News Sarah Palin: Will She Run for President in 2012?

[Evo]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Al68]

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?

 

[WhoWee]

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?).

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[Al68]

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]

LOL, I doubt she can name the states, much less count them.

Are you being serious?

 

[Evo]

Are you being serious?

Very serious. And I'm not mistaken in my wording.

 

[CRGreathouse]

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. 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]

I don't know, this is the same person who couldn't name a newspaper when put on the spot

 

[CAC1001]

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?

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.

 

[Evo]

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. 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?

 

[BobG]

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

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. 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.

 

[WhoWee]

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

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. 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]

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?

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[BobG]

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]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[Al68]

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]

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]

Conservatism incarnate:

A Time for Choosing
Date hint: Harvard tuition $2700/year.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777069922535499977#

 

[CRGreathouse]

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.

 

[Al68]

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]

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]

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.

 

[BobG]

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.

 

[Al68]

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]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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 - the next time Robert Gibbs speaks.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Al68]

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.

 

[turbo]

Little quiz for you: What was the top marginal tax rate when Goldwater was serving his first stint in the Senate?

 

[Al68]

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.

 

[Evo]

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!

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Amp1]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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 into this whole Goldwater discussion - are you going to enlighten us?

 

[WhoWee]

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.

??

 

[turbo]

Turbo, you still haven't addressed how Lugar would have brought home a win - as compared to Palin - and tied it into 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.

 

[Al68]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Al68]

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]

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]

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...