How did the Republicans even nominate John McCain? I thought no one like him. Now he picks a realtivley unknown governor from Alaska, which is close to Russia, and somehow people are excited about the ticket. Then you hear that she is just going to be vice president so it is fine if she gets on the job training. Which leaves you with John McCain still becoming president. So, why are people excited about this ticket then?

CalvinBall wrote:How did the Republicans even nominate John McCain? I thought no one like him. Now he picks a realtivley unknown governor from Alaska, which is close to Russia, and somehow people are excited about the ticket. Then you hear that she is just going to be vice president so it is fine if she gets on the job training. Which leaves you with John McCain still becoming president. So, why are people excited about this ticket then?

mccain responds:
"MY FRIENDS, that MY FRIENDS is the million-dollar question MY FRIENDS."

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:I know how some of you loathe the Daily Show, but I think Jon Stewart made a really interesting point when interviewing Newt Gingrich. In regards to the abortion debate, Palin said that it was her daughter's decision to have the baby. Palin also says that she wants to ban abortion, even rape cases. Stewart pointed out the inconsistency or really hypocrisy in that how come it is fine for her daughter to have a decision or choice but no one else can make that decision?

As a disclaimer, I am against abortion. However, I do not think it is as black and white as politicians make it out to be.

Yep, I wrote that in the last thread, it was largely ignored.

It is her daughter's decision because that is the way the law is. Her daughter has a decision to make because abortion is legal. Palin's comment was simply making it clear that Sarah Palin did not make the decision for her 17-year old daughter.

Would you have rather Palin said she was forcing her child to keep the baby?!? I'm not sure where the inconsistency lies. Following the laws while working to change them seems quite reasonable to me.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:I know how some of you loathe the Daily Show, but I think Jon Stewart made a really interesting point when interviewing Newt Gingrich. In regards to the abortion debate, Palin said that it was her daughter's decision to have the baby. Palin also says that she wants to ban abortion, even rape cases. Stewart pointed out the inconsistency or really hypocrisy in that how come it is fine for her daughter to have a decision or choice but no one else can make that decision?

As a disclaimer, I am against abortion. However, I do not think it is as black and white as politicians make it out to be.

Yep, I wrote that in the last thread, it was largely ignored.

It is her daughter's decision because that is the way the law is. Her daughter has a decision to make because abortion is legal. Palin's comment was simply making it clear that Sarah Palin did not make the decision for her 17-year old daughter.

Would you have rather Palin said she was forcing her child to keep the baby?!? I'm not sure where the inconsistency lies. Following the laws while working to change them seems quite reasonable to me.

Yes doing that would have been more in line with what she is trying to accomplish. She let her daughter decide which is not want she wants the national policy to be. I don't understand how you don't see an inconsistency there.

jerseyhoya wrote:Thanks to Vox for adding the poll. I thought since today is 2 months out, it would be interesting where things stand, and how they might change between now and election day.

I would have liked more than 2 choices. I want to know, in poll form, what percentage of people are also considering "wasting" their vote out of principle. Perhaps we could have the options:

Obama
McCain
Barr
Nader
Other
Staying Home

CalvinBall wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:I know how some of you loathe the Daily Show, but I think Jon Stewart made a really interesting point when interviewing Newt Gingrich. In regards to the abortion debate, Palin said that it was her daughter's decision to have the baby. Palin also says that she wants to ban abortion, even rape cases. Stewart pointed out the inconsistency or really hypocrisy in that how come it is fine for her daughter to have a decision or choice but no one else can make that decision?

As a disclaimer, I am against abortion. However, I do not think it is as black and white as politicians make it out to be.

Yep, I wrote that in the last thread, it was largely ignored.

It is her daughter's decision because that is the way the law is. Her daughter has a decision to make because abortion is legal. Palin's comment was simply making it clear that Sarah Palin did not make the decision for her 17-year old daughter.

Would you have rather Palin said she was forcing her child to keep the baby?!? I'm not sure where the inconsistency lies. Following the laws while working to change them seems quite reasonable to me.

Yes doing that would have been more in line with what she is trying to accomplish. She let her daughter decide which is not want she wants the national policy to be. I don't understand how you don't see an inconsistency there.

She lets her daughter follow the law. Think about that. Just like someone who is in favor of Alcohol Prohibition would "allow" their child to drink when of age. Do you think Palin should have somehow forced her daughter to keep the child? How would this be accomplished exactly? Imprisonment?

Sarah Palin didn't let her daughter decide, by law the decision is up to her daughter.

Werthless wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:I know how some of you loathe the Daily Show, but I think Jon Stewart made a really interesting point when interviewing Newt Gingrich. In regards to the abortion debate, Palin said that it was her daughter's decision to have the baby. Palin also says that she wants to ban abortion, even rape cases. Stewart pointed out the inconsistency or really hypocrisy in that how come it is fine for her daughter to have a decision or choice but no one else can make that decision?

As a disclaimer, I am against abortion. However, I do not think it is as black and white as politicians make it out to be.

Yep, I wrote that in the last thread, it was largely ignored.

It is her daughter's decision because that is the way the law is. Her daughter has a decision to make because abortion is legal. Palin's comment was simply making it clear that Sarah Palin did not make the decision for her 17-year old daughter.

Would you have rather Palin said she was forcing her child to keep the baby?!? I'm not sure where the inconsistency lies. Following the laws while working to change them seems quite reasonable to me.

Yes doing that would have been more in line with what she is trying to accomplish. She let her daughter decide which is not want she wants the national policy to be. I don't understand how you don't see an inconsistency there.

She lets her daughter follow the law. Think about that. Just like someone who is in favor of Alcohol Prohibition would "allow" their child to drink when of age. Do you think Palin should have somehow forced her daughter to keep the child? How would this be accomplished exactly? Imprisonment?

Yes I do. If she is so strongly for forcing everyone else to do it why would she not do the same as a parent? Her daughter is a minor as well so there is that...

CalvinBall wrote:

Werthless wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:I know how some of you loathe the Daily Show, but I think Jon Stewart made a really interesting point when interviewing Newt Gingrich. In regards to the abortion debate, Palin said that it was her daughter's decision to have the baby. Palin also says that she wants to ban abortion, even rape cases. Stewart pointed out the inconsistency or really hypocrisy in that how come it is fine for her daughter to have a decision or choice but no one else can make that decision?

As a disclaimer, I am against abortion. However, I do not think it is as black and white as politicians make it out to be.

Yep, I wrote that in the last thread, it was largely ignored.

It is her daughter's decision because that is the way the law is. Her daughter has a decision to make because abortion is legal. Palin's comment was simply making it clear that Sarah Palin did not make the decision for her 17-year old daughter.

Would you have rather Palin said she was forcing her child to keep the baby?!? I'm not sure where the inconsistency lies. Following the laws while working to change them seems quite reasonable to me.

Yes doing that would have been more in line with what she is trying to accomplish. She let her daughter decide which is not want she wants the national policy to be. I don't understand how you don't see an inconsistency there.

She lets her daughter follow the law. Think about that. Just like someone who is in favor of Alcohol Prohibition would "allow" their child to drink when of age. Do you think Palin should have somehow forced her daughter to keep the child? How would this be accomplished exactly? Imprisonment?

Yes I do. If she is so strongly for forcing everyone else to do it why would she not do the same as a parent? Her daughter is a minor as well so there is that...

She wouldn't need parental consent, nor even notification, as per Alaskan law. So there's that.

http://www.positive.org/Resources/consent.html

Edit: How exactly would Sarah Palin force her daughter to keep the child? I eagerly await your answer, and hope it resembles unlawful imprisonment.

Fine but that still doesn't matter. Have your or anyone's parents you know never forced their kid to do something they didn't want to? Like take out the trash or do the dishes? The kid doesn't have to. The law says so. I mean seriously, do you see what you are saying?

You're getting pretty crazily semantical, basically saying that the time I stole my parent's liquor, they "let" me do it because I wasn't in shackles.

Laexile wrote:

pacino wrote:I love that it's completely OK to put down the work, belittle the work, and essentially consider community organizing pointless. I will go tell my friends that they aren't doing anything, that gr's already done it all and it wasn't tough, and that they're just pussies who should tell people to man up and improve their own lives right quick. Why aren't they off making lots of money for themselves with their degrees? Losers.

They weren't belittling doing it, just pointing out that being a community organizer isn't experience that prepares you better for being President than being a mayor. Barack Obama doesn't have a long resume and neither does she. Both parties are trying to spin their person's resume and discount the opponent's resume. It's what they do.

Sarah Palin can't sell a long resume. She sold herself politically that she's a reformer who has changed things fiscally in Alaska. The Republicans argue that what she's done as a governor has been more significant than Obama as a senator. Did anyone expect them to not do that? Of course Democrats will dislike the speech and Republicans will love it. Talk to women who her being Pro-Life isn't a deal breaker and see what they think. I've gotten positive reactions from two women who are independent. She appealed well to special needs parents, women who vote for the person over the issues, and small town working class people who haven't decided that the Republican Party is a bunch of rich CEOs who only want to see everyone else suffer.

She will be asked about being "Commander-in-Chief on Day One" and all the national stage questions. I'm interested in hearing her answers. Maybe she should have addressed it, but she was going for her positives tonight. I don't see how including that would make her look good.

Sarah Palin didn't prove she is ready to be President last night. She proved that she deserves to be in the game and show that she can be President. She's no Dan Quayle.

I sortof agree sort of. It was a highly constucted speech. I need to see more of her ad hoc, and off-guard without massively controlled contexts before I say "shes no Dan Quayle".

I agree with Phan in Phlo too that the Dems and all of us need to be careful about projecting who and what the "heartland is" as Bush got a lot of support both times (despite cheating his way to victory) and Palin will get that same support. Harvard Law versus small-town mom who works her way from Mayor of 5K to first female VP, is going to play well in a lot of places, even if its all a movie script and nothing about policy and values/beliefs.

CalvinBall wrote:Fine but that still doesn't matter. Have your or anyone's parents you know never forced their kid to do something they didn't want to? Like take out the trash or do the dishes? The kid doesn't have to. The law says so. I mean seriously, do you see what you are saying?

Your kid still decided to take out the trash and do the dishes. Unless you're saying you beat your kid?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:You're getting pretty crazily semantical, basically saying that the time I stole my parent's liquor, they "let" me do it because I wasn't in shackles.

The analogy doesn't quite fit, since it comes down to a parent forcing her 17 year old child to NOT do something perfectly legal. So, maybe smoking, for an 18 year old. Is a smoking opponent hypocritical for allowing their family members to make this decision to smoke within the law? I don't think so. I just think it portrays a respect for law.

I don't know how far everyone is from 17 years old, but it's hard to force a 17 year old to not do something. We're not talking dangling carrots and threatening punishments, either. Actual force. Because for all we know, Palin could have said to her daughter "The decision is yours. But if you abort, then you're out of the house."

HEAD SPINNING

Woody wrote:HEAD SPINNING

I'm gonna have to force you to stop.

jerseyhoya wrote:None of us here know her stances on the big issues, know how much she's thought about them, and have seen her try and articulate them.

Without disagreeing with the rest of your post--which I think is fair and arguable at the very least--this is exactly why the selection bugged me so much.

I'd argue that the number one consideration in a vice-presidential pick is steadiness. The nominee essentially is presenting the country with a Break-Glass-in-Case-of-Emergency contingency. Going back to '92, we knew who Gore was from his 15-odd years in Congress and '88 presidential run. In '96, we knew what Jack Kemp was about. Cheney and Lieberman both had long records. John Edwards had six years in the Senate and very well picked-over views that had come out in the '04 campaign. Biden this year might be the best-known of them all.

(To anticipate the obvious objection: it's true that Cheney, Lieberman and Edwards all surprised us in different ways since then. But their basic policy views are all pretty much the same today as when they emerged in national politics.)

The last VP candidate of whom anyone could have written what you wrote and I quoted was Quayle, but even he had been in the Senate for something like eight years before Bush tapped him.

Palin is, in many ways, a faith-based pick. Maybe she's both political gold and (whatever this means) a leader of sufficient stature to assume the presidency if need be. I just don't like that McCain took this risk on potentially all of our behalf.

In common vernacular, what your parents "let" or what a kid is "allowed to do" means what they can do with their parents blessing. Do you really think that a parent not "allowing" their 8-year-old to stay up past midnight on a school night shows disrespect for the law?

As a sidenote, I heard Carly Fiorina utter the following phrases on CNN this morning:

"You should have seen how many Democrats were in my box last night!"

"Literally dozens of Democrats were up in my box."

TenuredVulture wrote:After mulling this over while I got dressed this morning, here's my take on Palin's speech for what it's worth.

It was ok. I don't see how it could be seen as a great speech--if I may make a movie analogy, it was the remake of Ocean's 11.

On the other hand, does anybody really think she's ready to be President. You wake up one morning, you find out McCain died of a stroke, and do you say, awesome--that lady is going to make things right in the USA, or do you say a little prayer and shift some money to a Swiss bank, and buy some physical gold in the case all hell breaks lose?

There's no way a speech, even a good one demonstrates qualifications. That's what the Republicans were telling us all night.

Also, if I'm the Obama campaign, I start playing up my support for the faith based initiative thing, point to my experience working in the community, and insinuate that based on what Republicans said last night, they really don't care about the religious folks out there doing the good work they do--all the relief they have recently provided to hurricane evacuees, the success they've had getting people off drugs, and so on.

The thing no one say about many small towns in the heartland is that things aren't really going well for us, and if it weren't for people (often associated with churches) out there providing necessary services, things would be a lot worse for us. I'm not sure how you boil that message down, but I'm not a high paid political consultant.

Palin horrifies me, and as Radical Right-wing Republican reactionary with little national experience -- I would dread her taking the White House -- but the point I keep making that no one seems to grasp or respond to, is that none of these people govern in a vacuum. There are advisors and busainess goes on as usual. You think Bush knows the issues? Palin can't be worse than Bush, and she will come on TV and make speeches while the Roves adn Cheneys of the world are behind the scenes telling her what to say. Military generals and experts will tell her what to do there, financial hacks will tell her what to do there -- the Fed will do its thing, corporations will do theres. Don't forget, the president of the USA is not the most powerful person in the USA or world. THe real power brokers are largely out of the media eye and unknown to us.

I would never relish a Palin presidency but let's not over-state how much she would botch it just because she's overwhelmed and over-matched because she'd largely be a figure-head and puppet and might even rise to the occasion to be a popular president because people would rally to support her, give her benefit of the doubt. As long as she made good speeches, a few fireside chats, sound byets and platitudes all the while letting advisors guide policy and corporae lobbysists -- and given her social values -- it would continue on with the evangelical agenda and she's be well supported on a national stage. Only hope would be congress really fighting her in a way they never did with Bush.

Palin is a mis-direction. The sooner everyone calms down and gets back to not McCain the person and resume versus Obama the person and resume, and simply looks at what a Democratic Executive branch versus a continued Republican executive branch will actually bring to bear - then we can get somewhere in this contentious and media driven election season.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:In common vernacular, what your parents "let" or what a kid is "allowed to do" means what they can do with their parents blessing. Do you really think that a parent not "allowing" their 8-year-old to stay up past midnight on a school night shows disrespect for the law?

What does that have to do with the law? Dangling carrots and threatening timeouts is not force, it's persuasion. Are we talking physical beatings here? Because then the law would have something to say about that.