For that matter, I'm not really seeing much in the way of threads explaining exactly what it is that Obama would do, as President, that would be so horrifying.

As Vinea rightly pointed out, he will lower taxes for 95% of Americans and raise taxes on himself and people like him. That's horrible. Evil. It must be stopped.

[addabox]

As Vinea rightly pointed out, he will lower taxes for 95% of Americans and raise taxes on himself and people like him. That's horrible. Evil. It must be stopped.

That, and set a timetable for getting out of Iraq, a scheme so harebrained it's been endorsed by that notorious hippy appeaser, George Bush.

There's that whole "energy independence" thing, which makes me physically ill. Doesn't he know that America was founded on energy dependence?

Maybe it's the specter of being obliged to listen to a president who can form coherent sentences. Perhaps the right has grown comfortable with baby talk, and fear the loss of their blanky.

[midwinter]

That, and set a timetable for getting out of Iraq, a scheme so harebrained it's been endorsed by that notorious hippy appeaser, George Bush.

Yeah, but it's not honorable. Whatever that means (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1836909,00.html).

Maybe it's the specter of being obliged to listen to a president who can form coherent sentences. Perhaps the right has grown comfortable with baby talk, and fear the loss of their blanky.

Their blanky of FEAR!!!!

[addabox]

Yeah, but it's not honorable. Whatever that means (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1836909,00.html).

Reminds of an old National Lampoon bit I remember seeing-- Nixon selling his exit strategy from Viet Nam like a cold remedy: "PeacePlan, now with Honor.™ It gets the reds out."

It's actually eerie, how mindlessly the Viet Nam stuff is being recycled. I look forward to hearing about how the liberals lost Iraq, in 20 years.

Their blanky of FEAR!!!!

Just literally true. "Shit, if Americans aren't sufficiently focused on OMG!! commies/drug addicts/gays/terrorists/Mexicans we're totally fucked, because, brother, beyond that, we got nothing whatsoever."

[Bergermeister]

That would be a real advantage if the McCain campaign had a coherent message.

But he does!


Obama isn't ready. Obama doesn't have enough experience. Obama this. Obama that. I have change in my pocket; I used it to buy house number 32. Blah blah blah, ad neasueum.

[Bergermeister]

Palin supports hunting from airplanes, which violates federal law.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/31/BARB12KSHM.DTL

[mydo]

Palin supports hunting from airplanes, which violates federal law.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/31/BARB12KSHM.DTL

To be more clear she's for changing the law. Which would not violate federal law.

[Bergermeister]

Are we reading the same article? Alaska now allows it; a rep tried to change the Alaskan law which permits it (and thus in his opinion violates US law) and Palin told him to "butt out" (she's a hockey mom, so I can see her using the phrase; no offense to hockey, though, as I used to play goal keeper).

---

She sued to try to stop the feds from listing polar bears as endangered because... drum roll... it would hurt the oil companies.

Bush must love her to death.


---

She luvs animals so much she has adorned her office with a bearskin rug:

http://www.financialpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=756796
(at the bottom)

Yeah, she wants a pipeline built, too.

[Bergermeister]

I love the occasional free day I get:

Before she was chosen:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/mccainpalin_ticket_hits_iceber.html


The flip-flop:

Her staff didn't pressure the guy... The she says they did, 24 times, but she didn't know about it.

http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/492964.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/48172.html

The wikipedia article about her is pretty interesting, too, but poorly written. Somebody here participate on wikipedia? You might want to clean it up.

[mydo]

Are we reading the same article? Alaska now allows it; a rep tried to change the Alaskan law which permits it (and thus in his opinion violates US law) and Palin told him to "butt out" (she's a hockey mom, so I can see her using the phrase; no offense to hockey, though, as I used to play goal keeper).

---

She sued to try to stop the feds from listing polar bears as endangered because... drum roll... it would hurt the oil companies.

Bush must love her to death.


---

She luvs animals so much she has adorned her office with a bearskin rug:

http://www.financialpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=756796
(at the bottom)

Yeah, she wants a pipeline built, too.

I didn't read anything there to indicate that she wanted people to violate federal law.


I'm not against pipelines. It may be safer to pipe oil and gas than ship it.

[jimmac]

Are we reading the same article? Alaska now allows it; a rep tried to change the Alaskan law which permits it (and thus in his opinion violates US law) and Palin told him to "butt out" (she's a hockey mom, so I can see her using the phrase; no offense to hockey, though, as I used to play goal keeper).

---

She sued to try to stop the feds from listing polar bears as endangered because... drum roll... it would hurt the oil companies.

Bush must love her to death.


---

She luvs animals so much she has adorned her office with a bearskin rug:

http://www.financialpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=756796
(at the bottom)

Yeah, she wants a pipeline built, too.

It sounds pretty bad. Just what you'd expect from a McSame pick.

[groverat]

It sounds pretty bad. Just what you'd expect from a McSame pick.

It's an embarrassment.

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bza63nnqiKA) is Palin in 1988.

Obama was coming off his first stint of community organizing on the southside of Chicago and entering Harvard Law in 1988.

McCain was in his first year as a US Senator and co-authoring the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Biden was in his first year as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee as a 3rd term US Senator.

[jimmac]

It's an embarrassment.

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bza63nnqiKA) is Palin in 1988.

Obama was coming off his first stint of community organizing on the southside of Chicago and entering Harvard Law in 1988.

McCain was in his first year as a US Senator and co-authoring the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Biden was in his first year as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee as a 3rd term US Senator.


A sportscaster? In his best Ricky Ricardo imitation : " Aye! " ( slaps forehead! ).:lol::rolleyes:

But you know we'll probably never be behind on the scores again!:lol:

[Bergermeister]

I didn't read anything there to indicate that she wanted people to violate federal law.


I'm not against pipelines. It may be safer to pipe oil and gas than ship it.

My impression is that they already are violating fed law, and she wants to keep it that way.

Alaska allows the shooting of animals from planes.
Miller says that violates federal law.
Palin told him the stuff it; that is, she wants a continuation of the shooting, and thus a continuation of the violation.

She doesn't want to break the law; Alaska already is.

She also pointed out that things were different in Alaska; she wants special rules to apply.


---
Pipelines are possibly safer than ships, but they have their risks as well.

It crosses a major fault line or two or three (on sliders).
6000 barrels leaked when a gunman shot the pipeline.
poor maagement can lead to disaster:
http://dwb.adn.com/front/picture_inset/story/8054990p-7948041c.html

Probably lots of other things as well.

[jimmac]

My impression is that they already are violating fed law, and she wants to keep it that way.

Alaska allows the shooting of animals from planes.
Miller says that violates federal law.
Palin told him the stuff it; that is, she wants a continuation of the shooting, and thus a continuation of the violation.

She doesn't want to break the law; Alaska already is.

She also pointed out that things were different in Alaska; she wants special rules to apply.


Gee! Just think how those special rules could apply everywhere!

Oh! They already do! I forgot about Bush for a moment!:(

[Bergermeister]

Wired's take on some things like polar bears:


http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/john-mccain-pic.html

[Bergermeister]

Gee! Just think how those special rules could apply everywhere!

Oh! They already do! I forgot about Bush for a moment!:(

Nah, he just writes new ones to make sure his rear is covered.

[jamac]

So go find your own "linky".


Posting supportive articles when making claims is an intelligent thing to do. It helps make your point and makes you look like someone who forms their opinion by collecting information.

You have to read the bible to become a christian or are you just taking everybody's word for it?

[vinea]

I think the question shouldn't be IS she a political pick. Jub is right, to a great extent VP picks always are.

The question is whether she is a GOOD political pick. I'm still pondering why Palin over Hutchison. Hutchinson has that prior allegation of misconduct but that's a decade in the past and not an active thing.

Well, okay, she's anti-abortion but heck, if you're trying to get independents and democrats to switch that's not a huge negative. Of course, she's older and at 65 not likely to be set up to run on 2012 or 2016.

In that respect Palin is better than Biden and Hutchison. At 44, whether McCain wins or loses, she can contemplate a 2016 run at 52*.

But also, why not Snowe? Too moderate and too old?

Meh...that Palin pick strikes me more of grooming than a real uptick for McCain. She's TOO conservative to appeal to anyone but female conservative voters. I guess they'll show up now which will be helpful but I dunno how much.

I wish I'd have put money on both Palin and Hutchinson. The payouts were very favorable had either been picked.


* assuming she survives the trial by fire of this election untarnished.

[jimmac]

Nah, he just writes new ones to make sure his rear is covered.


:lol:

[mydo]

Posting supportive articles when making claims is an intelligent thing to do. It helps make your point and makes you look like someone who forms their opinion by collecting information.

You have to read the bible to become a christian or are you just taking everybody's word for it?



Right you are. What's even more inteligent is knowing the basic facts about something when commenting on a topic. That way you are not in a position of [redacted] when people refer facts that are in the public record.

[addabox]

Josh Marshall has a good rundown of the Wooten matter here. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/211769.php)

We rely on elected officials not to use the power of their office to pursue personal agendas or vendettas. It's called an abuse of power. There is ample evidence that Palin used her power as governor to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. When his boss refused to fire him, she fired his boss. She first denied Monegan's claims of pressure to fire Wooten and then had to amend her story when evidence proved otherwise. The available evidence now suggests that she 1) tried to have an ex-relative fired from his job for personal reasons, something that was clearly inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, though possibly understandable in human terms, 2) fired a state official for not himself acting inappropriately by firing the relative, 3) lied to the public about what happened and 4) continues to lie about what happened.

From everything I've read this is a fair summation of where things stand. Focusing on how a bad a guy Wooten is or was doesn't really help her case-- after all, he's still on the job, and it's his boss that got canned. And it's his boss who is saying he has the emails that flatly contradict what Palin's been saying.

Palin lied and is lying about trying to get a state official fired for personal reasons. That is going to be a problem for the McCain campaign.

Maybe the right can claim that this is an example of small town vindictiveness, and claim it's elitist to care.

[e1618978]

Josh Marshall has a good rundown of the Wooten matter

Hillary has survived much worse scandals (whitewater, etc). I'm still a big fan of Palin - If I was in her shoes, I would have tried to get Wooten fired as well, 5 days suspension is bullsh*t.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080830130759AAjO7TW

[groverat]

Hillary has nothing to do with anything.

Whether or not you would abuse executive power in an attempt to settle a familial vendetta means nothing with regard to whether or not that's a desireable trait in a potential leader of the free world.

[e1618978]

Hillary has nothing to do with anything.

Whether or not you would abuse executive power in an attempt to settle a familial vendetta means nothing with regard to whether or not that's a desireable trait in a potential leader of the free world.

Hillary matters, because it is a parallel - I think that it is likely that this will blow over because all of the Clinton's similar stuff blew over. Also, I mention that I would have done the same thing because I am a voter, and I think that a lot of other voters think the same way as I do on this matter.

I think that the 5 day suspension with all of the charges is evidence that there is some kind of rotten old-boy network in play, and the best way to solve that is to fire the top dog.

[vinea]

So why do you like Palin?

[addabox]

I'd like to ask the folks who think it's elitist to dismiss being mayor of a tiny town as relevant experience for the office of the Vice Presidency:

Does it seem to you that such experience is useful for prosecuting the war on terror, either by force or negotiation?

I ask, because it strikes me that Palin's defenders are the same people that have been assuring us that the WOT is much like WWII, a defining moment in global history wherein hangs the balance of civilizations.

So you're saying that it's fine by you if the nice lady ends up being Commander-in-Chief during the Final Battle For Our Way of Life?

To help me understand, does that mean you don't actually take that Battle very seriously, after all, or does it mean you don't take the idea of "qualified" very seriously?

If the latter, what, in your mind, would disqualify someone from being Commander-in-Chief? Head trauma? Under the age of 16? Methamphetamine enthusiast?

[BRussell]

If the latter, what, in your mind, would disqualify someone from being Commander-in-Chief? Head trauma? Under the age of 16? Methamphetamine enthusiast? Being a Democrat.

[addabox]

Hillary matters, because it is a parallel - I think that it is likely that this will blow over because all of the Clinton's similar stuff blew over. Also, I mention that I would have done the same thing because I am a voter, and I think that a lot of other voters think the same way as I do on this matter.

I think that the 5 day suspension with all of the charges is evidence that there is some kind of rotten old-boy network in play, and the best way to solve that is to fire the top dog.

And down we go, to lowest common denominator land. Why ask anything of our elected leaders better than what, we, ourselves, in our lesser moments, would be capable of?

I'm guessing, e#s, that if you tried to get an underling fired for personal reasons and got caught, you, too, would lie about it, so that strikes you as reasonable as well?

[groverat]

So you would have fired an innocent man for not playing a role in your familial vendetta?
Remember, Palin didn't fire Wooten, she fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan who did absolutely nothing wrong. The investigation on Wooten was closed and he had been punished.

As far as whether or not he deserved a harsher punishment; sometimes you don't get what you want. I think it's shameful to praise Palin for ruining an innocent man's career because she had to fight her family's fight with her executive power and run an innocent public servant through the mud to do it.

Would you lie about putting pressure on Monegan before firing him like Palin did?

Wooten is still on the job, apparently, and Monegan said it best, "You can't head hunt like this. What you need to do is back off, because if the trooper does make a mistake, and it is a terminable offense, it can look like political interference."

If this was just one blemish in a long record of credible decision-making and leadership, but it's one of the very few things we know about this woman. It's not like she's got much that is impressive to cover this up with. In the one noteworthy position she's held she's abused her power for personal gain.

A credible argument cannot be made that this woman is a wise choice to be the leader of the free world when her sole position of merit has been on in which she grossly abused her power.

[BRussell]

Remember, Palin didn't fire Wooten, she fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan who did absolutely nothing wrong. The investigation on Wooten was closed and he had been punished. Ah, see I didn't get that part.

[addabox]

But petty vindictiveness is a heartland value! It's so elitist to expect elected officials to not use their power to get back at people that have crossed their families! Hey, maybe if Palin gets to be Veep, she can have Wooten taken to Guantanamo! I know that's what I'd do!

[e1618978]

So why do you like Palin?

- She is pro-business, and also someone who regularly hands CEO's their asses on a plate.

- She is an avid outdoorsman, so I think that you can trust her to keep the environment as clean as possible as long as it does not interfere with economic growth. I hate the environmental movement with a passion, because until recently my income came from a farm, and the greenies were trying to kill that income to save some stupid minnow in the Rio Grande river.

- She is an NRA member. I don't own a gun, but I believe that there is an inverse correlation between crime rates and gun ownership rates (partially offset by greater domestic homicides, but all in all you get a lower crime and death rate).

- She will put strict constitutional judges on the supreme court. I am an atheist and think that abortion is good for society, but I also think that Roe vs Wade was a BS decision based on a strict reading of the constituion, and I want a lot of the other BS to go away (like abuses of the commerce clause). I feel that roe vs wade gave the supreme court licence to do all kinds of crap that isn't justified by the constitution.

- Based on her record as Governor, I think that she is fiscally responsible.

- as Republicans go, she is very gay friendly:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-gay-issue.html

- the downsides of Palin - no experience (like Obama), mild drug warrior, pro-life, religious, pro-intelligent design.

So you would have fired an innocent man for not playing a role in your familial vendetta?

I don't think he is innocent - the five day suspension is one black mark against him. Also, he evidently had other problems - but its true,
I wouldn't have lied about it.

[addabox]

Hillary has survived much worse scandals (whitewater, etc). I'm still a big fan of Palin - If I was in her shoes, I would have tried to get Wooten fired as well, 5 days suspension is bullsh*t.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080830130759AAjO7TW

If the issue is Wooten's conduct, then why didn't Palin say so? She claimed to be canning his supervisor for vague "new blood" reasons. If Wooten was such a self-evidently bad actor being protected by a corrupt system, I would think that would be something to be dealt with explicitly.

And why did she lie about it?

[addabox]

- She is pro-business, and also someone who regularly hands CEO's their asses on a plate.

- She is an avid outdoorsman, so I think that you can trust her to keep the environment as clean as possible as long as it does not interfere with economic growth. I hate the environmental movement with a passion, because until recently my income came from a farm, and the greenies were trying to kill that income to save some stupid minnow in the Rio Grande river.

- She is an NRA member. I don't own a gun, but I believe that there is an inverse correlation between crime rates and gun ownership rates (partially offset by greater domestic homicides, but all in all you get a lower crime and death rate).

- She will put strict constitutional judges on the supreme court. I am an atheist and think that abortion is good for society, but I also think that Roe vs Wade was a BS decision based on a strict reading of the constituion, and I want a lot of the other BS to go away (like abuses of the commerce clause). I feel that roe vs wade gave the supreme court licence to do all kinds of crap that isn't justified by the constitution.

- Based on her record as Governor, I think that she is fiscally responsible.

- as Republicans go, she is very gay friendly:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-gay-issue.html

- the downsides of Palin - no experience (like Obama), mild drug warrior, pro-life, religious, pro-intelligent design.


You could throw a rock in downtown Omaha and hit someone with those qualifications. You're saying that being a person with opinions you agree with is enough to be Vice President?

[e1618978]

You could throw a rock in downtown Omaha and hit someone with those qualifications. You're saying that being a person with opinions you agree with is enough to be Vice President?

She has the same level of qualifications as Obama does.

[groverat]

I don't think he is innocent - the five day suspension is one black mark against him. Also, he evidently had other problems - but its true,
I wouldn't have lied about it.

Was Monegan the one who decided on the five day suspension?

What are these "other problems"?

Do you really want another 8 years of rampant power abuse for political or familial vendettas in the White House?

She has the same level of qualifications as Obama does.

Obama is more thoroughly vetted than perhaps any presidential candidate in history. He also has over a decade of documented philosophy, work, and judgment on national and international issues. His record as a public servant is spotless. None of that applies to Sarah Palin.

[e1618978]

Was Monegan the one who decided on the five day suspension?

What are these "other problems"?

Failure to keep the department budget under control, and failure to recruit enough officers, evidently. He was fired over a year after she pressured him to fire Wooten.

[addabox]

She has the same level of qualifications as Obama does.

A: Bullshit. Surely one of the stupidest Republican talking points of decade, which is quite the accomplishment.

B: Obama ran for the nomination. He presented his bona fides to the electorate, argued his case. People could read his books, study his proposals, listen to his speeches, evaluate his demeanor, make their choice. Enough of them are apparently satisfied that his time in state and federal senates and the work he did before that qualify him to be president. We'll get a chance to express that choice against in November.

Palin was simply dropped on us. Nobody got to evaluate her but McCain. It was McCain's choice, not ours. It's not Palin's fault that she is not only inexperienced, but appears to have no record of being concerned with larger issues, or even desiring a larger role in the American decision making process. That's John McCain's choice, and the first significant one of his campaign. When it was Obama's turn to make that choice, he picked a seasoned veteran.

Part of Obama's qualification is that he's running for the office. It means he's willing to expend the vast, almost unimaginable resources to get that job and do that work. It means he's thought long and hard about America's role in the world, domestic policy, how one structures an administration, how one goes about enacting policy, and what, ideally, America would look like if one had the audacity to think that big.

Do you imagine Palin thinks that way? Up until recently, she was saying that she wasn't even sure what the Vice President did. She's said that "she hopes" that America has a plan in Iraq, since her kid is going there, and "it better not be about oil."

Now, maybe you find it comforting that she appears to have the same relationship to the larger issues of the day as your average semi-informed voter, but I don't. Again, are you saying that you would be comfortable with Palin as Commander-in-Chief? Because she's an avid outdoorsman and gun owner? Because you figure she can study up real quick on what "the plan" is in Iraq and proceed from their? Because, how hard could it be, right?

[e1618978]

Obama ran for the nomination. He presented his bona fides to the electorate, argued his case. People could read his books, study his proposals, listen to his speeches, evaluate his demeanor, make their choice. Enough of them are apparently satisfied that his time in state and federal senates and the work he did before that qualify him to be president. We'll get a chance to express that choice against in November.

Biden did the same, and was soundly REJECTED by the electorate. So Obama dumped somebody on us that we had already tossed on the scrap heap as unacceptable - how is this any different from Palin?

We just differ in our value systems - in mine, Obama isn't as great as you think, and Palin is much better than you think. I'm still going to vote for Obama, because I think that McCain is dangerous, but I like Palin. I am more comfortable with Palin as commander in chief than, say, Kerry - I just think that upper class people are too detached to make good military leaders.

[BRussell]

- She is pro-business, and also someone who regularly hands CEO's their asses on a plate. She is responsible not just for an increase in taxes on oil companies, but a windfall profits tax (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html) on them.

- She is an avid outdoorsman, so I think that you can trust her to keep the environment as clean as possible as long as it does not interfere with economic growth. I hate the environmental movement with a passion, because until recently my income came from a farm, and the greenies were trying to kill that income to save some stupid minnow in the Rio Grande river. Being in favor of ANWR drilling (http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=mccains-veep-pick-open-anwr-to-dril-2008-08-29) doesn't exactly seem consistent with "keeping the environment as clean as possible" but your "as long as it does not interfere with economic growth" caveat is big enough to drive an oil tanker through it. Just about any attempt to fuck up the environment could be justified with that.

- She is an NRA member. I don't own a gun, but I believe that there is an inverse correlation between crime rates and gun ownership rates (partially offset by greater domestic homicides, but all in all you get a lower crime and death rate). You may believe that, but it's just not true. The region with the highest crime and violent crime rates, the south, also has among the highest gun ownership rates.

- She will put strict constitutional judges on the supreme court. I am an atheist and think that abortion is good for society, but I also think that Roe vs Wade was a BS decision based on a strict reading of the constituion, and I want a lot of the other BS to go away (like abuses of the commerce clause). I feel that roe vs wade gave the supreme court licence to do all kinds of crap that isn't justified by the constitution. She's definitely pro-life, but do we know anything about her judicial appointment philosophy?

- Based on her record as Governor, I think that she is fiscally responsible. She hasn't been governor for very long, and Alaska's revenues are rolling in because of oil profits, but she apparently destroyed the finances of Wasilla (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html) when she was its mayor.

- as Republicans go, she is very gay friendly:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-gay-issue.html She's not gay friendly, she's opposed to gay marriage and gay partnerships. She vetoed one anti-gay bill because she believed it to be unconstitutional, which is a good thing and many politicians wouldn't have cared about that, but to say she's "very gay-friendly" is a stretch.

[addabox]

Biden did the same, and was soundly REJECTED by the electorate. So Obama dumped somebody on us that we had already tossed on the scrap heap as unacceptable - how is this any different from Palin?

No offense, but that's gibberish. We're talking about the judgement of the respective nominees in their vice presidential picks. Utterly unqualified vs. didn't win his party's nomination for president aren't magically equivalent because they are both selected by the candidate.

We just differ in our value systems - in mine, Obama isn't as great as you think, and Palin is much better than you think. I'm still going to vote for Obama, because I think that McCain is dangerous, but I like Palin. I am more comfortable with Palin as commander in chief than, say, Kerry - I just think that upper class people are too detached to make good military leaders.

Apparently our values do differ. The fact that you "like" Palin for Commander-in-Chief after googling her for a few hours suggests that you hold the office in very low regard.

[e1618978]

Apparently our values do differ. The fact that you "like" Palin for Commander-in-Chief after googling her for a few hours suggests that you hold the office in very low regard.

Obama and Palin are very similar in their appeal - mostly it is personality appeal on both sides. If it was John Kerry running again with the Obama platform, would you be as happy? Of course not.

You may believe that, but it's just not true. The region with the highest crime and violent crime rates, the south, also has among the highest gun ownership rates.

My town in Canada had 99% gun ownership, and zero murders. Your correlation is between poverty and crime, not gun ownership - watch "Bowling for columbine", Michael Moore admits that gun ownership levels must not be the cause of the high crime rates in the US, because that correlation does not hold for other countries.

[e1618978]

Why does ultimately selecting Obama mean Democrats are "against" or find "unacceptable" any of the other candidates?

Nothing - it is the number of votes Biden received that showed him as being unacceptable (5th place in Iowa, with less than 1% of the vote, etc).

[groverat]

Obama and Palin are very similar in their appeal - mostly it is personality appeal on both sides.

Nonsense. Obama's personality has magnetic aspects, but he's an impressive person who has led an impressive life. He has worked his own way up from a single-parent background and achieved at very high levels in higher education and government.

It's night and day.

Education:
Sarah Palin - BS in Journalism from the University of Idaho
Barack Obama - BA from Columbia University and JD magna cum laude from Harvard Law (where he was president of Law Review, the most prestigious student law journal in the nation)

In 1984 Sarah Palin (then Sarah Heath) won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest (she played flute for her talent and won "Miss Congeniality").
In 1984 Obama had graduated from Columbia University and had a job in an international publishing and advisory firm.

To be fair, Palin is 3 years younger than Obama. However, there just isn't much to give a shit about in Palin's supposed experience and qualifications. She is thoroughly unimpressive. There's nothing wrong with that. I would be an embarrassment, too, when it came to qualifications to be leader of the free world.

The whole "elect your next-door neighbor because, bah gawd, you could have a beer with him" attitude got us George W Bush.

Nothing - it is the number of votes Biden received that showed him as being unacceptable (5th place in Iowa, with less than 1% of the vote, etc).

How does that show him being "unacceptable"? I can't wait to hear the logic on that one...

[groverat]

Obama and Palin are very similar in their appeal - mostly it is personality appeal on both sides.

Nonsense. Obama's personality has magnetic aspects, but he's an impressive person who has led an impressive life. He has worked his own way up from a single-parent background and achieved at very high levels in higher education and government.

It's night and day.

Education:
Sarah Palin - BS in Journalism from the University of Idaho
Barack Obama - BA from Columbia University and JD magna cum laude from Harvard Law (where he was president of Law Review, the most prestigious student law journal in the nation)

In 1984 Sarah Palin (then Sarah Heath) won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest (she played flute for her talent and won "Miss Congeniality").
In 1984 Obama had graduated from Columbia University and had a job in an international publishing and advisory firm.

To be fair, Palin is 3 years younger than Obama. However, there just isn't much to give a shit about in Palin's supposed experience and qualifications. She is thoroughly unimpressive. There's nothing wrong with that. I would be an embarrassment, too, when it came to qualifications to be leader of the free world.

The whole "elect your next-door neighbor because, bah gawd, you could have a beer with him" attitude got us George W Bush.

Nothing - it is the number of votes Biden received that showed him as being unacceptable (5th place in Iowa, with less than 1% of the vote, etc).

How does that show him being "unacceptable"? I can't wait to hear the logic on that one...

[vinea]

- She is pro-business, and also someone who regularly hands CEO's their asses on a plate.


I like how she cleaned up Alaska a bit. This is one reason I don't think too much about the controversy given that it could be some political payback going on.


- She is an avid outdoorsman, so I think that you can trust her to keep the environment as clean as possible as long as it does not interfere with economic growth. I hate the environmental movement with a passion, because until recently my income came from a farm, and the greenies were trying to kill that income to save some stupid minnow in the Rio Grande river.


I guess. I am no fan of the environmental movement either but I'm not a big fan of drilling ANWR.


- She is an NRA member. I don't own a gun, but I believe that there is an inverse correlation between crime rates and gun ownership rates (partially offset by greater domestic homicides, but all in all you get a lower crime and death rate).


This is fine.


- She will put strict constitutional judges on the supreme court. I am an atheist and think that abortion is good for society, but I also think that Roe vs Wade was a BS decision based on a strict reading of the constituion, and I want a lot of the other BS to go away (like abuses of the commerce clause). I feel that roe vs wade gave the supreme court licence to do all kinds of crap that isn't justified by the constitution.


Oddly, Thomas and Scalia just rub me the wrong way even as constitutionalists. I feel they try to interpret too broadly and I prefer those that tend to rule more narrowly.


- Based on her record as Governor, I think that she is fiscally responsible.

- as Republicans go, she is very gay friendly:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-gay-issue.html

- the downsides of Palin - no experience (like Obama), mild drug warrior, pro-life, religious, pro-intelligent design.


No experience will cure itself. Very not keen on pro-intelligent design. Religius is fine given neither Biden nor Obama is atheist so long as it is moderated with the understanding not everyone is a Christian.

I personally wish she was more a moderate like Snowe. Actually I pretty much like most folks declared a RINO which kinda tells you what kind of Republican I am. A very moderate one.

[e1618978]

Why does that show it?

I think it shows that other candidates were more popular, not that they found Biden unacceptable per se or that he wasn't qualified for the job per se.

How far down the polls do you need to be before it is considered unacceptable to the electorate? Biden got 1% in Iowa, Kucinich got 0% - would Kuchinich be considered acceptable?

[addabox]

Obama and Palin are very similar in their appeal - mostly it is personality appeal on both sides. If it was John Kerry running again with the Obama platform, would you be as happy? Of course not.


You know, I'm starting to think the Republicans are going to lose this election because they came to believe their own talking points.

McCain apparently bought into the "PUMA" hype and figured he could get some of the pissed-off lady vote by just grabbing up any old lady.

He apparently also bought into the "empty suit" canards and figures that makes an empty-pants suit just as viable.

Obama is an appealing candidate with an appealing message, and, for his voter, an appealing plan. Joe Biden is part of that plan, and, as such, appeals.

Palin appears to be a fairly appealing woman. The end. No plan, no record of a plan, no way to know what she would do, specifically, were she to become president, beyond nodding her head on some bullet-points on the winger want list.

Why are we even having this conversation? McCain made a weak choice based on the hopes that that weakness would be outweighed by shoring up a demographic, come November. Is it actually necessary to pretend that it was a strong choice?

[groverat]

How far down the polls do you need to be before it is considered unacceptable to the electorate? Biden got 1% in Iowa, Kucinich got 0% - would Kuchinich be considered acceptable?

If you were talking about a run-off type vote in which every voter could choose all "acceptable" candidates you'd have a point. Having a preference for one over another doesn't mean one is "unacceptable", only less preferable.

If I am offered pepperoni pizza or a cheeseburger for dinner, does my choosing the pizza mean I thought the cheeseburger was "unacceptable"?

Christ... that's just basic logic.

[e1618978]

If you were talking about a run-off type vote in which every voter could choose all "acceptable" candidates you'd have a point. Having a preference for one over another doesn't mean one is "unacceptable", only less preferable.

If I am offered pepperoni pizza or a cheeseburger for dinner, does my choosing the pizza mean I thought the cheeseburger was "unacceptable"?

Christ... that's just basic logic.

If McDonalds offered 5 hamburgers, and one of them got 1% or less of total sales - they would drop it. Your logic works for single decision makers, but for large groups it is much worse for Biden. He offered so little that even Bill Richardson beat him 2-1, his group of supporters was small because he was an unappealing candidate.

Biden is a sexist with cronic foot in mouth disease, and Palin is a Biden trap - he won't be able to help himself, something sexist will leak out of that big mouth of his.

[groverat]

If McDonalds offered 5 hamburgers, and one of them got 1% or less of total sales - they would drop it.

What in blue fuck is this analogy supposed to mean with regards to "preferability" versus "acceptability"?

Your logic works for single decision makers, but for large groups it is much worse for Biden. He offered so little that even Bill Richardson beat him 2-1, his group of supporters was small because he was an unappealing candidate.

Less appealing than the ones that ran against him is not the same as "unacceptable".

Stop dodging that and acknowledge that you're dead wrong in using that word.

Biden is a sexist with cronic foot in mouth disease, and Palin is a Biden trap - he won't be able to help himself, something sexist will leak out of that big mouth of his.

And Palin is racist and anti-Semitic.
Hey, look at me, I'm making unsubstantiated attempts at character assassination, too!

[addabox]

If McDonalds offered 5 hamburgers, and one of them got 1% or less of total sales - they would drop it. Your logic works for single decision makers, but for large groups it is much worse for Biden. He offered so little that even Bill Richardson beat him 2-1, his group of supporters was small because he was an unappealing candidate.

Biden is a sexist with cronic foot in mouth disease, and Palin is a Biden trap - he won't be able to help himself, something sexist will leak out of that big mouth of his.

So, I can go and read up, at length, on what Joe Biden thinks about foreign relations, war, the international economy, Iraq, terror, etc., because learning about those things is what the man has been doing with his life, while I can know virtually nothing about what Palin thinks about those things, because, it appears, she has not thought about those things, but, to you, being a bit of a windbag is the greater impediment to office.

So do you think running the country is kinda like a swap meet?

[e1618978]

Less appealing than the ones that ran against him is not the same as "unacceptable".

All right, Biden is very unappealing to the electorate, and he may or may not be acceptable even though they like pretty much everyone else who ran better.

He is also sexist and homophobic:

http://thinking-right.com/2006/01/10/joe-biden-sexist-and-homophobic/

[BRussell]

My town in Canada had 99% gun ownership, and zero murders. Your correlation is between poverty and crime, not gun ownership - watch "Bowling for columbine", Michael Moore admits that gun ownership levels must not be the cause of the high crime rates in the US, because that correlation does not hold for other countries. I don't disagree with that, what I disagree with is your assertion that there is a correlation between gun ownership and low crime rates. That's just not true. You're probably right that there isn't a consistent correlation between gun ownership and high crime rates, but that doesn't make the reverse correlation true.

[groverat]

2006 Gubenatorial Candidate Survey (http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html)...

Read this shit, it's like fucking amateur hour. Goddamn this woman is embarrassing.

#3 - Sarah Palin opposes sex education that isn't abstinence only.
("Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.")

#4 - Sarah Palin opposes hate crime legislation because she doesn't know what the word "hate" means.
("No, as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate.")

#10 - Sarah Palin opposes gay benefit sharing.
("No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.")

#11 - Sarah Palin thinks the Pledge of Allegiance was around during the time of the founding fathers and that "under God" was in it then.
("Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.")

BAH GAWD RAAARGH! (The pledge was written in 1892. "Under God" was added in 1954.)


[edit]

He is also sexist and homophobic:

I don't think I've ever seen more pathetic "evidence" offered for such a sweeping attempt at character assassination.

[addabox]

By the way, we might want to bear in mind that John McCain is the guy who lies to joke about how ugly the President's daughter is, called his wife a cunt in public, and thinks disaffected Hillary voters are too stupid to notice silly things like actual ideology-- so I wouldn't get too worked up about Biden's "sexism."

[e1618978]

I don't disagree with that, what I disagree with is your assertion that there is a correlation between gun ownership and low crime rates. That's just not true. You're probably right that there isn't a consistent correlation between gun ownership and high crime rates, but that doesn't make the reverse correlation true.

Australia, after the gun ban:

"Nothing of the sort happened, in fact just the opposite took place. In 1997, just 12 months after the new laws went into effect, across Australia homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies were up a whopping 44 percent, assaults up 8.6 and in the state of Victoria there was a 300 percent increase in homicides. Prior to the new dictatorial anti-gun laws, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms; now, there has been a dramatic increase in break-ins, especially against the elderly. "

http://www.gunowners.org/hlr-au.htm

[addabox]

All right, Biden is very unappealing to the electorate, and he may or may not be acceptable even though they like pretty much everyone else who ran better.

He is also sexist and homophobic:

http://thinking-right.com/2006/01/10/joe-biden-sexist-and-homophobic/

That's got to be the lamest evidence of being "sexist and homophobic" I've ever seen in my life. I'm actually embarrassed for you.

Abandon this now, while you still have some tatters of dignity.

[e1618978]

That's got to be the lamest evidence of being "sexist and homophobic" I've ever seen in my life. I'm actually embarrassed for you.

Abandon this now, while you still have some tatters of dignity.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2838420&page=1

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/08/23/2008-08-23_joe_bidens_joke_about_wifes_phd_causes_a.html

"You don't know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state is the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a northeast liberal state."

"You cannot go into a Dunkin Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/oh-that-joe-n-2.html

etc

[groverat]

What the hell do either of those quotes have to do with being sexist or homophobic (or anything else)?

[e1618978]

What the hell do either of those quotes have to do with being sexist or homophobic (or anything else)?

sexist, racist, homophobic - my point is that he can't control his mouth, and stuff like that pops out all the time. "Biden foot in mouth" gets 90,000 hits on google.

[midwinter]

There is a reason these are all in percentages.

homicides jumped 3.2 percent,

But the homicide RATE stayed the same. A 3.2% jump in the raw figure is pretty small, actually. Like a half a person got killed.

armed robberies were up a whopping 44 percent,

up from what in 1996? If there were 2 in 1996 and 4 in 1997, there you go.

assaults up 8.6

Up from what?

and in the state of Victoria there was a 300 percent increase in homicides.

There were 7 gun-related homicides in 1996. In 1997 there were 19. And your spam email source's math is wrong, too. From 7 to 19 isn't a 300% increase.

[midwinter]

sexist, racist, homophobic - my point is that he can't control his mouth, and stuff like that pops out all the time. "Biden foot in mouth" gets 90,000 hits on google.

Ridiculous. "Stuff like that"? Like what? He talks about how he hoped his son would be attracted to a girl? OH DEAR GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE HE WOULD SAY SUCH A THING OUT LOUD!

Is Biden a loudmouth? You bet. But trying to base a claim of sexism and homophobia on THAT evidence is really, really sad. Don't you guys have some googling about Palin to do or something?

[groverat]

By the time you're touring colleges, you know your son's sexual preferences. It's not like he was walking around with a toddler with fears on his mind about the kid perhaps being gay.

This is an extremely embarrassing and pathetic attempt at character assassination.

[vinea]

2006 Gubenatorial Candidate Survey (http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html)...

Read this shit, it's like fucking amateur hour. Goddamn this woman is embarrassing.

#3 - Sarah Palin opposes sex education that isn't abstinence only.
("Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.")

#4 - Sarah Palin opposes hate crime legislation because she doesn't know what the word "hate" means.
("No, as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate.")

#10 - Sarah Palin opposes gay benefit sharing.
("No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.")

#11 - Sarah Palin thinks the Pledge of Allegiance was around during the time of the founding fathers and that "under God" was in it then.
("Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.")

BAH GAWD RAAARGH! (The pledge was written in 1892. "Under God" was added in 1954.)


mmm...those answers are quite disturbing as are her alleged following of the neo-pentacostal church. Hopefully false but "dominionist christianity" is...well...freaky. Enough that I'd want a denial.

[Bergermeister]

Palin has been abroad a grand total of two times. Her state borders on and has major dealings with Canada, but her staff didn't even list Canada so I guess she hasn't been there. Somewhere I saw something about she had foreign relations experience because Alaska is so close to Russia. She simply is not travelled enough to have a broad understanding.

[midwinter]

Palin has been abroad a grand total of two times. Her state borders on and has major dealings with Canada, but her staff didn't even list Canada so I guess she hasn't been there. Somewhere I saw something about she had foreign relations experience because Alaska is so close to Russia. She simply is not travelled enough to have a broad understanding.

H