Palin Power! Politics Thread

by **Camp Holdout** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:18:23

when charlie asked "had you ever travled outside the country before your trip to kuwait and germany last year?"

i couldnt help but think of someone on this board yelling "i actually WATCH the games!"

by **Wizlah** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:19:15

jerseyhoya wrote:
Wizlah wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Pretty sure Obama, and maybe McCain are in favor of this as well.

In favour of the special forces action in pakistan or taking a more diplomatic (ahem) route with the various nations kicking round there (i.e. india and pakistan)?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece

Yeah, just found reference to those statements online, and mccain's own statements that he wouldn't support such action. So one the one hand, I'm seeing gung-ho-ism from Obama, and on the other a more softly-softly approach from mccain.

by **Wizlah** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:31:25

TenuredVulture wrote:
Jerseyhoya wrote:
Wizlah wrote:Definitely US special forces. Bush signed a secret order. Hell of a way to show support for the new Pakistani President.

Pakistan's armed forces chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said the army would defend the country's sovereignty "at all costs". He went on: "No external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan"

(Admiral) Mullen called for a "more comprehensive strategy" embracing both sides of the border. "Until we work more closely with the Pakistani government to eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming," he said.

Pretty sure Obama, and maybe McCain are in favor of this as well.

Obama said he was in favor of this kind of action. I think this might help Obama a bit in the election. Not to go all political consultant on everybody.

Yeah, I can see it playing well with your electorate. it is interesting in that kagan was very much downplaying radical islamism, and focusing on democracy vs autocracy and the League of Democracies big idea.

I'd like to think serious consideration of the consequences of foreign policies would play a big part in this election. Instead I'm reading a lot about lipstick. This kind of thing does not play well with all of us other folk who have to live in the same world as america.

by **BuddyGroom** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:33:14

CMD wrote:That was awful. If that is what she sounds like after two weeks of prep, I'm interested to see how she does in the debates.

Me too, but it won't matter much. The Republicans will do a masterful job of lowering expectations, will try to paint Biden's breadth of knowledge and experience as "elitism" - and the lapdog "liberal" media will play right into their hands.

If Palin doesn't drool all over herself or declare war on England, she'll be perceived as the "real winner" of the vice presidential debate no matter how much Biden mops the floor with her. Which he will.

by **Camp Holdout** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:35:31

BuddyGroom wrote:If Palin doesn't declare war on England...

funny thing is, is that im pretty sure she would have last night if charlie told her it was part of the bush doctrine.

by **jeff2sf** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:45:27

Wizlah wrote:
Yeah, I can see it playing well with your electorate. it is interesting in that kagan was very much downplaying radical islamism, and focusing on democracy vs autocracy and the League of Democracies big idea.

I'd like to think serious consideration of the consequences of foreign policies would play a big part in this election. Instead I'm reading a lot about lipstick. This kind of thing does not play well with all of us other folk who have to live in the same world as america.

Wiz, I gotta tell you, I'm not seeing much problem with the occasional strike into Pakistan. There really ARE terrorists there. Every single country acknowledges that. They really DO mean to do us harm. We have been negotiating more or less for 5 years with Pakistan, pleading, begging, what have you. I don't think it's unreasonable that if we have actionable intelligence that the Pakistanis don't intend to do anything about, we have to go after them.

And I'm pretty weak on foreign policy in terms of I love everybody and want to sing kum bay ah with NK and Iran.

by **cshort** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:34:06

Wizlah wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
Wizlah wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Pretty sure Obama, and maybe McCain are in favor of this as well.

In favour of the special forces action in pakistan or taking a more diplomatic (ahem) route with the various nations kicking round there (i.e. india and pakistan)?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece

Yeah, just found reference to those statements online, and mccain's own statements that he wouldn't support such action. So one the one hand, I'm seeing gung-ho-ism from Obama, and on the other a more softly-softly approach from mccain.

I don't think McCain is sincere on this one. I assume his policy would be to say he's not going to do it, and then say "my bad" after the fact. Seems silly to telegraph the intentions now, and get Pakistan riled up. Once we do it, what are they going to do? I never understood why Obama came out so matter of fact on this point - other than to get votes. Strategically, it doesn't seem to make sense to confirm you'll do it.

The thing that bothered me about the Palin interview was the way she answered the questions. It's fine that she gave non-answers, but she wasn't polished enough to give the inside the beltway non-answers we're used to hearing. There could have been more deflection around foreign policy experience, pointing to both Obama's inexperience, as well as Bill Clinton's when he first took office. I wonder if the McCain camp is planning to hold that back for the debates, rather than lay it out there now.

by **seke2** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:38:03

i just watched some clips from the palin interview

i'm even more disgusted than before

and i saw something from a clip with carville and some other pundit giving their critiques of the interview. one of them claimed that 500 random people from the whitehouse/pentagon/whatever not know what the Bush doctrine is? seriously? i'd like to think that the vast majority of 500 random citizens with political interest would be able to give a soundbyte definition of the bush doctrine, and i'd certainly hope that those folks working in the federal government would know what that is.

by **BuddyGroom** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:40:17

Do I know for certain what the "Bush doctrine" is? No. But if somebody asked me, my first guess would have been "pre-emptive war?"

A serious person running for vice president probably should know that.

by **seke2** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:43:08

saw both of the new obama ads on his website...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/communit ... sen/gG53SH

i like them. the positive one is a nice, clear, change of pace from the usual ads--just a quick 30 second snippet of obama talking about the whole "change" issue.

the negative one is a lot more biting than anything else i've seen from the left in a while, basically makes fun of the fact that mccain doesn't use a computer or send email.

by **seke2** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:45:02

for others who want to watch the palin interview, at least as long as this link stays good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALsjhDDdaA

by **Camp Holdout** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:56:17

seke2 wrote:saw both of the new obama ads on his website...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/communit ... sen/gG53SH

i like them. the positive one is a nice, clear, change of pace from the usual ads--just a quick 30 second snippet of obama talking about the whole "change" issue.

the negative one is a lot more biting than anything else i've seen from the left in a while, basically makes fun of the fact that mccain doesn't use a computer or send email.

i think the negative one is a little too "silly" in tone. meh. he doesnt use a computer, its sort of a big deal to me. i didnt love the music in the background or the cheesy font treatments. its been said before but dont think the dems do negative well... but i dont care.

by **Laexile** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:57:42

Wizlah wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
Wizlah wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Pretty sure Obama, and maybe McCain are in favor of this as well.

In favour of the special forces action in pakistan or taking a more diplomatic (ahem) route with the various nations kicking round there (i.e. india and pakistan)?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece

Yeah, just found reference to those statements online, and mccain's own statements that he wouldn't support such action. So one the one hand, I'm seeing gung-ho-ism from Obama, and on the other a more softly-softly approach from mccain.

Obama has been gung ho on going into Pakistan from the beginning. He got criticized for this and has been more nuanced. But O'Reilly pressed him and he reiterated it. McCain may oppose it because Obama is in favor of it, but I'd like to think it's because it's a bad idea. Why is this the one Bush idea Obama likes?

Bush's Pakistani incursions are turning the Pakistani public further against us and the government there is on the fence about being friendly toward the US. I doubt the advantage gained in getting a few Pashtun fighters is worth it. It's not like they're going after Bin Laden.

I don't care if Palin knows the Bush Doctrine. She needs to know the McCain Doctrine, whatever that will be. If she's in favor of going into Pakistan she doesn't know it. She's got a lot to prove.

by **seke2** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:03:22

Laexile wrote:I don't care if Palin knows the Bush Doctrine. She needs to know the McCain Doctrine, whatever that will be. If she's in favor of going into Pakistan she doesn't know it. She's got a lot to prove.

Given how much of our foreign policy over the last 8 years has been goverened by this doctrine, I'd say it's pretty damn important that she knows what it is, especially if McCain/Palin are truly intent on "abandoning" it because that would be truly genuine change. Though from her hollow talking point answers to the very straightforward yes/no question about whether or not the Pakistan incursions were appropriate, I don't think there is a "McCain doctrine."

by **VoxOrion** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:09:55

Item 1:

ABC’s Charles Gibson: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there.

Item 2:

ABC’s George STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama has said that his State Department, his National Security Council would engage in unconditional talks with the Iranians.

BIDEN: Let's put this in perspective. The reason why we'd be in so much trouble if John McCain were president — and I love him — is because of what you just heard.

What's the alternative to talking with a country that's building a nuclear weapons, attempting to, that in fact is helping kill Americans by supporting elements in Iraq that are killing Americans?

You either talk; you go to war; or you maintain the status quo.

Now, let's talk about talking. President Bush, the White House, called me, several years ago, told me Air Force Two was waiting for me at Andrews Air Force Base; would I get on the plane and go meet with Gadhafi, a real known terrorist, personally, a terrorist — personally responsible for killing kids at the school I went to, Syracuse University, blowing up that Pan Am flight.

The president of the United States asked me to go. He cut a deal with Gadhafi, directly. It was a smart thing to do. He gave up his nuclear weapons, Gadhafi.

What's the second thing?

We're in Korea, right now, George. You want to put the hit list to the worst guys in the world?

How about Kim Jong Il?

They have proliferated nuclear technology, put us in jeopardy, and other nations around the world. What is the president of the United States doing, writing letters saying, "Dear Mr. Chairman" — referring to him.

They've cut a deal. They've cut a deal. The president of the United States of America, last time I was in Iraq, was trying to set up, and recently asked for a third meeting with the Iranians, to talk with them about what's going on in Iraq.

This is sophistry. This is ridiculous.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It sounds like you're calling it hypocrisy.

by **dajafi** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:13:45

cshort wrote:
I don't think McCain is sincere on this one. I assume his policy would be to say he's not going to do it, and then say "my bad" after the fact. Seems silly to telegraph the intentions now, and get Pakistan riled up.

Okay, but he certainly didn't seem to mind telegraphing belligerent intentions when it comes to Russia--a far more dangerous potential adversary, given their deliverable nuclear arsenal, than Pakistan (which admittedly is plenty dangerous enough).

I was playing poker last night rather than watching Palin. If she flopped with lapdog Charlie Gibson, she must have been really bad. But, again, I'm not sure it matters. I'm not sure anything matters other than the general truthiness of Palin/McCain (as I will now refer to the ticket).

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:25:19

She wasn't great, or maybe even good, but she didn't flop. This is the same board that was pretty sure she gave the worst speech ever. Probably not the place to go for objective analysis.

by **BuddyGroom** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:27:50

seke2 wrote:saw both of the new obama ads on his website...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/communit ... sen/gG53SH

i like them. the positive one is a nice, clear, change of pace from the usual ads--just a quick 30 second snippet of obama talking about the whole "change" issue.

the negative one is a lot more biting than anything else i've seen from the left in a while, basically makes fun of the fact that mccain doesn't use a computer or send email.

Those are both really good. The first one is direct and clear - and on target, I think.

The second one is funny. A bit mean, perhaps, but right now, what Democrat cares about that? Hit them, and hit them hard, I say. The Republicans like red-meat campaigns - fine by me. McCain and Palin are pretty easy targets - so get to it.

by **Camp Holdout** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:28:10

jerseyhoya wrote:She wasn't great, or maybe even good, but she didn't flop. This is the same board that was pretty sure she gave the worst speech ever. Probably not the place to go for objective analysis.

any of these better?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 82162.aspx

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:33:05

Camp Holdout wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:She wasn't great, or maybe even good, but she didn't flop. This is the same board that was pretty sure she gave the worst speech ever. Probably not the place to go for objective analysis.

any of these better?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 82162.aspx

I agree with them. She wasn't great, or maybe even good, but she didn't flop. I feel like I've written that before.

Archived

Palin Power! Politics Thread

Sarah Palin: Great VP pick, or the greatest VP Pick?