View Full Version : Palin 2012?
Dembadon
Nov18-10, 01:46 PM
Here's an NPR article (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/11/17/131395438/palin-says-she-could-beat-obama-in-an-election-that-will-be-held-in-720-days?ps=cprs) that seems to suggest Palin is considering running for President in 2012. I wasn't very impressed with what I saw from her in '08, but I haven't seen much of her since then.
How's she been doing? Do you think she has a chance?
Gokul43201
Nov18-10, 01:53 PM
I'd be interested to see if the Tea Party endorses her.
Does Bristol Palin have a chance to win Dancing With the Stars?
Will Willow Palin delete her facebook page?
Does Todd Palin have a chance at winning the Tesoro Iron Dog competition?
Will Levi Johnston be elected mayor of Wasilla purely out of sympathy because Bristol never danced with him?
This is America's reality TV family. Of course Palin has a chance.
NobodySpecial
Nov18-10, 02:04 PM
I'd be interested to see if the Tea Party endorses her.
Does that make her more or less official?
Isn't it like running for chairman of the central organizing committee of the anarchist league?
Dembadon
Nov18-10, 02:07 PM
I'd be interested to see if the Tea Party endorses her.
I'm curious about this as well. If she (somehow) ends up being the strongest candidate running against Obama, I'd assume they'd support her.
I'm curious about this as well. If she (somehow) ends up being the strongest candidate running against Obama, I'd assume they'd support her.
Not necessarily. At least this year, there was a belief that allowing the Republican establishment to pick a candidate based on electibility was just caving in on their principles. It was more important to pick a candidate that embodied the true Tea Party ideals than a candidate that the experts claimed had a better chance of winning.
Delaware: O'Donnell vs Castle - self explanatory.
Colorado: Ken Buck vs Jane Norton - this choice gave many Tea Partiers pause, since Norton would be a shoe-in, even in a state trending purple. In the end, they went with Buck and he almost pulled it off. In fact, Bennett's victory was seen as an upset by the end.
Alaska: Joe Miller vs Lisa Murkowski - in the end, Miller couldn't even hold off a write-in candidacy.
Those are just examples where the choice blew up in their face. In other races, the Tea Party proved the expert opinion didn't carry all that much weight. They'll make their choices based on ideology rather than electibility.
Dembadon
Nov18-10, 02:30 PM
Thank you for those examples, BobG. I'm definitely a newbie in politics.
Does Bristol Palin have a chance to win Dancing With the Stars?
Will Willow Palin delete her facebook page?
Does Todd Palin have a chance at winning the Tesoro Iron Dog competition?
Will Levi Johnston be elected mayor of Wasilla purely out of sympathy because Bristol never danced with him?
This is America's reality TV family. Of course Palin has a chance.
:rofl:
I'm so, so sick of hearing about this family. 15 minutes of fame? I wish!
drankin
Nov18-10, 02:55 PM
:rofl:
I'm so, so sick of hearing about this family. 15 minutes of fame? I wish!
I agree. As much as I agree with most of Palins ideals, it is too much drama for the White House IMO.
I agree. As much as I agree with most of Palins ideals, it is too much drama for the White House IMO.
You missed the Clinton years?
Drama worked for him. He fluctuated in the 40's to 50's in popularity until Lewinskygate. He spent the last couple of years of Presidency in the 60's and high 50's.
Maybe Palin's on to something.
A Palin presidency would be ruinous for this country, though it could make millions for Tina Fey.
This post from bobe bears repeating here.
This is the famous DiFelice effect.
For those that don't know, Mark DiFelice is a pitcher for the Milwaukee Brewers that only has one pitch - an 82 mph fastball. This guy should get slaughtered by opposing hitters! Instead, he strikes out 8.7 batters per 9 innings. Granted, he only has a 5-1 career won-loss record, because he's a middle reliever - no manager in his right mind would put someone that slow and with only pitch on the mound as a starter.
Still, every game he pitches, every drunk Brewer fan in the stands lines up outside the Brewer's locker room after the game asking for a job. Even the Italian Sausage asks for a chance to pitch (but she was once hit in the head, so that might have something to do with that). If a pitcher like DiFelice can succeed, anybody can succeed!
Palin attracts the same sort of response. In the latest Pew Research poll, she, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee are virtually tied as the leading Republican candidate for 2012. If Palin can be a front runner, then any American that has ever been on TV for at least 30 seconds feels like they have a chance to be President.
I know I'm looking for eyewitness News reports hoping for the chance to stand around in the background while the reporter gives his on the spot story. I want to be President, too!
bobe bears
You swore you would never tell anyone I was related to moonbear.
drankin
Nov18-10, 03:56 PM
You missed the Clinton years?
Drama worked for him. He fluctuated in the 40's to 50's in popularity until Lewinskygate. He spent the last couple of years of Presidency in the 60's and high 50's.
Maybe Palin's on to something.
Palin isn't as sly as Clinton. Apples and Oranges.
You can't conceive of what I want to say about Palin, but I mustn't do so. It would be far too inflammatory for this site. Leave it suffice to be said that I'm not a fan.
Ivan Seeking
Nov18-10, 10:36 PM
I don't see how anyone could avoid seeing Palin these days. If Obama got as much personal attention as Palin we would be hearing about bias in the media!
My opinion is that when it comes to national politics, Palin is a sad joke. I would revoke my agnosticism and get on my knees and pray, if I thought it would keep Palin out of office. But instead I have to rely on something far less reliable: The voting public.
There was a time when I would have said with absolute conviction that Palin could never be elected, but that faith in our country was betrayed. My hope is that we will eventually return to something like normal, but I don't know if that will happen. When I see all of the misplaced anger, and the mob mentality out there, and the popularity of Limbaugh, Fox, et al, I can imagine anything happening, including civil war.
Palin + Donald Trump :rofl:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11790558
US property tycoon Donald Trump has said he is considering running for president in 2012.
He was asked about the possibility of challenging Mrs Palin, who ran for vice-president in 2008, for the Republican ticket.
"I would take her on. I like her, but I'd take her on," he said.
I don't see how anyone could avoid seeing Palin these days. If Obama got as much personal attention as Palin we would be hearing about bias in the media!
My opinion is that when it comes to national politics, Palin is a sad joke. I would revoke my agnosticism and get on my knees and pray, if I thought it would keep Palin out of office. But instead I have to rely on something far less reliable: The voting public.
There was a time when I would have said with absolute conviction that Palin could never be elected, but that faith in our country was betrayed. My hope is that we will eventually return to something like normal, but I don't know if that will happen. When I see all of the misplaced anger, and the mob mentality out there, and the popularity of Limbaugh, Fox, et al, I can imagine anything happening, including civil war.
There you go with that whole "civil war" thing again - be careful someone doesn't label that "hate speech" (see other threads).
NobodySpecial
Nov19-10, 12:14 AM
Palin for president
jf1y9s73Nos
mheslep
Nov19-10, 03:19 PM
Those are just examples where the choice blew up in their face. Only if the only goal is to win, versus to both win and change the ideology of whats acceptable as a candidate. I think that those losses show incumbent Republicans that if they continue to fall back on old habits they could face a primary candidate in the '12, possibly outside of the party apparatus that they can't control.
Upisoft
Nov19-10, 03:54 PM
Palin? She looks the type that will push the red button and destroy the world if her god tells her to do it.
FlexGunship
Nov22-10, 12:34 PM
When I see all of the misplaced anger, and the mob mentality out there, and the popularity of Limbaugh, Fox, et al, I can imagine anything happening, including civil war.
Meh, I happen to thing the upswing in interest in Limbaugh is less a statement in favor of weirdly militant conservatism, and more a statement against the constant stream liberal mind-slush that seems to come out of most media sources.
Gokul43201
Nov22-10, 12:40 PM
Meh, I happen to thing the upswing in interest in Limbaugh is less a statement in favor of weirdly militant conservatism, and more a statement against the constant stream liberal mind-slush that seems to come out of most media sources.I can't stand the left-wing mind-slush in most media sources, so I think I'll go find me an extreme right wing nutjob?
I guess it's possible, but I can't say I understand it.
FlexGunship
Nov22-10, 12:49 PM
I can't stand the left-wing mind-slush in most media sources, so I think I'll go find me an extreme right wing nutjob?
I guess it's possible, but I can't say I understand it.
I don't fall into either camp when possible; so, I don't really understand the hard swing either. I prefer Associated Press sources and Reuters (which, <knock on wood> seem to be relatively unbiased).
But, for example, I used to listen to NPR a lot. Now I literally cannot stand some shows (like Diane Rehm); I end up yelling at the radio because someone can't understand why solar power is expensive and moronically blames it on oil companies and racist cults (wish I were kidding).
Frankly, there's no one left in the middle. So, if you're tired of hearing the liberal mantra, there's few other places to to go.
Gokul43201
Nov22-10, 01:01 PM
Some differences:
(i) Diane Rehm very often (almost always?) has a conservative guest whenever she has a liberal guest, and
(ii) she doesn't yell at or insult any of her guests (though I, like you, often do, while listening), no matter how poorly thought-out their opinions may be.
Personally, I think I'd take Diane Rehm over someone that agrees exactly with my positions, but chooses to be an incorrigible jackass on air.
Ugh! This is going off-topic. I'll stop with that.
FlexGunship
Nov22-10, 01:15 PM
Some differences:
(i) Diane Rehm very often (almost always?) has a conservative guest whenever she has a liberal guest, and
(ii) she doesn't yell at or insult any of her guests (though I, like you, often do, while listening), no matter how poorly thought-out their opinions may be.
Personally, I think I'd take Diane Rehm over someone that agrees exactly with my positions, but chooses to be an incorrigible jackass on air.
Regarding (i): I don't notice this anymore. Not suggesting it doesn't happen, but I would say that even her conservative guests seem to have a liberal slant. I would also suggest (slightly), that she doesn't seem to pick very strong opposition guests.
Regarding (ii): Hah, you're right about your statement (she doesn't really insult her guests).
Like I've already said, I can't listen to the DR show anymore. But I also don't listen to incorrigible jackasses either. Most news shows on NPR are pretty darn good, I just don't care for most of the opinion shows.
As far as listening to someone who shares my opinions, I do my best to avoid it. Its easy to listen to someone you agree with. My problem with the DR show is not the opinions expressed on it, but the low-quality of discourse often tolerated on the show.
(Note: I don't listen to Limbaugh, and I don't watch Fox. I occassionally read Fox news releases in about the same quantity that I read MSNBC releases.)
mheslep
Nov22-10, 03:01 PM
I can't stand the left-wing mind-slush in most media sources, so I think I'll go find me an extreme right wing nutjob?
I guess it's possible, but I can't say I understand it.I think your proposition is correct (if not the full characterization). If there were three, four Fox News (news, not the polemic side) like networks, wire services, and news magazines; or even a C-Span like thing that somehow scaled up with a large following, I speculate Limbaugh et al would fade away. The 'reaction to media' theory also explains why there's little or no left wing radio - nothing to react to until Fox (polemic side).
FlexGunship
Nov22-10, 03:03 PM
The 'reaction to media' theory also explains why there's little or no left wing radio - nothing to react to until Fox (polemic side).
Well, not to pick at tiny arguable details. But I think it's safe to say NPR harbors a decent left-wing radio squad and NPR is widely available.
Panwasbipolar
Nov22-10, 03:08 PM
I'm still confused about Alaskans sporting spray tans.
mheslep
Nov22-10, 03:34 PM
Well, not to pick at tiny arguable details. But I think it's safe to say NPR harbors a decent left-wing radio squad and NPR is widely available.Oh I agree. I have a similar experience - used to listen a lot to NPR. I thought their on air talent very good (still do). Finally couldn't take it anymore.
Gokul43201
Nov22-10, 03:46 PM
I think your proposition is right (if not the full characterization). If there were three, four Fox News (news, not the polemic side) like networks, wire services, and news magazines; or even a C-Span like thing that somehow scaled up with a large following, I speculate Limbaugh et al would fade away.If there is a big untapped demand for moderate right leaning views in the form of a news+opinion outlet, what's stopping the market from filling that need? I think the distribution of the services that are provided offer a reflection of the distribution of what the market wants. Even within Fox, for instance, more moderate hosts like Brett Baier, Greta and Shep Smith never rake in viewership of the size that Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity do.
The 'reaction to media' theory also explains why there's little or no left wing radio - nothing to react to until Fox (polemic side).Or maybe there isn't much of a market for extreme left-wing wackiness? Maybe the left wing market feels perfectly served by the moderate leftward lean of TV news as it exists today.
mheslep
Nov22-10, 05:05 PM
If there is a big untapped demand for moderate right leaning views in the form of a news+opinion outlet, what's stopping the market from filling that need? I think the distribution of the services that are provided offer a reflection of the distribution of what the market wants. Even within Fox, for instance, more moderate hosts like Brett Baier, Greta and Shep Smith never rake in viewership of the size that Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity do.<shrug> Different beasts. Nor do they rake in as much as Superbowl or World Series.
Or maybe there isn't much of a market for extreme left-wing wackiness? Maybe the left wing market feels perfectly served by the moderate leftward lean of TV news as it exists today.Yes, exactly my point: no market because there's little to react to. Move ABC-CBS-NBC-CNN, NYT, WaPo, and the wire services all hard to the right and we'd have such a left wing market. I submit the MSNBC polemic side is already such a reaction (left wing wacky) to Fox.
TMFKAN64
Nov22-10, 05:15 PM
I'm still confused about Alaskans sporting spray tans.
Have you ever tried to get a tan in Alaska?
Short and to the point.
0TNVB3SgyX8
CAC1001
Nov22-10, 10:04 PM
I submit the MSNBC polemic side is already such a reaction (left wing wacky) to Fox.
I think I had heard somewhere that MSNBC wanted to position itself as the "anti-Fox," and since they view Fox as the right-wing news network, they wanted to be the left-wing news network.
CAC1001
Nov22-10, 10:05 PM
Some differences:
(i) Diane Rehm very often (almost always?) has a conservative guest whenever she has a liberal guest, and
(ii) she doesn't yell at or insult any of her guests (though I, like you, often do, while listening), no matter how poorly thought-out their opinions may be.
Personally, I think I'd take Diane Rehm over someone that agrees exactly with my positions, but chooses to be an incorrigible jackass on air.
Ugh! This is going off-topic. I'll stop with that.
One thing on Limbaugh, remember that his show is not for just hard information, it is what is called "Infotainment," so the yelling and such at guests is just part of it.
Loremaster
Nov23-10, 12:55 AM
Palin 2012? What a scary thought.
I personally can't wait for the Amendments of the Constitution to be replaced with such gems as Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and for my children to be taught that dinosaurs are only 6,000 years old. If you want my overall opinion on what I think of this grade A moron, see what Bill Maher has to say about her.
Why is this woman running for President of the United States? It makes no logical sense whatsoever. Her husband was/is an Alaskan secessionist, for crying out loud.
I don't understand how someone that resigned as a Governor is even considered a potential presidential candidate.
Palin 2012? What a scary thought.
I personally can't wait for the Amendments of the Constitution to be replaced with such gems as Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and for my children to be taught that dinosaurs are only 6,000 years old. If you want my overall opinion on what I think of this grade A moron, see what Bill Maher has to say about her.
Why is this woman running for President of the United States? It makes no logical sense whatsoever. Her husband was/is an Alaskan secessionist, for crying out loud.
Hello "Loremaster" welcome to PF. Please support your comments. For instance, a link for a direct quote from Sarah Palin (???) or even the statement from Bill Maher that you referenced?
I don't understand how someone that resigned as a Governor is even considered a potential presidential candidate.
How did you feel about a fresman Senator running for President in the second year of his term?
Hello "Loremaster" welcome to PF. Please support your comments. For instance, a link for a direct quote from Sarah Palin (???) or even the statement from Bill Maher that you referenced?He didn't quote Palin. Also, personal opinions don't require support.
A link to the Bill Maher part would be good since we don't know what that is.
How did you feel about a fresman Senator running for President in the second year of his term?Did he quit politics to sign a book deal, get a tv commentary deal, and a reality tv series before running?
Did he quit politics to sign a book deal, get a tv commentary deal, and a reality tv series before running?
No, but he also didn't commit 100% of his efforts to representing the people that elected him in Illinois.
How did you feel about a fresman Senator running for President in the second year of his term?
Failing at something you have committed to is more telling than committing to something and succeeding, even if I don't agree with it. I don't support either of the people in question, but the former is just extra-special-nutty to me.
He didn't quote Palin. Also, personal opinions don't require support.
A link to the Bill Maher part would be good since we don't know what that is.
He posted "Palin 2012? What a scary thought.
I personally can't wait for the Amendments of the Constitution to be replaced with such gems as Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and for my children to be taught that dinosaurs are only 6,000 years old."
It appeared to me that he was suggesting that Palin would support these things - I requested a link to support. I don't see an opinion label in this statement.
He/she needs to read the rules - IMO.
He posted "Palin 2012? What a scary thought.
I personally can't wait for the Amendments of the Constitution to be replaced with such gems as Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and for my children to be taught that dinosaurs are only 6,000 years old."
It appeared to me that he was suggesting that Palin would support these things - I requested a link to support. I don't see an opinion label in this statement.
He/she needs to read the rules - IMO.
http://www.adn.com/2006/10/27/217111/creation-science-enters-the-race.html
It sounds harmless, 'Just let them discuss it if they want to, no harm.' That is how these things start though.
http://www.adn.com/2006/10/27/217111/creation-science-enters-the-race.html
It sounds harmless, 'Just let them discuss it if they want to, no harm.' That is how these things start though.
Your post does not specifically support the original comment.
Your post does not specifically support the original comment.
Well of course not, the original comment was a frustrated exaggeration, I imagine?
He posted "Palin 2012? What a scary thought.
I personally can't wait for the Amendments of the Constitution to be replaced with such gems as Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and for my children to be taught that dinosaurs are only 6,000 years old."
It appeared to me that he was suggesting that Palin would support these things - I requested a link to support. I don't see an opinion label in this statement.
He/she needs to read the rules - IMO.You seem to be reading something that's not there. He says "personally".
You seem to be reading something that's not there. He says "personally".
Ok, I guess we are all in agreement that Palin didn't make these statements - it was just the personal opinion of the new PF member.
Ok, I guess we are all in agreement that Palin didn't make these statements - it was just the personal opinion of the new PF member.Yes, and not making those "exact" statements doesn't mean there isn't something wrong with Palin's views on religion through politics, IMO.
If she had made those exact arguments, there would be nothing to fear because almost no one would take that seriously, or promote it to any sort of success (thus being useless not only in converting people to 'her' ideas, but also as a tool for those who hold those ideals).
On the other hand this 'soft' and 'unbiased' view should be taken as religious espionage, with all of it's poison (maybe kool-aid is a more apt analogy, heh) seeping it's way into our (public) schools.
In the 2006 governor's race, Palin said that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools. Due perhaps to the cautious nature of espousing such nonsense in public, she couched her statement in terms of fairness and open-mindedness, so we don't know if she was a young-Earther back then (6000 years ago, men and dinosaurs roamed the Earth) or if she just rejects the Darwinist theory of common ancestry. Frankly, I doubt that she's educated enough to be able to tell the difference.
The thought that somebody would urge the Alaskan air-head to run for President is a sign of their incompetence as much as of hers. I want a President who can think critically, is aware of issues, and knows how and from whom to get guidance when an issue is too complex or when (s)he lacks the background to come up to speed quickly enough to make decisions. We are all affected by the actions of our President, and frankly, I want the best, most competent individual we can agree on in that position. When McCain chose Palin, he lost my support immediately, and that of many Independents, I believe. McCain blew it - he could be President today had he chosen an old-style conservative as running-mate. When you're old and have had many bouts with cancer, people start looking at your VP pick pretty closely.
If she had made those exact arguments, there would be nothing to fear because almost no one would take that seriously, or promote it to any sort of success (thus being useless not only in converting people to 'her' ideas, but also as a tool for those who hold those ideals).
On the other hand this 'soft' and 'unbiased' view should be taken as religious espionage, with all of it's poison (maybe kool-aid is a more apt analogy, heh) seeping it's way into our (public) schools.
Can you elaborate - may offer a little support as well?
In the 2006 governor's race, Palin said that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools. Due perhaps to the cautious nature of espousing such nonsense in public, she couched her statement in terms of fairness and open-mindedness, so we don't know if she was a young-Earther back then (6000 years ago, men and dinosaurs roamed the Earth) or if she just rejects the Darwinist theory of common ancestry. Frankly, I doubt that she's educated enough to be able to tell the difference.
You are correct, we don't know - this entire conversation is based on supposition - as so far nobody has found a link where she's talking about donosaurs 6,000 years ago.
Can you elaborate - may offer a little support as well?
Not really, it's just an opinion. I am extremely biased on this one.
Not really, it's just an opinion. I am extremely biased on this one.
You might also want to read the rules.
You might also want to read the rules.
I think it was clear my post was an opinion and not a fact, and my last post ("it's just an opinion") should have cleared that up, if it was foggy, hah.
I think it was clear my post was an opinion and not a fact, and my last post ("it's just an opinion") should have cleared that up, if it was foggy, hah.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380
Not really, it's just an opinion. I am extremely biased on this one.
You might also want to read the rules.What, this rule? 4) When stating an opinion on an issue, make sure it is clearly stated to be an opinion and not asserted as fact.So using "IMO", "I personally believe", "in my opinion", etc... are all fine.
Only opinions stated as fact require backup. This would be "Palin said she went to the moon". It would not be "I personally believe that Palin said she went to the moon" The first sentence is stating a fact, the second is stating an opinion.
What, this rule? So using "IMO", "I personally believe", "in my opinion", etc... are all fine.
Only opinions stated as fact require backup. This would be "Palin said she went to the moon". It would not be "I personally believe that Palin said she went to the moon" The first sentence is stating a fact, the second is stating an opinion.
I don't see any of those specified in his post?
"If she had made those exact arguments, there would be nothing to fear because almost no one would take that seriously, or promote it to any sort of success (thus being useless not only in converting people to 'her' ideas, but also as a tool for those who hold those ideals).
On the other hand this 'soft' and 'unbiased' view should be taken as religious espionage, with all of it's poison (maybe kool-aid is a more apt analogy, heh) seeping it's way into our (public) schools."
You seriously thought I was presenting those opinions as fact? C'mon, I find that hard to believe. I will state all my opinions as being such beforehand from now on though.
I don't see any of those specified in his post?
"If she had made those exact arguments, there would be nothing to fear because almost no one would take that seriously, or promote it to any sort of success (thus being useless not only in converting people to 'her' ideas, but also as a tool for those who hold those ideals).
On the other hand this 'soft' and 'unbiased' view should be taken as religious espionage, with all of it's poison (maybe kool-aid is a more apt analogy, heh) seeping it's way into our (public) schools."And he thoroughly clarified that it was only an opinion. Did you miss that?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3006386&postcount=56
I will not, however, condone wild speculation or false information to be continually presented under the guise of opinion either. There is a line where opinion becomes overly speculative and is against the rules.
CAC1001
Nov27-10, 10:44 PM
I highly doubt the amendments of the Constitution are going to replaced with the Bible and children start being taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old if Palin becomes President (and that's a big IF!).
Presidents can't just amend the Constitution at their will, and we have that big body known as the Congress, which stalled President Obama for over a year in getting his healthcare bill passed, and that was with a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate. Palin likely wouldn't have a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate as president, but even if she did, I highly doubt all Republicans would go along with trying to impose something like creationism into the public education system (and that's assuming that even would be a goal of Palin's, considering Palin, being a limited government Republican, would likely not even want the federal government to be messing with education most likely (most conservatives see it as a states issue)).
Some quick research shows Palin is okay with the teaching of evolution in schools, but doesn't want it to be part of the curriculum, and would not push for school boards to make it part of the curriculum. But she encourages it be brought up and discussed and is okay with it personally. She also has said she believes parents should have ultimate say over what their child is taught.
Here is a link to quotes she has made on the subject: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Education.htm
As for qualification, I'd say she will need to show she understands the issues.
Did he quit politics to sign a book deal, get a tv commentary deal, and a reality tv series before running?
I wouldn't say Palin "quit," so much as was forced out. She was unable to govern, and personally liable financially for all the lawsuits coming against her. IMO she did the right thing stepping down, both for herself and the people of Alaska (wouldn't have made much sense to risk personal bankruptcy and not even be able to continue governing). If she runs though, her resigning the Governorship of Alaska will probably sort of be to her what the whole Reverand Wright issue was to Obama (critics will harp on it constantly, supporters will be okay with it).
Presidents can't just amend the Constitution at their will....This is very true, in fact, the President has no official role whatsoever in the amendment process.
ThomasT
Nov28-10, 04:11 AM
Here's an NPR article (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/11/17/131395438/palin-says-she-could-beat-obama-in-an-election-that-will-be-held-in-720-days?ps=cprs) that seems to suggest Palin is considering running for President in 2012. I wasn't very impressed with what I saw from her in '08, but I haven't seen much of her since then.
How's she been doing? Do you think she has a chance?Sure she has a chance. The US is populated by lots of ignorant people. This isn't to say that Palin is ignorant. She's a very calculating and cunning politician. Whether she would be a good president or not is an open question. There's really only one way to find out.
John Mario
Nov28-10, 04:42 AM
Here's an NPR article (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/11/17/131395438/palin-says-she-could-beat-obama-in-an-election-that-will-be-held-in-720-days?ps=cprs) that seems to suggest Palin is considering running for President in 2012. I wasn't very impressed with what I saw from her in '08, but I haven't seen much of her since then.
How's she been doing? Do you think she has a chance?
According to CNN, Sarah Palin recently stated that North Korea is a strong US ally. These kind of blunders must cease if she wants to be viewed as a serious candidate in 2012. I think she should serve in the US Senate before running for President.
Aerodynamic20
Nov28-10, 04:47 AM
If Palin is elected in 2012, how will America look like? is it gonna be like a TV show series where Palin is the main actress?
Probably I may go with Barbara Bush when she was asked what she thinks about S.Palin, on Larry King Live (a couple weeks ago), and said, "She is from Alaska, right? I hope she stays there". Well said Barbara!
John Mario
Nov28-10, 05:10 AM
When VP Joe Biden was asked about Palin's possible bid for the Presidency, he started laughing. Personally, I am not a fan of the Tea Party.
I don't think Sarah Palin would be a good President.
John Mario
Nov28-10, 05:15 AM
With regard to Sarah's campaign rhetoric, I like the phrase coined by comedian Pat Paulsen on the Smothers Brother's Comedy Hour:
"The past lays behind us and the future lies lies lies."
Palin's views on creationism/evolution are as undefined as she's able to get away with. She wasn't a creationist during the 2008 campaign, in spite of liberal attacks on her being raised in her mother's church (a church her father didn't belong to). Evidently, she later realised being perceived as a creationist might not be such a bad thing.
'Going Rogue': Is Sarah Palin a creationist? (http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1119/going-rogue-is-sarah-palin-a-creationist)
On the other hand, it does appear that Sarah Palin either has cannibalistic views or very limited expertise in biology: "If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?"
The biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci suggests that Palin is, in fact, a creationist, due to the fact that she uses the old "teach both sides" rhetoric which is a hallmark of creationism (http://www.livescience.com/culture/080901-sb-palin-creationist.html).
The relevant quote from Plain:
Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.
Palin also rejects global warming, calling it "snake oil" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/09/politics/main6189211.shtml).
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called studies supporting global climate change a "bunch of snake oil science" Monday during a rare appearance in California, a state that has been at the forefront of environmental regulations.
She also does not understand the value of model organisms, mocking the study of fruit flies (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=palin-takes-on-fruit-flies--and-los-2008-10-27) as a useless waste of money for no good. Instead, she wanted to fund projects for kinds with special needs, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Little did she knew, but studying fruit flies may be a key to better understand the root of the very same condition.
Not to be overly generous with my own rhetoric, but Palin may lead the US into the next scientific dark age, or, more realistically, compromise the teaching of evolution in public schools, cut of funding for basic science research and fail to emphasize the growing concern about global warming.
When it comes to science, Palin is pretty much, in my opinion, a crank.
ThomasT
Nov28-10, 07:49 AM
According to CNN, Sarah Palin recently stated that North Korea is a strong US ally. These kind of blunders must cease if she wants to be viewed as a serious candidate in 2012. I think she should serve in the US Senate before running for President.My honest opinion is that she's an idiot. But we elect lots of idiots to very high public offices. This is the nature of the beast. The USA is populated by an extremely large number of ignorant people.
Then again there's also the possibiltiy that she's not an idiot but is mostly just acting. This seems to be a reasonable assumption.
Bottom line, how much harm could she do to the country if elected to a national public office? Probably not any more than any other elected public official could or would do.
VOTE PALIN. Yeah that's right. We really don't give a ****.
Sure she has a chance. The US is populated by lots of ignorant people. This isn't to say that Palin is ignorant. She's a very calculating and cunning politician. Whether she would be a good president or not is an open question. There's really only one way to find out.
What makes you believe Palin will capture the "ignorant" vote?
My honest opinion is that she's an idiot. But we elect lots of idiots to very high public offices. This is the nature of the beast. The USA is populated by an extremely large number of ignorant people.Then again there's also the possibiltiy that she's not an idiot but is mostly just acting. This seems to be a reasonable assumption.
This is the second time you've posted this way. Here is the first.
"Sure she has a chance. The US is populated by lots of ignorant people. This isn't to say that Palin is ignorant. She's a very calculating and cunning politician. Whether she would be a good president or not is an open question. There's really only one way to find out. "
Please see above - from Evo.
"I will not, however, condone wild speculation or false information to be continually presented under the guise of opinion either. There is a line where opinion becomes overly speculative and is against the rules."
Might it be time to back up your posts?
CAC1001
Nov28-10, 05:06 PM
According to CNN, Sarah Palin recently stated that North Korea is a strong US ally. These kind of blunders must cease if she wants to be viewed as a serious candidate in 2012. I think she should serve in the US Senate before running for President.
It was a simple mis-statement that the media decided to blow way out of proportion. Here is the link to the conversation with Glenn Beck (for those who don't want to listen to the whole fifteen minutes, skip to 11:05 and start there): http://www.therightscoop.com/glenn-beck-has-fun-interview-with-sarah-palin
Here is Palin's response to this on her Facebook page, with links to flubs by Obama: http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/a-thanksgiving-message-to-all-57-states/463364218434
Some conservatives have tried to blow Obama's statements out of proportion as well, what Palin and Obama show is they can happen to anyone. I remember for example durng the '08 election, Obama did an interview in which he referred to "...my Muslim faith..." The interviewer then corrected him, and it was an obvious flub.
It was a simple mis-statement that the media decided to blow way out of proportion. Here is the link to the conversation with Glenn Beck (for those who don't want to listen to the whole fifteen minutes, skip to 11:05 and start there): http://www.therightscoop.com/glenn-beck-has-fun-interview-with-sarah-palin
Here is Palin's response to this on her Facebook page, with links to flubs by Obama: http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/a-thanksgiving-message-to-all-57-states/463364218434
Some conservatives have tried to blow Obama's statements out of proportion as well, what Palin and Obama show is they can happen to anyone. I remember for example durng the '08 election, Obama did an interview in which he referred to "...my Muslim faith..." The interviewer then corrected him, and it was an obvious flub.
One of my pet peeves: when slips-of-the-tongue are blown up, out of all proportion. Politicians talk a *lot*, especially during an election. They're all going to make a mistake from time to time.
There are plenty of substantive issues on which I disagree with Palin; I could not support her even if she was as gifted at speaking as Obama is.
CAC1001
Nov28-10, 05:25 PM
Politicians talk a *lot*, especially during an election. They're all going to make a mistake from time to time.
Yup.
There are plenty of substantive issues on which I disagree with Palin; I could not support her even if she was as gifted at speaking as Obama is.
Nothing wrong with that.
mheslep
Nov28-10, 06:05 PM
One of my pet peeves: when slips-of-the-tongue are blown up, out of all proportion. Politicians talk a *lot*, especially during an election. They're all going to make a mistake from time to time. 2nd that, and I'll go a step further: they're all going to make policy mistakes from time to time, like 'I'll close Gitmo in the first year' (paraphrasing). Or, given your fine choice of sig, see Adams and his Sedition Act for example.
One of my pet peeves: when slips-of-the-tongue are blown up, out of all proportion. Politicians talk a *lot*, especially during an election. They're all going to make a mistake from time to time.Was it a slip? Palin thought Africa was a country, among other nuggets gleaned from McCain's team of groomers after the election was lost.
mheslep
Nov28-10, 07:37 PM
Yeah, yeah, and Obama said there were 57 states, mistook Iraq for Iran, do dah, do dah.
Here you go - from your favorite "news" source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
Was it a slip? Palin thought Africa was a country, among other nuggets gleaned from McCain's team of groomers after the election was lost.
Obama sure was lucky to have Joe Biden as VP - he'll probably never say anything silly - right?
Obama sure was lucky to have Joe Biden as VP - he'll probably never say anything silly - right?Biden may have loose lips, but he's a policy geek and he's a whole lot smarter and better-educated than Palin. McCain screwed up big-time by picking Palin. It cost him the presidency.
Biden may have loose lips, but he's a policy geek and he's a whole lot smarter and better-educated than Palin. McCain screwed up big-time by picking Palin. It cost him the presidency.
You might want to label all of that opinion - rather than try to support any of it.
You might want to label all of that opinion - rather than try to support any of it.Do you honestly think that Biden doesn't realize that Africa is a continent with lots of countries? I'm not going to be able to dig up a link to prove he knows something that most middle-schoolers could tell you.
What about Palin praising the "Prayer Warriors" at the "Women of Joy" conference and for their "prayer shield" they provide her. Although Palin has tried to get all traces of the video from the conference removed from the internet, she failed. I have a copy. You'll find this most places where the media linked to her video. http://www.youtube.com/user/piper4444205#p/a/u/0/RoYuZyxNlZk
The "Prayer Warriors" are a fringe religious group that have maps of "demons" located in the country and pray against them. Remember the church video of her being prayed for against witches which she claims is why she won the Alaskan race then? Yes, she did go on record giving that "hands on de-witching" credit, and I have it.
Oh, and wait, what's this? Palin re-interpreting the intent of our founding fathers at the same conference?
But two groups dedicated to the separation of church and state are now speaking out against her, arguing that she is misreading the founders' intent.
"It's incredibly hypocritical that Sarah Palin, who disapproves of government involvement in just about anything, now suddenly wants the government to help people be religious," Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told ABC News.
"It is wildly inconsistent with her views on limited government to get the government involved in matters of faith."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palin-sparks-church-state-separation-debate/story?id=10419289&page=1
Oh, I have plenty more, but I'm tired right now.
CRGreathouse
Nov28-10, 08:25 PM
Biden may have loose lips, but he's a policy geek and he's a whole lot smarter and better-educated than Palin. McCain screwed up big-time by picking Palin. It cost him the presidency.
You might want to label all of that opinion - rather than try to support any of it.
Turbo's claims are
1. Biden is a policy geek
2. Biden is smarter than Palin
3. Biden is better-educated than Palin
4. McCain was (strategically?) wrong to pick Palin.
5. McCain's choice of Palin as VP candidate cost him the presidency, that is, there is an individual that, campaigning with McCain instead of Palin, would have caused McCain to win the 2008 election.
Insofar as #4 is distinct from #5, it is opinion, and I don't think you're asking turbo to support that. #1 also seems pure opinion, and I likewise don't think you're asking him to support that point. #3 should be essentially a matter of record: has either completed a higher level of education than the other? Failing that, which attended a more prestigious institution? #5 is a complex question that could best be addressed by asking experts. #2 is perhaps possible to ascertain, but I have serious doubts about the validity of intelligence testing so generally ignore questions of the form "is X smarter than Y?".
CRGreathouse
Nov28-10, 08:29 PM
Evo -- I don't want to interfere with your sleep, but when you have a chance I'd like to know in what ways Palin is accused of attempting to "get the government involved in matters of faith" (as I haven't been following Palin). I don't immediately see the connection between that and the conference you mention -- did something happen there that I should know about?
I wanted to vote for McCain, and had he picked an old-school conservative as a running-mate, I would have. After Palin's dismal performance in interviews there is no way that I would have voted for him. We don't need a poorly-informed VP just one heartbeat away from an elderly cancer-survivor. I truly believe we'd be talking about "President McCain" today if he had chosen a conservative politician for his running-mate. Especially one with a reputation for reaching across the aisle. Picking Palin might have been an exercise in triangulation meant to dull some of Clinton's appeal, but it was a dumb move, IMO.
Evo -- I don't want to interfere with your sleep, but when you have a chance I'd like to know in what ways Palin is accused of attempting to "get the government involved in matters of faith" (as I haven't been following Palin). I don't immediately see the connection between that and the conference you mention -- did something happen there that I should know about?I can post a website that has the conference video, the site itself is biased, but the video is real.
You can easily find it by googling "Women of Joy Sarah Palin". The ABC news link left out most of her religious stuff.
Do you want me to allow a link to the website? It's quite an eye opener. I can see why she's gone nuts trying to remove all of the copies of her speech.
Do you honestly think that Biden doesn't realize that Africa is a continent with lots of countries? I'm not going to be able to dig up a link to prove he knows something that most middle-schoolers could tell you.
I'm not sure what Biden knows - you're the one who made the claims?
I'm not sure what Biden knows - you're the one who made the claims?I asked if you HONESTLY thought that Biden doesn't know that Africa is a continent composed of lots of countries. Manipulating forum rules to demand documentation of common knowledge is a poor way to make your case.
BTW, not that it matters, but If McCain had chosen Dick Lugar as his running-mate, I firmly believe those two geezers would be #1 and #2 today, instead of Obama and Biden.
I wanted to vote for McCain, and had he picked an old-school conservative as a running-mate, I would have.You mean an old-school conservative who advocates dismantling the new deal, and all that built on it? Who wants to drastically shrink government, not just "streamline" it or make it "more efficient"?
Who wants to defeat the modern cult of individual and government irresponsibility known as the welfare state?
That kind of "old-school conservative"?
CRGreathouse
Nov28-10, 08:59 PM
I can post a website that has the conference video, the site itself is biased, but the video is real.
I don't know that I'd really want to watch a video of her doing some New Age nonsense. I was just curious if she said (there or elsewhere) something suggesting government involvement in religion.
If all she did was some hippie garbage that doesn't mean much to me (that she can do that sort of thing is just what the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect, right?), but if she was suggesting certain policies that would be of interest to me.
I asked if you HONESTLY thought that Biden doesn't know that Africa is a continent composed of lots of countries. Manipulating forum rules to demand documentation of common knowledge is a poor way to make your case.
LOL - Again, I don't know what Biden knows or doesn't know. As I suggested originally - just label it all opinion - otherwise it doesn't appear you'll be able to support your post - including the "common knowledge" remark? I hardly call that a demand - just an observation.
I don't know that I'd really want to watch a video of her doing some New Age nonsense. I was just curious if she said (there or elsewhere) something suggesting government involvement in religion.
If all she did was some hippie garbage that doesn't mean much to me (that she can do that sort of thing is just what the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect, right?), but if she was suggesting certain policies that would be of interest to me.Ill meet you halfway, not the site I mentioned, this is in between.
http://www.alternet.org/news/145796/heads_up:_prayer_warriors_and_sarah_palin_are_orga nizing_spiritual_warfare_to_take_over_america_?pag e=entire
Imagine a religious movement that makes geographic maps of where demons reside and claims among its adherents the Republican Party's most recent vice presidential nominee and whose leaders have presided over prayer sessions (one aimed at putting the kibosh on health-care reform) with a host of leading GOP figures
ThomasT
Nov28-10, 09:33 PM
What makes you believe Palin will capture the "ignorant" vote?
Might it be time to back up your posts?You're right. My posts were meaningless personal opinions, based on my own ignorance. Whether or not anyone else is ignorant seems impossible to determine.
Only this remains:
Whether she would be a good president or not is an open question. There's really only one way to find out.
Hopefully the media will be thorough (all candidates) in the 2012 run up - no surprises.
Hopefully the media will be thorough (all candidates) in the 2012 run up - no surprises.I certainly hope so, that way we can elminate people like Palin.
I certainly hope so, that way we can elminate people like Palin.
I really don't think she will be the candidate - that's not to say she won't support the effort.
I really don't think she will be the candidate - that's not to say she won't support the effort.Do you think she'll detract? Ralph Nader is blamed for the loss of Gore in the election in 2000, not that that is a bad thing.
Was it a slip? Palin thought Africa was a country, among other nuggets gleaned from McCain's team of groomers after the election was lost.I wonder if she thinks the U.S. has 57 states, too. Now that would be a real nugget, huh?
Do you think she'll detract? Ralph Nader is blamed for the loss of Gore in the election in 2000, not that that is a bad thing.
I think she can raise a great deal of money and help swing independent and Tea Party members. As long as she's not on the ticket - she should not detract. Obviously, whoever is on the ticket will need to be stronger than her (Indiana Governor?).
I wonder if she thinks the U.S. has 57 states, too. Now that would be a real nugget, huh?LOL, I doubt she can name the states, much less count them.
It would have been tough for the media to study Palin. McCain's team did a very poor job vetting her before springing her on the country. Very shoddy.
By the time the media did a bit of digging and managed a couple of interviews, it was painfully evident that McCain and his team had really dropped the ball. The media could not have prevented Palin from being selected because they had no advance notice.
It would have been tough for the media to study Palin. McCain's team did a very poor job vetting her before springing her on the country. Very shoddy.
By the time the media did a bit of digging and managed a couple of interviews, it was painfully evident that McCain and his team had really dropped the ball. The media could not have prevented Palin from being selected because they had no advance notice.
Do you think they were thorough enough with candidate Obama?
LOL, I doubt she can name the states, much less count them.LOL, I think you have that backward: Naming them all is far harder than just knowing how many there are. As far as I know, Palin hasn't been quite uneducated or stupid enough to get the latter wrong.
Gee, if mistaking Africa for a country is stupid/uneducated, what do you call someone in the U.S., or another country for that matter, how many states we have?
CRGreathouse
Nov28-10, 11:05 PM
LOL, I doubt she can name the states, much less count them.
Are you being serious?
Are you being serious?Very serious. And I'm not mistaken in my wording.
CRGreathouse
Nov29-10, 01:15 AM
Very serious. And I'm not mistaken in my wording.
So you don't think that Palin can name the US states, and you're even more sure she couldn't count them?
I think I've lost respect for you, Evo. :frown: I don't know whether that's a misjudgement on your part, or simply a slander, but either way it reflects poorly on you. I'm not a fan of Palin, but it's clear that she could give the count of the US states as well as enumerate them, and I imagine she could name each.
Office_Shredder
Nov29-10, 01:26 AM
I don't know, this is the same person who couldn't name a newspaper when put on the spot
CAC1001
Nov29-10, 01:41 AM
I don't know how much of a religious person Palin is, I wouldn't care as long as she would keep that stuff to herself during a term as President and not bring it into policy. I don't know why Obama was so close to the Reverand Wright for so many years either, as long as he keeps whatever it was out of policymaking.
As for states, I think Palin knows there are 50 states, and I think she could name them just fine. On the bit about her not knowing Africa was a continent, was that ever substantiated? Because from what I had heard, that was just a rumor that came about, but there was no actual proof of it. On other issues, I would hope Palin the presidential candidate would be far more up-to-speed on things than Palin the VP nominee. That she fumbled questions such as what SCOTUS cases were most important to her or which major news publications she reads during the '08 election, I don't think these will matter as long as she shows herself to be much more up-to-speed on things.
I do not buy any of the arguments that the woman is an idiot. Remember political intelligence and policy knowledge are two different things.
Do you honestly think that Biden doesn't realize that Africa is a continent with lots of countries? I'm not going to be able to dig up a link to prove he knows something that most middle-schoolers could tell you.
I do remember he made the flub about FDR getting on the television to calm people about the 1929 stock market crash.
I truly believe we'd be talking about "President McCain" today if he had chosen a conservative politician for his running-mate.
How was Palin not conservative? I can fully understand the whole bit about her coming across as unqualified, but not conservative? What's your definition of her being conservative? :confused:
Especially one with a reputation for reaching across the aisle.
From my understanding, she did have a reputation for reaching across the aisle. That was one of the problems after the election. When she went back to Alaska, the coalition she had formed of Democrats and Republicans completely collapsed, as the Democratic party went on the attack to drive her out of office.
So you don't think that Palin can name the US states, and you're even more sure she couldn't count them?
I think I've lost respect for you, Evo. :frown: I don't know whether that's a misjudgement on your part, or simply a slander, but either way it reflects poorly on you. I'm not a fan of Palin, but it's clear that she could give the count of the US states as well as enumerate them, and I imagine she could name each.Get her to name the states counting as she goes. How many do you think she'd get? I'll bet you she can't. Can you set up a test? She couldn't even name which newspaper she read.
And what's happened to her voice? The video I have of her from April sounds like her dentures fell out. What the heck? What happened, did she get her teeth knocked out?
Biden may have loose lips, but he's a policy geek and he's a whole lot smarter and better-educated than Palin. McCain screwed up big-time by picking Palin. It cost him the presidency.
I doubt that. McCain was trailing Obama until he picked Palin as VP. Within a week of picking Palin, he had surged into the lead. And then the financial crisis sent him plummeting even further behind than he'd been before he'd picked Palin. Palin definitely wound up not helping McCain, but I think McCain would have lost regardless of who his VP was.
2008 Presidential Election polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm)
It's hard to separate which hurt McCain worse: Palin's support evaporating or the financial crisis. It's hard to say a President's VP pick can do more than provide a temporary fluctuation in any event.
But the more people learned of Palin, the less qualified they thought she was: More 2008 campaign polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm). Unfortunately, you have to scroll down a bit to get to the polls that include Palin, but in early Sep, 45% considered her qualified to step in as President and 46% considered her unqualified. That early vote of 'confidence' eroded to a 40%-55% split in little over a month.
In mid-Oct, 80% of people thought McCain had the right experience to be President, 76% thought Biden was qualified, 49% thought Obama was qualified, and 43% thought Palin was qualified. While Palin lost credibility quickly, she wasn't perceived that much worse than Obama in terms of experience. Just prior to the election, 67% felt Biden had the right qualities of a President, 65% thought Obama did, 62% thought McCain did, and 37% thought Palin did.
Palin hurt McCain's campaign in the long run, but McCain was losing before he picked her and he wound up losing after he picked her. The initial surge might suggest the election was winnable with the right VP candidate, but VP announcements rarely result in more than a short term surge. McCain's lead would have disappeared even with a good VP candidate. The best Palin would have done would be to help (or hurt) a tiny bit. The financial crisis (and McCain's initial reactions to it) hurt him more than Palin.
But she definitely didn't help him.
I doubt that. McCain was trailing Obama until he picked Palin as VP. Within a week of picking Palin, he had surged into the lead. And then the financial crisis sent him plummeting even further behind than he'd been before he'd picked Palin. Palin definitely wound up not helping McCain, but I think McCain would have lost regardless of who his VP was.
2008 Presidential Election polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm)
It's hard to separate which hurt McCain worse: Palin's support evaporating or the financial crisis. It's hard to say a President's VP pick can do more than provide a temporary fluctuation in any event.
But the more people learned of Palin, the less qualified they thought she was: More 2008 campaign polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm). Unfortunately, you have to scroll down a bit to get to the polls that include Palin, but in early Sep, 45% considered her qualified to step in as President and 46% considered her unqualified. That early vote of 'confidence' eroded to a 40%-55% split in little over a month.
In mid-Oct, 80% of people thought McCain had the right experience to be President, 76% thought Biden was qualified, 49% thought Obama was qualified, and 43% thought Palin was qualified. While Palin lost credibility quickly, she wasn't perceived that much worse than Obama in terms of experience. Just prior to the election, 67% felt Biden had the right qualities of a President, 65% thought Obama did, 62% thought McCain did, and 37% thought Palin did.
Palin hurt McCain's campaign in the long run, but McCain was losing before he picked her and he wound up losing after he picked her. The initial surge might suggest the election was winnable with the right VP candidate, but VP announcements rarely result in more than a short term surge. McCain's lead would have disappeared even with a good VP candidate. The best Palin would have done would be to help (or hurt) a tiny bit. The financial crisis (and McCain's initial reactions to it) hurt him more than Palin.
But she definitely didn't help him.
Thanks for the 2008 overview of campaign polls link. It will be interesting to see how Obama polls against himself - that is candidate Obama 2008 vs Obama 2012. Somehow I don't think "Hopeful, Optimistic, and Proud" will carry the next election.
CRGreathouse
Nov29-10, 08:44 AM
How was Palin not conservative? I can fully understand the whole bit about her coming across as unqualified, but not conservative? What's your definition of her being conservative? :confused:
turbo-1 has his own private definitions of "conservative", "fiscal conservative", "neocon", etc. I've been able to work some of them out roughly, but in general I just keep in mind that the 'usual' meanings aren't intended.
turbo-1 has his own private definitions of "conservative", "fiscal conservative", "neocon", etc. I've been able to work some of them out roughly, but in general I just keep in mind that the 'usual' meanings aren't intended.
I agree. Turbo might want to break down the differences between Lugar and Palin to help us along?
Lugar, McCain, Chuck Hagel, Lindsey Graham (among others) have general principles that they adhere to and they happen to belong to the Republican Party simply because they have more in common with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. They lack party loyalty.
In today's climate, many politicians tend to be a Republican first and a conservative second (or a Democrat first and a liberal second, but we just happen to be talking about conservatives). Party loyalty trumps the views of the politician and of the voters that put the politician in office.
Senators always tend have more of a tendency to be the independent type. They're always more difficult to herd strictly by party lines.
A better example than contrasting Lugar and Palin would Tom DeLay's Republican House. For all the bad things one can say about him, he was incredibly adept at maintaining party discipline. Republicans won an inordinant amount of single vote victories when DeLay ran things. In other words, each Republican Representative could be called upon to vote the party line regardless of his private leanings or voter desires, but DeLay only called upon the minimum required to win a vote. That way, Republican Representatives didn't completely hose their chance of being re-elected by making too many votes their constituents would disagree with. It was incredibly effective, but questionable philosophically since the real job of Representatives is to represent the people of their district, not to promote the agenda of the Republican Party.
Of course, in DeLay's case, he went beyond simple vote counting and Republicans could be punished severely for damaging the party. Imagine being the Republican Chairman of the House Ethics Committee that admonished DeLay for Congressional improprieties. (Hefley was another conservative that aligned with the party closest to his beliefs vs being a Republican first and a conservative second.) DeLay lived up to his reputation as "The Hammer" and I guess one could arguably say his extreme measures made a vital contribution to his ability to herd enough votes together for Republican victories.
I'm not real sure how Palin would fit into either category.
turbo-1 has his own private definitions of "conservative", "fiscal conservative", "neocon", etc. I've been able to work some of them out roughly, but in general I just keep in mind that the 'usual' meanings aren't intended.The "usual" meanings are intended, taken in context of my support for the GOP from the 60's onward until the party was hijacked by the neocons. We had actual conservatives in the GOP back then.
Some examples.
A conservative wants to preserve what is working well, and make incremental improvements to strengthen it. A good example is SS. W wanted to privatize SS. Lucky for us, that did not happen or we would be in very deep trouble. Even now, Alan Simpson wants to reduce benefits and raise retirement age to "fix" SS. SS is self-funding and is on solid footing for decades out. Minor tweaking could keep it that way in perpetuity, but there are no conservatives left in the GOP who will support that.
A conservative would not start an unnecessary war or wars, especially based on trumped-up "evidence" that was suspect from the first and soundly discredited soon after. W wanted to be a "war president" (his own words) and we all pay for that hubris.
A conservative would not keep his pet wars off the books and out of the budget, as if they don't contribute to the deficit, or have a financial cost that we must bear.
A conservative wouldn't take a nice healthy surplus and turn it into a record deficit. And certainly wouldn't make things worse by handing out tax cuts (that overwhelmingly helped the wealthy) during war-time.
I could go on, but you get the idea. The term "conservative" has been hijacked by GOP neo-cons and the corporate interests that control them, and it is repeated so often by the news media that voters come to believe it. Many of the ideas espoused by the GOP are radical in the extreme, including a hands-off unregulated approach to businesses and the financial sector that contributed to the ongoing financial crash. Our national security is being undermined by such policies.
The "usual" meanings are intended, taken in context of my support for the GOP from the 60's onward until the party was hijacked by the neocons. We had actual conservatives in the GOP back then.
Some examples.
A conservative wants to preserve what is working well, and make incremental improvements to strengthen it. A good example is SS. W wanted to privatize SS. Lucky for us, that did not happen or we would be in very deep trouble. Even now, Alan Simpson wants to reduce benefits and raise retirement age to "fix" SS. SS is self-funding and is on solid footing for decades out. Minor tweaking could keep it that way in perpetuity, but there are no conservatives left in the GOP who will support that.
A conservative would not start an unnecessary war or wars, especially based on trumped-up "evidence" that was suspect from the first and soundly discredited soon after. W wanted to be a "war president" (his own words) and we all pay for that hubris.
A conservative would not keep his pet wars off the books and out of the budget, as if they don't contribute to the deficit, or have a financial cost that we must bear.
A conservative wouldn't take a nice healthy surplus and turn it into a record deficit. And certainly wouldn't make things worse by handing out tax cuts (that overwhelmingly helped the wealthy) during war-time.
I could go on, but you get the idea. The term "conservative" has been hijacked by GOP neo-cons and the corporate interests that control them, and it is repeated so often by the news media that voters come to believe it. Many of the ideas espoused by the GOP are radical in the extreme, including a hands-off unregulated approach to businesses and the financial sector that contributed to the ongoing financial crash. Our national security is being undermined by such policies.
How does this apply to Palin and Lugar?
The "usual" meanings are intended, taken in context of my support for the GOP from the 60's onward until the party was hijacked by the neocons. We had actual conservatives in the GOP back then.
Some examples.
A conservative wants to preserve what is working well, and make incremental improvements to strengthen it. A good example is SS. W wanted to privatize SS. Lucky for us, that did not happen or we would be in very deep trouble. Even now, Alan Simpson wants to reduce benefits and raise retirement age to "fix" SS. SS is self-funding and is on solid footing for decades out. Minor tweaking could keep it that way in perpetuity, but there are no conservatives left in the GOP who will support that.
A conservative would not start an unnecessary war or wars, especially based on trumped-up "evidence" that was suspect from the first and soundly discredited soon after. W wanted to be a "war president" (his own words) and we all pay for that hubris.
A conservative would not keep his pet wars off the books and out of the budget, as if they don't contribute to the deficit, or have a financial cost that we must bear.
A conservative wouldn't take a nice healthy surplus and turn it into a record deficit. And certainly wouldn't make things worse by handing out tax cuts (that overwhelmingly helped the wealthy) during war-time.
I could go on, but you get the idea. The term "conservative" has been hijacked by GOP neo-cons and the corporate interests that control them, and it is repeated so often by the news media that voters come to believe it. Many of the ideas espoused by the GOP are radical in the extreme, including a hands-off unregulated approach to businesses and the financial sector that contributed to the ongoing financial crash. Our national security is being undermined by such policies.You know no one else uses the word "conservative" to mean what you do, so why would you claim it's the "usual" meaning? "Handing out tax cuts"? Seriously? "Hands off unregulated approach to business"? LOL. That's called conservative according to the meaning used by everyone but you.
Nobody is being fooled by your transparent misuse of the word "conservative", or your pretending to not understand what its "usual" meaning is. Your rhetoric is almost word for word the same as that used by Democrats for decades against conservatives, including and especially Goldwater. But you know this already.
CRGreathouse
Nov29-10, 12:24 PM
The "usual" meanings are intended, taken in context of my support for the GOP from the 60's onward until the party was hijacked by the neocons. We had actual conservatives in the GOP back then.
Yes, and the term "liberal" was hijacked in the 1800s (thus people use circumlocutions like "classical liberal" or neologisms like "libertarian"). But that's language change for you.
mheslep
Nov29-10, 12:39 PM
Conservatism incarnate:
A Time for Choosing
Date hint: Harvard tuition $2700/year.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777069922535499977#
CRGreathouse
Nov29-10, 12:44 PM
Nobody is being fooled by your transparent misuse of the word "conservative", or your pretending to not understand what its "usual" meaning is.
Let's be nice. I brought up the issue of meaning so that turbo-1 would not be misunderstood, not to subject him to ridicule. There are surely times when you or I cling to older terminology, yes? I call ECMA Script "JavaScript" and Windows folders "directories"... the latter hasn't been the correct term for 15 years.
Let's be nice. I brought up the issue of meaning so that turbo-1 would not be misunderstood, not to subject him to ridicule.Turbo is not misusing the word conservative by accident. He has been corrected many times. He is well aware that "conservative" means the opposite of everything he believes in.
CRGreathouse
Nov29-10, 01:41 PM
Turbo is not misusing the word conservative by accident. He has been corrected many times. He is well aware that "conservative" means the opposite of everything he believes in.
I agree that turbo understands the usual ("current", if you prefer) meaning of the word. I don't think it's really fair to label it misuse as long as he's cautious to let people know his definitions. Admittedly this doesn't always happen, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. You don't seriously think he's trying to deceive anyone, do you?
CAC1001
Nov29-10, 01:47 PM
A conservative wants to preserve what is working well, and make incremental improvements to strengthen it. A good example is SS. W wanted to privatize SS. Lucky for us, that did not happen or we would be in very deep trouble.
No he didn't. He wanted to partially privatize it, but not the whole program.
Even now, Alan Simpson wants to reduce benefits and raise retirement age to "fix" SS. SS is self-funding and is on solid footing for decades out. Minor tweaking could keep it that way in perpetuity, but there are no conservatives left in the GOP who will support that.
You sure? Not saying you are wrong, but if the program was completely self-funding and on solid footing, I don't think there'd be any need to cut any benefits or raise the retirement age.
A conservative would not start an unnecessary war or wars, especially based on trumped-up "evidence" that was suspect from the first and soundly discredited soon after. W wanted to be a "war president" (his own words) and we all pay for that hubris.
IMO, the fact that Colin Powell himself believed that Hussein had WMDs I think shows that the evidence wasn't "trumped up," as that was a major humiliation for Powell when the WMDs turned out not to be there.
A conservative wouldn't take a nice healthy surplus and turn it into a record deficit.
I don't know the thread, but I remember there was a dicussion on this some time back where it was shown that the Clinton surplus went into deficit while still under Clinton's budget (when Bush came into office in 2001, his own budget didn't get implemented until October of that year, as the government's fiscal year ends the last day of September).
What Bush and the Republicans did was to enlarge the deficit instead of focus on returning it to a surplus.
And certainly wouldn't make things worse by handing out tax cuts (that overwhelmingly helped the wealthy) during war-time.
The tax cuts helped everyone, to the point of making it where 40% of Americans had zero federal tax liability.
Many of the ideas espoused by the GOP are radical in the extreme, including a hands-off unregulated approach to businesses and the financial sector
Under President Bush, we saw regulation of the financial sector increase with Sarbannes-Oxley.
that contributed to the ongoing financial crash.
Not say lack of regulation in certain areas wasn't a contributor, but this seems more your opinion to me then an established fact.
I couldn't care less what Palin's political views are. It's quotations like this (from the Sean Hannity show) that just drive me nuts:
I fear for our democracy, because I recognize, and I know you did too Sean, and you tried to sound a warning bell through your commentary, through the campaign as I was nominated for VP, and running with one of my heroes, John McCain, as we were witnessing what the other campaign was actually telling the American people, warning them what they were going to do to America.
What, Sarah?! What the heck do you recognize?! Yaaagh!!
Okay, that's taken out of context and she finally does remember what she was trying to say. And, fortunately, I discovered the 3D glasses I snuck home from the theater (instead of placing them in the recycle bin the way you're supposed to) actually enabled me to listen to both her words and her thoughts:
I do. I fear for our democracy, because I recognize <oh, crud, I forgot what I was going to say>, and I know you did too Sean <so help me out here, will you?>, and you tried to sound a warning bell through your commentary <FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SEAN, DON'T YOU KNOW SIGN LANGUAGE?>, through the campaign as I was nominated for VP <oh, geez, I'm going to have to handle this on my own>, and running with one of my heroes, John McCain, <he'd bail me out if he were here> as we were witnessing what the other campaign was actually telling the American people, <who the heck were we running against, again?> warning them what they were going to do to America. <woah, my mind suddenly cleared! > They warned, Barack Obama did as candidate <that's who that guy was - I remember now> that he would fundamentally transform America, that he would redistribute somebody’s wealth. <oh crud, who the heck was that guy with the wealth?> He would take it and he would give it to someone else. <oh geez, I can't remember who was going to get the wealth either - I'd better just bring this to a close with a Thomas Jefferson quote> Those things that do erode our free market, and our freedoms and are disincentives to a strong work ethic and to productivity, <well, maybe that covered the important points, anyway> and now what we see are some manifestations of what he warned us that he would do in the campaign. <Barak Obama - I still remember> We’re seeing that come home to roost now. <oh, geez, why did I mention turkeys coming home to roost so close to Thanksgiving. Everyone is going to remember that stupid Turkey video now!>
And, no, for the record, I have no link to verify that theater 3D glasses actually provide one with the ability to read Sarah Palin's mind. It's totally and completely anecdotal evidence that may be totally and completely unreliable.
I agree that turbo understands the usual ("current", if you prefer) meaning of the word. I don't think it's really fair to label it misuse as long as he's cautious to let people know his definitions. Admittedly this doesn't always happen, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. You don't seriously think he's trying to deceive anyone, do you?I won't say whether I think his deception is purposeful or not, but it's continued and relentless despite it being pointed out many times.
Turbo is not misusing the word conservative by accident. He has been corrected many times. He is well aware that "conservative" means the opposite of everything he believes in.I am not misusing the word, nor have your protestations and nay-saying (absent clarification) risen to the level of "correction". Please review some of the highlights of W's presidency as I enumerated them, and explain why those policies were conservative. They were not. They were a radical sell-out to big business, the wealthy, and the war machine. There is nothing conservative about ruining the country's fiscal health, risking our troops in a war based on lies, and granting huge tax cuts during war-time, while keeping the wars off the books. Barry Goldwater would be spinning in his grave to hear the neocons and the right-wing media calling those actions conservative.
I couldn't care less what Palin's political views are. It's quotations like this (from the Sean Hannity show) that just drive me nuts:
What, Sarah?! What the heck do you recognize?! Yaaagh!!
Okay, that's taken out of context and she finally does remember what she was trying to say. And, fortunately, I discovered the 3D glasses I snuck home from the theater (instead of placing them in the recycle bin the way you're supposed to) actually enabled me to listen to both her words and her thoughts:
And, no, for the record, I have no link to verify that theater 3D glasses actually provide one with the ability to read Sarah Palin's mind. It's totally and completely anecdotal evidence that may be totally and completely unreliable.
I have a pair of 3-D glasses someone brought home from "Avatar" - I'm going to test your theory - :uhh:the next time Robert Gibbs speaks.
I am not misusing the word, nor have your protestations and nay-saying (absent clarification) risen to the level of "correction". Please review some of the highlights of W's presidency as I enumerated them, and explain why those policies were conservative. They were not. They were a radical sell-out to big business, the wealthy, and the war machine. There is nothing conservative about ruining the country's fiscal health, risking our troops in a war based on lies, and granting huge tax cuts during war-time, while keeping the wars off the books. Barry Goldwater would be spinning in his grave to hear the neocons and the right-wing media calling those actions conservative.
Again turbo - what was your point (in this context) regarding Lugar and Palin?
The tax cuts helped everyone, to the point of making it where 40% of Americans had zero federal tax liability.40% of the tax breaks went to that tiny portion of the populace making more than $500K/year. That's regressive and hardly equitable. If you want to stimulate the economy, you direct tax cuts toward the people who have to spend their income, not the wealthy who have discretion in that regard.
Not say lack of regulation in certain areas wasn't a contributor, but this seems more your opinion to me then an established fact.Gamblers in the financial sectors were buying up risky sub-prime loans, bundling them, getting them misbranded as high-grade investments. They made derivative bets against their customers who bought the bundles and made lots of money when the investments fell apart. Lack of regulation was a big problem. Regulation of the financial markets is not intended to make it difficult for honest financiers to make money - it is intended to prevent the massive fraud that led to the current financial mess we're in.
Also, their level of capitalization was never required to increase to offset the size of their bets, nor the grading of the investments they traded in. Astronuc covered this pretty thoroughly in another thread. Wall Street under W was the wild west, and it is really no better now.
I am not misusing the word, nor have your protestations and nay-saying (absent clarification) risen to the level of "correction". Please review some of the highlights of W's presidency as I enumerated them, and explain why those policies were conservative. They were not. They were a radical sell-out to big business, the wealthy, and the war machine. There is nothing conservative about ruining the country's fiscal health, risking our troops in a war based on lies, and granting huge tax cuts during war-time, while keeping the wars off the books. Barry Goldwater would be spinning in his grave to hear the neocons and the right-wing media calling those actions conservative.Yes he would, but because he favored a "hands-off" approach to business, less regulation, dismantling the new deal and everything that built on it since, not because he favored high taxes and increased regulation. He was an economic libertarian more than any politician since, the polar opposite of the economic views you espouse while claiming to be conservative. But you know this already.
It's impossible that you don't know full well you are misusing the word conservative.
Little quiz for you: What was the top marginal tax rate when Goldwater was serving his first stint in the Senate?
Little quiz for you: What was the top marginal tax rate when Goldwater was serving in the Senate?Nice dodge. The issue is what Goldwater favored, not what others passed while he fought against it.
You consistently make the exact same claims against Republicans that Democrats made against Goldwater. Almost word for word. You consistently advocate economic policies Goldwater detested, while detesting policies he advocated. But you know this already, no doubt.
And there isn't a legitimate argument here. This is blatantly obvious to everyone but you.
I couldn't care less what Palin's political views are. It's quotations like this (from the Sean Hannity show) that just drive me nuts:
What, Sarah?! What the heck do you recognize?! Yaaagh!!
Okay, that's taken out of context and she finally does remember what she was trying to say. And, fortunately, I discovered the 3D glasses I snuck home from the theater (instead of placing them in the recycle bin the way you're supposed to) actually enabled me to listen to both her words and her thoughts:
And, no, for the record, I have no link to verify that theater 3D glasses actually provide one with the ability to read Sarah Palin's mind. It's totally and completely anecdotal evidence that may be totally and completely unreliable.This is why I don't get why you aren't winning the humor award hands down. You're the best!! :tongue2:
And there isn't a legitimate argument here. This is blatantly obvious to everyone but you.Also blatantly obvious is that you have not been able to explain why W's major policies were "conservative" in any sense of the word. GOP/FOX talking points regarding those policies often carried the "conservative" label as if repeating the falsehood over and over again would make it true in the minds of the citizenry. Unfortunately, to some extent that always works with idealogues and with people who are unable to deal with anything more complex than black-and-white dichotomies.
"Conservative" and "liberal" are labels co-opted by the major parties and their cheerleaders with little regard for what the words actually mean. A true conservative would do his/her best to shelter what we have, improve incrementally whenever possible, and pass on a better society (including economic security) to later generations.
As for Palin and Lugar, who is a better informed conservative voice? I think you know the answer already, but if you want to put Palin out front, I'm going to ask you why. Looking good in designer clothing and screeching out mindless slogans are not qualifications for high US office.
:surprised I'd vote for you too. That was good!!! I kinda thought I could see something like that going on in her mind. Whenever she gives a speech at a teabagger rally.:biggrin:
BTW, not that it matters, but If McCain had chosen Dick Lugar as his running-mate, I firmly believe those two geezers would be #1 and #2 today, instead of Obama and Biden.
Turbo, you still haven't addressed how Lugar would have brought home a win - as compared to Palin - and tied it in to this whole Goldwater discussion - are you going to enlighten us?
:surprised I'd vote for you too. That was good!!! I kinda thought I could see something like that going on in her mind. Whenever she gives a speech at a teabagger rally.:biggrin:
???:confused:???
Turbo, you still haven't addressed how Lugar would have brought home a win - as compared to Palin - and tied it in to this whole Goldwater discussion - are you going to enlighten us?I said that I believe that If McCain had grabbed someone of Lugar's stature and reputation instead of Palin, he would be president. Lots of people I know were scared to death of the thought of a vice-president Palin next in line for the presidency after someone who had survived multiple bouts of cancer. I think McCain's campaign screwed up big-time with her selection. They should have played to their base, and gathered all their normal votes plus all the on-the-fence votes that ended up going to Obama. McCain and Lugar (or a VP candidate of similar stature) would have been very comfortable, safe-feeling place to put your vote, unlike a ticket featuring Obama (not that well-known) or Palin (interesting but totally unknown).
BTW, Goldwater was a Libertarian and was dead-set against having abortion-rights, etc decided by any religious figure. I don't think an Alaskan evangelical secessionist would have appealed to him.
Also blatantly obvious is that you have not been able to explain why W's major policies were "conservative" in any sense of the word.What are you talking about? Why would I try to explain something I don't believe? The only Bush policy I remember calling conservative were tax cuts, which clearly are by everyone's definition except your private one you use to mislead people with.A true conservative would do his/her best to shelter what we have, improve incrementally whenever possible, and pass on a better society (including economic security) to later generations.Nonsense. That's not what the word means. Again, you know that. You cannot possibly be honestly this confused.
It's time to stop the madness. If you favor raising taxes and increasing regulation over private business, just say so instead of trying to absurdly claim that such policies are conservative.BTW, Goldwater was a Libertarian...That's what I've been saying. He was both socially and economically libertarian, like me. At least more like me than any other national politician of my lifetime.
And more opposed to the views you espouse than any other as well. That's why Dems called him an right-wing extremist.
I said that I believe that If McCain had grabbed someone of Lugar's stature and reputation instead of Palin, he would be president. Lots of people I know were scared to death of the thought of a vice-president Palin next in line for the presidency after someone who had survived multiple bouts of cancer. I think McCain's campaign screwed up big-time with her selection. They should have played to their base, and gathered all their normal votes plus all the on-the-fence votes that ended up going to Obama. McCain and Lugar (or a VP candidate of similar stature) would have been very comfortable, safe-feeling place to put your vote, unlike a ticket featuring Obama (not that well-known) or Palin (interesting but totally unknown).
BTW, Goldwater was a Libertarian and was dead-set against having abortion-rights, etc decided by any religious figure. I don't think an Alaskan evangelical secessionist would have appealed to him.
Are you categorizing Lugar as a Goldwater conservative?
Are you categorizing Lugar as a Goldwater conservative?No, I am not. I'm saying that Lugar is a rational old-time conservative with a record. A comfortable choice for VP, with lots of pull back in Congress, and a sure vote-getter.
I would have voted for that ticket. I didn't want Clinton and her baggage, and Obama was too much of an unknown, so McCain/Lugar would have gotten my vote and IMO the votes of a great many moderates and independents.
No, I am not. I'm saying that Lugar is a rational old-time conservative with a record.Yes, a record of voting predominantly with Bush, including all the tax cuts you oppose. He's not one of my personal favorites, partly because he's pro-life, but his economic views are nothing like the ones you espouse.BTW, Goldwater was a Libertarian and was dead-set against having abortion-rights, etc decided by any religious figure. I don't think an Alaskan evangelical secessionist would have appealed to him.I certainly agree with that, but he had the exact same disagreement with Lugar being pro-life, so I don't see your point.
CAC1001
Nov29-10, 03:56 PM
40% of the tax breaks went to that tiny portion of the populace making more than $500K/year. That's regressive and hardly equitable.
I don't know the details of the tax cuts in terms of percentages, but I know Bush did everything from cut the capital gains and dividend tax rates, cut all income tax rates, the Child Income Tax Credit was doubled, and a few other things I think. So everyone got helped by them.
If you want to stimulate the economy, you direct tax cuts toward the people who have to spend their income, not the wealthy who have discretion in that regard.
He did though through his cuts for the middle and lower-income brackets, the tax credit, and so forth. That is demand-side stimulus. His cuts for the upper-brackets that affected small businesses filing as individuals (I don't know how many though) were supply-side. Those businesses that were able to hire more people, the immediate benefit of the tax cut went to the middle-income and poorer folks, as those were likely the ones who were hired. The business with the tax cut hires more people in the hopes of benefiting in the future by making more money, but the immediate benefit is to the hired workers.
Gamblers in the financial sectors were buying up risky sub-prime loans, bundling them, getting them misbranded as high-grade investments.
How do you know they were "getting them misbranded?" Part of that fault is the ratings agencies who messed up big-time. I don't know if regulations would have been able to prevent that.
They made derivative bets against their customers who bought the bundles and made lots of money when the investments fell apart.
Certain people did, other institutions nearly completely collapsed. Even Goldman-Sachs, what likely saved them was the AIG bailout.
Lack of regulation was a big problem. Regulation of the financial markets is not intended to make it difficult for honest financiers to make money - it is intended to prevent the massive fraud that led to the current financial mess we're in.
I agree, but regulation isn't a panacea, and I don't know if it would have been able to prevent the crisis from occurring. Wall Street itself didn't seem to know what Wall Street was doing. One problem was the complexity of the securities; by the time the regulators would wrap their head around one, there's be multiple new ones.
Also, their level of capitalization was never required to increase to offset the size of their bets, nor the grading of the investments they traded in. Astronuc covered this pretty thoroughly in another thread.
I agree here, they probably need high capitalization requirements.
Wall Street under W was the wild west, and it is really no better now.
I don't think if President Bush had tried to increase regulation of Wall Street, that it would have done much. A big, massive bill would not have worked. He'd have had to do it incrementally. He did sign Sarbannes-Oxley. But another problem was many didn't recognize there was any problem in the first place.
CAC1001
Nov29-10, 03:57 PM
Yes, a record of voting predominantly with Bush, including all the tax cuts you oppose. He's not one of my personal favorites, partly because he's pro-life, but his economic views are nothing like the ones you espouse.
Was under the impression you are pro-life...:confused:
Was under the impression you are pro-life...:confused:I don't know how you got that impression. I'm a libertarian.I don't know the details of the tax cuts in terms of percentages, but I know Bush did everything from cut the capital gains and dividend tax rates, cut all income tax rates, the Child Income Tax Credit was doubled, and a few other things I think. So everyone got helped by them.The Bush tax cuts actually shifted the tax burden from the poor and middle class to the rich. The only way they get that 40% figure is to look at it backwards, as if the future tax revenues already belong to government, add it up, then act like they are giving money to someone. Just delusional Marxist logic.
CAC1001
Nov29-10, 04:02 PM
I couldn't care less what Palin's political views are. It's quotations like this (from the Sean Hannity show) that just drive me nuts:
What, Sarah?! What the heck do you recognize?! Yaaagh!!
Yeah, she'll make statements where you go, "HUH!? What did you just say!?"
Yeah, she'll make statements where you go, "HUH!? What did you just say!?"
It sounds like she would have made a great VP (Biden):wink:
It sounds like she would have made a great VP (Biden):wink:Times 2.:smile:
CAC1001
Nov29-10, 04:14 PM
I don't know how you got that impression. I'm a libertarian.
Maybe I got you mixed up with someone else.
mheslep
Nov29-10, 04:24 PM
Being libertarian is not incompatible with being pro-life. Ron Paul is "an unshakable foe of abortion" for instance. He's also said "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." I certainly agree him on the latter.
Just like all the other abortion arguments, the libertarian view depends on the definition of when people become people, and people have the protection from harm under the law, as libertarianism is not anarchism. I'd say the libertarian view also generally holds that the Federal government has no business striking down state laws with invented powers, and likewise the states are free to have their own laws in this regard.
Being libertarian is not contradictory with being pro-life. Ron Paul is "an unshakable foe of abortion" for instance. He's also said "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." I certainly agree him on the latter.
Just like all the other abortion arguments, the libertarian view depends on the definition of when people become people, and people have the protection from harm under the law, as libertarianism is not anarchism. I'd say the libertarian view also generally holds that the Federal government has no business striking down state laws with invented powers, and likewise the states are free to have their own laws in this regard.
After reading this and
Turbo:
"I said that I believe that If McCain had grabbed someone of Lugar's stature and reputation instead of Palin, he would be president. Lots of people I know were scared to death of the thought of a vice-president Palin next in line for the presidency after someone who had survived multiple bouts of cancer. I think McCain's campaign screwed up big-time with her selection. They should have played to their base, and gathered all their normal votes plus all the on-the-fence votes that ended up going to Obama. McCain and Lugar (or a VP candidate of similar stature) would have been very comfortable, safe-feeling place to put your vote, unlike a ticket featuring Obama (not that well-known) or Palin (interesting but totally unknown).
BTW, Goldwater was a Libertarian and was dead-set against having abortion-rights, etc decided by any religious figure. I don't think an Alaskan evangelical secessionist would have appealed to him. "
I'm still motivated to label myself an "Unrepresented Angry Independent" - set my own rules.
Being libertarian is not incompatible with being pro-life. Ron Paul is "an unshakable foe of abortion" for instance. He's also said "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." I certainly agree him on the latter.
Just like all the other abortion arguments, the libertarian view depends on the definition of when people become people, and people have the protection from harm under the law, as libertarianism is not anarchism.I agree with that, and I agree that a fetus is a person. But even if a fetus is a person, it has no right to force another person to "host" it. The pro-life side demands rights for fetus' that no other person has, or could have, in a libertarian society.
Semantically, one could argue that a libertarian government could prohibit directly killing a fetus, but could not prohibit simply cutting/crimping the cord, knowing that it will die, then just wait until the fetus is a corpse instead of a person. But as a practical matter, that's a moot point, and an inhumane alternative to the normal abortion procedure, especially if it's late term.
But I must admit that abortion is a tough issue. It, far more than any other issue in my mind, has a legitimate, honest, and compelling argument on each side. That makes it very different from most issues.
CRGreathouse
Nov29-10, 09:11 PM
Semantically, one could argue that a libertarian government could prohibit directly killing a fetus, but could not prohibit simply cutting/crimping the cord, knowing that it will die, then just wait until the fetus is a corpse instead of a person. But as a practical matter, that's a moot point, and an inhumane alternative to the normal abortion procedure, especially if it's late term.
In this libertarian government you're imagining, could you simply decline to feed an infant in similar fashion?
In this libertarian government you're imagining, could you simply decline to feed an infant in similar fashion?You can do that now in the U.S. In fact, a mother can just leave her baby at the hospital when it's born. No one is forced to care for a baby, but since we have plenty of volunteers to adopt, it's a moot point.
Of course, if the mother voluntarily has custody (and its obligations), failure to feed it while in her custody would certainly be neglect, but that's a different issue. She is free to give up custody. After birth, a baby needs care, but not from a specific person against their will. And there are extensive waiting lists of volunteers.
In this libertarian government you're imagining, could you simply decline to feed an infant in similar fashion?We had a similar situation in which some cultists from MA moved to ME and declined to get adequate medical care for their ill infant because "God will provide" and they wanted nothing to do with modern medicine. It's been a few years, so I don't know if I can dig up the links, but it was in all the papers. It was really sad.
The defense couched the actions of the parents as an exercise of religious freedom.
OK, found a link to the Body of Christ.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical8.htm
This thread has gone off topic, abortion is too closely tied to religious discussion. So please return to discussing Palin.
I wrote this before you posted turbo, not aimed at you.
This looked like a fun way to get back to the topic of Sarah Palin...
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/86763/20101129/sarah-palin-criticized-for-beating-fish-to-death-on-show.htm
"Sarah Palin criticized for beating fish to death on show":bugeye:
ThomasT
Nov30-10, 01:45 AM
Having done a bit more research on Palin, I'm of the opinion that she very well could be elected to the Presidency. She apparently appeals to a lot of people -- re various polls I've looked at. (Not necessarily many of PF members. I'm guessing that most Americans don't frequent PF.) She's got a reality television show with approx. 5 million viewers. She's in the newsmagazines, the newspapers, and doing television spots that are viewed by millions. She's become familiar to most of America, I'm assuming. That's a big part of running for public office isn't it? Familiarity. Name recognition and association with familiar values. (Campaigning for Ralph Nader during a couple of his candidacies, most people that I talked to said they had never heard of him.) I'm guessing that most people associate Palin with being a regular person, not much different from them, who shares their values and would do what they think is the right thing to do in most situations.
If the American people could elect George W. Bush to two terms, then it seems reasonable to me to suppose that they might elect Sarah Palin to at least one term. The only question seems to be whether or not the country is ready to elect a woman to the Presidency. My guess is that, assuming she wants to be elected to the Presidency, given the current level of media exposure, she can be the President.
From my own personal perspective she seems a bit phony. But then so do most politicians. And I have to wonder if that's necessarily a bad thing. After all, aren't all of us a bit phony now and then? It does seem to be a necessary requirement for election to, and holding, public office. In terms of the notion of a country of, by and for the people, we, the people, seem to understand, if not necessarily want, this, because, after all, these are the people that we elect.
Ok, there's certainly more to it than that. But I'll just stop here. Opinion: an emphatic yes, Sarah Palin could be the next US President.
Having done a bit more research on Palin, I'm of the opinion that she very well could be elected to the Presidency. She apparently appeals to a lot of people -- re various polls I've looked at. (Not necessarily many of PF members. I'm guessing that most Americans don't frequent PF.) She's got a reality television show with approx. 5 million viewers. She's in the newsmagazines, the newspapers, and doing television spots that are viewed by millions. She's become familiar to most of America, I'm assuming. That's a big part of running for public office isn't it? Familiarity. Name recognition and association with familiar values. (Campaigning for Ralph Nader during a couple of his candidacies, most people that I talked to said they had never heard of him.) I'm guessing that most people associate Palin with being a regular person, not much different from them, who shares their values and would do what they think is the right thing to do in most situations.
If the American people could elect George W. Bush to two terms, then it seems reasonable to me to suppose that they might elect Sarah Palin to at least one term. The only question seems to be whether or not the country is ready to elect a woman to the Presidency. My guess is that, assuming she wants to be elected to the Presidency, given the current level of media exposure, she can be the President.
From my own personal perspective she seems a bit phony. But then so do most politicians. And I have to wonder if that's necessarily a bad thing. After all, aren't all of us a bit phony now and then? It does seem to be a necessary requirement for election to, and holding, public office. In terms of the notion of a country of, by and for the people, we, the people, seem to understand, if not necessarily want, this, because, after all, these are the people that we elect.
Ok, there's certainly more to it than that. But I'll just stop here. Opinion: an emphatic yes, Sarah Palin could be the next US President.
The question might be - is the US ready for a female President? I thought Hillary tried too soon. Here is an overview of female candidates in the various 2010 elections.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/elections/candidates_2010.php
From the list, I think Meg Whitman would be an interesting candidate - had she won. Her support outside of CA appears to have been greater than inside the state, and people LOVE ebay.
Missing from your example is the election of President Obama. He ran from the mid-point of his freshman term, very little experience, and quite unknown - yet the voters embraced him.
Having done a bit more research on Palin, I'm of the opinion that she very well could be elected to the Presidency. She apparently appeals to a lot of people -- re various polls I've looked at. (Not necessarily many of PF members. I'm guessing that most Americans don't frequent PF.) She's got a reality television show with approx. 5 million viewers. She's in the newsmagazines, the newspapers, and doing television spots that are viewed by millions. She's become familiar to most of America, I'm assuming. That's a big part of running for public office isn't it?Oh, I thought your were talking about Paris Hilton. Actually Palin's show only got that handful of viewers the first day from curiosity seekers, the next show dropped to half that already.
Honestly, if your list about what the "right stuff" to become President of the US were true, the winner of the next American Idol would be our new President.
Thomas, something you and WhoWee both failed to bring up as a quality that is mandatory for President, and why Obama won - Intelligence.
Oh, I thought your were talking about Paris Hilton. Actually Palin's show only got that handful of viewers the first day from curiosity seekers, the next show dropped to half that already.
Honestly, if your list about what the "right stuff" to become President of the US were true, the winner of the next American Idol would be our new President.
Thomas, something you and WhoWee both failed to bring up as a quality that is mandatory for President, and why Obama won - Intelligence.
Intelligence is mandatory?
George W Bush vs Al Gore?
Perhaps not a fair analysis since I have no idea what Bush's intelligence level is. Still, considering he quit drinking and first started taking a serious look at life at the age of 40 and that he was elected President only 14 years later, you at least have a competition between a 14-year-old and an adult.
Intellect isn't a mandatory requirement for anything.
Intelligence is mandatory?
George W Bush vs Al Gore?
Perhaps not a fair analysis since I have no idea what Bush's intelligence level is. Still, considering he quit drinking and first started taking a serious look at life at the age of 40 and that he was elected President only 14 years later, you at least have a competition between a 14-year-old and an adult.
Intellect isn't a mandatory requirement for anything.So true, but you've got to admit that lack of intelligence was one of the major strikes against her.
I love this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc
L8__aXxXPVc
Dembadon
Nov30-10, 11:26 AM
So true, but you've got to admit that lack of intelligence was one of the major strikes against her.
I love this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc
L8__aXxXPVc
This is another good one:
C6urw_PWHYk
Thomas, something you and WhoWee both failed to bring up as a quality that is mandatory for President, and why Obama won - Intelligence.
I'm not as convinced that Obama carried the election because of his intelligence - now his personality is/was certainly a factor. That aside, one of the reasons I think Meg Whitman would have been a strong national candidate was her business success with ebay - I assumed she is intelligent (but who knows?).
mheslep
Nov30-10, 12:59 PM
This is another good one:Why are the comments from some pampered zillionaire Hollywood actor 'good'?
This is another good one:
C6urw_PWHYk
Did the CBS reporter quiz him on why he's talking about dinosaurs 4,000 years ago or banning books? Did she say either of those things - or did the actor hear those things somewhere - and repeat them as facts?
Personally, I worry about Obama's lack of experience (also only 2 years (as a Senator - not a Governor) and never ran anything - not even little, itty bitty Wasila) and Biden's unpredictibility.
Why are the comments from some pampered zillionaire Hollywood actor 'good'?His comments were well thought-out. That's what made them good. The fact that he is a movie star gets him some public exposure that the rest of us don't get.
Palin gets exposure, too, though she can barely string two coherent thoughts together. She remembers her talking-points and buzz-words and tries to get them all in, regardless of their relevance - thus the oddly disjointed non-sequitur speaking style. The US public has a fixation with "stars". Palin is a "star" because she ran for VP. Her daughter is a "star" because she is an abstinence-only unwed mother whose mother ran for VP.
I would rather sit down and have a long political discussion with Matt Damon than either of those two Alaskan "stars".
His comments were well thought-out. That's what made them good. The fact that he is a movie star gets him some public exposure that the rest of us don't get.
Palin gets exposure, too, though she can barely string two coherent thoughts together. She remembers her talking-points and buzz-words and tries to get them all in, regardless of their relevance - thus the oddly disjointed non-sequitur speaking style. The US public has a fixation with "stars". Palin is a "star" because she ran for VP. Her daughter is a "star" because she is an abstinence-only unwed mother whose mother ran for VP.
I would rather sit down and have a long political discussion with Matt Damon than either of those two Alaskan "stars".
The expected lifespan of McCain, the dinosaur nonsense, and the banning of books all sounded like talking points to me?
The expected lifespan of McCain, the dinosaur nonsense, and the banning of books all sounded like talking points to me?At the time that clip was recorded, all those "talking points" were current-affairs. Topics of interest that hit the media and the blogs. Was he not supposed to mention them? It would be like me slamming you for mentioning Charles Rangel's ethics violations and speculating about his punishment (or lack of).
Dembadon
Nov30-10, 01:24 PM
Why are the comments from some pampered zillionaire Hollywood actor 'good'?
Did you watch the clip? I share his concerns, apart from any judgments I have about his profession, as if they should matter anyway.
The expected lifespan of McCain, the dinosaur nonsense, and the banning of books all sounded like talking points to me?
So what? Those things are important to people.
Dembadon
Nov30-10, 01:29 PM
Did the CBS reporter quiz him on why he's talking about dinosaurs 4,000 years ago or banning books? Did she say either of those things - or did the actor hear those things somewhere - and repeat them as facts?
Did you watch the clip? He never asserted that Mrs. Palin made any claims about dinosaurs. He said "...[he'd] like to know..." whether or not she believes it, which is the correct position to take if he'd heard it second-hand.
Personally, I worry about Obama's lack of experience (also only 2 years (as a Senator - not a Governor) and never ran anything - not even little, itty bitty Wasila) and Biden's unpredictibility.
What does Obama have to do with any of this?
mheslep
Nov30-10, 01:30 PM
I would rather sit down and have a long political discussion with Matt Damon than either of those two Alaskan "stars".
The US public has a fixation with "stars". So do you apparently.
So do you apparently.Nope, only persons in and of themselves. Slamming someone because he is an actor is a poor form of reverse discrimination. I don't care what he does for a living - his expressions of concern about Palin's beliefs (she is an end-times evangelical!) and his reference to her banning or attempting to ban "Pastor I am Gay", and his concern about her possible ascendancy to the Oval Office should McCain die were all current-events during the campaign and every political geek that I know (left and right) were discussing them. He got a pulpit for his concerns because of what he does for a living (make multi-million-dollar blockbuster movies), but that does not mean that he is stupid, out-of-touch, or incapable of holding intelligently though-out opinions.
Did you watch the clip? He never asserted that Mrs. Palin made any claims about dinosaurs. He said "...[he'd] like to know..." whether or not she believes it, which is the correct position to take if he'd heard it second-hand.
What does Obama have to do with any of this?
Where did Damon hear about the dinosaurs and why wouldn't a reporter challenge his source?
Did the CBS reporter quiz him on why he's talking about dinosaurs 4,000 years ago or banning books? Did she say either of those things - or did the actor hear those things somewhere - and repeat them as facts?
Personally, I worry about Obama's lack of experience (also only 2 years (as a Senator - not a Governor) and never ran anything - not even little, itty bitty Wasila) and Biden's unpredictibility.No, she said it was 6,000 years ago and that she believed that dinosaurs and men walked the earth together, according to Wasilla music teacher Philip Munger.
Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28
Since being tagged as VP she has been careful about going on record with her beliefs.
What does Obama have to do with any of this?It's a tactic some people use when they can't defend their position, they try to change the direction of the discussion by throwing in off topic comments.
The discussion is Palin, unless Obama is quoting Palin or you're posting a quote he made about Palin, it's off topic and will be deleted.
Dembadon
Nov30-10, 01:58 PM
Obama is relevant because we knew very little about him either.
I didn't intend for the thread to be a comparison between President Obama and Mrs. Palin. I probably should have said that in the OP.
Where did Damon hear about the dinosaurs and why wouldn't a reporter challenge his source?
I'm not sure where he heard about it, but he implied that he didn't know whether or not she believed it, and that he would like to know. There is no claim made for which a source is required.
I didn't intend for the thread to be a comparison between President Obama and Mrs. Palin. I probably should have said that in the OP.
I'm not sure where he heard about it, but he implied that he didn't know whether or not she believed it, and that he would like to know. There is no claim made for which a source is required.See my post above for the answers.
No, she said it was 6,000 years ago and that she believed that dinosaurs and men walked the earth together, according to Wasilla music teacher Philip Munger.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28
Since being tagged as VP she has been careful about going on record with her beliefs.
Damon said 4,000 years on the video and apparently wasn't challenged.
Damon said 4,000 years on the video and apparently wasn't challenged.Why did he need to be challeged? Damon said he wanted to know what Palin thought, nowhere did he come out and say "Palin said dinosaurs roamed the earth 4,000 years ago".
If he had, he'd have been off by 2,000 years. According to the University Professor that knows her she said 6,000 years ago. Then it would have made sense for the reporter to ask "are you sure she said 4,000 & not 6,000?".
Damon said 4,000 years on the video and apparently wasn't challenged.Whats a couple of thousand years between young-earthers? Palin's church is an end-times evangelical ministry, and they have hosted a minister who practices exorcisms, and who orchestrated the banishment of a woman from her own village that he claimed was possessed. These people are not strung very tightly. Palin reportedly told the Wasilla music teacher that she had seen pictures of dinosaur tracks with human tracks in them. If she is going to be a heart-beat or a bad biopsy away from the presidency, it would be nice to know what her beliefs are. Some end-times sects not only travel to Israel - they support the most militant forces in Israel in the belief that a ME conflagration would be a good thing, triggering Jesus' return and unleashing Armageddon. Would you want such a person to be holding our country's launch codes?
Personally, I worry about Obama's lack of experience (also only 2 years (as a Senator - not a Governor) and never ran anything - not even little, itty bitty Wasila) and Biden's unpredictibility.
One of the knocks against Palin is her experience. I think it's valid to compare her experience to Obama's. In fact, I found it very frustrating that the three leading Democratic candidates had very little experience.
Without past experience, a candidate has a tough hurdle to show they're capable of being President. I think Obama met that hurdle, as he certainly showed he had enough poise to handle the pressure; the ability to handle uncomfortable questions.
Palin didn't meet that hurdle, nor does she currently. As soon as she has to deviate from a script, she starts verbally spinning the wheels, delaying for time; hence her very bizarre style of speaking in non-scripted situations. There is just no way she would be capable of handling herself when dealing with other world leaders.
Having a leader incapable of speaking wouldn't be unprecedented, however. Anyone planning on seeing the movie, "The King's Speech"? That looks pretty interesting. Of course, even in that situation, King George VI eventually learned to speak without stuttering.
As soon as she has to deviate from a script, she starts verbally spinning the wheels, delaying for time; hence her very bizarre style of speaking in non-scripted situations. There is just no way she would be capable of handling herself when dealing with other world leaders.I sure would hate to be an interpreter at an international conference trying to make sense of her "remarks" so that my country's leaders could make sense of what she is saying. Native English-speakers with a good grasp of phony down-home colloquialisms can't make sense of that word-hash - how could it be made intelligible to someone who speaks only Cantonese, Urdu, or Swahili?
Why did he need to be challeged? Damon said he wanted to know what Palin thought, nowhere did he come out and say "Palin said dinosaurs roamed the earth 4,000 years ago".
If he had, he'd have been off by 2,000 years. According to the University Professor that knows her she said 6,000 years ago. Then it would have made sense for the reporter to ask "are you sure she said 4,000 & not 6,000?".
The video clip has "CBS News" labels throughout. I'm not sure if he was being interviewed on 60 Minutes or a morning program or on the evening news - I didn't see that level of identification? If turbo is correct and the 6,000 years was widely discussed - then a 4,000 year comment should of at a minimum been challenged to meet the generally discussed standard - as you indicated. If nothing else they could've had a second laugh?
I really don't care to defend Palin or things she says (or does). I just think the reporting on her often reaches the point of absolute and petty nonsense - take my earlier post about her being cruel to fish.:rofl: I have to stop and laugh everytime I think about her "beating" a fish?:rofl::rofl::rofl:
I really don't care to defend Palin or things she says (or does). I just think the reporting on her often reaches the point of absolute and petty nonsense - take my earlier post about her being cruel to fish.:rofl: I have to stop and laugh everytime I think about her "beating" a fish?:rofl::rofl::rofl:Honestly, I don't think there is any reason for that woman to be seen, heard, of spoken of, yet she insists on putting herself out there, so she is fair game.
Honestly, I don't think there is any reason for that woman to be seen, heard, of spoken of, yet she insists on putting herself out there, so she is fair game.
Come now, the fish beating story is funny.:rofl:
Come now, the fish beating story is funny.:rofl:
It is funny, I agree.
But c'mon, every time we turn around it's Palin, Palin, Palin. Enough already, I've seen more than I want to see!
It is funny, I agree.
But c'mon, every time we turn around it's Palin, Palin, Palin. Enough already, I've seen more than I want to see!Well, lately, it's been Bristol, Bristol, Bristol. I only watched a couple of clips, but if she is a dancer, I am a world-class neurosurgeon. As noted earlier, the US has a pop-culture mind-set that makes people famous for just being famous.
Sarah Palin is crafty and ambitious from all accounts (if not that well-informed), but I'd much rather vote for Tina Fey for president. Maybe I'll start a poll...
mugaliens
Nov30-10, 04:37 PM
...I'd much rather vote for Tina Fey for president. Maybe I'll start a poll...
I think you did, and I'll paraphrase here what I posted there.
Palin has the training and the temperament to be a political leader, although I question her selection because of both her outspokenness as well as the fact she quit the governorship (although I do understand why paying tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars defending against frivilous lawsuits would get real old, real fast).
Fey not only possess neither the temperament nor the training, and her demeanor is comedic, and replete with theater, little more.
I think you did, and I'll paraphrase here what I posted there.
Palin has the training and the temperament to be a political leader, although I question her selection because of both her outspokenness as well as the fact she quit the governorship (although I do understand why paying tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars defending against frivilous lawsuits would get real old, real fast).
Fey not only possess neither the temperament nor the training, and her demeanor is comedic, and replete with theater, little more.Unfortunately, Palin seems to suffer from a special hick form of Tourettes. Ask her a serious policy question and she will pretend to take a stab at it, only to degenerate into a stream of stream of "hockey mom", "momma grizzly" populism, and grin at the end as if she just scored a home-run.
NobodySpecial
Nov30-10, 06:13 PM
Ask her a serious policy question and she will pretend to take a stab at it
An experienced politician will simply answer the question they wanted to be asked.
Unfortunately, Palin seems to suffer from a special hick form of Tourettes. Ask her a serious policy question and she will pretend to take a stab at it, only to degenerate into a stream of stream of "hockey mom", "momma grizzly" populism, and grin at the end as if she just scored a home-run.
What are the actual rules of moderation in this thread when turbo can make posts like this?
and this:
"Well, lately, it's been Bristol, Bristol, Bristol. I only watched a couple of clips, but if she is a dancer, I am a world-class neurosurgeon. As noted earlier, the US has a pop-culture mind-set that makes people famous for just being famous.
If Bristol wants to keep her brand hot, she'll have to start clubbing with Linsay Lohan and "forget" her underwear a few times.
Sarah Palin is crafty and ambitious from all accounts (if not that well-informed), but I'd much rather vote for Tina Fey for president. Maybe I'll start a poll... "
and this:
"I sure would hate to be an interpreter at an international conference trying to make sense of her "remarks" so that my country's leaders could make sense of what she is saying. Native English-speakers with a good grasp of phony down-home colloquialisms can't make sense of that word-hash - how could it be made intelligible to someone who speaks only Cantonese, Urdu, or Swahili? "
and this:
"Whats a couple of thousand years between young-earthers? Palin's church is an end-times evangelical ministry, and they have hosted a minister who practices exorcisms, and who orchestrated the banishment of a woman from her own village that he claimed was possessed. These people are not strung very tightly. Palin reportedly told the Wasilla music teacher that she had seen pictures of dinosaur tracks with human tracks in them. If she is going to be a heart-beat or a bad biopsy away from the presidency, it would be nice to know what her beliefs are. Some end-times sects not only travel to Israel - they support the most militant forces in Israel in the belief that a ME conflagration would be a good thing, triggering Jesus' return and unleashing Armageddon. Would you want such a person to be holding our country's launch codes? "
and even this:
"Nope, only persons in and of themselves. Slamming someone because he is an actor is a poor form of reverse discrimination. I don't care what he does for a living - his expressions of concern about Palin's beliefs (she is an end-times evangelical!) and his reference to her banning or attempting to ban "Pastor I am Gay", and his concern about her possible ascendancy to the Oval Office should McCain die were all current-events during the campaign and every political geek that I know (left and right) were discussing them. He got a pulpit for his concerns because of what he does for a living (make multi-million-dollar blockbuster movies), but that does not mean that he is stupid, out-of-touch, or incapable of holding intelligently though-out opinions. "
and my post - directly on-point with a comparison of Obama and Palin is deleted?
"It's a tactic some people use when they can't defend their position, they try to change the direction of the discussion by throwing in off topic comments.
The discussion is Palin, unless Obama is quoting Palin or you're posting a quote he made about Palin, it's off topic and will be deleted. "
IMO - turbo needs to support some of these comments - or someone should start deleting his posts.
I believe this is the video that backs turbo up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl4HIc-yfgM
jl4HIc-yfgM
Oh, I thought your were talking about Paris Hilton. Actually Palin's show only got that handful of viewers the first day from curiosity seekers, the next show dropped to half that already.
Palin's show from what I understand broke/shattered TLC's ratings record when it debuted: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/live-feed/sarah-palins-alaska-breaks-tlc-45421
I have no idea how it has performed since though - EDIT: http://www.hotmommagossip.com/2010/12/01/sarah-palins-alaska-sees-quick-rating-revival/
Thomas, something you and WhoWee both failed to bring up as a quality that is mandatory for President, and why Obama won - Intelligence.
I think Obama won more on charisma than intelligence (although not saying he is not very intelligent). But also look at the film they showed about his life story at the Democratic National Convention. There was nothing in it about his going to Columbia or Harvard, it was about the more hardscrabble aspects of his upbringing. The campaign didn't want to focus on his formal education.
Also I think you are confusing intelligence with policy knowledge. You could go into the mountains of Afghanistan or some tribe in the middle of South America and find people who can't read or write, but who are very intelligent. And you can find plenty of morosophs in Westernized society as well.
Palin didn't meet that hurdle, nor does she currently. As soon as she has to deviate from a script, she starts verbally spinning the wheels, delaying for time; hence her very bizarre style of speaking in non-scripted situations.
During interviews, yes...
There is just no way she would be capable of handling herself when dealing with other world leaders.
I don't know if I buy that. I think she could be plenty capable. How Palin behaves in interviews is not necessarilly the same way she'd be in private when dealing with world leaders.
Remember, Palin is a woman who muscled the oil companies in Alaska; there is a book about this called Sarah Palin Takes On Big Oil (http://www.amazon.com/Sarah-takes-Big-Oil-compelling/dp/0982163207). She also overturned part of the Republican establishment there.
Now yes, the woman may be an airhead in terms of many areas of policy, but I highly doubt that a woman who is truly an idiot would be able to take on Big Oil and the establishment Republican party. Remember, Palin HAS governed and served in plenty of positions where she has to be able to talk and think clearly: she was on the Wasilla City Council from 1992 to 1996, she was mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, she was Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004, and then she served as Governor of Alaska. I doubt she'd have made it past the City Council if she truly can't speak or think or was a fool.
In this sense, I think she would have little problem dealing with world leaders.
Now yes, the woman may be an airhead in terms of many areas of policy, but I highly doubt that a woman who is truly an idiot would be able to take on Big Oil and the establishment Republican party. Remember, Palin HAS governed and served in plenty of positions where she has to be able to talk and think clearly: she was on the Wasilla City Council from 1992 to 1996, she was mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, she was Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004, and then she served as Governor of Alaska. I doubt she'd have made it past the City Council if she truly can't speak or think or was a fool.
In this sense, I think she would have little problem dealing with world leaders.You're going to make me dig up again how little she actually did in office? I thought once was enough. Unless someone else posts her "accomplishments", I guess I'll work on it tomorrow.
In the mean time, please research and post her actual accomplishments in the roles you named.
You're going to make me dig up again how little she actually did in office? I thought once was enough. Unless someone else posts her "accomplishments", I guess I'll work on it tomorrow.
Barack Obama did not do much in office prior to being elected President, the man is still very intelligent though. And I'm not talking about her accomplishments per se, just on what she served.
Barack Obama did not do much in office prior to being elected President, the man is still very intelligent though. And I'm not talking about her accomplishments per se, just on what she served.
We've already established earlier in the thread, this isn't about Obama. Just Palin.
We've already established earlier in the thread, this isn't about Obama. Just Palin.
I know, BUT, I was explaining why in my opinion, Sarah Palin can be an intelligent person, and I was citing her previous roles. Evo said she didn't accomplish much during any of them, I was pointing out that neither did Obama prior to President, but he is still a very intelligent person, so even if Palin did not accomplish much doesn't mean the woman lacks intelligence.
I know, BUT, I was explaining why in my opinion, Sarah Palin can be an intelligent person, and I was citing her previous roles. Evo said she didn't accomplish much during any of them, I was pointing out that neither did Obama prior to President, but he is still a very intelligent person, so even if Palin did not accomplish much doesn't mean the woman lacks intelligence.But we've already established she's not intelligent.
Here's one for Palin to get you started.
The Huffington Post has obtained an exclusive first look at the April 2009 Portfolio cover story about Sarah Palin. The cover, which (as mentioned below) features a photo of Palin from her Vogue shoot, is headlined "Palin & Big Oil: The Cold Hard Truth."
Joe McGinniss' cover story, "Pipe Dreams," focuses on Palin's failure to build a gas pipeline in Alaska. The subhed reads:
Forget "Drill, baby, drill." Sarah Palin says she's building a $40 billion gas pipeline, which even President Obama wants. The only problem: It isn't there. And it's her fault.
Based on a press release by Portfolio to promote its April issue, it appears McGinniss' article is highly critical of Palin's efforts: "...McGinniss finds that not only is the pipeline not being built, but Palin herself is the biggest obstacle in its path."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/sarah-palin-emportfolioem_n_175636.html
That's all for tonight.
Start a thread about Obama ande cite which projects he headed they he messed up. No troll tactics of trying to deflect Palin's failures.
I'm not. Again, I wasn't talking about Palin's accomplishments, I was talking about her intelligence. I do not see how mentioning Obama's lack of accomplishments yet him being intelligent to point out that Palin can also be intelligent with lack of accomplishment, is any "troll tactic" to "deflect attention."
I know, BUT, I was explaining why in my opinion, Sarah Palin can be an intelligent person, and I was citing her previous roles. Evo said she didn't accomplish much during any of them, I was pointing out that neither did Obama prior to President, but he is still a very intelligent person, so even if Palin did not accomplish much doesn't mean the woman lacks intelligence.Sarah Palin couldn't be prepped for an interview with Katy Couric to the extent that she could answer a softball question about what periodicals she reads. Duh! If you actually read periodicals regularly, you'd be able to flip that question off without thinking. She couldn't. That says something about how well she is "informed", though I hate to use that word in the same paragraph with that flake's name.
Palin seems driven, crafty, and ruthless judging from domestic accounts of her actions in Alaska. None of those equate to "intelligent". All equate to dangerous if the person has a lot of power. Let the suckers pay to hear her speak and let them buy her books, so she can have millions. She is far too dangerous to run for high office.
But we've already established she's not intelligent.
We have? :confused:
Here's one fro Palin to get you started.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/sarah-palin-emportfolioem_n_175636.html
That's all for tonight.
Yes, but there's also that book I cited on her dealing with Big Oil. But I am well aware of her not getting the pipeline done, her bridge to nowhere, leaving Wasilla in debt, etc...
Palin seems driven, crafty, and ruthless judging from domestic accounts of her actions in Alaska. None of those equate to "intelligent".
No fool can be crafty.
I'm not. Again, I wasn't talking about Palin's accomplishments, I was talking aobut her intelligence. I do not see how mentioning Obama's lack of accomplishments yet him being intelligent to point out that Palincan also be intelligent with lack of accomplishment, is any "troll tactic" to "deflect attention."
OK, for argument's sake, let's say she's very bright. The problem is, she *really* doesn't come across as very bright, and so much of politics is perception.
For example, when she's interviewed she is frequently asked a question that she doesn't know. So, she will throw out a mishmash of all the talking points she's ever heard, blended with all the facts she's been coached to memorize. It comes out like word salad.
I believe she's just too far gone in the eyes of the most important voters: independents.
OK, for argument's sake, let's say she's very bright. The problem is, she *really* doesn't come across as very bright, and so much of politics is perception.
For example, when she's interviewed she is frequently asked a question that she doesn't know. So, she will throw out a mishmash of all the talking points she's ever heard, blended with all the facts she's been coached to memorize. It comes out like word salad.
I believe she's just too far gone in the eyes of the most important voters: independents.
I agree.
Don't forget the debate where she wrote the answers in the palm of her hand.
Don't forget the debate where she wrote the answers in the palm of her hand.
She wrote them for a speech, but I would think that was just to remember points to speak on.
She wrote them for a speech, but I would think that was just to remember points to speak on.Heads of state don't write on their hands. She's not in middle school anymore.
John Mario
Dec3-10, 05:57 PM
I consider the Tea Party's focus on 2012 to be counter-productive. As a voter, I don't want campaign propaganda. I want Congress (including Tea Party Congress members) to focus on the recession.
The question might be - is the US ready for a female President? I thought Hillary tried too soon. Here is an overview of female candidates in the various 2010 elections.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/elections/candidates_2010.php
From the list, I think Meg Whitman would be an interesting candidate - had she won. Her support outside of CA appears to have been greater than inside the state, and people LOVE ebay.
Missing from your example is the election of President Obama. He ran from the mid-point of his freshman term, very little experience, and quite unknown - yet the voters embraced him.Thanks for the link WW.
re Whitman, yes, people love ebay, but it seems she might be perceived as a sort of female Ross Perot. I think that average folks would tend toward Palin and away from either Clinton or Whitman.
re Obama, well, he got a LOT of exposure (both positive and negative, but mostly positive wrt what I recall -- at least that's my impression) after a certain point.
Oh, I thought you were talking about Paris Hilton.I don't think so. :smile:
Actually Palin's show only got that handful of viewers the first day from curiosity seekers, the next show dropped to half that already.Ok, I didn't know that. Even so, she's still 'out there', a lot, and like it or not she seems to have made a favorable impression on lots of people.
Honestly, if your list about what the "right stuff" to become President of the US were true, the winner of the next American Idol would be our new President.I'm just saying, imho, that all other things being more or less equal, then the amount of exposure is a most important factor. Of course, 'all other things' aren't equal wrt a comparison between an American Idol winner, or Paris Hilton, and Palin. She's perceived, it seems, as a serious candidate by lots of people.
Thomas, something you and WhoWee both failed to bring up as a quality that is mandatory for President, and why Obama won - Intelligence.I got into trouble with that before in this thread. It's a somewhat 'nebulous' term, don't you think? Eg., we like to identify Bush as a sort of Alfred E. Neuman character, but he got elected to the Presidency ... twice. We elected Ronald Reagan (a most affable sock puppet) twice. We point to Palin's gaffs, but she was the governor of Alaska and picked as a candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States by a major political party. As Forrest Gump would say, "stupid is as stupid does". Palin made $14 million last year, and, apparently, tens of millions of Americans think she would make a fine President.
Like it or not, Palin is a serious contender for whatever political office she might choose to, or be chosen to, run for.
Like it or not, Palin is a serious contender for whatever political office she might choose to, or be chosen to, run for.Thankfully, the fringe she attracts are a very small fringe. If she runs in 2012, she'll have to do it as an independant, she won't get the Republican nod.
Like it or not, Palin is a serious contender for whatever political office she might choose to, or be chosen to, run for.And she would make more money winning it and quitting it than she could have earned by doing the job. Anybody see a problem with that?
And she would make more money winning it and quitting it than she could have earned by doing the job. Anybody see a problem with that?Not sure what you mean turbo, but the OP simply asked how Palin was doing and whether she has a chance. A chance to ... what? Be a candidate for, say, the Senate or House? Sure. To win? Who knows? For the Presidency. Big question mark. To win if nominated? Bigger question mark.
How's she doing? Apparently just fine. She is 'rich' after all. And every day's a good day when you're rich.
Not sure what you mean turbo, but the OP simply asked how Palin was doing and whether she has a chance. A chance to ... what? Be a candidate for, say, the Senate or House? Sure. To win? Who knows? For the Presidency. Big question mark. To win if nominated? Bigger question mark.
How's she doing? Apparently just fine. She is 'rich' after all. And every day's a good day when you're rich.She is famous for being famous, thanks to McCain's idiocy. She will continue to be famous for being famous as long as the American public and their media want to fluff her.
She will continue to be famous for being famous as long as the American public and their media want to fluff her.Well, yeah.
Thankfully, the fringe she attracts are a very small fringe. If she runs in 2012, she'll have to do it as an independant, she won't get the Republican nod.
I wouldn't say so. There are parts of the Republican party establishment that are terrified she could run and win the Republican Primary. IF SO however, I highly doubt she would win the General, as I do not think Independents would go for her.
I think the criticism of Palin (much like the posts in this thread) actually endears her to millions of average people.
I don't think she will be the Republican candidate. However, if she does run - and more importantly is elected - it will probably be push-back to the personal attacks by the hard Left that makes it happen. Again, IMO.
I think the criticism of Palin (much like the posts in this thread) actually endears her to millions of average people.
I don't think she will be the Republican candidate. However, if she does run - and more importantly is elected - it will probably be push-back to the personal attacks by the hard Left that makes it happen. Again, IMO.
I think that's already happened. Some of the attacks on Palin before she had a chance to demonstrate her qualifications were disgraceful. Once having started defending her honor, the defenders had put a little of themselves on the line, making it harder to admit she was a dead end candidate.
Given a fair chance for people to form an unbiased opinion of her, I think the reaction would have been similar to the reaction Harriet Miers received as a Supreme Court justice.
Bull Killgore
Dec6-10, 09:26 PM
Palin is just a red herring. The greatest danger is that she will tempt reasonable people to think that an unreasonable politician is good by comparison.
Palin is just a red herring. The greatest danger is that she will tempt reasonable people to think that an unreasonable politician is good by comparison.
Care to elaborate - and welcome to the PF.
Bull Killgore
Dec7-10, 05:07 AM
Care to elaborate - and welcome to the PF.
I mean that there is very little danger that she herself will be elected, but the bigger problem is that she normalizes an uncomfortable degree of craziness in American politics.
Although she's hardly the first one to do so.
And yeah thanks for the welcome. I posted here first when I realized that as a first year uni student I wouldn't really know what I was talking about in the science threads. Maybe in 4 years.
I mean that there is very little danger that she herself will be elected, but the bigger problem is that she normalizes an uncomfortable degree of craziness in American politics.
Although she's hardly the first one to do so.
And yeah thanks for the welcome. I posted here first when I realized that as a first year uni student I wouldn't really know what I was talking about in the science threads. Maybe in 4 years.Hi ... Bull? What's a first year uni student? I have no formal education in physics but have read (1) David Bohm's Quantum Theory textbook, (2) Rodney Louden's Quantum Theory of Light textbook, and (3) somebody's textbook on Fourier Analysis, so I'm in your camp. I think. Personally, I love Sarah Palin. Publically, I will deny any knowledge of her. And, of course, I'm voting for either Nader or Zappa. Wait, Zappa's dead. Ok, whoever.
Personally, I love Sarah Palin. Publically, I will deny any knowledge of her.
I've repeatedly heard similar quips in my travels.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.