Well, that is where we differ timebandit, I do not believe they put GWB in the White House, either time, as I believe the elections were not quite kosher. Nor do I believe the middle American public is so stupid as to support the things I listed that Palin stands for.
Going to speak with an American friend tomorrow, who is one of those in the middle, to see what their ancedotal opinion is of Palin and what she stands for and how they see it playing out.
quote:
Well, that is where we differ timebandit, I do not believe they put GWB in the White House, either time, as I believe the elections were not quite kosher.
Don't kid yourself. The US presidential elections are always kosher.
quote:
Timebandit: Soccer moms, last I checked, are women.
Actually, I checked, and they are a condescending stereotype.
[ 02 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From the Boston Herald:
quote:
WASILLA, Alaska - Sarah Palin’s controversy-splashed arrival on the national stage continued as her own mother-in-law revealed she doesn’t know who she’ll vote for in the election.
Faye Palin admitted she’s a Barack Obama fan and wasn’t sure what the mother of her five grandchildren adds to McCain’s campaign.
“I’m not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she’s a woman and a conservative. Well, she’s a better speaker than McCain,” Faye Palin told the New York Daily News.
I think Palin speaks tomorrow night at the RNC convention. She's going to have to hit a home run...
I think people are buying into the meme that the Republicans are actively putting out there that "liberal" bloggers are subjecting Palin to sexism.
In fact, I've been checking out DailyKos and Huffpo over the last few days, and they have been completely cognizant of the fact that Bristol is off-limits. The salacious details have been hard to avoid as they are so wacked in a soap opera way (even the father is a young up-and-coming self-proclaimed "redneck" nutjob). But the blogs have been relatively circumspect of the frenzy despite a few comments directly related to the schadenfreund surrounding Palin's outrageous hypocrisy.
I think people are projecting, trying to find sexism where there isn't to refight old battles, and missing the sexism that is coming from traditional and as well as tabloid media like the National Enquirer and US Weekly that actually pushed the story.
Well, this is typical of so-called pro-life conservatives:
quote:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.
[url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_fund... soon as they're out of the womb, babies apparently don't matter anymore.[/url]
Just when it seemed the train couldn't speed up any faster - this news breaks
quote:
The video, first reported by the liberal blog HuffingtonPost.com, is from a June Palin speech to the graduating class of commission students at Palin's former church in Wasilla, Alaska. While describing her family, Palin told students about her oldest son, 19-year-old Track, who is set to be deployed to Iraq this month with the U.S. Army. She urged students to pray “that our leaders -- that our national leaders -- are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”She added, “That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.”
And if that wasn't enough God has taken interest in not only who wins the big game, but in where a pipeline goes, no really he does.
quote:
“I can do my part in working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline, about a $30 billion project that's going to create a lot of jobs for Alaska. … [but] I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said. “I can do my job there in developing our natural resources, in doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded. But really that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's hearts aren't right with God.”
[url=http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/02/1327574.aspx]Here's the whole story[/url]
quote:
I also feel sorry for her boyfriend. Not just having to become a parent but having to get married because your mother-in-law-to-be must look good as a candidate. Imagine the pressure.
Well, I do too Doug, despite the fact that he (according to his MySpace page) is a proud redneck (and not the cool farmpunk type redneck) and a complete ass. He clearly said he does not want babies, and here he is, into a forced parenthood and marriage.
Remind, I don't think Sven used the right approach (or the right words) but I do believe the Palin choice will swing some women voters to McCain. The difference between my position and Sven's is that the only women I can see voting for McCain/Palin are those already more inclined to vote nasty Rethug.
I also object to the use of these words:
quote:
Time will tell. But, women voters may just be the ones to put McCain-Palin in the Oval Office...
which is categorically not true. The only women voting for McCain are sure to be those who would have anyways, and those who didn't see McCain as fundie enough.
Women do not put men into office. Corporate lackeys and the people pulling the strings do. I resent that women are being set-up to be blamed for a McCain win. Here's a newsflash, men will certainly vote for McCain by much higher numbers than women, so according to you, once McCain wins, it's all men's fault.
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/opinion/l03gop.html?pagewanted=2]NY Times letters page ...[/url]
quote:
Gov. Sarah Palin has said she decided to carry to term her child who has Down syndrome. Of her daughter’s premarital pregnancy, she also says, “We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby.”But how can one claim to be anti-choice and twice speak about “decisions”? A true pro-life candidate must believe that there is no choice but to bear the child, and that the law should bar any such decisions to the contrary.
Indeed, if the governor learned of her own child’s Down syndrome from prenatal testing, is it not hypocrisy to ever have such a test since the fetus has a right to life regardless?
Perhaps Governor Palin is, in fact, a proponent of choice after all.
Lawrence Rosen
Princeton, N.J.
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/opinion/02brooks.html?em]David Brooks, NY Times[/url]
quote:
The Palin pick allows McCain to run the way he wants to — not as the old goat running against the fresh upstart, but as the crusader for virtue against the forces of selfishness. It allows him to make cleaning out the Augean stables of Washington the major issue of his campaign.So my worries about Palin are not (primarily) about her lack of experience ... My worry about Palin is that she shares McCain’s primary weakness — that she has a tendency to substitute a moral philosophy for a political philosophy.
Most issues are not confrontations between virtue and vice. Most problems — the ones Barack Obama is sure to focus on like health care reform and economic anxiety — are the product of complex conditions. They require trade-offs and policy expertise. They are not solvable through the mere assertion of sterling character ... If you are going to lead a vast administration as president, it really helps to have a clearly defined governing philosophy, a conscious sense of what government should and shouldn’t do, a set of communicable priorities.
If McCain is elected, he will face conditions tailor-made to foster disorder. He will be leading a divided and philosophically exhausted party. There simply aren’t enough Republican experts left to staff an administration, so he will have to throw together a hodgepodge with independents and Democrats. He will confront Democratic majorities that will be enraged and recriminatory.
On top of these conditions, he will have his own freewheeling qualities: a restless, thrill-seeking personality, a tendency to personalize issues, a tendency to lead life as a string of virtuous crusades.
He really needs someone to impose a policy structure on his moral intuitions. He needs a very senior person who can organize a vast administration and insist that he tame his lone-pilot tendencies and work through the established corridors — the National Security Council, the Domestic Policy Council. He needs a near-equal who can turn his instincts, which are great, into a doctrine that everybody else can predict and understand.
Rob Portman or Bob Gates wouldn’t have been politically exciting, but they are capable of performing those tasks. Palin, for all her gifts, is not. She underlines McCain’s strength without compensating for his weaknesses.
Sorry, I'm going to have to close this up for length. Please continue [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=004229]h...
[ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: jrose ]
