BACK SHE KOS POLITIKAKKE - Politics thread

by **drsmooth** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:50:04

sorry to run on so long, but , just catching up - you people have to get more sleep, or this thing could get ugly

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?

yes they see it - they read it somewhere. The difficulty is they don't understand what they see/retype. I'm not talking about Hoya or Vox, but rather the 26-post contributors who seem to show up in droves for no other purpose but to cut/paste these familiar-sounding, borrowed-looking rationalizations.

Palin's family foibles are, or should be, of little interest or consequence to anyone but Palin's family, except that it's hard to ignore what seems to be a lack of reflection on her part, or her supporters' part, to the consequences of her professed beliefs - to wit, that there appear to be none worth anguishing over, where one would expect plenty, even at the family level. Her convictions appear to have all the heft of the typical sitcom episode's resolution. I mean, "we have these incontrovertible beliefs, but when they are violated, discarded, ignored - well, on to the next thing" - it just seems to leave something out (and yes, I DO mean the spankings).

Woody wrote:One of these days FlightRisk and I (Woody) are going to run away to (West) Hollywood (Florida) and make it big

make what big

and there's no "yes" option in the poll

good call by Holdout on Palin's Lisa Loeb resemblance

Bakestar wrote:I love how they (both sides, frankly) want it both ways -- trying to underscore the other side's "inexperience" as a fatal flaw while frankly making naked appeals to voters based on their candidates' personal characteristics rather than their actual accomplishments.

one of the things that makes the vote-getting element of politics so insipid is its lack of metrics. Forget 'where's the beef': where's the OBP?

by **CalvinBall** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:50:26

Werthless wrote:
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.

Your point is so weak and nit picky. Making it pretty much a non point. I am not going to continue to re-hash what I have already said to entertain your douche baggery.

by **dajafi** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:52:06

PtK, if I didn't know better I would say that's a Vox-like paean to partisanship...

You're right, though. My concern with a Palin presidency isn't her intelligence or lack thereof--she's pretty clearly smarter than Quayle and probably smarter than Bush. But Bush's problem wasn't really want of intelligence; it was (is) his lack of curiosity and weakness as a leader. Because he didn't ask questions, and didn't seem to care, he let ideologues like Cheney and stronger personalities like Rummy set policy; because he didn't have the character and integrity we should demand of our leaders, he led rabid partisans like Rove politicize the civil service to an extent never before seen.

(One thing this reminds me of is that, for all that I want to see McCain lose as a repudiation of Bushism, I still believe he'd be vastly superior on all these things. IMO, he's simply a better man than Bush, certainly a stronger leader, and more of a patriot in the sense of appreciating the Constitution.)

Palin as president might or might not show more curiosity and integrity than Bush--I doubt the latter, given her pattern of power abuses as mayor and governor--but I think at least at first, you'd see governance-by-staff. The same Republican advisers and interests who ran wild the last eight years would be back in the saddle.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:54:43

Woody wrote: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."

someone please pass the boric acid

check that - make it sulphuric

by **Werthless** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:56:03

CalvinBall wrote:
Werthless wrote:
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.

Your point is so weak and nit picky. Making it pretty much a non point. I am not going to continue to re-hash what I have already said to entertain your douche baggery.

Thanks. Way to be civil. Next time I'll simply ignore your point like everyone else did.

by **dajafi** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:00:33

drsmooth wrote:
Woody wrote: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."

someone please pass the boric acid

check that - make it sulphuric

Actually, she looks a little like Il Douche there. Watch out, Judi--Wife #4 might be in view!

by **Squire** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:09:23

CalvinBall wrote:
Werthless wrote:
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.

Are the high-earning Democrats getting to the end of their Form 1040s each year and sending in double?

SQUIRE

by **Philly the Kid** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:19:54

dajafi wrote:PtK, if I didn't know better I would say that's a Vox-like paean to partisanship...

You're right, though. My concern with a Palin presidency isn't her intelligence or lack thereof--she's pretty clearly smarter than Quayle and probably smarter than Bush. But Bush's problem wasn't really want of intelligence; it was (is) his lack of curiosity and weakness as a leader. Because he didn't ask questions, and didn't seem to care, he let ideologues like Cheney and stronger personalities like Rummy set policy; because he didn't have the character and integrity we should demand of our leaders, he led rabid partisans like Rove politicize the civil service to an extent never before seen.

(One thing this reminds me of is that, for all that I want to see McCain lose as a repudiation of Bushism, I still believe he'd be vastly superior on all these things. IMO, he's simply a better man than Bush, certainly a stronger leader, and more of a patriot in the sense of appreciating the Constitution.)

Palin as president might or might not show more curiosity and integrity than Bush--I doubt the latter, given her pattern of power abuses as mayor and governor--but I think at least at first, you'd see governance-by-staff. The same Republican advisers and interests who ran wild the last eight years would be back in the saddle.

Exactly, and so that's the fear. It's not about "her" as an individual or potential as a great leader of men -- it's the same interests of the last 8 years using her as the new puppet and waht's scary is, that she is smart enough to know how to play that part perfectly. That's why they are so excited now -- they can see the potential. They feel safe, if McCain strokes out.

McCain may be marginally superior in intellect or character than Bush II but that isn't saying much. Again, I don't mean to put Obama up in some imagined fantasitcal way as a paragon of integrity and character, but if you are looking for personal qualities then Obama is the clear winner this season. From what little I can see, as a person, he dwarfs all of em, Biden included though Biden would be #2 and thus, the Dems are the far more worthy party to win.

I'm just a realist, that knows that no matter which group takes the office, for most of us, life will go on as we know it. Not a whole heckuvah a lot is going to be different in tangible ways that touch our lives.

And even Obama, while not having a Cheney behind him or Rove, will not govern on his own personal whims. He will be in a structure. He couldn't be this far along in the process if the real power brokers weren't certain that he isn't going to mess up the 'game'.

by **dajafi** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:21:34

Something interesting from electoral-vote.com:

McCain and Actuarial Life Expectancy
Politico ran a story about the probability of a 72-year-old man reaching the age of 80 based on actuarial tables. There is a chance of about 1 in 3 that he won't make it. If you are fascinated by morbidity, Met Life has a do-it-yourself Webform but to do this one you need information about the prospective insurance client's height and weight and some other data. Of course actuarial data is great about predicting how many of 100,000 72-year-olds will make it to 80 but doesn't give a definitive answer about any particular one. Other factors come into play. In the case of John McCain these include:

The President gets the best medical care from the best doctors anywhere on the planet.
The President can have a physical every day if he wants one. Nothing goes undetected long.
McCain has had the most lethal form of skin cancer (malignant melanoma) four times.
McCain smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for most of his adult life but has now quit.
McCain's father died at 71 and his grandfather died at 61. His mother is hale at 96.

No conclusion here, but Sarah Palin's chances of having to take the oath of office unexpectedly are much greater than Dick cheney's were in 2000 since George Bush was much younger and extremely fit physically.

by **falzone13** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:51:53

Nate Silver's (yes, BP's Nate Silver) take on the speech

If you haven't had a chance to look at his work, it's a pretty interesting blog.

by **Woody** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:56:58

falzone13 wrote:Nate Silver's (yes, BP's Nate Silver) take on the speech

If you haven't had a chance to look at his work, it's a pretty interesting blog.

This was my basic reaction, too

In exceedingly plain English, I think there's a pretty big who the fuck does she think she is? factor.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:57:49

someone's voting for McCain?

by **Woody** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:57:51

although i used more CAPS AND CURSEWORDS to "articulate it" in my post-Phils debacle stupor

by **jeff2sf** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:59:07

falzone13 wrote:Nate Silver's (yes, BP's Nate Silver) take on the speech

If you haven't had a chance to look at his work, it's a pretty interesting blog.

You just walk back in here like nothing's happened?

by **drsmooth** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:59:23

Philly the Kid wrote:And even Obama, while not having a Cheney behind him or Rove, will not govern on his own personal whims. He will be in a structure. He couldn't be this far along in the process if the real power brokers weren't certain that he isn't going to mess up the 'game'.

with apologies to PtK, I've tagged this one 'tinfoil's upside'

by **Woody** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 13:03:24

drsmooth wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:And even Obama, while not having a Cheney behind him or Rove, will not govern on his own personal whims. He will be in a structure. He couldn't be this far along in the process if the real power brokers weren't certain that he isn't going to mess up the 'game'.

with apologies to PtK, I've tagged this one 'tinfoil's upside'

The Tenacity of Dope

by **dajafi** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 13:05:33

This was just e-mailed to me by a colleague:

Community Organizers Fight Back Against GOP Attacks

Organizers demand apology from Alaska governor, say "we're working to clean up your mess!"

New York, NY—Community organizers across America, taken aback by a series of attacks from Republican leaders at the GOP convention in St. Paul, came together today to defend their work organizing Americans who have been left behind by unemployment, lack of health insurance and the national housing crisis. The organizers demanded an apology from Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for her statement that community organizers have no "actual responsibilities" and launched a web site, http://organizersfightback.wordpress.com, to defend themselves against Republican attacks.

"Community organizers work in neighborhoods that have been hit hardest by the failing economy," said John Raskin, founder of Community Organizers of America and a community organizer on the West Side of Manhattan. "The last thing we need is for Republican officials to mock us on television when we're trying to rebuild the neighborhoods they have destroyed. Maybe if everyone had more houses than they can count, we wouldn't need community organizers. But I work with people who are getting evicted from their only home. If John McCain and the Republicans understood that, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to make fun of community organizers like me."

Though many people are unfamiliar with community organizing, the job is both straightforward and vital: community organizers work with families who are struggling–because of low wages, poor health coverage, unaffordable housing, and other community problems–so that collectively, they can fix those problems and make government respond to their day-to-day concerns. Organizers knock on doors, attend community meetings, visit churches and synagogues and mosques, and work with unions and civic groups and block associations to help ordinary people build power and counter the influence of self-interested insiders and highly paid lobbyists at all levels of government.

Scorn for community organizers has been a prominent feature of this week's Republican convention. On Wednesday, three Republican leaders mocked community organizers:

-Former Governor George Pataki said: "[Barack Obama] was a community organizer. What in God's name is a community organizer? I don't even know if that's a job."

-Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani said: "On the other hand, you have a resume from a gifted man with an Ivy League education. He worked as a community organizer. What? [Laughter]…I said, OK, OK, maybe this is the first problem on the resume."

-Governor Sarah Palin said: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."

Community organizers were quick to fire back.

"I have 'actual responsibilities,'" said Jacqueline del Valle, a community organizer in the Bronx. "If Mayor Giuliani and President Bush cared more about working people instead of just people who can hire high-powered lobbyists, maybe I wouldn't have so much responsibility. Maybe working people would have an easier time in America today. But that's not our reality, and they don't have to mock us while we're trying to clean up their mess."

The community organizers launched a new web site, http://organizersfightback.wordpress.com, to defend themselves against Republican attacks. They emphasize that their work will be necessary as long as lobbyists have undue influence over American government and the economy continues to fail people who work hard and still struggle to provide for themselves and their families.

###

A couple additional thoughts:

--I don't think it's a coincidence that Giuliani comes in for special criticism. One reason I hate the guy so fucking much is that the dripping scorn evidently on display in his speech informed city policy for eight years here. "Authoritarian temperament" really doesn't begin to describe it.

--At another time, Republicans talked about "rallying the armies of compassion" and mobilizing faith groups and the private sector to do some of the work traditionally regarded as within government's purview. As Rev. Beezer and others might have said... who exactly did they think would be answering that call?

by **CalvinBall** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 13:07:50

This has probably been expressed, but even with all this Palin hoop-la and rallying the base or whatever, I just can't see the Democrats losing. I just don't get a sense that many republicans are all that excited about the election even with Palin. And Obama has pretty big leads in states like Iowa and New Mexico, states that Bush won 4 years ago.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 13:10:55

PTK is not wearing tinfoil on this one. There's a paradox at the center of the US Presidency--the President has enormous power, but is at the same time seriously constrained in how he can use it. Neustadt's classic Presidential Power discusses it.

Of course, it's not hidden in some deep dark conspiracy--the power is exercised pretty much in the open.

by **CMD** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 13:17:31

ek wrote:oh suck it up. this is why I hate politics. entirely too thin skinned

Maybe, but the Republicans made a big mis-step here. Democrats can use this as an example that Republicans are out of touch. I didn't know what a community organizer was before last month, either. But now that I do, you can believe I am not going to belittle their role in helping underprivileged folks.

There were ways to question Obama's experience without insulting hardworking Americans as Giuliani and Palin did. Imagine if Obama had been a teacher. Do you think they would have insulted teachers?

Archived

BACK SHE KOS POLITIKAKKE - Politics thread

Added for Jerseyhoya: Who are you voting for?