PDA

View Full Version : Elections I can't see it.


Direckshun
09-09-2008, 07:43 PM
I've done little else over the past two weeks during my time online other than research Sarah Palin. I've looked at her record in the Alaska government, scoured her personal life, parsed through her pre-Governor history, and studied her on the campaign trail. I've come to admire Palin in a lot of different ways.

Her personal biography is among the most interesting I've read in people running for office. Her intelligence proves that you don't need an Ivory League education to have a distinguished career. Her personal life is glorious in its ordinariness. Her political savvy partially ousted a sitting governor and it's having untold success on the campaign trail for a Presidential candidate the Republicans don't even like.

But I can't see it. I can't see how she could handle the Oval Office. I likely don't think I will for quite some time.

She just hasn't said anything on national or global issues, except for oil.

Palin has yet to speak off script, and once she does it will be in a highly manipulated interview with Gibson.

She's running on an issue with a fundamentally flawed record on that issue: pork barrell spending.

She is divisive, and intentionally so.

Due to her late selection, she's been stowed away by the McCain campaign to get briefed -- even if she's fully briefed, she will only have been so for a month.

It's with all this in mind that I have to conclude that this is just not the right time to take a flyer on Palin. McCain is older than his father was when he died.

Is there a positive, sensible argument for Palin that I'm missing out on? Is there a comprehensive argument for Palin that doesn't involve bashing someone else? Why Sarah Palin?

Mecca
09-09-2008, 07:45 PM
Yea but see you went way deep into it than most will....alot of people that vote in this country don't even take any time to inform themselves.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 07:45 PM
You should probably vote for the other guys.

headsnap
09-09-2008, 07:46 PM
She is divisive, and intentionally so.

code for 'she doesn't agree with me politically.'

Logical
09-09-2008, 07:46 PM
Perhaps she looks better with lipstick than a pig?:D

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 07:46 PM
You should probably vote for the other guys.

I will. That was never in question.

I'm not asking to convince me to vote for her. But how is she prepared for this massive responsibility?

I haven't seen that she is.

Mecca
09-09-2008, 07:47 PM
I will. That was never in question.

I'm not asking to convince me to vote for her. But how is she prepared for this massive responsibility?

I haven't seen that she is.

Just because.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 07:47 PM
Is there a comprehensive argument for Palin that doesn't involve bashing someone else?

No. It really has a good deal to do with Sen. Obama being as wrong and unprepared as anyone could ever imaginably be.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 07:48 PM
code for 'she doesn't agree with me politically.'

Huckabee doesn't agree with me politically -- in fact, we're on opposite ends. But he rarely treats liberals and "elites" from big cities as boogeymen.

That's precisely what Palin does.

Again, you are not making any kind of argument for Palin. This is just a jab.

VAChief
09-09-2008, 07:50 PM
No. It really has a good deal to do with Sen. Obama being as wrong and unprepared as anyone could ever imaginably be.

Where were you the last 8 "strategory" years?

chagrin
09-09-2008, 07:52 PM
Yea but see you went way deep into it than most will....alot of people that vote in this country don't even take any time to inform themselves.

wow, drinking the kool-aid, eh?

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 07:57 PM
No. It really has a good deal to do with Sen. Obama being as wrong and unprepared as anyone could ever imaginably be.
Well I appreciate the candid response. But it logically doesn't make any sense.

Why should Obama's inexperience mean Palin is ready for the Oval Office?

Is no positive argument for her possible?

VAChief
09-09-2008, 07:59 PM
Well I appreciate the candid response. But it logically doesn't make any sense.

Why should Obama's inexperience mean Palin is ready for the Oval Office?

Is no positive argument for her possible?

Alaska is close to Russia?

Logical
09-09-2008, 08:05 PM
Just because.POW POW POW POW POW

Amnorix
09-09-2008, 08:05 PM
I will. That was never in question.

I'm not asking to convince me to vote for her. But how is she prepared for this massive responsibility?

I haven't seen that she is.


I don't know, and never have. She doesn't seem remotely qualified to me, to be honest. She's the least qualified person to be in the "top 4" since Dan Quayle, who was a mediocre junior senator with questionable intelligence and political instincts, but I honestly think he was more qualified than she is.

I really and honestly don't see how she's qualified. Given that McCain is quite old, it's a very serious issue, I think.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:06 PM
Alaska is close to Russia?

Yeah, I don't know. That argument, like a lot of the pro-Palin arguments I've scoured over the past 10 days, falls flat when you inspect it.

This is just a selection that has value in the campaign. I fail to see how she's ready for anything beyond that.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:07 PM
I don't know, and never have. She doesn't seem remotely qualified to me, to be honest. She's the least qualified person to be in the "top 4" since Dan Quayle, who was a mediocre junior senator with questionable intelligence and political instincts, but I honestly think he was more qualified than she is.

I really and honestly don't see how she's qualified. Given that McCain is quite old, it's a very serious issue, I think.

Hey, Quayle was a poor pick but he had a track record, however thin, on national and global issues.

Logical
09-09-2008, 08:07 PM
Direckshun, I just want to take time to thank you for the information on Palin you have brought to the BB. Rep

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 08:07 PM
Well I appreciate the candid response. But it logically doesn't make any sense.

Why should Obama's inexperience mean Palin is ready for the Oval Office?

Is no positive argument for her possible?

She's no more ready than Sen. Obama. I'm happy she's not running for president.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:10 PM
She's no more ready than Sen. Obama. I'm happy she's not running for president.

Are you even happy she's on the ticket?

If not, then you're obviously not who I'm directing my questions towards.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:14 PM
Direckshun, I just want to take time to thank you for the information on Palin you have brought to the BB. Rep

I'd also like to mention that not only have I supplied a good amount of information about her, but I have completely avoided the smears involving her 17-year-old daughter, and blaming her for the views of her church.

I am not out on a witch hunt. And even if I was, there's nothing I've read that would serve as a killshot for her chances at Office.

But there's been almost nothing to substantially support her run, either. There needs to be more than the absense of bad news.

I appreciate the shout out. I will say that I get all my information from people much smarter than me.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 08:20 PM
Are you even happy she's on the ticket?

If not, then you're obviously not who I'm directing my questions towards.

I'm happy about it to the extent that I think it gives Sen. McCain a better chance of burying Sen. Obama's campaign.

I rather take my chances on Gov. Palin being forced to pick up the reigns of government than the certainty of the good junior senator from Illinois taking charge.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:24 PM
I'm happy about it to the extent that I think it gives Sen. McCain a better chance of burying Sen. Obama's campaign.

I rather take my chances on Gov. Palin being forced to pick up the reigns of government than the certainty of the good junior senator from Illinois taking charge.

I can understand that. I don't blame you. You're no doubt conservative, and 9 times out of ten you'll opt for the conservative. I'm liberal and I'm the same way.

I'm with you -- the only thing Palin brings to this ticket is enthusiasm. I think we both agree that she's an enormous gamble that, in all likelihood, is just not ready for office.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 08:33 PM
I can understand that. I don't blame you. You're no doubt conservative, and 9 times out of ten you'll opt for the conservative. I'm liberal and I'm the same way.

I'm with you -- the only thing Palin brings to this ticket is enthusiasm. I think we both agree that she's an enormous gamble that, in all likelihood, is just not ready for office.

By the same token I'm sure that we both agree Sen. Obama isn't ready.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:35 PM
By the same token I'm sure that we both agree Sen. Obama isn't ready.

You're changing the subject, a common tactic in Palin threads.

I have no problem marching over to your thread to discuss how prepared or unprepared Obama may be. I've done it dozens of times already. But I'm discussing Palin in here.

The pro-Palin arguments tend to be sheerly on the backs of enthusiasm and emotion, rather than a serious rationale. I have yet to read a comprehensive argument that Palin is ready for office.

patteeu
09-09-2008, 08:36 PM
I can't see something else. I can't see how a guy who is so concerned about the experience of the Republican VP nominee who *might* someday sit in the Oval office but he has no qualms about voting for the less experienced democrat POTUS nominee.

Palin spent the last couple of years running a state house. Obama hasn't been in charge of anything since the days when he was Bill Ayers' right hand man.

RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 08:38 PM
Perhaps she looks better with lipstick than a pig?:D

Oink Oink.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 08:38 PM
You're changing the subject, a common tactic in Palin threads.

I have no problem marching over to your thread to discuss how prepared or unprepared Obama may be. I've done it dozens of times already. But I'm discussing Palin in here.

And I'm discussing a bit more than that. Feel free to discuss whatever you want. I'd rather focus on the pitiful democrat presidential candidate that on the questionable Republican vice presidential candidate.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:40 PM
Palin spent the last couple of years running a state house.

Out of curiousity, I siphoned off all of your post that tried to shift the conversation from Palin to something else, and this is all I'm left with.

Running a state house for a couple years helps. I believe that for all my criticisms, she's done a fair job in Alaska's friendly political climate. Times are good in Alaska these days, and while I don't think she's responsible for that, she deserves credit for not screwing it up.

It helps that she's done well for herself as Governor for 20 months. But how that makes up for no public statements on ANY national or global issue other than oil is beyond me.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:41 PM
And I'm discussing a bit more than that. Feel free to discuss whatever you want. I'd rather focus on the pitiful democrat presidential candidate that on the questionable Republican vice presidential candidate.

That's fair.

I just ain't going there this thread. I've gone there a hundred times already. This thread's intended to be Palin-centric.

The lack of response is disheartening so far. But I've got my fingers crossed.

Programmer
09-09-2008, 08:41 PM
I will. That was never in question.

I'm not asking to convince me to vote for her. But how is she prepared for this massive responsibility?

I haven't seen that she is.

I'm sure there was never a question about who you were going to vote for, and I also am sure that you didn't research Palin for any reason other than to have a biased look at the competition.

How is Obama prepared for this massive responsibility? Palin has more executive experience than Obama, so in essence she is more prepared for the massive responsibility than he is.

Who you going to vote for now?

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 08:44 PM
...this is all I'm left with...

Ignoring the comparisons is a good option when that's all you're left with.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:46 PM
Ignoring the comparisons is a good option when that's all you're left with.

Well you realize every time you draw an equal sign between Palin and Obama, you're admitting that Palin's below your standards.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 08:47 PM
That's fair.

I just ain't going there this thread. I've gone there a hundred times already. This thread's intended to be Palin-centric.

The lack of response is disheartening so far. But I've got my fingers crossed.

It is "Palin-centric." Gov. Palin is quite a bit more qualified for the office she seeks than Sen. Obama is for the office he seeks.

Guru
09-09-2008, 08:47 PM
Well I appreciate the candid response. But it logically doesn't make any sense.

Why should Obama's inexperience mean Palin is ready for the Oval Office?

Is no positive argument for her possible?
Personally, I don't think Obama OR Palin is ready for the oval office. Fortunately, only one of them is actually running for president.

I do understand the concern though because of McCains age. And it is a valid concern. One thing I have appreciated about your posts is they are thought out and you try not to go out of your way to step on anyone when posting.

If I vote McCain, it won't be because of his VP choice. I admittedly do like her but don't know if she is ready to run things. Fortunately, barring a complete meltdown of McCains health, she will have the benefit of actually learning the presidents functions without having to make the hard choices. If they win that is.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:47 PM
Palin has more executive experience than Obama, so in essence she is more prepared for the massive responsibility than he is.
It is "Palin-centric." Gov. Palin is quite a bit more qualified for the office she seeks than Sen. Obama is for the office he seeks.
I don't see how that executive experience counts for much if she's completely green to every national and global issue under the sun. The Oval Office isn't the place to fly by the seat of your pants.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 08:49 PM
Well you realize every time you draw an equal sign between Palin and Obama, you're admitting that Palin's below your standards.

No, I realize nothing of the sort. They aren't running for the same office.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 08:49 PM
...The Oval Office isn't the place to fly by the seat of your pants.

Now you're getting it.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:51 PM
No, I realize nothing of the sort. They aren't running for the same office.

Yes, they are. The VP is to be held to every standard the POTUS is.

That's the way it is Constitutionally, that's the reason the VP office exists, and it's incredibly pertinent when your Prez is 72 years old with a thousand page health report.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:54 PM
Personally, I don't think Obama OR Palin is ready for the oval office. Fortunately, only one of them is actually running for president.

I do understand the concern though because of McCains age. And it is a valid concern. One thing I have appreciated about your posts is they are thought out and you try not to go out of your way to step on anyone when posting.

If I vote McCain, it won't be because of his VP choice. I admittedly do like her but don't know if she is ready to run things. Fortunately, barring a complete meltdown of McCains health, she will have the benefit of actually learning the presidents functions without having to make the hard choices. If they win that is.
Fair points, but I do have something I want to emphasize.

This is a point I just made with ClevelandBronco -- they're both running for President. Don't be disillusioned, there's only one reason the VP office exists -- it exists to become President at absolutely any moment after his or her ticket wins the election. The world doesn't stop being dangerous and the global market doesn't become less competitive. Things are as challenging as ever. Moreso, actually, because you're taking over amidst a national crisis.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 08:55 PM
Yes, they are. The VP is to be held to every standard the POTUS is.

That's the way it is Constitutionally, that's the reason the VP office exists, and it's incredibly pertinent when your Prez is 72 years old with a thousand page health report.

A thousand page health report. That's a lot, isn't it? I don't have a copy. What does it say on page 983?

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 08:57 PM
A thousand page health report. That's a lot, isn't it? I don't have a copy. What does it say on page 983?

I believe it's actually 1,200 pages.

I don't know what it says, unfortunately. He hasn't made it available for public consumption.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 08:59 PM
Is Gov. Palin ready to be president on Jan. 20? No, she certainly isn't.

Is Sen. Obama ready to be president on Jan. 20? No, he certainly isn't.

I'll take my chances with Sen. McCain's health.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:02 PM
Is Gov. Palin ready to be president on Jan. 20? No, she certainly isn't.

Unfortunately, we are in agreement here.

But I was hoping there would be one positive, comprehensive argument made for Palin. One.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 09:04 PM
Unfortunately, we are in agreement here.

But I was hoping there would be one positive, comprehensive argument made for Palin. One.

She's running for vice president against a wholly incompetent presidential candidate.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:07 PM
She's running for vice president against a wholly incompetent presidential candidate.

That's not a positive argument. That's a "lesser evil" argument.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 09:09 PM
I see nothing evil about either of them.

HonestChieffan
09-09-2008, 09:10 PM
You dont get it. Thats pretty clear. You can say you studied Governor Palins record and history, but you think Obama has more accomplishments? Maybe you need to read it again.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 09:10 PM
I do see one as being competent for her office and the other as being incompetent for his.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:11 PM
I see nothing evil about either of them.

You're taking an expression literally.

Programmer
09-09-2008, 09:11 PM
You dont get it. Thats pretty clear. You can say you studied Governor Palins record and history, but you think Obama has more accomplishments? Maybe you need to read it again.


He was reading with a blindfold on. I'm sure that he could read it 1000 times and still not overcome his bias.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:12 PM
You dont get it. Thats pretty clear. You can say you studied Governor Palins record and history, but you think Obama has more accomplishments? Maybe you need to read it again.
He was reading with a blindfold on. I'm sure that he could read it 1000 times and still not overcome his bias.
Instead of insulting me, maybe you could help me by making a positive argument for Palin?

HonestChieffan
09-09-2008, 09:16 PM
I didnt mean to insult you. Im sorry if I did.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 09:18 PM
You're taking an expression literally.

You must have meant that I prefer one to the other.

Guilty, then.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:20 PM
I didnt mean to insult you. Im sorry if I did.

No need to apologize, but I appreciate it.

I honestly think Palin's done a decent-to-good job as governor in Alaska, but I don't see how that translates in any effective way to the Presidency when she has not even a word spoken on national or global issues (other than oil) leading up to being appointed by McCain to run.

She won't have my vote whether you feel she's prepared or not. I'm just wondering if you actually do, and why.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:21 PM
You must have meant that I prefer one to the other.

Guilty, then.
That's not how the phrase translates. Some other thread I'll walk you through common colloquialisms. ;)

The "lesser evil" argument embodies the "well at least X isn't as bad as Y," rather than actively arguing that "X is the best option for the job."

It's arguing against a worse option, rather than arguing for a good one. See: Democrats in 2004.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 09:23 PM
That's not how the phrase translates. Some other thread I'll walk you through common colloquialisms. ;)

The "lesser evil" argument embodies the "well at least X isn't as bad as Y," rather than actively arguing that "X is the best option for the job."

It's arguing against a worse option, rather than arguing for a good one. See: Democrats in 2004.

Except that in this case "X" is the better option. Not the best option, but a better option.

The best option isn't running.

KC Jones
09-09-2008, 09:25 PM
I can't stand her, but if I were to take on your challenge my argument would be:

She doesn't have to be ready because she would be tutored by McCain, and even if his presidency is brief she'd inherit his staff. The positive argument is that she has a strong moral character and is tough. She can get policy direction from the wonks McCain puts in place around her.

Programmer
09-09-2008, 09:25 PM
Instead of insulting me, maybe you could help me by making a positive argument for Palin?

Your lead post says it all. You have researched her record and have deemed her inappropriate for office. Did you do a comparative study of Obama?

If you did so you would see that in a comparison Palin has been a politician for a good period of time. In that time she has been a Mayor, she has been a Governor which placed her in charge of of the National Guard of her state, so she has been a Commander in Chief of a state militia. What type of executive experience are you attributing to Obama? Community Organization? Some time in the Senate?

What you are really missing is that Palin is on the ticket as VP. Obama is on the ticket as President. Big difference. You should be comparing Palin to Biden and Obama to McCain. My guess is that your opinion that McCain is only George Bush is all you are going on. I've got some breaking news for you, McCain is not Bush.

Donger
09-09-2008, 09:27 PM
I've done little else over the past two weeks during my time online other than research Sarah Palin. I've looked at her record in the Alaska government, scoured her personal life, parsed through her pre-Governor history, and studied her on the campaign trail. I've come to admire Palin in a lot of different ways.

Her personal biography is among the most interesting I've read in people running for office. Her intelligence proves that you don't need an Ivory League education to have a distinguished career. Her personal life is glorious in its ordinariness. Her political savvy partially ousted a sitting governor and it's having untold success on the campaign trail for a Presidential candidate the Republicans don't even like.

But I can't see it. I can't see how she could handle the Oval Office. I likely don't think I will for quite some time.

She just hasn't said anything on national or global issues, except for oil.

Palin has yet to speak off script, and once she does it will be in a highly manipulated interview with Gibson.

She's running on an issue with a fundamentally flawed record on that issue: pork barrell spending.

She is divisive, and intentionally so.

Due to her late selection, she's been stowed away by the McCain campaign to get briefed -- even if she's fully briefed, she will only have been so for a month.

It's with all this in mind that I have to conclude that this is just not the right time to take a flyer on Palin. McCain is older than his father was when he died.

Is there a positive, sensible argument for Palin that I'm missing out on? Is there a comprehensive argument for Palin that doesn't involve bashing someone else? Why Sarah Palin?

As the Governor of Alaska, I'm not sure why you'd expect her to have said much about global issues.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:27 PM
Except that in this case "X" is the better option. Not the best option, but a better option.

I understand that point, but that's not the argument you're making -- or, really, any Palin supporter is making. Not a single soul has argued in this thread that Palin is ready for office. Not a single soul, and we've seen about five or six Palin supporters post.

Every single reply, without exception, has simply referred back to Obama.

Well, that argument may work for you, but it doesn't make a positive case for Palin.

Now, you don't NEED a positive argument for Palin, but it's a shame that one doesn't even seem to exist.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:29 PM
As the Governor of Alaska, I'm not sure why you'd expect her to have said much about global issues.

I don't expect her to have said much, I'd expect her to have said something.

She hasn't.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:30 PM
I can't stand her, but if I were to take on your challenge my argument would be:

She doesn't have to be ready because she would be tutored by McCain, and even if his presidency is brief she'd inherit his staff. The positive argument is that she has a strong moral character and is tough. She can get policy direction from the wonks McCain puts in place around her.

My answer to that (and I understand I'm arguing with your hypothetical argument, but nonetheless) is that plunges us once again into a Presidency with a leader that, like Bush, delegates all the heavy lifting out to his/her surrogates who run wild with undue power.

Donger
09-09-2008, 09:30 PM
I understand that point, but that's not the argument you're making -- or, really, any Palin supporter is making. Not a single soul has argued in this thread that Palin is ready for office. Not a single soul, and we've seen about five or six Palin supporters post.

Every single reply, without exception, has simply referred back to Obama.

Well, that argument may work for you, but it doesn't make a positive case for Palin.

Now, you don't NEED a positive argument for Palin, but it's a shame that one doesn't even seem to exist.

From what I've read, Barack Hussein supporters have been saying that he's had 18 months of "on the job training" during the campaign that is requisite for the top job. Surely you'd agree that Palin only needs a few months to get ready for the #2 slot, no?

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 09:31 PM
I understand that point, but that's not the argument you're making...

No, I just made it. Perhaps you're just not hearing it.

Donger
09-09-2008, 09:31 PM
I don't expect her to have said much, I'd expect her to have said something.

She hasn't.

Why? Up until the last few weeks, she's been the Governor of Alaska.

J Diddy
09-09-2008, 09:31 PM
From what I've read, Barack Hussein supporters have been saying that he's had 18 months of "on the job training" during the campaign that is requisite for the top job. Surely you'd agree that Palin only needs a few months to get ready for the #2 slot, no?

when the no. 2 slot is right behind a guy who's 72 and shes a breath away from the presidency, NO

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:32 PM
Surely you'd agree that Palin only needs a few months to get ready for the #2 slot, no?

Absolutely not. And once again you're trying to shift the conversation back to Obama.

This is a conversation about Palin. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove that Palin isn't ready, it's on her to prove that she is.

Stinger
09-09-2008, 09:33 PM
She just hasn't said anything on national or global issues, except for oil.

Palin has yet to speak off script, and once she does it will be in a highly manipulated interview with Gibson.

She's running on an issue with a fundamentally flawed record on that issue: pork barrell spending.

She is divisive, and intentionally so.



Direckshun, I just want to take time to thank you for the information on Palin you have brought to the BB. Rep


IF TRUE!!!!!!!!



:D

Sorry I could not resist. Nice discussion I have enjoyed reading.

HonestChieffan
09-09-2008, 09:33 PM
Id take her over Obama on almost every measure of why I would support one over the other. I see virtually nothing in Obamas record that even comes close to getting my support. He has accomplished nothing legislatively, his values are so far from mine we cannot see one another, his positions on items of importance to me and to this countrys future are frightening, and he has demonstrated he cannot seem to take a position and stay with it for more than a day or two.

So needless to to say, I do see a lot in Palins record I do like and do find commonality with.

The current state of the Obama campaign effort is really something to watch. They have come unglued. The entire effort by the democrats went from somewhat issue oriented to no more than gutter politics and personal attacks and lies and rumors all in a week. As every drop in the polls occurs its pretty clear the wheels are off the Obama bus.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:33 PM
Why? Up until the last few weeks, she's been the Governor of Alaska.

Because if she has no track record of even saying things about national or global events, I can't assume she's ready to deal with them.

Donger
09-09-2008, 09:33 PM
Absolutely not. And once again you're trying to shift the conversation back to Obama.

This is a conversation about Palin. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove that Palin isn't ready, it's on her to prove that she is.

On the contrary. We KNOW that if the DNC ticket is elected, we'll have to deal with Barack Hussein's inexperience.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:34 PM
Your lead post says it all. You have researched her record and have deemed her inappropriate for office. Did you do a comparative study of Obama?

If you did so you would see that in a comparison Palin has been a politician for a good period of time. In that time she has been a Mayor, she has been a Governor which placed her in charge of of the National Guard of her state, so she has been a Commander in Chief of a state militia. What type of executive experience are you attributing to Obama? Community Organization? Some time in the Senate?

What you are really missing is that Palin is on the ticket as VP. Obama is on the ticket as President. Big difference. You should be comparing Palin to Biden and Obama to McCain. My guess is that your opinion that McCain is only George Bush is all you are going on. I've got some breaking news for you, McCain is not Bush.

Id take her over Obama on almost every measure of why I would support one over the other. I see virtually nothing in Obamas record that even comes close to getting my support. He has accomplished nothing legislatively, his values are so far from mine we cannot see one another, his positions on items of importance to me and to this countrys future are frightening, and he has demonstrated he cannot seem to take a position and stay with it for more than a day or two.

So needless to to say, I do see a lot in Palins record I do like and do find commonality with.

The current state of the Obama campaign effort is really something to watch. They have come unglued. The entire effort by the democrats went from somewhat issue oriented to no more than gutter politics and personal attacks and lies and rumors all in a week. As every drop in the polls occurs its pretty clear the wheels are off the Obama bus.

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for your thoughts.

Gotta run, and will return to the board later to respond.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 09:34 PM
Absolutely not. And once again you're trying to shift the conversation back to Obama.

This is a conversation about Palin. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove that Palin isn't ready, it's on her to prove that she is.

Neither she nor Sen. Obama are ready to be president. Only one wants to be.

Hoover
09-09-2008, 09:35 PM
I've done little else over the past two weeks during my time online other than research Sarah Palin. I've looked at her record in the Alaska government, scoured her personal life, parsed through her pre-Governor history, and studied her on the campaign trail. I've come to admire Palin in a lot of different ways.

Her personal biography is among the most interesting I've read in people running for office. Her intelligence proves that you don't need an Ivory League education to have a distinguished career. Her personal life is glorious in its ordinariness. Her political savvy partially ousted a sitting governor and it's having untold success on the campaign trail for a Presidential candidate the Republicans don't even like.

But I can't see it. I can't see how she could handle the Oval Office. I likely don't think I will for quite some time.

She just hasn't said anything on national or global issues, except for oil.

Palin has yet to speak off script, and once she does it will be in a highly manipulated interview with Gibson.

She's running on an issue with a fundamentally flawed record on that issue: pork barrell spending.

She is divisive, and intentionally so.

Due to her late selection, she's been stowed away by the McCain campaign to get briefed -- even if she's fully briefed, she will only have been so for a month.

It's with all this in mind that I have to conclude that this is just not the right time to take a flyer on Palin. McCain is older than his father was when he died.

Is there a positive, sensible argument for Palin that I'm missing out on? Is there a comprehensive argument for Palin that doesn't involve bashing someone else? Why Sarah Palin?

Maybe you can understand it if I put it this way...

I've done little else over the past two years during my time online other than research Barack Obama. I've looked at his record in the Illinois State Senate and the 150 days he has spent in DC while the US Senate was in session, scoured his personal life, parsed through his pre-elected official history, and studied him on the campaign trail. I've come to admire Obama in a lot of different ways.

His personal biography is among the most interesting I've read in people running for office. His intelligence proves that you an Ivory League education is important when seeking public office. His personal life is glorious in its ordinariness. His political savvy defeated Hillary Clinton and it's having untold impact on the campaign trail.

But I can't see it. I can't see how he could handle the Oval Office. I likely don't think I will for quite some time.

He just lacks experience on national or global issues.

Obama sucks if he has to speak off script, and when he does it always creates a problem for his campaign. He would be better off to do highly manipulated interviews with people like Gibson.

He's running on an creating more government entitlements like socialized health care, and college tuition, but on the other hand say's he will cut taxes. How will he be able to do both, especially with our nation in debt.

He is vague, and intentionally so.

Due to his race, he's not been truly vetted by the media or his opponents.

It's with all this in mind that I have to conclude that this is just not the right time to take a flyer on Obama. Maybe there is some state senator out there you have foreign policy experience, but I doubt it.

Is there a positive, sensible argument for Obama that I'm missing out on? Is there a comprehensive argument for Obama that doesn't involve bashing someone else? Why Barack Obama?

Donger
09-09-2008, 09:35 PM
Because if she has no track record of even saying things about national or global events, I can't assume she's ready to deal with them.

Nor do I. I await her input.

Direckshun
09-09-2008, 09:35 PM
On the contrary. We KNOW that if the DNC ticket is elected, we'll have to deal with Barack Hussein's inexperience.

I don't know what this has to do with my thread.

How is Palin ready for office, Donger?

Donger
09-09-2008, 09:36 PM
I don't know what this has to do with my thread.

How is Palin ready for office, Donger?

For VPOTUS? I think she'll do fine. As Biden said.

Programmer
09-09-2008, 09:38 PM
Because if she has no track record of even saying things about national or global events, I can't assume she's ready to deal with them.


And Obama is? Again, he is running for president. He has little or no experience with those same issues. He is less ready than Palin and very much less ready than McCain.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 09:38 PM
For VPOTUS? I think she'll do fine. As Biden said.

I think he simply forgot to attribute that thought to its true author.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 09:39 PM
And Obama is? Again, he is running for president. He has little or no experience with those same issues. He is less ready than Palin and very much less ready than McCain.

Think of the United States as a community that just needs a little organizing.

irishjayhawk
09-09-2008, 09:42 PM
Personally, I don't think Obama OR Palin is ready for the oval office. Fortunately, only one of them is actually running for president.

I do understand the concern though because of McCains age. And it is a valid concern. One thing I have appreciated about your posts is they are thought out and you try not to go out of your way to step on anyone when posting.

If I vote McCain, it won't be because of his VP choice. I admittedly do like her but don't know if she is ready to run things. Fortunately, barring a complete meltdown of McCains health, she will have the benefit of actually learning the presidents functions without having to make the hard choices. If they win that is.

Pardon if you answered this in another thread but, what makes one ready for President?

Donger
09-09-2008, 09:43 PM
Based on what I've seen so far from Barack Hussein, he is the POTUS-equivalent of Rodney King. I actually like his position on terrorism, but with regard to other issues, he seems far to like the present day Eddie Haskel.

cdcox
09-09-2008, 09:49 PM
Don't know if this has been brought up or not, but if Palin is equally qualified to hold office as Obama, why are the Republicans protecting her from....


the press.

It is an absurd claim.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 09:54 PM
Don't know if this has been brought up or not, but if Palin is equally qualified to hold office as Obama, why are the Republicans protecting her from....


the press.

It is an absurd claim.

Somebody ought to be protecting the press.

J Diddy
09-09-2008, 09:55 PM
Think of the United States as a community that just needs a little organizing.

after the past 8 years it needs detailed not reorganized

cdcox
09-09-2008, 09:56 PM
Somebody ought to be protecting the press.

LMAO That's obviously not the way the McCain campaign sees it.

J Diddy
09-09-2008, 09:56 PM
Somebody ought to be protecting the press.

yep palin said hockey mom's are brutal like bulldogs

cdcox
09-09-2008, 09:58 PM
yep palin said hockey mom's are brutal like pigs with lipstick


Fixed your post

J Diddy
09-09-2008, 09:59 PM
Fixed your post

brutal, just brutal

Guru
09-09-2008, 10:08 PM
Unfortunately, we are in agreement here.

But I was hoping there would be one positive, comprehensive argument made for Palin. One.
Well, it seems your biggest hangup with her is the foreign policy experience. I really feel that nobody is prepared well on that subject. Unless you are president you are generally dealing with national issues. I do feel that serving as a Mayor and Governor does provide preparation for serving as a president considering the system itself is much the same for what it is.

I am not a fan of Bill Clinton in any way but they said he was inexperienced too even though he had tons of experience as a Governor. Calling him inexperienced was just dumb.

Guru
09-09-2008, 10:09 PM
Pardon if you answered this in another thread but, what makes one ready for President?

Don't read too far into that comment. I was speaking in the moment.

NOTHING can make you READY to be president.

irishjayhawk
09-09-2008, 10:18 PM
Don't read too far into that comment. I was speaking in the moment.

NOTHING can make you READY to be president.

Then, how exactly is one more than the other (which is a claim everyone has been making).

HonestChieffan
09-09-2008, 10:26 PM
Track Record of actual accomplishments would be a great place to begin...

Guru
09-09-2008, 10:35 PM
Then, how exactly is one more than the other (which is a claim everyone has been making).
If you are raising the experience argument then yes, I do believe the more executive experience you have going in helps. Doesn't mean you are ready but it helps.

Keep in mind, my statement covers everyone regarding being ready.

irishjayhawk
09-09-2008, 10:37 PM
If you are raising the experience argument then yes, I do believe the more executive experience you have going in helps. Doesn't mean you are ready but it helps.

Keep in mind, my statement covers everyone regarding being ready.

So, if no one is ready, I assume you align with McCain solely on the issues?

Guru
09-09-2008, 10:41 PM
So, if no one is ready, I assume you align with McCain solely on the issues?


I would like to vote for Barr but view that as a wasted vote that only helps Obama. If I vote for McCain, it will only be because I don't want Obama as PotUS.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 12:24 AM
I would like to vote for Barr but view that as a wasted vote that only helps Obama. If I vote for McCain, it will only be because I don't want Obama as PotUS.

Why are you voting against Obama? Because you disagree with his views on the issues?

Guru
09-10-2008, 12:26 AM
Why are you voting against Obama? Because you disagree with his views on the issues?
Generally no, I don't agree with his view point on many issues. I am sure you plan to school me on the error of my ways.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 12:28 AM
Generally no, I don't agree with his view point on many issues. I am sure you plan to school me on the error of my ways.

Nope. I just wondered if it was going to come back to executive experience....

ClevelandBronco
09-10-2008, 12:28 AM
Why are you voting against Obama? Because you disagree with his views on the issues?

Yes.

Guru
09-10-2008, 12:31 AM
Nope. I just wondered if it was going to come back to executive experience....
Color me surprised. heh:)

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 12:36 AM
Color me surprised. heh:)

I cannot lie, I do think Palin should scare you somewhat. Being a heartbeat away and all.

ClevelandBronco
09-10-2008, 12:40 AM
I cannot lie, I do think Palin should scare you somewhat. Being a heartbeat away and all.

I understand your trepidation, but Sen. Obama scares me even more. To hell with the heartbeat. He's only a few electoral votes away from being way over his head.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 12:53 AM
I understand your trepidation, but Sen. Obama scares me even more. To hell with the heartbeat. He's only a few electoral votes away from being way over his head.

How is he in over his head in any way that McCain isn't?

ClevelandBronco
09-10-2008, 12:55 AM
How is he in over his head in any way that McCain isn't?

Let me understand the rules of engagement on this particular discussion: Are you asking why I don't consider Sen. Obama to be as well prepared for the presidency as Sen. McCain?

Are you really asking that?

Guru
09-10-2008, 12:56 AM
I cannot lie, I do think Palin should scare you somewhat. Being a heartbeat away and all.
They all scare me.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 01:00 AM
Let me understand the rules of engagement on this particular discussion: Are you asking why I don't consider Sen. Obama to be as well prepared for the presidency as Sen. McCain?

Are you really asking that?

You said Obama is in over his head. (or would be)
You seem to think, given your vote, McCain would not be in over his head.

Why?

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 01:01 AM
They all scare me.

Then who would you want as President?

FTR, I hate the two party system.

Guru
09-10-2008, 01:06 AM
Then who would you want as President?

FTR, I hate the two party system.

I hate it as well.

FTR, I have no idea. An ideal candidate has yet to pop into the picture. Of course, I don't know that we will ever have an ideal candidate anyway. I pretty much have been voting lesser of two evils for as long as I can remember.

ClevelandBronco
09-10-2008, 01:07 AM
Then who would you want as President?

FTR, I hate the two party system.

I want to answer the question you posed to Guru first.

Ron Paul would be my first choice. I don't agree with a good many of his foreign policy views, but I think he'd help get us back on track from a domestic standpoint, and I could live with some of his nearsighted ideas on the foreign front while we got our own house closer to order.

But that's not happening.

ClevelandBronco
09-10-2008, 01:12 AM
You said Obama is in over his head. (or would be)
You seem to think, given your vote, McCain would not be in over his head.

Why?

Sen. McCain would be in over his head. I think that every president elect underestimates what he needs to deal with once he attains the office.

That said, I've never seen a candidate less qualified than Sen. Obama.

Good grief, Jimmy Carter was more qualified, and he was a bloody disaster.

Even though all new presidents find themselves underwater, one shouldn't start out drowning.

ClevelandBronco
09-10-2008, 01:14 AM
Perhaps I shouldn't bring up Pres. Carter. You probably were born after his administration.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 08:55 AM
Sen. McCain would be in over his head. I think that every president elect underestimates what he needs to deal with once he attains the office.

That said, I've never seen a candidate less qualified than Sen. Obama.

Good grief, Jimmy Carter was more qualified, and he was a bloody disaster.

Even though all new presidents find themselves underwater, one shouldn't start out drowning.

I just don't understand how you can go from "each candidate is in over his head" to "one is just extremely less qualified".

Pardon if you've answered this in another thread, but what the hell do you need to be qualified?

patteeu
09-10-2008, 09:42 AM
Out of curiousity, I siphoned off all of your post that tried to shift the conversation from Palin to something else, and this is all I'm left with.

Running a state house for a couple years helps. I believe that for all my criticisms, she's done a fair job in Alaska's friendly political climate. Times are good in Alaska these days, and while I don't think she's responsible for that, she deserves credit for not screwing it up.

It helps that she's done well for herself as Governor for 20 months. But how that makes up for no public statements on ANY national or global issue other than oil is beyond me.

You've effectively dismissed more experience than Obama has. I don't know what to tell you. If you think Palin is underqualifed, that's your problem. I'm a fan of trying someone besides an entrenched establishment politician for a change. Palin has taken the reigns of state government (which none of our other candidates can boast) and, by most accounts, has performed splendidly. That experience along with having the most legitimate claim to being an outsider of any candidate in the race is enough for me.

Of all the people in the country, she probably wouldn't be my first choice to step in in the event of a McCain death, but I'd rather have her than Biden or Obama and I'd rather have her than a number of prominant Republicans (e.g. Huckabee, Hagel, or the northeastern liberals like Snowe.

Programmer
09-10-2008, 09:47 AM
I cannot lie, I do think Palin should scare you somewhat. Being a heartbeat away and all.

I am less concerned about Palin being a heartbeat away from the office than I am about Obama being voted in.

His change would doom the country.

I'd rather hear you bleeding heart liberals bitch for another 8 years than to even take a chance of Obama getting in office and showing what he is really all about.

morphius
09-10-2008, 09:57 AM
I don't know that anyone is ever really ready, but she is the only candidate who isn't part of an organization with a 9% approval rating. You also probably believe that Bill Clinton did a great job as President coming from the same job as her, from a state that everyone, everywhere makes fun of for being backwards and redneck.

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 11:47 AM
If you did so you would see that in a comparison Palin has been a politician for a good period of time. In that time she has been a Mayor, she has been a Governor which placed her in charge of of the National Guard of her state, so she has been a Commander in Chief of a state militia.

What you are really missing is that Palin is on the ticket as VP.
I appreciate you introducing some new ideas to this thread, Programmer. But once again, I had to siphon your post down to what I was actually asking for: pro-Palin arguments. You do deserve credit for making some.

But it's smoke and mirrors this time around. Name one thing Palin has done as "commander in chief" of the Alaskan militia that isn't a minute state matter. The "militia" argument is a farce. The governor of any state has virtually no say in how that militia is deployed in national or global circumstances.

That does not prepare you for a military effort against Pakistan or Iran. That alone does not prepare you for anything, really.

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 11:48 AM
I do see a lot in Palins record I do like and do find commonality with.

You realize that in your entire post to me, you went on for two paragraphs about Obama, and this is the entire summation of your argument for Palin.

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 11:51 AM
Maybe you can understand it if I put it this way...

I've done little else over the past two years during my time online other than research Barack Obama. I've looked at his record in the Illinois State Senate and the 150 days he has spent in DC while the US Senate was in session, scoured his personal life, parsed through his pre-elected official history, and studied him on the campaign trail. I've come to admire Obama in a lot of different ways.

His personal biography is among the most interesting I've read in people running for office. His intelligence proves that you an Ivory League education is important when seeking public office. His personal life is glorious in its ordinariness. His political savvy defeated Hillary Clinton and it's having untold impact on the campaign trail.

But I can't see it. I can't see how he could handle the Oval Office. I likely don't think I will for quite some time.

He just lacks experience on national or global issues.

Obama sucks if he has to speak off script, and when he does it always creates a problem for his campaign. He would be better off to do highly manipulated interviews with people like Gibson.

He's running on an creating more government entitlements like socialized health care, and college tuition, but on the other hand say's he will cut taxes. How will he be able to do both, especially with our nation in debt.

He is vague, and intentionally so.

Due to his race, he's not been truly vetted by the media or his opponents.

It's with all this in mind that I have to conclude that this is just not the right time to take a flyer on Obama. Maybe there is some state senator out there you have foreign policy experience, but I doubt it.

Is there a positive, sensible argument for Obama that I'm missing out on? Is there a comprehensive argument for Obama that doesn't involve bashing someone else? Why Barack Obama?
Again, I'm asking for proof positive on Palin. The absense of proof positive on Obama (if that's even the case) doesn't translate to a positive argument in favor of Palin.

Help me. There has been a dearth of pro-Palin information in this thread -- self-proclaimed fans of Palin are merely throwing boomerangs at Obama and expecting not to get hit.

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 11:52 AM
For VPOTUS? I think she'll do fine. As Biden said.

What has given you reason to believe so?

J Diddy
09-10-2008, 11:52 AM
Again, I'm asking for proof positive on Palin. The absense of proof positive on Obama (if that's even the case) doesn't translate to a positive argument in favor of Palin.

Help me. There has been a dearth of pro-Palin information in this thread -- self-proclaimed fans of Palin are merely throwing boomerangs at Obama and expecting not to get hit.



In terms of this election prooving palin is good=prooving obama is bad

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 11:52 AM
And Obama is? Again, he is running for president. He has little or no experience with those same issues. He is less ready than Palin and very much less ready than McCain.

How is Palin even ready to begin with, Programmer?

J Diddy
09-10-2008, 11:53 AM
What has given you reason to believe so?

his faulty opinion

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 11:54 AM
In terms of this election prooving palin is good=prooving obama is bad

Exactly. And that logic doesn't follow.

Even if Obama is bad, which I can't blame conservatives for thinking due to serious policy disagreements they have, that doesn't translate for a positive argument for anyone. Especially Palin.

This thread is slowly unraveling the Palin phenomenon for a farce.

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 11:56 AM
I think he simply forgot to attribute that thought to its true author.

Think of the United States as a community that just needs a little organizing.

Based on what I've seen so far from Barack Hussein, he is the POTUS-equivalent of Rodney King. I actually like his position on terrorism, but with regard to other issues, he seems far to like the present day Eddie Haskel.

Somebody ought to be protecting the press.

after the past 8 years it needs detailed not reorganized

LMAO That's obviously not the way the McCain campaign sees it.

yep palin said hockey mom's are brutal like bulldogs

Fixed your post

brutal, just brutal

Snore.

Seriously, guys.

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 12:04 PM
Well, it seems your biggest hangup with her is the foreign policy experience. I really feel that nobody is prepared well on that subject. Unless you are president you are generally dealing with national issues. I do feel that serving as a Mayor and Governor does provide preparation for serving as a president considering the system itself is much the same for what it is.

I think that's fair. Obviously nobody running for President, other than a President running for reelection, is going to have experience ordering American troops into battle. The closest you can get is a facsimile to similar decisions.

If you're a Congressman, did you ever vote to authorize force. What has your voting record indicated in regards to your foreign policy? Biden, McCain, and to a lesser extant Obama all have these.

If you're a Governor, you've had countless opportunities to speak out in support or opposition to national policy -- hell, Obama was a state senator when he did so. Schwarzenagger has been a very vocal governor on national issues, to name one.

Despite the fact that you may not have done either of these things, have you ever worked in a previous administration or held an international job? Bill Richardson (former New Mexico governor) worked as a negotiator with terrorists and foreign regimes.

So on and so forth.

But what if you haven't served in Congress, haven't spoken out on foreign policy, or interacted with foreign regimes or governments in any way?

Well, we can search your public statements. What have you said about foreign policy matters? Have you ever mentioned another country in positive or negative ways in an interview? Have you ever had a town hall meeting with your constituents and they asked you "hey what's going on with my son in that overseas deployment?", and you answered on the record? Has the press asked you about foreign matters, ever, and have you answered?

The answer with Palin, as you can imagine, is a big fat gooseegg. Everywhere. Until of course, her speech at the RNC.

Executive experience for a couple years or not, that's a shallow record during an incredibly vulnerable time of ours internationally. And Palin just doesn't make the cut for me.

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 12:07 PM
Why are you voting against Obama? Because you disagree with his views on the issues?

Thanks for cracking the door open for the Palin supporters to dart out of.

I'm desperately trying to keep this conversation on topic. Allowing folks to discuss anything but a positive argument for Palin is a derailment.

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 12:14 PM
I don't know what to tell you. If you think Palin is underqualifed, that's your problem. I'm a fan of trying someone besides an entrenched establishment politician for a change. Palin has taken the reigns of state government (which none of our other candidates can boast) and, by most accounts, has performed splendidly. That experience along with having the most legitimate claim to being an outsider of any candidate in the race is enough for me.

We've now come to an argument that makes a degree of sense. It's fair. She's not an established insider like the other three (although calling any one of these three insiders is a bit of a stretch).

And that helps. Especially in a demented governmental system like ours.

But this brings me back to a point I mentioned in my OP. How specifically is she determined to "shake up Washington," as she and McCain have said?

Fighting earmarks.

Well, you might have heard us talking about this around this forum, but she's fatally wounded on that issue. The one of two or three triumphs she's trumpeted in this arena (the Bridge to Nowhere), she opposed that triumph. As mayor of Wasilla, she argued for $1,000 of earmarks per citizen.

This is a nice issue to sing about on the stump, especially with how well she sells it, but it collapses on her upon a cursory investigation.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 12:24 PM
Thanks for cracking the door open for the Palin supporters to dart out of.

I'm desperately trying to keep this conversation on topic. Allowing folks to discuss anything but a positive argument for Palin is a derailment.

Threads go different ways, Direckshun.

Having said that, your post above mine with 10 quotes seems to indicate they'll open the door whenever they please.

patteeu
09-10-2008, 12:25 PM
We've now come to an argument that makes a degree of sense. It's fair. She's not an established insider like the other three (although calling any one of these three insiders is a bit of a stretch).

And that helps. Especially in a demented governmental system like ours.

But this brings me back to a point I mentioned in my OP. How specifically is she determined to "shake up Washington," as she and McCain have said?

Fighting earmarks.

Well, you might have heard us talking about this around this forum, but she's fatally wounded on that issue. The one of two or three triumphs she's trumpeted in this arena (the Bridge to Nowhere), she opposed that triumph. As mayor of Wasilla, she argued for $1,000 of earmarks per citizen.

This is a nice issue to sing about on the stump, especially with how well she sells it, but it collapses on her upon a cursory investigation.

The job of governor or mayor is different than the job of POTUS, or even Congressman/Senator, in terms of pork, IMO. As long as our system is set up the way it is, a governor or a mayor is not serving his or her constituents if he/she unilaterally eschews federal money. They're damn sure not going to get any federal tax relief just because they aren't accepting any pork. IMO, the onus is on our federal elected officials to spend federal money responsibly (which, for my money, means spend less), not on the locals who play the game as they encounter it.

I don't see any reason to discount Palin on this issue but I have no illusion that she's the second coming of Ron Paul or that she will have a serious impact one way or the other if John McCain ends up in the WH.

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 05:00 PM
The job of governor or mayor is different than the job of POTUS, or even Congressman/Senator, in terms of pork, IMO. As long as our system is set up the way it is, a governor or a mayor is not serving his or her constituents if he/she unilaterally eschews federal money. They're damn sure not going to get any federal tax relief just because they aren't accepting any pork. IMO, the onus is on our federal elected officials to spend federal money responsibly (which, for my money, means spend less), not on the locals who play the game as they encounter it.

I don't see any reason to discount Palin on this issue but I have no illusion that she's the second coming of Ron Paul or that she will have a serious impact one way or the other if John McCain ends up in the WH.

You're being waaaaay too generous with Palin. It's one thing if she accepts federal money to rebuild vital or even merely important infrastructure.

But that's not what's happening here. She lobbied for an earmark that cost you and I $400 million to build a bridge to a meagerly inhabited island in the Arctic.

Even putting that aside, Palin must be judged by a higher standard when it comes to lobbying for federal money, because she's the one who wants to revise that particular system. Just like Obama must be judged harsher for any money he accepts from lobbyists, because he's the one who claims he wants to revise that entire system.

And you look at her record, and you see the money that she's lobbied for as mayor of Wasilla blows away most of her peers. I don't know what all she's supported for earmarks, but the few things I do know of (not the least of which is the Bridge to Nowhere) give me zero confidence that she's the one to change how earmarking works. It bankrupts her credibility on that issue.

patteeu
09-11-2008, 12:00 AM
You're being waaaaay too generous with Palin. It's one thing if she accepts federal money to rebuild vital or even merely important infrastructure.

But that's not what's happening here. She lobbied for an earmark that cost you and I $400 million to build a bridge to a meagerly inhabited island in the Arctic.

Even putting that aside, Palin must be judged by a higher standard when it comes to lobbying for federal money, because she's the one who wants to revise that particular system. Just like Obama must be judged harsher for any money he accepts from lobbyists, because he's the one who claims he wants to revise that entire system.

And you look at her record, and you see the money that she's lobbied for as mayor of Wasilla blows away most of her peers. I don't know what all she's supported for earmarks, but the few things I do know of (not the least of which is the Bridge to Nowhere) give me zero confidence that she's the one to change how earmarking works. It bankrupts her credibility on that issue.

That "higher standard" bullshit is ridiculous for the reason given in my last post. She can believe that the federal system is broken even if she took full advantage of it to benefit the state she was responsible for, IMO. Afterall, turning away federal dollars as a governor wasn't going to fix anything. It would just increase the amount that the other states could sop up over time. You seem to be missing the fundamental difference between Palin and the other three major party candidates wrt this issue. She didn't work for the federal government. The other three were all in a position that they could have done something about earmarks (or the bigger issue of spending) if they wanted to. McCain did far more than Obama or Biden in that regard, but none of them did enough.

Obama must be judged more harshly for money accepted from lobbyists because he said he wasn't going to take any.

Direckshun
09-11-2008, 01:10 AM
That "higher standard" bullshit is ridiculous for the reason given in my last post. She can believe that the federal system is broken even if she took full advantage of it to benefit the state she was responsible for, IMO. Afterall, turning away federal dollars as a governor wasn't going to fix anything. It would just increase the amount that the other states could sop up over time. You seem to be missing the fundamental difference between Palin and the other three major party candidates wrt this issue. She didn't work for the federal government.

Listen, you can go out on the campaign trail and tell me anything you want. But Palin has absolutely nothing to support the idea that she'd fight earmarks. It's honestly like she drew this issue randomly out of a hat.

You are literally arguing that Palin's mission statement is "once I'm in the White House, I'll make sure I stop all the governors like me who are overabundantly using earmarks!"

That is purely unbelievable, in the literal sense that one cannot believe it.

Ari Chi3fs
09-11-2008, 06:25 AM
Remember, this election is not about the issues. It is supposed to make us forget about the 8 years of Bush, and look to McSame as a leader of change. Lets forget that he has voted with Bush over 90% of the time. That doesn't matter.

He is 10% maverick. That is what matters. Oh, and he has a bitch riding shotgun.

patteeu
09-11-2008, 11:36 AM
Listen, you can go out on the campaign trail and tell me anything you want. But Palin has absolutely nothing to support the idea that she'd fight earmarks. It's honestly like she drew this issue randomly out of a hat.

You are literally arguing that Palin's mission statement is "once I'm in the White House, I'll make sure I stop all the governors like me who are overabundantly using earmarks!"

That is purely unbelievable, in the literal sense that one cannot believe it.

I concede that we can't be absolutely certain that Palin will restrain spending, but that's true of the other 3 candidates too. The thing we've lacked in Washington in this regard has been political courage. George W. Bush demonstrated political courage when he proposed a very modest private accounts modification to social security. He did it again, in a big way, in Iraq. But he definitely didn't demonstrate this courage when it came to restraining Congressional spending.

And when it comes to earmark spending restraint in particular, John McCain is "a 'hero' to taxpayers" (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/report-mccain-a-hero-to-taxpayers/) while neither Obama nor Biden has ever shown a serious inclination toward spending restraint. Palin combines political courage with the fact that she's on the ticket of the only candidate who gives us any hope at all that there will be spending restraint in Washington over the next 4 years.

BigCatDaddy
09-11-2008, 11:40 AM
I concede that we can't be absolutely certain that Palin will restrain spending, but that's true of the other 3 candidates too. The thing we've lacked in Washington in this regard has been political courage. George W. Bush demonstrated political courage when he proposed a very modest private accounts modification to social security. He did it again, in a big way, in Iraq. But he definitely didn't demonstrate this courage when it came to restraining Congressional spending.

And when it comes to earmark spending restraint in particular, John McCain is "a 'hero' to taxpayers" (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/report-mccain-a-hero-to-taxpayers/) while neither Obama nor Biden has ever shown a serious inclination toward spending restraint. Palin combines political courage with the fact that she's on the ticket of the only candidate who gives us any hope at all that there will be spending restraint in Washington over the next 4 years.

Great article. It should have it's own thread actually.

Calcountry
09-11-2008, 11:41 AM
I've done little else over the past two weeks during my time online other than research Sarah Palin. I've looked at her record in the Alaska government, scoured her personal life, parsed through her pre-Governor history, and studied her on the campaign trail. I've come to admire Palin in a lot of different ways.

Her personal biography is among the most interesting I've read in people running for office. Her intelligence proves that you don't need an Ivory League education to have a distinguished career. Her personal life is glorious in its ordinariness. Her political savvy partially ousted a sitting governor and it's having untold success on the campaign trail for a Presidential candidate the Republicans don't even like.

But I can't see it. I can't see how she could handle the Oval Office. I likely don't think I will for quite some time.

She just hasn't said anything on national or global issues, except for oil.

Palin has yet to speak off script, and once she does it will be in a highly manipulated interview with Gibson.

She's running on an issue with a fundamentally flawed record on that issue: pork barrell spending.

She is divisive, and intentionally so.

Due to her late selection, she's been stowed away by the McCain campaign to get briefed -- even if she's fully briefed, she will only have been so for a month.

It's with all this in mind that I have to conclude that this is just not the right time to take a flyer on Palin. McCain is older than his father was when he died.

Is there a positive, sensible argument for Palin that I'm missing out on? Is there a comprehensive argument for Palin that doesn't involve bashing someone else? Why Sarah Palin?
Well, understanding how to deliver more oil is an important issue for America going forward? Certainly it is a good basis from which to expand upon.

Calcountry
09-11-2008, 11:43 AM
Perhaps she looks better with lipstick than a pig?:DJust think, womon don't have to burn their bras now, they just need to hold up a tube of lipstick to get their point across.

Calcountry
09-11-2008, 11:43 AM
Hey, where is Hogfarmer when you need him?

mlyonsd
09-11-2008, 11:57 AM
Great article. It should have it's own thread actually.

If true, this is LOL funny:

But mayors and governors do not fund these projects - members of Congress do. In 2005, Obama and Biden both voted for the “Bridge to Nowhere,” defeating a bill to spend that money on Hurricane Katrina relief instead.


Why would Obama and Biden hate New Orleans? ROFL