Palin pick an insult to our intelligence

[physucsc11]

Unfortunately it seems to me that as much as the McCain campaign's VP pick was obviously aimed at attracting women, it has worked so far.

It all started out the morning after Obama's acceptance speech, which most people found moving. McCain pronounced that his running mate would be Sarah Palin, virtually a non-entity from Alaska. Naturally, following an announcement like that, the media was anxious to jump out at any snip-bit of information that could be found about her. It just so happened that the first piece of information that came out was her teen-daughter's pregnancy - in the midst of a debate of whether or not McCain's pick was an appeal to women, or whether or not it was going to influence the election.

Contrary to how the McCain campaign and the media currently seem to view the media's initial response to this news, the response was predominantly in support of Mrs. Palin. Immediately you had republican spokespersons coming on the air to two words: "executive experience", and "reformer", while providing as reasons the bridge to nowhere, tax breaks for Alaskans, etc. This of course was before her acceptance speech at the GOP convention. Except for liberal websites and blogs online, nowhere was her ability to be VP really questioned. Even if somebody would ask the question on CNN or Fox, it would just be a question, something that would be debated - a very natural process. However, McCain proclaimed that all of this debate was really an outrageous, sexist attack upon Palin. It was enough for a few Republican talking heads to come one the air a few more times and proclaim the media's treatment sexist in order for the message to stick.

I even remember thinking before Palin actually came on to the stage at the convention how nice the media had actually been to her, making her a star before she even gave her first speech. During the speech I was thinking to myself, as I did during the speeches of all the others speakers at the convention: lies, deceit, bad reading of the teleprompter, and the ability to make a joke. I also couldn't help but notice how natural she felt on stage insulting Obama's community service, followed by the GOP crowds rabid laughter. I thought to myself: this is the first time you are presenting yourself to the public, have some humility for god's sakes. Feel free to talk about your accomplishments in Alaska or McCain's ability to "change" this country, but don't insult a candidate who has lead an honorable campaign with so many followers.

I believe that 50% of the country felt the way I felt, and the other 50% fell in love with her.
Nobody in the media questioned her outright lies, and nobody blamed her for not saying a thing about the issues and policies, or about touting yourself a reformer but citing false evidence. Honestly I thought to myself: you know, the American people are smarter than that, especially after hearing the same kind of empty promises and divisiveness from Bush and Karl Rove all these years. I thought to myself that perhaps at first women would like her, just because she represented all that they could become, but then realize that she lied the first time she ever made a national appearance, and that her extreme stance on issues important to them would change their minds.

Over the next few days tons of information was piling up about her: troopergate, the bridge, her treatment of officials as a mayor, the fact that the "tax breaks" were just her giving away Alaska's surplus of oil money, the fact that her husband was a 17 year member of the AIP, her extremely religious views, the fact that she went to 5 colleges in 6 years, the fact that in order to defend her "foreign policy" credentials the Republican talking heads had to site that Alaska is the closest state to Russia, as well as her being in charge of the Alaskan national guards (even though she never gave an order), the fact that she didn't even have an American passport until a year ago when she flew to Kuwait to visit the national guard, the fact that she had to site an airport as a "foreign country she has been to before", just the simple fact that being mayor of Wasilla doesn't give you the experience you need to run the White House, and nor does being the governor of the oil rich state of Alaska.

I was certain that her initial support would at least partially dwindle away in the midst of all this information. As the polls came in two weeks later and it was evident that people still supported her as much, if not more, I felt my intelligence was utterly insulted by the McCain campaign. I realized that perhaps she is a good person, a good mother, and was a good governor for Alaska, but the fact alone that McCain campaign had to keep her on a leash without interviews just seemed like a blatant insult. The fact that she continue to lash out everyday on the campaign trail with the same lies and skewing her reform credentials as far as was physically possible, and just the fact that despite the fact that Obama would constantly challenge her and McCain to talk about issues and how they are different from Bush, they wouldn't, all seemed unbelievable.

At this point it seems that McCain and Palin can do whatever the hell they please. The more controversy? The better. Any rational accusation of experience to be in the White House - sexism. Any demand to talk about what's important to America - ignored.

At this point I feel on the verge of giving up on the American people and the democratic process. If they don't realize what has been going on and sober up, and McCain and Palin go on to win the election, they will show their utter carelessness and disregard for their future.
I will almost wish I didn't have the intelligence to realize what this country is coming to. By the way, coming from the old Soviet Union, I can tell you that this is almost as bad as the lies that were spread by the dictators in order to silence the opposition. Exactly how Putin now has a what 90% approval rating?

 

[GCT]

Over the next few days tons of information was piling up about her: troopergate, the bridge, her treatment of officials as a mayor, the fact that the "tax breaks" were just her giving away Alaska's surplus of oil money, the fact that her husband was a 17 year member of the AIP, her extremely religious views, the fact that she went to 5 colleges in 6 years, the fact that in order to defend her "foreign policy" credentials the Republican talking heads had to site that Alaska is the closest state to Russia, as well as her being in charge of the Alaskan national guards (even though she never gave an order), the fact that she didn't even have an American passport until a year ago when she flew to Kuwait to visit the national guard, the fact that she had to site an airport as a "foreign country she has been to before", just the simple fact that being mayor of Wasilla doesn't give you the experience you need to run the White House, and nor does being the governor of the oil rich state of Alaska.

This is one large sentence.

 

[ramsey2879]

I also couldn't help but notice how natural she felt on stage insulting Obama's community service, followed by the GOP crowds rabid laughter. I thought to myself: this is the first time you are presenting yourself to the public, have some humility for god's sakes. Feel free to talk about your accomplishments in Alaska or McCain's ability to "change" this country, but don't insult a candidate who has lead an honorable campaign with so many followers.

The case here is apparently that Obalma has sidestep the issues in the senate by not voting yea or nay so many times, but merely "present" and by not writing any bills that were enacted. As I remember, Palin referred to the fact that she had to make all the tough decisions and did.
Also, where are the "accomplishments" of Senator Obama and how do they compare with Palin's?

 

[castlegates]

I was certain that her initial support would at least partially dwindle away in the midst of all this information. As the polls came in two weeks later and it was evident that people still supported her as much, if not more, I felt my intelligence was utterly insulted by the McCain campaign. I realized that perhaps she is a good person, a good mother, and was a good governor for Alaska, but the fact alone that McCain campaign had to keep her on a leash without interviews just seemed like a blatant insult. The fact that she continue to lash out everyday on the campaign trail with the same lies and skewing her reform credentials as far as was physically possible, and just the fact that despite the fact that Obama would constantly challenge her and McCain to talk about issues and how they are different from Bush, they wouldn't, all seemed unbelievable.

Why can't you just give credit where credit is due. They are running a great campaign since the Palin choice. It's that simple. Give it some time. I'm sure there will be a few gaffs by the McCain Palin team, wherein you can rub their noses in it. You currently seem quite whiney ... very unbecoming. Take a few deep breaths, and come to the realization that it doesn't matter all that much who becomes president, wherein the selection process guarantees mediocrity from both sides of the aisle. What I'm saying is that if you accept the current process by which we pick our leaders, you can't lose, because the most popular candidate always wins. ;-)

 

[LowlyPion]

Also, where are the "accomplishments" of Senator Obama and how do they compare with Palin's?

Maybe you should start with what she has accomplished.

Aside from embracing hypocrisy, and trying to ban books, and being against gay marriages and against abortion and stem cell research and against polar bears and against global warming, Just what has she actually done?

 

[mathwonk]

she wasn't chosen to appeal to the intelligent electorate.

 

[castlegates]

She doesn't appeal to intelligence. So?

This gal is bubbly, you can tell she absolutely loves what she is doing. I've never seen a more positive candidate. I'm a bit embarrassed for her though, because the speech writers must have writers block. I just saw her give a speech in her Alaska homecoming, and it's like a broken record. Somebody needs to step up to the plate and create some new material, or she will lose her star statis. ;-)

 

[Cyrus]

Wow, she's bubbly!

Well that settles that, she should run the country.

Quite a poor justification you made.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Why can't you just give credit where credit is due. They are running a great campaign since the Palin choice. It's that simple. Give it some time. I'm sure there will be a few gaffs by the McCain Palin team, wherein you can rub their noses in it. You currently seem quite whiney ... very unbecoming. Take a few deep breaths, and come to the realization that it doesn't matter all that much who becomes president, wherein the selection process guarantees mediocrity from both sides of the aisle. What I'm saying is that if you accept the current process by which we pick our leaders, you can't lose, because the most popular candidate always wins. ;-)

Obama-Biden isn't mediocre. Far from it.

 

[castlegates]

Wow, she's bubbly!

Well that settles that, she should run the country.

Quite a poor justification you made.

Didn't justify anything, just calling a pig a pig, with lipstick I might add. She is in fact ... Bubbly! Sorry Cyrus, but I just can't for the life of me ... come to hate a bubbly person. ;-)


And you don't seem to get it. This is a popularity contest by the very nature of the process. Get used to it, or grievance toward a change to the procedure by which we choose.

 

[physucsc11]

Why can't you just give credit where credit is due. They are running a great campaign since the Palin choice. It's that simple. Give it some time. I'm sure there will be a few gaffs by the McCain Palin team, wherein you can rub their noses in it. You currently seem quite whiney ... very unbecoming. Take a few deep breaths, and come to the realization that it doesn't matter all that much who becomes president, wherein the selection process guarantees mediocrity from both sides of the aisle. What I'm saying is that if you accept the current process by which we pick our leaders, you can't lose, because the most popular candidate always wins. ;-)

You know, I have tried, I have honestly tried to give her some credit, I really like to consider myself fair. I've managed to come up with the following: she is ambitious - really ambitious, she can definitely handle having 5 kids and take on a responsible job such as governor or I guess even VP, she can excite the conservative base, she can excite some independent married women as the new polls show, she can connect to people that have "small town values" even though I'm still having trouble defining what those are, she can definitely read a joke such as the lipstick joke or she can definitely make quite a stab at someone like she did with the community organizer line. As governor her record shows that she definitely went against the status quo as far as "business as usual" Alaska politics go. Good for her.

So now that I have listed everything that I think is a positive aspect of what anybody can really say about her without lying, let's see if I can come to the conclusion that she is a good fit to be Vice President or President, even.

A president needs to be able to analyze very complicated situations. He/ she needs to understand complex economic problems, especially with our current economic downfalls. He/ she needs to have a deep understanding of history, politics, and law, so that when making decision of whether to wage war on another country, he/she would have the right information to go on. Bush has demonstrated to the intelligent world that simply having experience as a governor does not make for very wise war related decisions. Having a deep knowledge of the constitution, which comes from having a law degree, is essential to being in charge because then you know whether a certain veto or a certain act that you wish to break or pass is constitutional or not. I believe that the President or Vice President does not need practice making decisions, he/ she needs the necessary background in order to be able to make educated decisions. I would expect that the Pres/ VP would completely disassociate any religious beliefs or understandings from the way he/she leads the nation. You are more than welcome to believe in God, but please don't tell me Iraq was God's war, when half a million Iraqi's suffered for a mistake by the Bush administration.

Now I am not saying that I know for sure that she is not capable of what I just listed. But nothing from her background suggests to me she fits these criteria. On a more ironic note, to change things in Washington, you need not only to have "reform credentials" but an impetus to reform! If the problem with Washington is lobbying, you need to be a reformer against lobbyists, which she is not since she has attained funds for her home town as well as Alaska through lobbyists. If the problem is the economy, you need to be a reformer against all of the economic policy that has lead us to the current situation, but she is not, she has embraced Bush's policies just like McCain has. If the problem is foreign policy, in order to reform, you need to have a clue about foreign affairs, and not just a 2 month crash course from Joe Liebermann and Rick Davis.

As I said, an insult on our intelligence!

 

[Cyrus]

Didn't justify anything, just calling a pig a pig, with lipstick I might add. She is in fact ... Bubbly! Sorry Cyrus, but I just can't for the life of me ... come to hate a bubbly person. ;-)


And you don't seem to get it. This is a popularity contest by the very nature of the process. Get used to it, or grievance toward a change to the procedure by which we choose.

I don't think you pay attention to my complaints in the other threads. I'm well aware of what it's about.

She is an ugly pig though - I'll agree with you on that.

It's easy to hate a bubbly person. For instance, I don't like you dispite all your :)'s.

Now, I don't hate you. But I also don't like you. I find you mildly annoying though. I'd like you more if you cut out using the ;-)'s. I feel like I'm talking to a teen girl via text message when you use those.

 

[LowlyPion]

Wow, she's bubbly!

Well that settles that, she should run the country.

Quite a poor justification you made.

I reckon she is for world peace too.

Just like every other numbingly dumb beauty contestant answers at the question and answer phase of the program.

Too bad for the nation that the profound issues apparently can't be discussed without the distractions of the Republican negative ads employing misrepresentations and outright lies to dislodge any proper airing.

 

[LowlyPion]

And you don't seem to get it. This is a popularity contest by the very nature of the process.

This would be why you can't actually list her accomplishments.

Because if we really start to write them down, the list is really a total embarrassment, and anyone looking at her capabilities would wonder what twist of entropy would bring such a person to be even considered ever capable of being President.

Get used to it, or grievance toward a change to the procedure by which we choose.

This then is your attempt to put the victim on trial, instead of condemning the rapist?

 

[castlegates]

I don't think you pay attention to my complaints in the other threads. I'm well aware of what it's about.

Then why do you act like your undies are in a bundle when it comes to Sara Palin. She is popular in a popularity contest. Obama isn't going to solve anything either. In more ways than one, it's already to late.

She is an ugly pig though - I'll agree with you on that.

Never said that at all.

It's easy to hate a bubbly person. For instance, I don't like you dispite all your :)'s.

That's quite of topic, and skirting the rules, don't you think?

Now, I don't hate you. But I also don't like you. I find you mildly annoying though. I'd like you more if you cut out using the ;-)'s. I feel like I'm talking to a teen girl via text message when you use those.
__________________

Off topic again, and pushing the hominimium button.
How did you make it to over 3000 post?

 

[Cyrus]

Then why do you act like your undies are in a bundle when it comes to Sara Palin. She is popular in a popularity contest. Obama isn't going to solve anything either. In more ways than one, it's already to late.

I think that last sentence is mainly your opinion. You are entitled to it, but don't state it as matter of fact.

If you really have to ask why people are outraged with the choice of Palin, you need to learn how to read. It's been stated multiple times, quite clearly by many members.

I wasnt pushing the hominimum button. I simply don't like you. What part of that isn't clear? ;-)

Here is a hint. Don't present your opinions to me as if they are facts and don't assume that I know or don't know what this election is about when talking to me. Instead read what I have to say and then comment about it.

BUT SHE IS BUBBLY!

Let's all say it together! I mean, who cares about any real issues. She is bubbly. That's what's important.

Maybe you don't recognize it, but your posts epitomize the very thing you state. People cheerleading her because its simply a popularity contest -Ironic.

Clearly, you acknowledge that there is a problem with the election process being a poularity contest, yet you sit there and shrug. Where's your outrage? Come on, I know you're better than that. If you honestly don't care if elections have denegrated themselves to a popularity contest, then that's your choice. Not mine, and not that of others complaining here.

So don't ask 'why is your panties in a bunch'? Why isn't your panties in a bunch? -because you dont care.

 

[castlegates]

Let's all say it together! I mean, who cares about any real issues. She is bubbly. That's what's important.

You act as if I don't care about the real issues, while you call Sara Palin an ugly pig?

It actually is important that she is bubbly, because that means something to many voters, doesn't matter whether that's right or wrong, that's just the way it is. I't's not like I'm saying I'm going to vote for Palin because she is bubbly ... I don't vote. Perhaps you are to emotionally involved in this race to see where I'm coming from.

Let me explain: {{{{I don't vote.}}}} I really, really, really, don't care who wins in this presidential race, therefor my observations are impartial for the most part. If I say Sara Palin is bubbly, it's because she is. Does that spell more votes for her than against? It sure does!


Does the Palin pick insult my intelligence?
It does not, because I put no emotional stature to the choice.

 

[Cyrus]

You act as if I don't care about the real issues, while you call Sara Palin an ugly pig?

Yeah, I called her an ugly pig. It was a jab at her. I can care about the issues and call her an ugly pig. Because (1) I don't like her ideology which I have already stated and you are well aware of this fact. So you are simply wasting my time with this one-liner. (2) I think the woman is ugly, so I called her an ugly pig. (2) has nothing to do with (1).

It actually is important that she is bubbly, because that means something to many voters, doesn't matter whether that's right or wrong, that's just the way it is. I't's not like I'm saying I'm going to vote for Palin because she is bubbly ... I don't vote. Perhaps you are to emotionally involved in this race to see where I'm coming from.

And those 'many voters' are idiots. It DOES matter if that's right or wong because that's a fundamental problem. Democracy only works with an educated public. If you don't vote, you're worthless. People faught in wars and died so you could have that right. People in other countries don't even have that option. The fact that you spit on it by not voting is disgraceful.

Let me explain: {{{{I don't vote.}}}} I really, really, really, don't care who wins in this presidential race, therefor my observations are impartial for the most part. If I say Sara Palin is bubbly, it's because she is. Does that spell more votes for her than against? It sure does!

You're observations are not impartial, they are irrelevant. I don't argue she is not bubbly. When did I say otherwise? I said she's a retarded idiot. I said people that like her because she is 'bubbly' are retarded idiots. Not because they are republican, but because they cheer-lead for her simply because she is a republican. I would give Tom Ridge my full respect as a running republican VP and listen to what he has to say. The man has qualifications. So, don't acccuse me of being 'emotionally involved'. I've made it quite clear why I'm angry. If Biden were a retarded idiot, I'd complain about him too.

Does the Palin pick insult my intelligence?
It does not, because I put no emotional stature to the choice.

It does not because you just don't care. You don't even vote, why should you care? You just sit there and shrug about life. Oh well, that's just the way it is...OH WELL...SHRUG.

 

[castlegates]

I would expect that the Pres/ VP would completely disassociate any religious beliefs or understandings from the way he/she leads the nation. You are more than welcome to believe in God, but please don't tell me Iraq was God's war, when half a million Iraqi's suffered for a mistake by the Bush administration.

Some people consider having religious beliefs to be a mental illness. That would mean that most, if not all presidents of the United States, and those running this year, were, or are somewhat koo koo. Sometimes you got to just bite the bullet ,and hope it's not going to be worse than you think. ;-)

 

[deckart]

If she is causing this much commotion on an "intellectual" forum, she must be doing something right. LOL

I hear the question "what are her accomplishments?" and then I look to the Obama camp...

This is too rich.

She has rocked to boat in Alaska by going against the political grain of her own party without regard to "how things are done here". She has more cohonas than Sen Obama so far as I've seen.

 

[Cyrus]

If she is causing this much commotion on an "intellectual" forum, she must be doing something right. LOL

I hear the question "what are her accomplishments?" and then I look to the Obama camp...

This is too rich.

She has rocked to boat in Alaska by going against the political grain of her own party without regard to "how things are done here". She has more cohonas than Sen Obama so far as I've seen.

With Obama, at the very least one can argue the man represents change in the sense that he has not been in Washington for a long time. (Granted, that can have some downsides to it as well). However, if one is going to argue a person brings about change then an important factor is what they bring to the table. What tools are in their toolbox? With Obama, he went to harvard. He studied law. He taught constitutional law. He has a very good understanding of how the system works from a legal standpoint.

If one is going to argue they are 'new' but want to make change (Palin, Obama) then they need to have the 'smarts' to enable a change because they don't have the experience. Palin, does NOT have the smarts. Had the republicans brought in a VP that was supposed to be a new change, then that person had better be smart. Very smart. That's the difference between Obama and her -he's got a brain to try and bring about changes.

Also, its quite hypocritcial for you to sit there and ask anything about obama's qualifications when palin's are clearly a joke. Mayor of a town of 9,000 people? Studied Journalism in U of Idaho. Wants to teach Creationism...Lets get real.

Also, wasnt the Alaskian public quite upset with 'how things are done here', which is why she had to do what she did? I think I read something about corruption and ethics problems with the people she replaced. I could be wrong, I'm just trying to recall from memory. But if I am recalling correctly, then that shows me she really just stepped into a fortunate situation politically.

 

[castlegates]

Yeah, I called her an ugly pig. It was a jab at her. I can care about the issues and call her an ugly pig.

Actually you can't call her an ugly pig, at least not on this forum, last I heard.

And those 'many voters' are idiots. It DOES matter if that's right or wong because that's a fundamental problem. Democracy only works with an educated public. If you don't vote, you're worthless. People faught in wars and died so you could have that right. People in other countries don't even have that option. The fact that you spit on it by not voting is disgraceful.

Those 'many voters' all get one vote apiece, and by rights, are allowed to vote any way they please, and deserve your respect, lest you wish to disenfranchise them?
And calling me worthless is not going to go over to well with the mods. I'd like to vote, but not in a popularity contest.

You're observations are not impartial, they are irrelevant. I don't argue she is not bubbly. When did I say otherwise? I said she's a retarded idiot. I said people that like her because she is 'bubbly' are retarded idiots.

I'm not sure I could dig a bigger hole than the one you are digging. Your compliments are acting as a very large shovel.

It does not because you just don't care. You don't even vote, why should you care?

Exactly
It is a source of entertainment though.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually you can't call her an ugly pig, at least not on this forum, last I heard.

You must have heard wrong. I can say anything I want about Palin. She is not a member of the forum.

Those 'many voters' all get one vote apiece, and by rights, are allowed to vote any way they please, and deserve your respect, lest you wish to disenfranchise them?

No they don't deserve my respect.

And calling me worthless is not going to go over to well with the mods. I'd like to vote, but not in a popularity contest.

Chosing not to vote is a worthless action. Worse, its an insult. Again, people faught and died for you to be able to vote. By throwing away your vote you basically spit on their face. I don't have any patience for people who don't vote, and I don't waste my time listening to their point of view. In all seriousness, you should simply bow out of any political discussions if you don't vote and keep quiet. Because that's what you're doing by not voting - keeping quiet.

I'm not sure I could dig a bigger hole than the one you are digging. Your compliments are acting as a very large shovel.

I'm outraged and offended by your comments concerning not voting. Honsetly, I find it disgusting.

You clearly don't care about who's running for president/vp. So, why are you wasting our time by posting here? What purpose do you have posting? Don't think I'm going to let you get away with posting things like 'You act as if I don't care about the real issues' when you yourself don't even vote.

That's not going to fly around here buddy.

 

[castlegates]

You must have heard wrong. I can say anything I want about Palin. She is not a member of the forum.

So say you.

No they don't deserve my respect.

So if you don't vote - no respect from you?
If you do vote, but not the way you expect - no respect from you ?

Chosing not to vote is a worthless action. Worse, its an insult. Again, people faught and died for you to be able to vote. By throwing away your vote you basically spit on their face. I don't have any patience for people who don't vote, and I don't waste my time listening to their point of view. In all seriousness, you should simply bow out of any political discussions if you don't vote and keep quiet. Because that's what you do by not voting - keep quiet.

So now you want to curtail my freedom of speech? Wow!

Im not complimenting you. I'm outraged and offended by your comments concerning not voting. Honsetly, I find it disgusting.

You clearly don't care about who's running for president/vp. So, why are you wasting our time by posting here?

But I do care. I cared enough to write up a new constitution 15 years ago, for the one we have now is destined to fail.

 

[Cyrus]

So say you.

So if you don't vote - no respect from you?
If you do vote, but not the way you expect - no respect from you ?

So now you want to curtail my freedom of speech? Wow!

But I do care. I cared enough to write up a new constitution 15 years ago, for the one we have now is destined to fail.

Okay......and on that note were done.

I've already made it clear. If you don't care, and you don't vote: I have no respect for you, because you have no respect for democracy or the people that died to maintain it.

Im not taking away your right to speak. You can talk, but don't expect anyone to listen or care when you yourself don't even care! Jeesh man, that's hypocritical.

I think I'm going to bow out from any more discussions with you. In all honesty, I don't have any respect left to hear your opinions. I am sorry if that comes off harsh - but your not voting really is that big of a deal to me.

I hope other people responding will do the same.

If any of my previous posts offended you I appologize. Please have a nice day.

 

[castlegates]

Okay......

I've already made it clear. If you don't care, and you don't vote. I have no respect for you, because you have no respect for democracy or the people that died to maintain it.

Im not taking away your right to speak. You can talk, but don't expect anyone to listen or care when you yourself don't even care! Jeesh man, that's hypocritical.

I think I'm going to bow out from any more discussions with you. In all honesty, I don't have any respect left to hear your opinions. I am sorry if that comes off harsh - but you're not voting really is that big of a deal.

Actually - I think I care much more about democracy than you, for I wouldn't go around calling people idiots, for not voting according to my criteria.
Have a nice day.

 

[Cyrus]

"To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” -Louis L'Amour

Bill Vaughan:
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election.


Jane Auer:
Voting is one of the few things where boycotting in protest clearly makes the problem worse rather than better.

Robert M. Hutchins:
The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.


Thomas Jefferson:
Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Palin pick an insult to our intelligence

Have no fear on that point.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow, she's bubbly!

Well that settles that, she should run the country.

Quite a poor justification you made.

She's bubbly, Obama's charismatic. Seems to me they are equally qualified!

Maybe you don't recognize it, but your posts epitomize the very thing you state. People cheerleading her because its simply a popularity contest -Ironic.

C'mon. Why is Obama even in the race? He made a good speech at a national convention 8 years ago that made him popular. That's it. He's too inexperienced to have a real track record or real political clout and when he speaks, there is no substance, just applause-lines. What makes this so ironic is the Palin pick beats the Dems at their own game. They made this a popularity contest and Repubs just one-upped them at it and are now winning.

I wasn't sure about this pick at first, but now I'm loving it for the irony it creates and the mirror it points at Obama. It is tough for him to bash her for being all looks and no substance because some of that is going to bounce right back at him.

Oh, and Palin does have something in her resume that paints her as a true maverick. That business with her taking down the top brass of her own party in Alaska is very impressive to me. What does Obama have on his record that paints him as a reformer as he claims to be?

FWIW, Obama is right to pound on McCain's voting with Bush for the past 8 years, but McCain does have an easy out: he has a proven track record as a "maverick" prior to that (and oh, by the way, what was Obama doing prior to 8 years ago?). The danger for Obama that it allows McCain to highlight his own record as a maverick and point out Obama's lack of a record means that it may be a dangerous issue for Obama.


[edit] Oh - the McCain-Feingold Act was 2002. I didn't realize that it was so recent. Bush was President then, but Obama wasn't even in the Senate yet.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Politicians will help a district that voted against them sooner than they will help a district that doesn't vote. When you don't vote, you are voting against your district.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps this is something for another thread, but can someone explain to me this "90%" (or whatever the number is) thing? Where does it come from/what does it mean exactly? Bush is President, not a Senator, so he doesn't vote and up until last year he vetoed nothing, so what does it really mean to say that McCain voted with him 90% of the time? Does it just mean that he's on the winning side of 90% of passed bills? That would make sense since as a moderate, he's a swing vote.

[edit] Ok, here it is - they do an analysis of his voting record vs Bush's states positions. Interestingly enough, Obama also has a strong record of voting with his party's position:

Also, Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006, according to CQ.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html

Since it makes a good sound-byte, I'm sure he'll keep using it, but it seems to me that there is some danger in it because of his own record.

There may be even more danger in this:

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html

It is tough to argue that you are a change-minded independent thinker when you won't take a stand on a tough issues. It's been one of the biggest criticisms of him in the campaign and his record bears it out.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Perhaps this is something for another thread, but can someone explain to me this "90%" (or whatever the number is) thing?

Although the President does not vote in the Senate, he does make his position known on issues that come up before the Senate. I don't know if this site is partisan, but I link to it none the less.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html"

 

[LowlyPion]

Some people consider having religious beliefs to be a mental illness. That would mean that most, if not all presidents of the United States, and those running this year, were, or are somewhat koo koo. Sometimes you got to just bite the bullet ,and hope it's not going to be worse than you think. ;-)

Now there is a fallacious argument. No one has suggested that having religious beliefs is a mental illness. In that regard I think Obama is a regular at church and has indicated that he prays for inner strength and for good outcomes for the country and its people.

Where religious belief crosses the line is when it seeks to intrude into governing the people and the state. Where one group would subject its belief structure on the remainder. In this regard Obama does not seek to impose his religion on others, except perhaps by the force of his example.

Palin on the other hand would embrace the extreme right wing activism and ban books - she fired the town librarian because she would not ban books, She would allow exposing school children to faith based beliefs like Intelligent design, or would ban abortions out of some misguided belief that viable life begins at conception. She would ban gay marriages because apparently her Pentecostal sect, along with others in the extreme right, rather than embrace New Testament notions about loving and treating everyone equally, would deny state protections afforded opposite sex partners to those that might choose same sex partners. A rather hypocritical asymmetry if you ask me.

While no one begrudges the Pentecostals their beliefs and legislates against them, the idea that their extreme beliefs would be imposed on others, that they would become the basis of being embodied in laws that would force others to their belief, is certainly every bit as alarming as the rise of any totalitarian regime.

The separation of church and state is one of the delineated protections for the few against the tyranny of the many, just as an elected form of government with balanced authorities is a protection for the many against the tyranny of the few.

 

[LowlyPion]

I hear the question "what are her accomplishments?" and then I look to the Obama camp...

Let me ask again. Just what are those accomplishments?

What makes her qualified in the least to be anything but a National Embarrassment if she were to ever by some unfortunate happenstance assume the office of President?

I take the failure to offer any actual specifics to be an admission that she is totally unqualified. (Btw, throwing out rocking the Alaskan State House is a nothing argument. What substantive decisions has she pushed through besides signing her own stay at home per diems and selling an airplane?)

 

[castlegates]

"To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” -Louis L'Amour

Obviosly this person does not understand the bill of rights, as he seeks to take them away.

Jane Auer:
Voting is one of the few things where boycotting in protest clearly makes the problem worse rather than better.

The current popularity contest, and all those before it, and all those after, guarantees a road to failure.

Robert M. Hutchins:
The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.

and I hope it starves to death.

Thomas Jefferson:
Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.

Spoken like a true politician.