Did Palin Change Your Vote?

College Confidential Community
61

<p>

</p>

<p>Not the Sarah Palin experience-by-proximity defense again!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Prove it. </p>

<p>The Anbar Awakening happened well before the troops got there, started by the likes of Captain Patriquin (who was tragically killed, thus allowing people like McCain to falsely take credit). Sectarian violence was already creating ethnic and religious enclaves in Baghdad before the troops got there.</p>

<p>You still won’t acknowledge the fact that the surge would not even exist if the likes of John “Saddam has WMDs and we’ll be greeted as liberators and oil will pay for the war” McCain didn’t **** it all up in the first place. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Obama came out in 2002 and publicly opposed the war when there was no obligation for him to do so, and where the politic climate was toxic to such “unpatriotic” sentiments. Meanwhile, John McCain was insisting that Saddam had WMDs and all that other BS. I wouldn’t try to debate Iraq if I were you.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What has McCain ever done, except get involved in the Keating Five scandal and sponsor “maverick” bills that he now opposes for political expediency (i.e. immigration)? John McCain was dead wrong on deregulation and dead wrong on Iraq. He’s not experienced; he’s just old (and clueless). </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>“Nuh uh! Obama probably just got into Harvard because he was a grade grubber. I could get into Harvard too, if I tried! Plus he probably only got in there because he’s black, unlike McCain who earned his way into the Naval Academy!” - Generic Pro-McCain Ignoramus</p>

62

<p>There are some that take highly towards factious titles and fancy degrees. Then there are the rest of us that don’t care.</p>

<p>Looking at this presidential race</p>

<p>“There is one person who’s been consistent on reform issues, and that’s been John McCain.”</p>

<p>There is one person who promises a lot but has nothing to show for it. Where has Obama been in getting any kind of significant legislation passed? Where has Obama risked his political career by reaching across the aisle and angering his own party? Where was Obama’s principle when he voted ‘present’ on the most divisive issues in the legislature?</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>Spoken like a guy who has an empty trophy case and a bare wall. At least you probably have some participation ribbons.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ethics reform. </p>

<p>And name a legislation that McCain passed that he has NOT turned his back on nowadays for political expediency to placate the wingnut constituency.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There’s no virtue in angering your own party. Bipartisanship doesn’t mean being hated by both sides (like Joe Lieberman), and it certainly doesn’t mean selling out your own principles. Obama is a liberal, and he will always champion liberal causes. But what he won’t do is demonize his opposition, and what he will do is try to make everyone understand that many issues should not be politicized because the goal is of common interest.</p>

<p>Once upon a time, McCain was sometimes bipartisan but he’s long since sold out. He now opposes his own immigration bill, for one thing. Explain that.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Do I really have to explain this again? [Fact</a> Check: Obama’s ‘present’ votes - Boston.com](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/]Fact”>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/)</p>

64

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong. Now, if Sarah Palin had lived in Russia, then your comparison would be valid. I guarantee that I have more military experience than you and probably 90% of Americans. </p>

<p>*Prove it. *</p>

<p>It has already been acknowledged by everyone but you.</p>

65

<p>Pug, by “fancy degree” do you refer to a law degree, or do you mean a college degree? Given the nature of this site, I would have thought the former, but after reading your posts I’d have to go with the latter. </p>

<p>I don’t think most of us feel there is anything magical about a law degree, even from Harvard. But you did say Obama was “stupid,” and I can assure you that EIC of law review is generally seen as the top achievement in any law school, and he did it against those who are arguably the best and the brightest. </p>

<p>I also do not think most of us feel a president must be from the top of the academic heap, but having a class rank of 884 out of 889 is rather shockingly poor isn’t it? Almost as bad as you can get without failing the program. Do you think intelligence is a wasted quality in a president? Or perhaps it is a wasted quality in a voter . . .</p>

66

<p>By fancy degree, I was referring to the Harvard prestige of it. Yes it’s fancy, but that’s not what I look for in a President (even though a lot of our Presidents have come from such levels, it’s irrelevant to me).</p>

<p>Yes, I say Obama is stupid because he stammers without a teleprompter and rambles in interviews, makes lots of gaffes ( 57 states, uhhhh, “my” stimulus package", most negative ads is my campaign), surge is working great but still opposes it, above his pay grade to answer about life when he said it’d be the first issue he’d sign, etc. Grades don’t equal wisdom.</p>

<p>It’s really funny, that you’re arguing up Obama’s academic achievements as some kind of qualification for the presidency.</p>

67

<p>she didn’t change my vote.. hate that **<strong><em>… when i think of her i think of a </em></strong> on a bikini holding a rifle (perezhilton.com much?)</p>

68

<p>Props to nbachris2788 for having the most logical and easy to follow arguments, props to pugfug90 for primary sources. As to the original question, Palin’s stance on social issues is just way too extreme for moderates (and liberals of course), people she’ll need on her side for the Republican ticket to win. Obviously the subprime and credit crises carry the heaviest weight right now, but I know her views on red button social issues are a huge buzzkill in the Northwest. Though that may not mean much since the NW is heavily liberal..</p>

69

<p>[CNN</a> Comes Up Short On Reporting Palin Bikini Photo Fraud and Other Rumors - America’s Election HQ](<a href=“Latest Election 2024 News and Updates | Fox News Elections Center”>Latest Election 2024 News and Updates | Fox News Elections Center) Valentino, are you serious? I hope not. Just goes to show you how tainted people’s mind can be of the truth.</p>

<p>[Palin</a> ‘governed from the center,’ went after big oil - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-11-palin-cover_N.htm]Palin”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-11-palin-cover_N.htm)</p>

<p>Just becase you have strong personal beliefs does not mean you’ll impose your own personal persuasions on others.</p>

<p>Yes the credit crisis…</p>

<p>**The New York Times reported this five years ago:</p>

<p>The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.</p>

<p>”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”</p>

<p>McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005</p>

<p>I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.**</p>

<p>NOTHING WAS DONE</p>

<p>And now that stuff is about to hit the fan, the Democrats still won’t budge and still want to bail out “main street”. Didn’t work with the stimulus package, didn’t work with the housing bill, won’t work now.</p>

<p>Northwest is heavily liberal… in the city perhaps. You must mean the Northeast.</p>

<p>[RealClearPolitics</a> - Electoral Map](<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/]RealClearPolitics”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/) WA/OR are light blue. The mid NW is pretty red also.</p>

<p>Gore beat Bush by a healthy 5% in WA…but that’s nowhere as “liberal” as his 25% blowout in NY. In OR, Gore and Bush both got 47%, Gore edged out by a couple thousand.</p>

<p>Where do people get these facts, geez. If they knew the truth, they’d be on McCain’s side :D</p>

70

<p>

</p>

<p>But I’ve played a lot of paintball.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Everyone? Does that include some guy named Bob Woodward? One of his main points in his new book “The War Within” is that improved intelligence methods played a big role in lowering violence in Iraq, further downplaying the importance of the surge.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, I say McCain is stupid because he can barely follow a teleprompter and contradicts himself in interviews, makes lots of gaffes (Sunni-Shia mix-up, the persistent existence of Czechoslovakia, Iraq war was really for oil, ignorance of who the Spanish prime minister is, being against the AIG bailout before being for it), surge is kind of working but still thinks it’s the panacea for everything wrong in Iraq. Atrocious grades don’t equal wisdom.</p>

<p>We’re not in an idiocracy, at least not completely yet.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not to be ungracious, but quantity does not equal quality, and there have been a few times when pugfug’s “evidence” actually undercut his own argument.</p>

71

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s nice. How is it relevant though?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yep. He’s wrong. Most experts agree that it was the surge that allowed such progress to be made-</p>

<p>[Events</a> in Iraq muddle candidates’ differences](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/21/MND712SFN8.DTL&feed=rss.news]Events”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/21/MND712SFN8.DTL&feed=rss.news)</p>

<p>[Pentagon:</a> Violence down in Iraq since ‘surge’ - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.security/index.html]Pentagon:”>Pentagon: Violence down in Iraq since 'surge' - CNN.com)</p>

<p>Dropping from 100+ US troop deaths per month before the surge to 8 in July is pretty damn good progress.</p>

72

<p>Cuse,</p>

<p>You’re pulling a pugfug and bombarding me with articles without reading beyond the headline. </p>

<p>Your first source states: </p>

<p>***"And as violence has declined, [McCain] has repeatedly credited the surge, overlooking what critics say are other factors in stemming the killing. ***</p>

<p>And your second source says:</p>

<p>“The report cited the emergence of the Sons of Iraq as a major reason for the downturn in civilian-oriented violence and deaths. The groups are made up of an estimated 90,000 Iraqis, often former insurgents, paid by U.S. commanders to help protect neighborhoods and provide intelligence on extremists.”</p>

<p>“Iraqi forces are showing clear signs of independent operational capability with little to no U.S. help, U.S. military officials said.”</p>

<p>So essentially, Iraqi forces have taken it upon themselves to take control of their own country, and that has occurred concurrently with the surge. However, neither article shows any causality between the surge and the reduction in violence, and conservatives merely make the “natural” assumption that 30 000 U.S. troops in the Baghdad area can magically start the Awakening that happened in the Anbar province months BEFORE the surge began. I know the U.S. military is strong, but I doubt they can control minds and travel backwards in time.</p>

<p>That the surge has played some part in decreasing violence, nobody (including Obama) disputes. However, the notion that the only solution to the problem was the surge, and that the problem has been solved or is nearly solved, is completely wrong.</p>

73

<p>Look again.</p>

<p>From the first article-</p>

<p>Today, Iraq is quieter, a turn that most experts attribute to the increase in troop strength and a renunciation of violence by U.S.-paid Sunni militias and rogue Shiite groups. Just eight American troops were killed in action in Iraq in July, the lowest level since the war began, and just 12 were killed in August.**</p>

<p>And regarding the second article-</p>

<p>No one is denying that the Iraqi forces have shown significant progress. The problem was that we had to train/equip them first, which we couldn’t do adequately before the surge because those troops were tied up trying to reduce the awful amount of violence that existed. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that once we infused 30,000 troops into Baghdad, Iraq became much more stable. Were there other factors? Of course. But we had been trying to train the Iraqis for years, and we had been working on diplomatic measures for years. Neither one experienced success until the surge happened.</p>

74

<p>to answer the question of the op… sarah palin was definitely a negative in my books. I consider myself a moderate who doesn’t know who to vote for yet, and find palin to be a little too extreme with these “moral” values. From what I hear she’s also got some kind of corruption case going on that involves her, which I am also not too thrilled about. On the other hand, Joe Biden was a solid pick by Obama since he’s experienced…especially in foreign policy. Overall I’d say the vp picks of these two candidates didn’t solidify anything for me but it definitely shifted my vote more towards Obama.</p>

75

<p>Again, McCain’s low class rank stemmed primarily from disciplinary issues rather than academic ones.</p>

<p>[Although that really isn’t much better]</p>

76

<p>

</p>

<p>Again, you’re mixing up causation and correlation. The impetus to reduce violence was already well under way BEFORE the surge. You’re kind of saying that people get taller because they’re good at basketball, when it’s really the other way around.</p>

<p>In other news, John McCain is trying to weasel his way out of Friday’s debate. Look Johnny Mac, Dubya who was a WARTIME PRESIDENT had plenty of time to debate John Kerry two or three times with no problem. You represent 1% of the Senate. I think they can do fine without your omnipresence. Now go and debate Obama or are you afraid?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, that might be worse, given McCain has an infamous temperament. Nobody wants a thin-skinned egomaniac with his finger on the button.</p>

77

<p>

</p>

<p>Au contraire. We didn’t send an extra 30,000 troops to Iraq because violence was declining. We did the surge because violence was spiraling out of control, with 100+ US troops and countless Iraqi civilians being killed each month. As has already been stated, nearly every expert attributes the surge (as well as other factors) to the vast reduction in violence that has occurred. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hmm…looks like once again McCain is looking out for the best interests of the country rather than his own interests. Talk about selfless service, but then again Obama wouldn’t know anything about that.</p>

78

<p>Wouldn’t having both presidential candidates return to Washington just add to the problems?</p>

79

<p>

</p>

<p>So you agree with the notion that if the surge never happened, then violence would’ve kept on escalating despite events such as the Awakening and ethnic segregation? A simple yes or no will do.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, it looks like McCain realizes that neither he, Palin, Gramm, Fiorina, Davis, nor whoever else on that team of geniuses he has knows jack about the economy and his poll numbers are plummeting. Fact is that Obama called him earlier about issuing a joint, bipartisan message in order to calm public fears. McCain agreed, then sneakily stole Obama’s plan and tried to come off as magnanimous when he’s just really scared to death about having to debate Obama and being confronted on his history of deregulation. </p>

<p>Honestly, what does McCain hope to accomplish? He’s one of the economically-ignorant senators in Congress. Oh is that what’s been missing in this great catastrophe, the brilliant economic mind of John McCain? SuperMac to the rescue!</p>

<p>Does McCain honestly think he can call time outs if he ever becomes president? But hey, it’s not as if America ever has more than one problem at once!</p>

<p>My prediction is that McCain is trying to use this as leverage to delay the VP debates, because Palin’s latest interview with Katie Couric was god awful. The Republicans are trying to manipulate a genuine national crisis to cover up for their own dumb mistake of selecting a know-nothing like Palin.</p>

<p>McCain is exhibiting a core characteristic of hardcore Republicans: Cowardice. Nothing more.</p>

80

<p>

</p>

<p>It certainly wouldn’t be down to the level that it is now. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Please. Last time McCain and Obama were together in a town hall meeting Obama destroyed himself with one of the most vague answers I have ever heard on an important question. McCain is simply putting his country ahead of himself. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Right now he is the leader of the Republican party. He hopes to unify the party so that they can reach a consensus and pass the stimulus package. </p>

<p>If Barack would try and assume the same role, the process would move much quicker. Instead, Barack is putting the entire nation’s economy at risk by looking out for himself first.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>McCain isn’t calling a time out; he is doing the opposite. He is dealing with a problem rather than trying to make himself look good. Obama is the one who doesn’t want to deal with reality. Looks like he will be debating with himself this weekend while McCain gets some real work done. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Typical liberal BS, calling a decorated war hero and POW a coward because they disagree with him. When all else fails, resort to personal attacks! Sure makes your party look good.</p>