McCain VP choice

[bascule]

Well Obama has ten years' legislative experience, versus Palin's 10 years executive experience. I think a state governor is roughly comparable to a state senator in some respects, and Obama has a little more experience at that level, but he is running for the head of the executive branch. I don't know, I can see how some will see it as a wash and others will see an advantage to Palin.

 

Palin was involved in little more than city government until 2006. She only has 2 years of experience as a state executive. Obama has 7 years of experience at the state level and 4 years at the national level.

[Pangloss]

Palin was involved in little more than city government until 2006. She only has 2 years of experience as a state executive. Obama has 7 years of experience at the state level and 4 years at the national level.

 

Okay, but you say that as if that's a lot of experience for Obama. It isn't a lot of experience, it isn't executive experience, and just saying it plays right into an obvious hypocrisy reaction.

[iNow]

Okay, but you say that as if that's a lot of experience for Obama. It isn't a lot of experience, it isn't executive experience, and just saying it plays right into an obvious hypocrisy reaction.

 

I thought Bascule shared the info he did to show your equivocation with Obama's experience and Palin's was problematic, not to imply that Obama had lots of experience.

[CDarwin]

Okay, but you say that as if that's a lot of experience for Obama. It isn't a lot of experience, it isn't executive experience, and just saying it plays right into an obvious hypocrisy reaction.

 

But Palin's is ridiculously less... Obama worked in public service for years beyond his political career and has also held corporate and academic posts that themselves would seem to add up to Palin's entire local service in Wasilla. And being governor of a state for 20 months really only proves that she's a talented (and probably connected) enough politician to get elected to that post with such sparse background.

[bascule]

...just saying it plays right into an obvious hypocrisy reaction.

 

I don't think I'm the one who has the problem with those...

[john5746]

Okay, but you say that as if that's a lot of experience for Obama. It isn't a lot of experience, it isn't executive experience, and just saying it plays right into an obvious hypocrisy reaction.

 

this stands out as well...

 

 

BA journalism Idaho Univ

runner up in Miss Alaska pageant

 

compared to

 

Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude Harvard 1991

elected President of the Harvard Law Review 1990

 

 

Should we get a high school drop-out who likes to hunt? Maybe they are in tune with the "common man"? Outside the beltway doesn't need to be dumbing down, IMO.

[Pangloss]

I thought Bascule shared the info he did to show your equivocation with Obama's experience and Palin's was problematic, not to imply that Obama had lots of experience.

 

I know, I'm just playing out the scenarios here. Many on the left are trying to portray Obama as having significant experience when compared with Palin. I think that's a mistake in strategy, for the reasons expressed above. I don't disrespect the opinion, though; in fact I share it.

 

But Palin's is ridiculously less...

 

I disagree, or perhaps more accurately I think any comparison is ultimately pointless. What the selection does show us is how little regard both parties now have for the experience issue -- so little that it's been sacrificed on the altar of victoria-uber-alles. Frankly, in my opinion, neither party is acting maturely or responsibly enough to be selecting our next president. As john5746 says, "outside the beltway doesn't need to be dumbing down". But that's exactly what's happening.

 

IMO all we can do is hang on for the ride and hope we put someone in charge who can inject a little sense and sensibility back into things. With apologies to Jane Austen, of course.

[CPL.Luke]

I was actually somewhat on the fence until now, orignialy I liked obama, then mccain due to energy and diplomacy (obama's reaction to russia was pitiful), but now with

mac's health as it is 'm gonna have to go with obama.

 

Its a shame to as I figured mccain could handle a divided government, which would blunt his crazy tax plan which would add 300 billion to the deficit. (although he had the right idea on corporate taxes)

 

right now I figure obama has run a near perfect campaign so he clearly can handle executive and leadership functions. and hopefully he'll put people in place to fix his other problems.

[bascule]

I think it's funny how what a brilliant strategic move dropping the VP decision right after the DNC to steal Obama's thunder belies what a bizarre decision Palin was for VP.

 

Perhaps what's even weirder is a new talking point being used to promote her: she has foreign policy experience because Alaska is next to Russia. Zuh?

 

It's like the brilliant Rovian political machinery folded back on itself and imploded...

[Sisyphus]

 

Perhaps what's even weirder is a new talking point being used to promote her: she has foreign policy experience because Alaska is next to Russia. Zuh?

 

Hehe, I heard Cindy McCain saying that. "Alaska is actually the closest state to Russia, so Sarah knows what's at stake." I assumed she was just being typically silly. I didn't realize that had become an actual talking point.

[iNow]

I didn't realize that had become an actual talking point.

 

So, as you said, Cindy McCain said it this morning on THIS WEEK with George Stephonopoulos. Clip here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zP8uFPWxaA

 

 

However, it was shared on Fox News this weekend by Jim Doocy. Clip here:

 

 

 

As we all know, Fox News gets the "Emergency Republican Talking Points" fax every day, and I've seen it in a few other places already, so you do the math.

Edited September 1, 2008 by iNow

[Pangloss]

As we all know, Fox News gets the "Emergency Republican Talking Points" fax every day

 

Ugh, do they actually call it that? Yeesh, that's almost as bad as the Democrats' "Rapid Response Team". I get those friggin emails every day myself. Actually I get stupid emails from both parties now, always clamoring about how evil the other side is.

[bascule]

Hehe, I heard Cindy McCain saying that. "Alaska is actually the closest state to Russia, so Sarah knows what's at stake." I assumed she was just being typically silly. I didn't realize that had become an actual talking point.

 

I first heard it muttered on Fox news. They covered it on friday's episode of the Daily Show.

[john5746]

I'm hearing quite a few comments about her youngest special needs child. She is getting pluses and minuses, depending on the viewpoint. I think it would be far less an issue if she were the father. Seems like having a family is a bonus for men.

 

I don't think it should be an issue at all, but she has many more. Wouldn't you love to see her quizzed on Russia?

[Pangloss]

This sudden move into the national spotlight must be rough on their 17-year-old daughter, who is reportedly five months pregnant. I'm sure that'll get a lot of play in the blogosphere, especially since the daughter is beautiful and her picture is out there. Talk about circumstances compounding a mistake!

[Sisyphus]

This sudden move into the national spotlight must be rough on their 17-year-old daughter, who is reportedly five months pregnant. I'm sure that'll get a lot of play in the blogosphere, especially since the daughter is beautiful and her picture is out there. Talk about circumstances compounding a mistake!

 

Apparently they released that information to counter rumors that Bristol (the daughter) is the real mother of Palin's youngest son. I wasn't going to post anything about it because it could easily just have been crazy rumors and it's a distraction from the real issues, even though my bullshit detector is still going crazy about the official version of events. I suspect that we still haven't heard the truth and that the public drama isn't over, which is unfortunate. Her family's private life is none of my business. The only remotely relevant aspect would be if she abused her power in a cover up of some kind.

[ParanoiA]

I'm hearing quite a few comments about her youngest special needs child. She is getting pluses and minuses, depending on the viewpoint. I think it would be far less an issue if she were the father. Seems like having a family is a bonus for men.

 

I don't think it should be an issue at all, but she has many more. Wouldn't you love to see her quizzed on Russia?

 

Yes, I've heard quite the rotten, disgusting prejudice about how "she needs to be home with her child". I thought we were post 50's here.

 

I just find it all so...irrelevant. Kind of like all of their private life stuff - it's just not important to the job.

 

Now, the quiz on Russia - that's real damn relevant. And I'd like to see it.

 

This sudden move into the national spotlight must be rough on their 17-year-old daughter, who is reportedly five months pregnant. I'm sure that'll get a lot of play in the blogosphere, especially since the daughter is beautiful and her picture is out there. Talk about circumstances compounding a mistake!

 

I've already read blogs from left wing nutjobs claiming that Palin is a horrible mother and that if she can't "control her 17 year old daughter" then how can she run the united states government..blah blah blah. Of course, anyone who claims "control" of a teenager needs to be probed for child imprisonment and/or abuse.

 

It's despicable, and I'm sure we're going to hear more and more hypocrisy from the extreme left. Charges that she should be home with her disabled child - which I guess will get her closer to the kitchen which is where she needs to be...

Edited September 1, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

It also represents her entire "foreign policy experience."

 

 

 

 

 

I thought this was an interesting take over at Pharyngula:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/from_the_horses_mouth.php

 

Here's the other side: Sarah Palin made some policy statements in her run for governor, so we can see what to expect. She's pro-ignorance and anti-civil rights all the way, opposing gay marriage, sex education, and reproductive rights for women. No surprise at all, I know. Here are some answers that jumped out at me:

 

 

Oh dear. You really have to read the responses.

[Pangloss]

Oof. Well, I can understand where he's coming from, and I think there's a point to be made about conservatives and misleading sex ed, but that point breaks down at the individual level. You can't make a "poster child" for that one, because regardless of what sex ed programs exist you still have the possibility of an individual getting pregnant. Sure, she might have been saved by sex ed programs, or she might not have. You just don't know.

[ParanoiA]

Oh dear. You really have to read the responses.

 

They weren't bad, for a religio republican.

 

I thought this one was interesting:

 

2. Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?Why or why not?

 

SP: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.

 

Myers goes on to make a good point about a disaster for education, but it misses the larger individual rights principle that parents are the check on the school system - it's their child. Again, this notion parents shouldn't have a right to occlude curricula offensive to their conscience assumes the curricula to be prejudiced free - that the government run school system could never be guilty.

 

Well if Myers can throw out the constitution to dismiss one of her answers, then I can catch it and use his slavery strawman here: If I don't want my child to learn that slavery is ok and profitable, then I shouldn't have to teach that to them. After all, at one time slavery was perfectly reasonable and blessed by the constitution and no doubt would have been taught that way if they had compulsory education.

 

I'd like to think we all have the right to override a state's antiquated moral dynamics. But of course, we always seem to operate from the perspective that our present morals are the exception to history, and should be just as legislated.

 

 

 

My only real point is that her answers revealed principles that guide her. She answered in complete sentences - statements with consequences that go beyond his little question.

 

Edit: Oh, and boy did she screw up the pledge of allegiance question... That was dumb.

Edited September 1, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

Well if Myers can throw out the constitution to dismiss one of her answers, then I can catch it and use his slavery strawman here: If I don't want my child to learn that slavery is ok and profitable, then I shouldn't have to teach that to them. After all, at one time slavery was perfectly reasonable and blessed by the constitution and no doubt would have been taught that way if they had compulsory education.

Not your best analogy. Evolution is fact. Interpretations of slavery and constitutionality are opinion.

[bascule]

This sudden move into the national spotlight must be rough on their 17-year-old daughter, who is reportedly five months pregnant. I'm sure that'll get a lot of play in the blogosphere, especially since the daughter is beautiful and her picture is out there. Talk about circumstances compounding a mistake!

 

I smell a shotgun wedding

[ParanoiA]

Not your best analogy. Evolution is fact. Interpretations of slavery and constitutionality are opinion.

 

Yes, and she mentioned nothing about evolution. The question is qualified by "offensive to their religion or conscience". Yes, if something offends my conscience, you can bet your bottom dollar I'm probably not going to want to pass that on to my kids. Like slavery being a really cool and profitable idea.

 

Also, keep in mind, that restricting the school from teaching X does not equate to the child not learning X. Back to slavery. I would be an idiot and irresponsible not to teach my child that slavery has happened and exists. However, it may be that I want to teach my child my way, so I can be sure it's not taught as socially acceptable, but rather as socially shameful while sharing the facts.

 

So it's plausible that parents will want certain subjects off limits to the school system, so they can expose their children the way they want.

 

Of course, the left extremists assume "yeah, teach them church dogma the way you want" while the right extremists say "Yeah, send them to school without any rights so they can teach them dogma the way they want".

[Pangloss]

I smell a shotgun wedding

 

With mom holding the gun!

 

Of course, the left extremists assume "yeah, teach them church dogma the way you want" while the right extremists say "Yeah, send them to school without any rights so they can teach them dogma the way they want".

 

I agree that this is a problem. Parents are caught in the middle because society requires parents to be responsible for their children but then frequently undermines their efforts in many ways. And everyone has a biased point of view based on their personal experience. Frankly I don't consider the typical 18-24 year old single person qualified to decide what sex education should consist of in public schools -- they tend to dismiss the subject as trivial, wish they'd been allowed to start earlier, and/or forget that children mature at different ages. On the other hand, parents with extreme religious views may decide that no education is best, which is stupid as well.

 

And I think there's a valid point to be made that when it's done poorly there's a cost to society, not just to parents and their children. But if we're going to dictate the finer points of parenting, while at the same time refusing to back that up in the classroom or law books, and hold parents accountable when their children fail, then at some point you wonder if parents will start questioning whether it's worth the hassle.

[iNow]

Education should never be based on democracy. It should be based on meritocracy.