McCain VP choice

[bascule]

NHer daughter is not relevant to her mother's policies.

 

Her daughter is indicative of the shortcomings of her policies, but you don't have to look to that for evidence. There are studies documenting the shortcomings of abstinence-only programs in reducing pregnancy rates (and in some cases, increasing pregnancy rates over a control group who didn't take any sex ed)

[ParanoiA]

Her daughter is indicative of the shortcomings of her policies, but you don't have to look to that for evidence. There are studies documenting the shortcomings of abstinence-only programs in reducing pregnancy rates (and in some cases, increasing pregnancy rates over a control group who didn't take any sex ed)

 

Right you don't look to her daughter for evidence because that's anecdotal and meaningless for legitimate analysis. The studies documenting the shortcomings of abstinence-only programs is the way to analyze. And I have no doubt that will prove true.

[iNow]

ParanoiA - You've pretty much argued against me by repeating the exact same thing I was saying, so I'm going to chalk this up to a bad misunderstanding and leave it at that. The daughter is not an issue. Let's focus on policies. This seems to be what you're saying too, so I'm hoping you can realize that your passion is toward others who have been failing to make this distinction. Your vitriol seems to be focused on them and not me, despite the fact that you've been here responding to MY posts.

 

We agree here, so please, see that.

 

 

 

 

In the meantime, go Sam!

 

 

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/sam-harris-sexist-pig-and-liberal-shill/

I’ve received more than the usual amount of criticism for my recent opinion piece on Sarah Palin, most of it alleging sexism and/or an unseemly infatuation with Barack Obama. For those who care, I’d like to briefly respond:

 

My alleged sexism: It is true that I used some hackneyed, gender-slanted language in the piece (“get sassy,” “girl-next-door,” etc.). This was deliberate. Clearly, I played this game at my peril. I can say that if Sarah Palin were a man of similar qualifications, I would have used equally slanted language to describe him. I might have called Mr. Palin a “frat-boy” or a “lumberjack.” I would have invoked some silly macho phrasing like,“Watch Cousin Jim flip Putin the bird.” My concern is not that Mrs. Palin is a woman. My concern is that she is a totally unqualified and poorly educated woman who was added to the Republican ticket as a token woman (and Creationist wacko). For what it’s worth, the article was vetted by the two women closest to me (wife and mother) and by two female editors at the LA Times. If anything, the editing at the Times made the piece even more “sexist.”

 

My alleged Obamamania: Many McCain supporters have written to say that (1) Obama is also unqualified (or even less qualified than Palin) and (2) I have shown myself to be a hypocrite by not objecting to Obama’s religiosity. Briefly: My criticism of Palin should not be construed as uncritical acceptance of Obama. Needless to say, I find Obama’s religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead. Palin, by all appearances, seems to be one. This is a difference worth noting. Whatever you may think of his politics, Obama is very intelligent and reasonably well educated. Palin thinks the universe is 6000 years old. Unfortunately, I wrote my article before some of the most disturbing signs of her religious extremism came to my attention.

 

So, let me simply declare that I would be overjoyed to have a qualified woman in the White House. I would, likewise, be overjoyed to have a qualified African American in the White House. In fact, I would be overjoyed to have a qualified WASP man in the White House. I will be guardedly optimistic to have a very smart (and somewhat qualified) Barack Obama in the White House. And I would be frankly terrified to have a religious bumpkin like Sarah Palin in the White House. I think you should share this last conviction. Hence my latest opinion piece.

 

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

 

The contradictions are building as we the people continue vetting Palin. She's not looking good on the sincerity and authenticity scale.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2008/09/palin_slashed_funding_for_food.php

 

Because nothing says compassionate conservatism like not helping hungry people. While many people have noted the incongruency of Palin's slashing funds for assistance to unwed mothers, her halving of a budget item to help the Fairbanks food bank has gone unnoticed.

 

<...>

 

It's a goddamn food bank. Asking for help in keeping food refrigerated and for paying the utility bills isn't 'pork.' Good thing the economy's tanking--it's not like they won't need to feed people.

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Here's more against the claims of "taking down corruption and earmarks:"

 

 

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/09/the_earmark_queenupdated.html

By now, we all know that far from being a mortal foe of earmarks, Palin was in fact a pioneer and trailblazer in the earmark world. Small towns in Alaska almost never lobbied for federal pork until Palin showed the way, and her success inspired others to follow.

 

However, what we didn't know until the

LA Times

told us today, is that John McCain's annual list of objectionable pork singled out Palin's requests not once, not twice,

but three separate times

:

 

Three times in recent years, McCain's catalogs of "objectionable" spending have included earmarks for this small Alaska town, requested by its mayor at the time — Sarah Palin.

 

....In 2001, McCain's list of spending that had been approved without the normal budget scrutiny included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla. The Arizona senator targeted $1 million in a 2002 spending bill for an emergency communications center in town -- one that local law enforcement has said is redundant and creates confusion. McCain also criticized $450,000 set aside for an agricultural processing facility in Wasilla that was requested during Palin's tenure.

 

 

Even McCain himself saw the error in Palin's ways... That is, of course, at least until he became candidate McCain and chose to select her as his VP to shore up the support of his base and try to sway Hillary Clinton supporters to his side.

Edited September 4, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Mr Skeptic]

Paranoia -- my mention of Palin's pregnant daughter as evidence that Palin is not good at managing her family is only evidence, not proof. Read it like statistics: good parenting skills, in general, result in children with good behavior. Becoming pregnant out of wedlock is usually considered to be extremely bad behavior, especially among conservatives and Christians. While a bad child is not proof that the parent was no good, no one can deny that such correlation exists.

 

Having a pregnant daughter out of wedlock also makes her look a bit out of touch with her attitudes about sex education.

 

In any case, her pregnant daughter is a political flaw (regardless of mom's parenting skills), which when added to other flaws such as very little experience, are evidence of a bad choice on behalf of McCain. Or evidence that he has balls. But it seems more likely that McCain chose a poor VP in his attempt to woo the Hillary supporters.

 

But that is all moot since Obama chose not to criticize her for her family.

 

As for the comments about her special needs child, that is just sickening.

[Pangloss]

I do agree with iNow that Mrs. Palin's political positions regarding sex ed (etc) are perfectly valid for discussion. Her daughter is irrelevant to the issue and it's unfortunate that cable pundits will abuse that.

 

But there's an interesting irony here: The left is hell-bent on telling us that she's only been governor for less than two years, and yet her political position is supposedly responsible for her daughter's, uh, delicate condition. It takes much longer than that to debate, pass law, and push it through textbooks and schools. And more to the point, even if she had gotten a thorough, modern education, she still might have gotten pregnant! Just because somebody knows something is stupid doesn't mean they won't do it. That's why you can't use individual examples on something like this to make a larger point about society. It's a very, very flawed argument. So the pundits should leave the poor girl alone (which I think we all agree on).

 

But the left is not wrong to say that her position on sex ed is a relevant issue. It surely is. I just happen to think it's a distraction, because she's only a VP candidate. It's a waste of time. But I realize others see it differently, and we certainly have room for more than one debate in society at a time.

[iNow]

But the left is not wrong to say that her position on sex ed is a relevant issue. It surely is. I just happen to think it's a distraction, because she's only a VP candidate. It's a waste of time.

 

Well, it's not just the left making comments, but hey...

 

As for her being "only VP:"

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/why_palins_creationism_views_m.php

Second, let me lay out the case for why this matters. First, I'll state the obvious: John McCain is old. He's really, really old. There's a reasonable chance that Palin will take over the duties of president in the next four years if McCain is elected, and even if she doesn't, as Jim notes, she becomes a frontrunner for the next open nomination to be president. So why does that make her views matter? Because she may well be appointing Supreme Court justices, if not in the next four years then in the next 8-16 years.

 

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/32755/2087/846/579879

Social Security Administration maintains statistics on life expectancy and death probabilities. John McCain, who turned 72 today, has a 3.3% chance of dying before his 73rd birthday, 0.6% chance of dying before the elections and a 1.3% chance of dying before the inauguration.

 

McCain will be just over 76 on Election Day, 2012. He has a 15% chance of dying before then. He will be 80 for the 2016 elections – and a 32% chance of not making it.

 

If McCain gets elected in November, and maintains his incumbency 4 years from now, chances are 1 in 3 that we will see Ms. Palin as President.

 

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13096.html

It’s a macabre point to raise on the night when Palin will speak to the convention here — but a look at the actuarial tables insurance companies use to evaluate customers shows that it’s not an irrelevant one. According to these statistics, there is a roughly 1 in 3 chance that a 72-year-old man will not reach the age of 80, which is how old McCain would be at the end of a second presidential term. And that doesn’t factor in individual medical history, such as McCain’s battles with potentially lethal skin cancer.

 

“For a man, that’s above the expected lifetime at the present,” said Michael Powers, a professor of risk management and insurance at Temple University’s Fox School of Business.

 

The odds of a 72-year-old man living four more years, or one full White House term, are better. But for a man who has lived 72 years and 67 days (McCain’s age on Election Day this year), there is between a 14.2 and 15.1 percent chance of dying before Inauguration Day 2013, according to the Social Security Administration’s 2004 actuarial tables and the authoritative 2001 mortality statistics assembled by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

 

Going by the Social Security Administration’s tables, that’s nearly ten times the likelihood that a man aged 47 years and 92 days (Barack Obama’s age on Election Day this year) will die before Jan. 20, 2013.

 

Using the NAIC tables instead, which factor in the fact that Obama has been a smoker for most of his adult life, a non-smoker McCain’s age is still six times as likely to die in the next four years as a smoker Obama’s age.

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris3-2008sep03,0,5745350.story

The actuarial tables on the Social Security Administration website suggest that there is a better than 10% chance that McCain will die during his first term in office. Needless to say, the Reaper's scything only grows more insistent thereafter. Should President McCain survive his first term and get elected to a second, there is a 27% chance that Palin will become the first female U.S. president by 2015. If we take into account McCain's medical history and the pressures of the presidency, the odds probably increase considerably that this bright-eyed Alaskan will become the most powerful woman in history.

 

 

 

EDIT: I forgot to mention - 9 out of our previous 44 vice presidents have become president, whether through illness/death, resignation, or assassination of the sitting president, or via election. Also, a much more minor note, but still worthy of mention, Dick Cheney has acted twice as President for George W. Bush, on June 29, 2002 and July 21, 2007.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Records

Edited September 4, 2008 by iNow

[bascule]

But there's an interesting irony here: The left is hell-bent on telling us that she's only been governor for less than two years, and yet her political position is supposedly responsible for her daughter's, uh, delicate condition.

 

Palin has been Bristol's mother for 17 years. I think that counts a bit more...

 

even if she had gotten a thorough, modern education, she still might have gotten pregnant!

 

If she got a largely secular Danish education, she'd have a 0.5% chance of

 

...she's only a VP candidate. It's a waste of time.

 

Only a VP candidate? You're just giving her a bye? She has credentials that are questionable for a cabinet member, let alone the person who takes over the country when the president is incapacitated or dies. We're talking 20 months as governor of a state with 3 electoral votes. That's supposed to give her the experience to command an entire nation? She was governor of a state whose population makes up 0.2% of the entire nation... for 20 months.

[Pangloss]

If McCain gets elected in November, and maintains his incumbency 4 years from now, chances are 1 in 3 that we will see Ms. Palin as President.

 

Let's stop right there. The Daily Kos (unsurprisingly) spun the science and I think it calls for unspinning. First, McCain doesn't have a 15% chance of dying, he has an 85% chance of surviving. Let's at least phrase it in a positive manner, instead of trying to look forward to the man's DEATH! Yeesh, that Kos is a bastard.

 

But more to the point, we get another election in four years. He might not run again. Palin might not be his VP next time. Who knows? But the point is, you get another choice in the matter in four years.

 

Anyway, I'm not saying that the choice of vice president is unimportant, what I am saying is that I think all this talk about VPs is just distraction from the real issues, perpetuated by partisans who aren't really interested in the merits of the choices to begin with. They're only interested in making the other side wrong.

[iNow]

Well, I will admit openly that I disagree with a great number of the Republican positions. I don't think that will come as a surprise. However, I do take great issue with you suggesting that my only interest is in "making the other side wrong."

 

I care about my country, and I find Palin's lack of experience appalling. You don't have to call me sexist or leftie to discount my point. You have to show me where her experience has prepared her to deal with national and international issues.

 

Sound good? I really do care about these choices. I respect the office. I want our country to be served.

 

How is my asking questions a bad thing? You don't shut up people who disagree with you, you use your knowledge and intelligence to win them over, or, you listen to them so you can change your own mind.

 

 

Not everything is partisan, Pangloss. We've butted heads repeatedly on this issue, and I find it very unfortunate that you continue with the same tired talking points and no substance. Since I knew you'd challenge the Daily Kos, I was sure to share 3 other references which supported my point, so please... what exactly am I missing here? What point(s) do you wish to convince me on?

[Pangloss]

However, I do take great issue with you suggesting that my only interest is in "making the other side wrong."

 

I know you're not that shallow. Absolutely not.

 

 

I care about my country, and I find Palin's lack of experience appalling.

 

Well now you know how a lot of Republicans feel about Obama. I happen to not agree with them, but what's interesting to me is the way both sides are screaming at each other over this issue, utterly convinced that the other side is wrong. We're actually arguing whether a couple years in the senate is comparable to a couple years as state governor. We're actually arguing over whether a community activist is comparable to a business leader. We're actually doing that. In 2008! I don't know about you, but I'm having a Koyaanisqatsi moment just thinking about it.

 

(And I didn't even have to refresh my memory on the spelling of that word -- that's how bad I think things are.) (I'm not sure that actually makes sense, but wtf, I'll say it anyway.)

 

 

How is my asking questions a bad thing? You don't shut up people who disagree with you, you use your knowledge and intelligence to win them over, or, you listen to them so you can change your own mind.

 

I'm not shutting you up on the VP thing, you go right ahead and talk about it. If anything maybe I need to shut up about y'all talking about it, I guess. Like I said a couple posts ago, it's valid and it's a big table. Anyway, I've said my piece.

[PhDP]

I must admit that I'll a little pissed off by the GOP convention. They can say that democrats are wrong, and even stupid, weak, whatever, but the fact that republicans continue to imply they are the party that loves America, and of course, Obama just loves himself. It's childish. It's in part how they got America into Iraq, it's in part how they won against Kerry, and they're at it again... I think it's a good idea for Obama to talk about this, too often, Democrats have retreated instead of fighting back to the point where they are even scared to say they are liberals. I also think many American are tired of this "Ï love America more than you" argument.

 

About Palin; honestly I cannot think of a worst candidate for the VP spot, from my perspective at least (and I guess republicans have given up hopes of winning the votes of scientists a long, long time ago). I can see McCain as PotUS, or Romney, or even Giuliani. But Palin, no. It's not a question of experience, it's a question of judgment and competence. I like to think that a person must be pretty smart to be the #1 of the world's most powerful country.

 

But I guess it makes sense to pick a women, that is; not Palin, she has so many skeletons in her closet that it's confusing. The republican have played the victim cards very often lately, it's just absurd to hear McCain talk about his experience as a POW when asked about how many houses of got (who cares about houses he got anyway). He was a POW, he's a war hero, big deal, it's not an excuse to lie, it's not even a qualification to be president.

 

Anyway... The point is that it's going to be hard for the democrats to attack Palin, as soon as they're going to criticize her, they're going to play the "they did the same thing to Clinton" card, in addition to the usual "the media is against us" card. Yet, McCain is old and I'm not sure Palin will be that popular on the national level, she's obviously there to please the religious fundamentalists, it would be a good idea for democrats to focus on her. I'm not a political stategist, but I think a good VP candidate gives a little boost for the ticket in an important state (she doesn't) or helps to convince a certain group (she does). But the most important thing for the VP is not to steal the spotlight from the number one on the ticket, especially if it's to excite the news media about abuse-of-power scandals and extremist views.

 

It seems to me that McCain made a terrible mistake.

 

About her daughter's pregnancy. I agree that it's not really our business, still I think it will matter for two reasons;

 

First, I'm certainly not the first to note that Christians fundamentalists oppose sex ed... and this is the result. Of course, it's an anecdote, it could have happened to Chelsea Clinton, it's still a powerful image for the pro-sex-ed people like me.

 

But there is also another aspect that nobody wants to discuss. Aside from all the crazy things she believes (or did, like trying to fire a women because she refused to ban books), the thing that struck me the most is how unpresidential Palin looks (...I'm not talking about her body). Sports reporter, mayor of a very small town, beauty queen contestant, married to a blue-collar... I know anti-elitism is pretty strong in the U.S., it seems that democrats try to hide the fact that Obama was editor of the Harvard law review, but I still think Americans are looking for people with more stature. The fact is; teenage pregnancies are associated with poor, uneducated families. Not always the case, but often is, and the statistics on both the mothers and the children are not pretty.

 

My feeling is that her daughter's pregnancy might hurt her image as a vice-president in the imagination of the Americans. Politics is a lot about perceptions.

Edited September 4, 2008 by PhDP

[ParanoiA]

...but what's interesting to me is the way both sides are screaming at each other over this issue, utterly convinced that the other side is wrong. We're actually arguing whether a couple years in the senate is comparable to a couple years as state governor. We're actually arguing over whether a community activist is comparable to a business leader. We're actually doing that. In 2008! I don't know about you, but I'm having a Koyaanisqatsi moment just thinking about it.

 

You don't think that's a relevant discussion? Honestly, I think has potential for pure bs, but at the same time, I can't deny the point made by a man I cannot freaking stand, Guiliani, that an executive doesn't have the choice of not making a decision, which Obama, McCain and Biden have all enjoyed.

 

I think of it similar to my company. We have beaurocracy (however that word is spelled) that rivals government here. We have teired management, and a first line manager may look equivalent to a 5th line manager to an uncritical mind that latches on to "management" and assumes that's close enough. But, a first line hardly has the resemblance of the skills necessary to be CEO - whereas the 5th line definitely does.

 

So, two questions: Does a governorship, a state president, provide a closer national presidential prerequisite than a congressional seat? And, does that matter?

 

I haven't thought too much about it in the past, but now that I think about it, I'm thinking a mayoral position is more executive which carries a different kind of weight. For one, there are no equals in your territory. As a senator, you feel a little more on your own I guess, there's only two of you, but you're still not entirely on your own here. I think that's particularly important when comparing state representatives (like my guy Dr Paul). An executive has to bear the brunt of opinion as top dog, with no one else to spread the load.

 

An executive doesn't get to not vote, or not show up or be present. The executive must make a decision and move forward. Whether that's half asleep at 3 in the morning, or wide awake in the afternoon, they must be ready to make decisions in a crisis. Executives have more experience and practice with that concept in general, even if the toughest decisions were about where to build the new city park.

 

Does any of this really matter for the presidency? I'm not sure. I think it does. But then, we've obviously had great presidents that didn't come from governor or other executive type positions. So it can't matter too much. But then, I can hardly deny the direct skill set experience being attained in a position of executive power.

 

Of course, I realize governors provide a mixed bag of results as presidents - but then, we weren't looking for the best governor to be president at the time, obviously.

 

Whatever the case, I don't think it's a silly conversation. Well maybe it is, but tell me why. So far, it would seem to be fairly worthwhile even if both sides are being duplicitous about it.

 

If she got a largely secular Danish education, she'd have a 0.5% chance of

 

If she got a largley Quaker education and lifestyle she'd have next to 0 percent chance.

 

I get your point, it just sounds silly to compare education but not cultures.

 

Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, Sarah Palin taught her daughter about sex-ed at home? Condoms and all? After all, Sarah said she rejected support in schools - she rejected the government doing the teaching - she didn't reject the notion of it being taught.

 

I know I've taught my kids already. My wife and I were taught all about safe sex, condoms, other contraceptives - yet I still got her pregnant at 17. Well, by the posts I've read here, that's evidence that sex-ed doesn't work.

 

Not proof - just evidence.

 

I must admit that I'll a little pissed off by the GOP convention. They can say that democrats are wrong, and even stupid, weak, whatever, but the fact that republicans continue to imply they are the party that loves America, and of course, Obama just loves himself. It's childish. It's in part how they got America into Iraq, it's in part how they won against Kerry, and they're at it again... I think it's a good idea for Obama to talk about this, too often, Democrats have retreated instead of fighting back to the point where they are even scared to say they are liberals. I also think many American are tired of this "Ï love America more than you" argument.

 

Well let's not act like we don't know where this comes from. The democrats have invested in defeat because of the injustice of the war. Right or wrong, the left has demonstrated the need to philosophically audit our choices and cast judgement. I like this. The war was wrong. And subtending this, we have seen the democrats consistently judge america as wrong in virtually every international issue that pops up, to the point it looks childish and naive. Like actually arguing in favor of a religious fanatic possessing nukes while simultaneously disparaging GWB has a religious warmonger. Hello?? Anybody in there?

 

The pop culture left has enhanced all of this with a hate america kind of attitude. The resultant of harsh philosophical judgement of past behavior. Again, though, it's all about the bad, nothing we do is good, yadda yadda yadda.

 

Well america smells this particular bullshit, even though they're surrounded in it. Yeah, we're not perfect, and neither is the rest of the world. We have plenty to be proud of, and a bright future, but not if you're just going to wallow in the mud and never look up to see it.

 

So, the republicans have capitalized off the democratic obsession with judging america harshly. We need to judge ourselves honestly, not loathe ourselves. That's where the democrats went wrong. People are afriad to say "I'm proud of my country". Sad. Particularly when it's the result of a fraction of bad behavior over the mounds of good behavior ignored.

 

And I've done a terrible disservice here, because I haven't mentioned the anti-capitalist attitude sinking deeper and deeper into the democratic mantra, into the basement of its ideology. It's codified in their mission statement. The republicans have picked up on this as well.

 

These are two issues that flash in my mind when I hear the republicans talk about patriotism and being proud. It's about countering the anti-capitalist attitude and harsh judgement of american policy. Capitalism is our foundation and our international power is extremely strong. They don't like those two things being called into question.

 

So, the republicans seem to want to label things evil or good and procede without conscience. The democrats appear to question themselves for every enemy that pops up - oh my, what have I done to make this person mad, and what can I do to make them like me again? The rest of us have the sift through this muck and cherry pick which of you are sane enough to realize that you can't boil complexity down to simplicity and you can't presume to live up to other's expectations - and I don't know which is worse.

Edited September 4, 2008 by ParanoiA
multiple post merged

[iNow]

Well, Bush was a governor, too, and look how that has turned out. Executive experience is not exactly the end-all, be-all of ability, skill, and potential.

 

 

On the foreign policy experience, this is getting laughable. Today from CBS:

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/politics/animal/main4414663.shtml

For those keeping score at home, the first person to make this argument was Fox News'

Steve Doocy

, who said, with a straight face, that Palin does know about international relations because she is right up there in Alaska right next door to Russia."

Cindy McCain

was second, telling George Stephanopoulos, in response to a question about national security experience, "[R]emember, Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia. It's not as if she doesn't understand what's at stake here."

 

U.S. News'

Michael Barone

was third, defending Palin's credentials by insisting, "Foreign policy experience? Well, Alaska is the only state with a border with Russia." Fourth was conservative writer

Frank Gaffney

, who said Palin has learned foreign policy "by osmosis," because of Alaska's physical location.

 

John McCain, then, is fifth. Remember, when Doocy first made the argument, it was so laughable on its face that Jon Stewart called him a "

moron

." Now, the Republican nominee for president is making the same pitch, hoping people are just stupid enough to believe it.

 

Palin has never been to Russia. She's never demonstrated any expertise on U.S. policy towards Russia. She doesn't have any background in international relations at any level. But for Republicans, the fact that she's lived in a state near Russia is somehow a qualification for national office.

 

It's the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

And yet, he we are. On ABC's "World News Tonight," none other than John McCain became

the latest Republican to make the connection

.

 

GIBSON: But as you know, the questions revolve really around foreign policy experience. Can you honestly say you feel confident having someone who hasn't traveled outside the United States until last year, dealing with an insurgent Russia, with an Iran with nuclear ambitions, with an unstable Pakistan, not to mention the war on terror?

 

MCCAIN: Sure. And one of the key elements of America's national security requirements are energy. She understands the energy issues better than anybody I know in Washington, D.C., and she understands. Alaska is right next to Russia. She understands that.

 

 

 

 

But, yeah... Instead of discussing the validity of the criticism and responding with substance, Republicans will rile the hornets nest and talk about how the media is a bunch of liberal elitists who are in love with Obama. Talk about distractions...

 

 

I'll tell you what, though. Even if I decided to concede that the experience between Obama and Palin is too similar to argue over, she has still failed nearly every other litmus test I have.

 

• She wants creationism taught alongside evolution
  
• She doesn't believe in man-made global warming
  
• She frames the energy crisis as a purely economic one and not an environmental one, and thinks drilling more oil and coal will solve everything
  
• She is against personal choice in matters of abortion
  
• She tries to ban books from libraries
  
• When people don't give her what she wants, she tries to leverage her power to get them fired
  
• She thinks our founding fathers decided to put "In God We Trust" on our money and also that they all said the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
  
• Did I mention that she supports Intelligent Design and wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to?
  

 

 

Oh yeah, and

that McCain would defeat the entire extremist sect of Islam across the planet if he's elected. Talk about religious war mongering... Edited September 4, 2008 by iNow

[ParanoiA]

Well, Bush was a governor, too, and look how that has turned out. Executive experience is not exactly the end-all, be-all of ability, skill, and potential.

 

Certainly not, but understand the difference between efficacy and opposing agendas. Did Bush do a bad job because he's not any good at executing legislation, or did he do a bad job because you disagree with his ideology?

 

I'm going to parse the difference since that's only logical. Seems to me, Bush has done a fabulous job of advancing his stated agenda, except for his humble foreign policy pledge and balanced budget. I don't think you get our country into the mess it is in - that republicans want it to be in - unless you know what you're doing in the executive. Well, honestly we have to include the legislature too, but I hope you get my point.

 

I disagree with him on monetary policy, energy policy, foreign policy, same sex marriage, civil liberties..etc - but that doesn't have anything to do with executive talent.

 

Can you really tell me that being president of a state doesn't lend some direct skills to being president of a union of states?

 

I'm starting to wonder if Palin is the only qualified candidate for the presidency...she's the only one of the 4 who's had to make a decision and follow through on everything that comes up, no matter how uncomfortable or imperfect the choices may be.

 

That's partly why I really can't comment on this stuff you keep posting. It's really juicy stuff, and I keep reading, but I also keep asking myself "So, what's her side of this? What was the context of this decision?" Too many times we throw up the conclusions - "Palin cuts funding in half for homeless shelter", without providing the context - "Palin opposes a 400% proposed increase in homeless shelter funding by countering with a 200% increase".

 

I watched the democrats do that all throughout the 90's. Claiming the republicans were "cutting" the funding to 'X', when they were actually cutting the proposed increase in funding to 'X' - how one can increase spending and yet call it a cut is beyond me. But not "nationalists", er partisans - it's not beyond them.

Edited September 4, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

Well, by the criteria they are setting "Palin has executive experience" and "Obama and Biden don't," I'd simply like to point out that being consistent with that logic, McCain ALSO doens't have executive experience.

[Pangloss]

I must admit that I'll a little pissed off by the GOP convention. They can say that democrats are wrong, and even stupid, weak, whatever, but the fact that republicans continue to imply they are the party that loves America, and of course, Obama just loves himself. It's childish. It's in part how they got America into Iraq, it's in part how they won against Kerry, and they're at it again... I think it's a good idea for Obama to talk about this, too often, Democrats have retreated instead of fighting back to the point where they are even scared to say they are liberals.

 

I must admit that I'll a little pissed off by the Democratic convention. They can say that Republicans are wrong, and even stupid, weak, whatever, but the fact that Democrats continue to imply they are the party that loves America, and of course, McCain just loves himself. It's childish. It's in part how they got America into Iraq, it's in part how they won against Bush 1, and they're at it again... I think it's a good idea for McCain to talk about this, too often, Republicans have retreated instead of fighting back to the point where they are even scared to say they are conservatives.

 

(Isn't partisanship easy?)

[john5746]

I think if someone lacks anything but executive experience, that may pose problems as well. When I worked as an engineer, I had to lead people by persuasion and by example. I was never directly over someone, so if I wanted something done I had to convince them it was the right thing to do and that they should help me. Most of the time they were willing to help, but sometimes things fall in a gray area and you need to garner respect and evidence to get things done. Meanwhile, I would witness supervisors who would just run over people to get what they wanted. They usually were "yes" men to their boss, because that is how they thought management should work.

 

So, I guess this executive experience is important, however, if it just ends up with a trail of yes men, then we might have another group think tragedy like the last 8 years. Having the tenacity of a pit bull is good in certain situations, but being a pit bull and hiring people that will survive under the pit bull may very well bring this result. Being decisive is good, if you make good decisions, but you also need to allow others to make decisions as well.

 

In any case, Biden would be smart to concentrate on the issues and leave her experience and shallow education alone. She is so wrong on the issues, it doesn't matter if she ran a fortune 100 company for 8 years, was a general for 10 and governed New York for 10. She is still wrong.

[Pangloss]

I'll tell you what, though. Even if I decided to concede that the experience between Obama and Palin is too similar to argue over, she has still failed nearly every other litmus test I have.

 

• She wants creationism taught alongside evolution
  
• She doesn't believe in man-made global warming
  
• She frames the energy crisis as a purely economic one and not an environmental one, and thinks drilling more oil and coal will solve everything
  
• She is against personal choice in matters of abortion
  
• She tries to ban books from libraries
  
• When people don't give her what she wants, she tries to leverage her power to get them fired
  
• She thinks our founding fathers decided to put "In God We Trust" on our money and also that they all said the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
  
• Did I mention that she supports Intelligent Design and wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to?
  

 

This is important, and I'm glad to see real issues back in the discussion, so I appreciate your bringing them up, even if I see the VP as less important. I agree with you on all of these points, too. (Well, I'm still skeptical about man causing GW, as you know, but I believe we have sufficient information to take dramatic action, so we're effectively on the same side.)

 

I don't think it has been factually established that she tried to get that person fired, btw. The official report is due out in October.

[Phi for All]

It's been funny to watch both sides now have to attack the things they praised, or praise the things they attacked, just a short while ago.

[bascule]

Democrats continue to imply they are the party that loves America

 

Excessive nationalism is ostensibly skewed towards the Republicans, no matter how you try to gloss it over.

[Pangloss]

Excessive nationalism is ostensibly skewed towards the Republicans, no matter how you try to gloss it over.

 

I know that fact is important to you because you believe that Republicans are bad. But I doubt that it's an important fact to almost anybody else who regularly posts on this board, bascule.

 

In your thread about the protests I could have pointed out that, with the not-recent exception of abortion, violent protest demonstrators are ostensibly skewed towards Democrats and liberalism. I never did that, because (a) I don't think liberalism or Democrats are bad, and (b) I think these kinds of baseless, partisan accusations gain us nothing in the discussion. They do not help us find common ground, they only spread the divide further.

 

Put another way, you should be more careful what you wish for, and whom you defend.

[waitforufo]

 

• She wants creationism taught alongside evolution
  
• She doesn't believe in man-made global warming
  
• She frames the energy crisis as a purely economic one and not an environmental one, and thinks drilling more oil and coal will solve everything
  
• She is against personal choice in matters of abortion
  
• She tries to ban books from libraries
  
• When people don't give her what she wants, she tries to leverage her power to get them fired
  
• She thinks our founding fathers decided to put "In God We Trust" on our money and also that they all said the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
  
• Did I mention that she supports Intelligent Design and wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to?
  

 

 

She wants creationism taught alongside evolution

Can you site a bill she supported or a speech she gave where she said creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools?

 

She doesn't believe in man-made global warming

Many people on Science Forums are in this camp.

 

She frames the energy crisis as a purely economic one and not an environmental one, and thinks drilling more oil and coal will solve everything

The energy crisis is an economic one and countries with poor economies pollute more than those with robust economies.

 

She is against personal choice in matters of abortion

Many Americans would like more restrictions on abortion. Most liberal western countries have more restrictions on abortion than the US. Name those that do not.

 

She tries to ban books from libraries

Can you site a bill she supported or a speech she gave where she said books should be band in libraries? Also what types of libraries? For example are all books appropriate for elementary school libraries?

 

When people don't give her what she wants, she tries to leverage her power to get them fired.

Are you really sure of this? Could these complaints just be sour grapes from incompetents she fired in Alaska. Most agree that she has put an end to a lot of corruption in Alaska. Perhaps some of those she purged are just looking to poison her well.

 

She thinks our founding fathers decided to put "In God We Trust" on our money and also that they all said the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

Can you site a speech or interview she gave where she said such things? In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States. Is ignorance of the origin of this motto really that big of a deal for you?

 

Did I mention that she supports Intelligent Design and wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to?

Can you site a speech or interview she gave where she said such things?

 

Palin may turn out to be an incredibly strategic choice for VP. Lot of news minutes and headlines have focused on her since she was selected by McCain. Last night she proved to be quite an orator. If she can extemporize as well as she can give a prepared speech you could end up seeing a lot more of her. You may not like her opinions, but many Americans hold the same opinions.

[bascule]

I know that fact is important to you because you believe that Republicans are bad. But I doubt that it's an important fact to almost anybody else who regularly posts on this board, bascule.

 

Well, there's PhDP, the original claimant, whose opinion you shat on.

 

In your thread about the protests I could have pointed out that, with the not-recent exception of abortion, violent protest demonstrators are ostensibly skewed towards Democrats and liberalism.

 

That's a fair claim.

 

I think these kinds of baseless, partisan accusations gain us nothing in the discussion.

 

You've made countless claims of that nature in the past. Pulling an O'Reillyesque "No Ideology Zone" now isn't going to change that.

[Pangloss]

I think these kinds of baseless, partisan accusations gain us nothing in the discussion.

You've made countless claims of that nature in the past. Pulling an O'Reillyesque "No Ideology Zone" now isn't going to change that.

 

So you think partisanship is worth it? That it's productive and useful and relevant? That seems to be what you're saying. Am I misreading you?

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Just caught this news item:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/09/04/2008-09-04_sarah_palins_speech_wins_tv_ratings_batt.html

 

Apparently Palin drew almost as many viewers as Obama did in his speech. That's surprising, but I suspect that many of those viewers were drawn in by Obama and listened to Palin out of a sense of fair play. Not that that's a bad thing -- I happen to see it as one of Obama's strengths.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Pangloss

[bascule]

So you think partisanship is worth it?

 

It's a reality we can't pretend away, even if you pay lip service to wanting to while making partisan remarks yourself