<p>Well put, vistany, thank you.</p>
<p>I don’t really care about Palin’s pronunciation … at least that’s not what IRCers seemed to cringe about when watching her on TV. I was really disheartened by her inability to actually answer the question or at least frame core issues. Maybe it’s just her debating (in)ability to respond to questions under duress. It’s perfectly fine to respond to a question about appropriate executive experience about being a business owner, mayor and yes, the chief executive of one of the fifty states. In fact, that’s darn good.</p>
<p>But simply listing them off without elaboration made her look like she was just desperate pulling justifications out of thin air. Many other people are business owners, mayors and moms too. And not least of all, while I can appreciate “familiarity with the average American” as a virtue, her citation of this virtue was often unsupported/unelaborated. Presumably, you will be more sympathetic for your own social class than as a member of the “Establishment”, but sympathy != competence. In the debate itself she didn’t outline a coherent policy framework, only loyalties and asserted effects.</p>
<p>Yeah, job creation. That’s a policy effect, not a policy framework itself. Knowing the hardships of the average American and of hockey mothers is not a real response to knowing how to deal with the economic crisis. Perhaps that’s a character trait or a skillset for dealing with a crisis, but not a solution in itself. i.e. she didn’t actually outline a plan. A high school forensics debater would have done better than her. (Solvency, topicality …) And while Biden could eloquently frame issues, Palin could not. (And note I was rather biased against Biden in the beginning, because younger mothers seem more appealing/charismatic than old “establishment” politicians.) Palin never said anything remotely resembling the lines of, “I have past experience in responsibly managing public finances. Here is my plan for federal public spending…” So if she is quite competent at managing public finances she wasn’t particularly competent at mentioning this in the debate.</p>
<p>Not sure I agree with your analysis of the debate. In fact the pundits called it a draw despite Biden being considered one of the best debaters in the Senate.</p>
<p>Again, you are not getting much more than spin from the mainstream media. They seem to have an agenda that limits positive exposure for the GOP. There was actually a study that showed the number of negative McCain articles vs negative Obama articles.</p>
<p>Palin addressed her accomplishments during several speechs and interviews that I saw. A reporter did a multipart interview in Alaska tracking down people who worked with Palin in government. People who worked on the natural gas pipeline were interviewed about how Palin move the pipeline forward when it has been held up on side deals for years. The answer was that Palin kept the doors open on the entire process and would not permit anything less than the best deal for Alaska. The reporter traveled for days, but had a hard time finding people who didn’t love her. In fact her approval rating in Alaska is something like 80%. Do we love our government at that level? Are we so full of ourselves that we think we are better than our fellow citizens in Alaska?</p>
<p>Little known fact. Palin got more votes when running for the mayor of Wasilla than Biden got running in the Presidential primary. She manages 9 times the land mass and a significant portion, 22%, of this nations energy resources. Clinton came from Arkansas which primarily exported chickens and potato chips. Was his experienced dismissed?</p>
<p>I realize that it’s not easy to find the facts without doing your own reasearch. For example Obama has asked for an average of 1.6 million dollars worth of pork barrell spending for every day his has been in the Senate. McCain has never, in twenty years in the Senate, ever asked for a pork barrel earmark in any bill. Considering the way Congress works this is pretty amazing.</p>
<p>Right now I am looking at Palin through the lens of common sense government. She is the only one on either ticket that has executive experience and has had to balance a budget. She actually has a surplus. Now when you look at those facts in the face of the monumental mess we have in this country right now, What do we have to lose?</p>
<p>A fresh set of eyes might do us some good. The halls of Congress are filled with people with Ivy educations. They have screwed it up royally. Maybe some down home thinking will serve us better than a pile of elitists with second agendas. I think Palin could do a good job of moving energy policy forward. It wouldn’t bother me if she stood before the American people and said “this is how we waste your tax dollars”.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why people will excuse Obam’s inability to point to specific achievements, or a cohesive plan or experience while they will slice and dice on Palin’s experience.</p>
<p>Sorry for going on about this. This thread just struck a nerve.</p>
<p>Thank you again, vistany, and might I remind people, Palin is not running for President.</p>
<p>“I don’t understand why people will excuse Obam’s inability to point to specific achievements, or a cohesive plan or experience while they will slice and dice on Palin’s experience.”</p>
<p>Cav, I don’t like your anti-Palin comments, but your posts do make me giggle. Thanks!</p>
<p>Just stepping in for one moment…
Clinton’s experience, background, and family (especially his daughter and brother) where heavily criticized and were the subject of ridicule back in '92. </p>
<p>One more tidbit: 16 of the 100 members of the senate have a degree of some sort from an Ivy League school and according to [a</a> 2005 NYT article](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/business/yourmoney/27ceo.html]a”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/business/yourmoney/27ceo.html):
</p>
<p>With respect, Dean J, I’m not seeing where you are going in this most recent posting?</p>
<p>vistany, you still have said nothing about why you think Palin is a competent pick. There are literally tens of thousands of more able leaders in this country, but she truly embodies the GOP’s unique vision of pandering to the intellectually-challenged masses. Her being picked is beyond weak - it’s pathetic and sad. The republican party in general deserves to lose this election so that the populist, “values”-oriented morons can be flushed out. Of course, it appears that hell would freeze over before americans would vote into office a (less crazy) version of Ron Paul.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong about Obama, though. I still consider him to be an inexperienced, pandering dunce whose fluffy, impractical and downright stupid vision of Obamunism will almost certainly make responsible, hard-working americans worse off than they would be under other leadership. Unfortunately this election really doesn’t present a clear “other”, so please don’t accuse me of necessarily supporting some other candidate.</p>
<p>FWIW, Dean J, our politicians shouldn’t be reflective of the “average” citizen. Perhaps it can be good for them to come from a middle or lower class background, but americans at the median otherwise really shouldn’t even be voting.</p>
<p>I agree with Cav, Palin was a poor pick for VP candidate. While she does attract some extremes of the republican party, there are many more suitable candidates. When offered the position, no matter her current ambitions, she should have respectfully declined. </p>
<p>What really gets me with Obama is that he really doesn’t say much. He’s gonna “change” things. The only thing I’ve really heard him say is he’s gonna lower middle class taxes.</p>
<p>Also, I again agree with Cav, I don’t want the average joe the plumber to be running the country. It needs to be someone that can relate to the needs of the majority of the people, but also posses the skills and knowledge to do it properly.</p>
<p>Sorry Cav,
I think Sarah is refreshing. I like that she is not from Inside the Beltway. She’s been a Mayor. She is a Governor, a Mother, a wife, a Mother of a special needs child. I have a strong belief that, in accordance with the Constitution, that this government should be one that is governed “by the people”. She has grit.
So, she’s not an Ivy League grad. So what? She’s already taken on loads of responsibility in terms of serving the people of Alaska. Why is that right to dismiss her years of service as a mayor and governor in Alaska? And, yet, Obama gets credit for a limited number of days as a US senator (~146 days), and has basically only served his own agenda of running a campaign. IMO, Obama serves Obama, as evidenced by his arrogant presentation last night, and in Berlin.
Cav, I know you aren’t necessarily making the argument for either, so please don’t take this post as one that is directed at you.<br>
I’m just ranting…sure, why not?!</p>
<p>I personally think that running Alaska isn’t the best of qualifications. Look at the last governor we elected. This isn’t necessarily against Palin, either. I wouldn’t be supportive of a mayor/governor of Wyoming, or Puerto Rico or something either. They deal with way too small of politics, and haven’t been active on the federal level much. That’s what I like best of McCain and Obama: they’ve both been on all levels of politics, and understand how Congress works with the President, which is crucial to get anything done in gov’t. Clinton did so well because he worked extremely well with Congress, and is was by large a Republican majority! </p>
<p>Canuck’s post is pretty much my thoughts. Palin, female or not, alienated me from McCain. Obama has focused way too much on lowering taxes. And we need someone who can perform the job, not just be a good candidate on paper. People need to step away from the media cloud around both candidates and just focus on who they agree with ideologically. Something like 75% of promised changes during campaigns are not upheld during a candidate’s term due to conflicts with budget, other branches, etc, anyways.</p>
<p>Hey, when I heard McCain picked Sarah Palin I was unhappy. Shocked and confused. I had to study the issues a bit before I could calm down. In hindsight I realized that picking someone like Romney would make everybody yawn. Sure there are more experienced politicians. I liked Florida’s governor and the guy from Tennessee too. But thinking outside the box Palin could serve a unique role.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? Those Morons???</p>
<p>I am plenty ****ed off at the government right now and would be happy if plenty of them were fired in the case of Cox (SEC ) and not reelected like Barney Frank who headed up the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac debacle. I won’t even mention the scores of wall street bankers who should be in jail. </p>
<p>Which one of these idiots is so great? So competant, so selfless in the service of the American people Cav? None of them. </p>
<p>I agree with Powderpuff, give me a solid public servant and I’ll take my chances. Would you be unhappy with a balanced budget, and some ethical conduct. Considering how far in the bucket the economy is I don’t see us doing any worse unless we go with Obama and create a Socialist Triumverate with the house and the senate. I won’t argue Cav’s point about Obamunism. No argung with perfection. As bad as things are the BO will make it worse. IMO if that idiot gets in none of us will have jobs in 4 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>McCain has been a steady, and honest force in our government and he the most qualified to be president. I don’t agree with all of his positions, but I believe he wants to do the right thing by his country. For me its a done deal. I already voted. No regrets.</p>
<p>FWIW I appreciate Ron Paul for his “Let’s mind our own business for a change” position.</p>
<p>
I was responding to two comments made by vistany (one about Clinton and another about the “halls of Congress” being filled by the Ivy League).
I think you misinterpreted my post. I wasn’t advocating for this at all, just following up on vistany’s post.</p>
<p>Both McCain and Obama say they are going to change things in Washington and solve problems. Change what? Solve how?</p>
<p>Palin basically did the same thing in the debate, only she did it much less eloquently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><3 </p>
<p>Only that I don’t like Ron Paul as much as I used to (though this is slightly reversed when I see the recent xkcd episodes…) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Language</a> Log Forget framing its hypnosis!](<a href=“Language Log » Forget framing — it's hypnosis!”>Language Log » Forget framing — it's hypnosis!)</p>
<p>I must defend Palin though on one issue. Being a governor seems much more relevant to the issue of executive competency than say, being a legislator. Alaska with its vast natural resources is not short of politics – must good candidates necessarily be governors of a big state like New York or California. Nay, it’s what she did as governor of Alaska, mayor of Wasilla, or whatever. It’s a bit like attending a selective school and what you actually accomplished there, isn’t it?</p>
<p>However, her performance in the debates simply disheartens me. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly this is better than enduring character attacks, but neither of the two candidates have even the majority of my ideological support. Ron Paul actually had that … however, despite this fact, now that I think about it, I would have a hard time choosing Ron Paul over McCain or Obama if it came down to me, even though I agree with Ron Paul the most ideologically. Certainly I like his stance more, but I wouldn’t know if he would make a good president.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can someone ever focus “too much” on that? (In fact, I don’t hear very much of this in the media – I’ve always perceived it as one of his salad policies.) Lowering tax rates that are too high in the first place can actually increase revenue. Andrew Mellon, by cutting the top tax bracket rate to 25% (from an outrageous 77%), and slashing taxes across the board, actually increased government revenue, such that the wealthy actually paid for the majority .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By 1926 65% of the income tax revenue came from incomes $300,000 and higher, when five years prior, less than 20% did. During this same period, the overall tax burden on those that earned less than $10,000 dropped from $155 million to $32.5 million.[/quote[</p>
<p>Shoebox, I’m sorry but your naivete is striking, IMHO.</p>
<p>“McCain and Obama: they’ve both been on all levels of politics”</p>
<p>Obama has accomplished nothing except for being an advocate for himself. He has been a senator for like 146 days, and most of that time he’s spent running for President. His votes in the senate are “present”, not for or against, just a safe “present”. All he’s done is to write two books about himself??? He’s a legend in his own mind.</p>
<p>Obama’s community organizing was with ACORN and other tainted voting organizations. His chosen associations are with prior terrorists (Ayers), a PLO representative (Khalidi), a slum-Lord of Chicago (Rezko), an outspoken bigot against white Americans (J. Wright), and marxists at Columbia, just to name a few. This compares in no way to McCain’s 35 years in the US Senate, his military service, and his heroism when imprisoned and tortured by the Vietcong for five long years.</p>
<p>Your vote is your vote and I respect that. This is a rant forum, so I’m ranting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was only two then so I did a quick bit of research when I should be studying for Stats.</p>
<p>Then Presidential candidate Governor Clinton managed a $2.3 Billion Dollar budget. Current VP Candidate Governor Palin manages an $11 Million Dollar budget.</p>
<p>She manages significant energy resources, and not the export of chicken parts, and as far as we know doesn’t have the infidelity thing going on.</p>
<p>Clinton made mistakes as most Presidents do but he wasn’t exactly awash in critical decisions prior to election.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, you forgot to mention lewis farrakhan who annointed Obama “the Messiah”!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obama promises tax cuts to 95% of Americans. 40% of working American’s don’t pay taxes. So Do the math. He is creating a welfare state. If socialism is your thing, and as a person who recently immigrated here I doubt that you do, there are lots of other countries that can accommodate you.</p>
<p>This is a really fun thread. </p>
<p>Powder: new polls out right now. It is tightening!!!</p>
<p>Powderpuff: I have nothing negative to say to you, you’ve always had your head screwed on right and I like your points. But Obama served in the Illinoise Senate for three terms, and now is in the Senate. Yes, for only one term, but he’s served on multiple commiittess and heads a subcommittee. He also taught on constitutional law for some 7 years or so. For 2008, he was named the 11th most influential member of Congress. Bush was a governor for only 8 years before running for presidency, oh, and owned a baseball team. Everyone seemed to have voted for him.
My point isn’t to bash either candidate. But, McCain has been directly involved in federal gov’t only for 12 years. Obama has seen gov’t at the educational, state, and some federal level. Both candidates have gov’t experience, just in different ways.
And I have stupid, idiotic, moron friends that do all sorts of stupid crap. Everyone knows I’m friends with them. That doesn’t make me an idiot though. Obama has had his fair share of sharing his life with some interesting people. But, I doubt he will represent them in office, and even if he trid, Congress would never let it fly. Frankly, McCain could always hop into office and take out his grudge of his POW days on those types of countries.</p>
<p>galosien: for once, I sort of agree with you. While Ron Paul may have fit your wants in gov’t, if you think you couldn’t have voted for him for President, I think that’d be part of not agreeing with him ideologically. Maybe that’s why we have primaries. But when it gets down to the final election, you really have to go for whoever you agree with more and who you think will do the best job. It’s also why I sort of support runoff elections prior to the main one. Right now, we know that a candidate from one of the two main parties is going to win. So, I believe that people who vote third party are just wasting their vote. Why not vote for the lesser of the two main evils, when you know one of them is going to win? But, we may not always have two dominate parties, and to change the election, we’d need a constitutional amendment, and I don’t think it should be struck into stone like that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>McCain has been directly involved in Federal gov’t for 22 years not 12. He was elected to the US Senate in 1986. He served 4 years in Arizona’s legislature. Before that he served as the Navy’s Liaison to the Senate for 5 years. Before that he lived at the Hanoi Hilton as a POW Naval Officer where he turned down early release out of respect for the honor code of first POW in first POW out.</p>
<p>Obama has been a Senator for 3 years and has been running for President for two.</p>
<p>I have idiot friends, but they are not felons or apologists for the likes of Arafat. I sure do hope the LA Times releases that tape.</p>
<p>Thanks Shoebox, sorry if my ranting got a little on the wild side. I am passionate about this election, I have to admit, but you’ve always been a really nice internet friend and I certainly don’t want to offend you with my political ranting.
No matter what one’s take on this is, I think it’s pretty cool that everyone is fired up about this election!
I say this jokingly: but I’m not sure of what I’m gonna do once this election is over? Yes, I do>>finals are right around the corner. Ugh.</p>
<p>
I made no statement about Palin, just replied to the question about whether Clinton’s experience was dismissed. Being a little older, I can tell you that there were times that it was. Critics even gave him the nickname “Bubba” to make light of the experience he had coming from Arkansas.</p>
<p>After Super Tuesday, things died down a little bit, but he still had plenty of detractors.</p>
<p>ETA: I love seeing how passionate you all are about the issues and I only jumped in to correct what I saw as inaccuracies. There are few others that I’m just going to ignore.</p>