Discussing Sarah Palin

[audtatious]

She knows how to fill out expense reports to bill the state and taxpayers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new....html#

A perspective from across the big pond with no US spin

The more kids, the more you can bilk the taxpayers

Is that a form of Alaskan welfare?

Telcoman

Guess we will have to see how this plays out since it's already being picked apart. FWIW, her predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski, ran up $463,000 in travel for one year (vs Palins $93k).

[AZhitman]

Actually, most of that is perfectly legit as far as expense claims for Governors go...

The per diem deal most of them have is very generous. Some abuse it. I did an investigation on a staffer of a prior administration who did that very thing...

Of course, in an election year, everything is scrutinized... it's certainly to be expected!

[audtatious]

Here's a very interesting radio interview with X-Alaskan Dem Senator Mike Gravel. This is an interview on a liberal talk radio show and they don't like anything he says until at the end when they can get him to state some negatives about the Republican party. Pretty interesting to hear his perspective on the matter:

http://macsmind.com/wordpress/...-gate/

[wingFeather]

She knows how to fill out expense reports to bill the state and taxpayers

Yes - she cut expense spending dramatically... so I'd say that she knows how to handle it for sure

She reduced the perk travel expenses by almost $400,000 last year (compared to the previous good ol boy Gov)!

She got rid of the money-bleeding: jet, cook... and she drives herself around!!!

Yes, she knows how to do things right.

How about Obama?

[HashiriyaS14]

I changed the title of this thread so that it can more broadly encompass any discussion of Sarah Palin.

At any rate, I found a very interesting article this morning on Palin and "Palinism".

http://headofstate.blogspot.co....html

This blogger, who admittedly is probably a stark leftist and doesn't represent the majority views, necessarily, of either party, is arguing that Palin's very presence is "content free".

To a certain extent, I can understand how the Republicans would rebut this, and in some instances, rightfully so. Unfortunately for the GOP however, the blogger does have a point in the grand scheme of things.

What policies does she support? What positions does she advocate? What ideas is she behind?

And NO, vague stuff like "cleaning up Washington" and "reducing earmarks" are neither specific enough or substantiative enough to pass muster in this inquiry. I want a "policy wonk" response, I want a detailed review of precisely where she stands on what and why and I want THAT to determine her viability.

Unfortunately for me I probably won't get what I want. The McCain camp is trying to make this an election about people rather than an election about policy, and however idiotic that may be, it might work. He is essentially betting that the American people can be duped, as electing a President based on "character" rather than on policy positions is, inarguably, moronic.

This appears to be the heart of Palin's appeal though, it's an "everywoman" sort of appeal that, thus far, hasn't really had much substance to it. Unfortunately for her, the media *will* force her to define the substance one way or the other. She will have to publicly, in front of cameras and without assistance, reconcile how she can disagree with her running mate on so many issues (man's influence on global warming, abortion, cap-and-trade, ANWR drilling, and so on). If she cedes to McCain's positions she'll likely erode her grip on the far-right, however if she publicly backs some of her more extreme right views she will alienate independents and create an atmosphere of confusion on the ticket.

Again, this is all my opinion, just my thoughts on an article. Feel free to add your own.

[S13_love]

The final question is why McCain chooses to continue with this plan. He clearly realizes that his team has made a mistake, a big mistake, yet, he smiles and tells you how happy he is. How can anyone be happy with a the focus of the campaign one about how unqualified his VP is, not to mention the other issues. All the attention McCain previously focused on the Obama/Paris Hilton type ads is no longer available to him. McCain’s team is clearly in damage control mode now that he’s lost the offensive push.

The Obama campaign doesn’t even have to attack Palin, the media has pretty much assumed that task.

Well, lets see why mccain chose her....remember hillary running for the nomination and how much attention and votes she got? It looks like the republicans are getting pretty desperate to win, choosing a alaskan governor (only been governor for 20 months right?), im guessing they are hoping to get a lot of votes just because a woman is in the vp position...and sadly people in this country people are retarded enough to vote for mccain/palin just for that reason alone....im not falling for it

[HashiriyaS14]

im guessing they are hoping to get a lot of votes just because a woman is in the vp position...and sadly people in this country people are retarded enough to vote for mccain/palin just for that reason alone....im not falling for it

Unfortunately, it just might work. Luckily for you, you live in Montana, a swing state in this election. If you want to see "Plan Palin" foiled, contact your local Obama campaign office and see what you can do. You're in one of those positions in this country, for this election, where you going out and convincing people/friends/family and talking to people might really have an impact in November.

Whether or not we see a moose-hunting hockey mom VP will hinge on the efforts of people like you to register Democratic voters and get people focused on the economy.

[wingFeather]

im guessing they are hoping to get a lot of votes just because a woman is in the vp position...

I'm guessing you didn't read my post above where she has demonstrated an amazing talent to cut government waste and create a better tomorrow?

If you don't know the facts, please don't vote

That goes for you, too, Hash. She is more than just a vagina.

[HashiriyaS14]

That goes for you, too, Hash. She is more than just a vagina.

You don't get to tell me what to do.

I am voicing legitimate concerns on how, thus far, the GOP hasn't really campaigned Palin on an issues-oriented platform. They're selling the kind of person she is, not her stances.

I'm not really even debating the kind of person she is, I don't care to. I'm more interested in whether or not the political strategy of trying to transform the race into a question of people rather than a question of policy will work or not.

[Jimefam]

Of course it will work. Bush is proof that igniting the fear of social conservatives and then showing them the carrot(palin) will provide them with a substantial boost. It has already been shown in the polls and in the fundraising.

[96Qowner]

What policies does she support? What positions does she advocate? What ideas is she behind?

And NO, vague stuff like "cleaning up Washington" and "reducing earmarks" are neither specific enough or substantiative enough to pass muster in this inquiry. I want a "policy wonk" response, I want a detailed review of precisely where she stands on what and why and I want THAT to determine her viability.

Unfortunately for me I probably won't get what I want. The McCain camp is trying to make this an election about people rather than an election about policy, and however idiotic that may be, it might work. He is essentially betting that the American people can be duped, as electing a President based on "character" rather than on policy positions is, inarguably, moronic.

Well, unfortunately, Hash, I disagree. I think that character is every bit as important as policy positions. A lot of people agree with me. Has anyone noticed that Bush and Reid and Pelosi had policy positions that they didn't bother to implement, or changed they minds about, or gave up in order to accomplish something else? Even the concept of policy positions is suspect. Every candidate claims that he's going to do some good thing about some bad thing he identifies. "The economy? I'm gonna fix that by lowering your taxes and eliminating government waste." Uh huh. "High energy costs? I'm gonna fix that by throwing a bunch of your money at the problem." Whoopie. "The Iraq war? I'm gonna fix that by making the generals come up with better ideas." It's that easy.

Presidents have no such powers anyway. They have no power over energy prices, no power over the economy and no power to put good ideas into generals' heads. They're dependent on Representatives and Senators and Generals. So, character and experience in negotiating with powerful people become important qualities. No Senator ever votes for anything without making deals with other Senators. It helps if they know your character. It helps if you've had experience working with them in that environment. It helps if they know they'll be rewarded for their cooperation, and if they know they'll be hurt if they don't.

Policy positions don't really "appeal" to people. They're a way of capturing or fracturing constituencies. A large chuck of the electorate responds better to qualities like character and personal appeal. Obama would not be a candidate, if that weren't true.

So, now Sarah is the new charismatic candidate and people are fascinated by her. They don't care any more about her policy positions than people cared about Obama's. Seriously, tell me how 90% of the Black population backs Obama for his policy positions.

[WDRacing]

Hash only listens to me

Palin kinda scares me a little...I didn't read a single one of those links, this is just my opinion. She just seems to be...I dunno...out there I guess. I'm an Independent...albeit right leaning on most things. But she seems to be really right leaning on a few topics that I won't mention because of the subject matter they involve. Suffice it to say, I disagree with where she stands on several matters. All matters where she shows NO sign of flexibility. Which as a leader is of the utmost importance IMO.

For the life of me I can't figure out why she was chosen as the VP. Other then for the sake of some game where the only end goal was to gain a certain groups vote. Which I understand is the name of the game when getting elected, but I'm so tired of not electing the best leaders for the job. Palin is not someone I want leading the country..."IMO". She just doesn't stand for what I do...

Which is sadly why I'm not voting for Obama, he will pander to the lefties which I hate, but now I have Palin who will pander to the right wing nut jobs

I think I'm officially making this the first year I vote for someone NOT in the big two. Cause I'm tired of supporting a system that is at best...broken.

WD

[96Qowner]

Remember that Palin is only a VP candidate - she won't be leading the country on anything at all.

I've been watching the clips about her religious fundamentalism. I'm as tired of it as you are. But I noticed, in all of the clips of her talking about it - the church, the Gubernatorial debates - that she never once implied that she thought she had any right to impose her beliefs on others. That's the key. She actually says that it's HER view, since people are asking, and that she is not suggesting others have to feel the same. I never got the impression from anything I've seen that she thinks it's appropriate to bring her religious beliefs into government.

Other than that, she's a budget hawk and an anti-corruption crusader. She sure didn't HAVE to go toe-to-toe with the old boys and the energy companies. I like her instincts.

[szh]

Which is sadly why I'm not voting for Obama, he will pander to the lefties which I hate, but now I have Palin who will pander to the right wing nut jobs

I think I'm officially making this the first year I vote for someone NOT in the big two. Cause I'm tired of supporting a system that is at best...broken.

Some people may indeed do that! And that is their right.

Years ago, when Senator John Anderson ran as an Independent against Reagan and Carter, I would have gladly voted for him (could not because I was not a citizen then). A straight person, who told it like it was without rhetoric. In my opinion, he won the three-way debates, but lost because voters did not want to hear reality - they preferred the rhetoric from Reagan.

Earlier this year, I was uncertain as to whether I would vote for Obama or McCain. Now, I strongly lean to the McCain-Palin ticket, because I think it is high time we did get a strong woman leader (even though I disagree with some of the tickets goals). Palin may not be ready for POTUS yet, but it is a start in the right direction.

FWIW, I did not like Hillary for the job of POTUS ... not because I thought she was not qualified, but because I felt that she would be arrogant and run rough-shod over people who got in her way. Based on prior history when she did not have the authority to do so.

Z

[szh]

She actually says that it's HER view, since people are asking, and that she is not suggesting others have to feel the same. I never got the impression from anything I've seen that she thinks it's appropriate to bring her religious beliefs into government.

I was gonna say that it might be good of her to state that, but then the far right would jump. Far better not to say anything right now, and let the practical realities of what the Senate and Congress will allow, to be the way it goes down later.

That is why I support the McCain-Palin ticket strongly, since I think, given the current mostly Democrat legislature, there will be a check and balance. With Obama in office, too many things - that I disagree with the Democrats on - may end up getting legislated.

Other than that, she's a budget hawk and an anti-corruption crusader. She sure didn't HAVE to go toe-to-toe with the old boys and the energy companies. I like her instincts.

Same here.

Z

[WDRacing]

Remember that Palin is only a VP candidate - she won't be leading the country on anything at all.

Oh I know...but there's always a what if scenerio. McCain could have a heart attack if a car in front of him backfires loudly...

That and I am against women in leadership positions

[rn79870]

Oh I know...but there's always a what if scenerio. McCain could have a heart attack if a car in front of him backfires loudly...

That and I am against women in leadership positions

[AZhitman]

That and I am against women in leadership positions

Which is why his wife is firmly in charge of any and all decisions made in the WD household...

[szh]

That and I am against women in leadership positions

Awwww, darn it!

FWIW, it's been done elsewhere! Just a few examples (past and present) that I can come up with a quick search:

Corazon Aquino (President, Phillippines)Maggie Thatcher (Prime Minister, UK)Indira Gandhi (Prime Minister, India)Benazir Bhutto (Prime Minister, Pakistan)Tansu Çiller (Prime Minister, Turkey)Kim Campbell (Prime Minister, Canada)Helen Clark (Prime Minister, New Zealand)Ruth Dreifuss (President, Switzerland)Mary McAleese (President, Ireland)Angela Merkel (Chancellor, Germany)Etc. etc., etc.

... I could go on and on!

There are currently 30 or 40 women in positions of Prime Minister and President around the world.

Why not here?

Z

[wingFeather]

They're selling the kind of person she is, not her stances.

They are currently establishing her credibility. Don't worry, the issues will be discussed. But honestly, if she talked issues would you even listen? Your mind is made up.

[wingFeather]

McCain could have a heart attack if a car in front of him backfires loudly

I'm guessing that is a prejudiced statement against his age, since you make no mention of Obama having a heart attack & Biden taking office. Prejudice against age is just as bad as racial prejudice! Might as well call Obama the N word.

Keep in mind that US Presidents have historically been older. To knock McCain due to age would be silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...y_age

[szh]

Keep in mind that US Presidents have historically been older. To knock McCain due to age would be silly.

I agree with your premise, but just to point out something. If elected, McCain would be the oldest to start in the office.

Regardless, given his genetics (look at his Mom), he should survive the first four years and maybe even eight, barring accidents.

Z

[AZhitman]

Partisan stuff aside, she makes me smile just to look at her. 98 years old and still probably able to turn him over her knee.

Barbara Bush is another one who impresses me.

[/offtopic]

[WDRacing]

I'm guessing that is a prejudiced statement against his age, since you make no mention of Obama having a heart attack & Biden taking office. Prejudice against age is just as bad as racial prejudice! Might as well call Obama the N word.

Keep in mind that US Presidents have historically been older. To knock McCain due to age would be silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...y_age

Yeah, taking into account that McCain has been in poor health and that age DIRECTLY effects further health related issues makes me prejudice against old people. It's just as bad as using the N word...RIIIIIIGHT.

I'm expressing an educated what if scenario. If you don't think that a persons health should be considered that's fine, but don't come at with me with prejudice accusations. What I choose to take into consideration is MY choice. Be it age or health...that does not make me prejudice. It is certainly NOT the same as calling someone the N word...or even close.

We're expressing opinions, I gave mine. You don't like it...that's fine. Making accusations against anyone simply because their opinion differs from yours won't be tolerated.

Back on topic...

Which is why his wife is firmly in charge of any and all decisions made in the WD household...

Ssshhhhhhh...damnit Greg

Seriously though, when it comes to things like WAR etc, I don't feel that a woman can make the best choices...IMO.

I agree with your premise, but just to point out something. If elected, McCain would be the oldest to start in the office.

Regardless, given his genetics (look at his Mom), he should survive the first four years and maybe even eight, barring accidents.

Z

Survive...Z...broham...I don't want to think in terms of can the dude survive maybe 8 years in office.

I'm not basing my decision on this alone. I'm just giving an opinion on THIS particular matter. I'd still choose McCain over Obama, I just don't like Palin all that much.

Also, I don't wanna quote that whole list of women you gave, but are any of those women well known for their war time decisions?

WD

[96Qowner]

Seriously though, when it comes to things like WAR etc, I don't feel that a woman can make the best choices...IMO.

WD

Margaret Thatcher? Heheh, but yeah, I don' see Sarah as a great military leader, LOL. But seriously ... Jimmy Carter? Algore?

[HashiriyaS14]

Well, unfortunately, Hash, I disagree. I think that character is every bit as important as policy positions. A lot of people agree with me.

And I think that this outlook might, in the long run, destroy the viability of our democracy and nation......but, er, we can agree to disagree

So, now Sarah is the new charismatic candidate and people are fascinated by her. They don't care any more about her policy positions than people cared about Obama's. Seriously, tell me how 90% of the Black population backs Obama for his policy positions.

People DID and DO care about Obama's policy positions. The Democrats were not (until recently) widely favored to win the Presidency because Obama is a personality rock star. They were widely favored before he was even the clear nominee. They were widely favored because GOP policies have brought unpopular results and Democratic policies were thought to be an attractive alternative.

People who vote on "personality" and "charisma" are the sorts of people that don't know enough about policy and the American political landscape to be able to vote intelligently and thus prefer to cast their vote for a "Mommy" or "Daddy" figure, someone who they can imagine being confidently at the helm of our nation while they lay asleep in their beds. They may not know what goes into doing the job of POTUS or why this person is suited to it, but they have "confidence in their character" and they can imagine the person doing a good job. They, for whatever reason, feel themselves able to be a good judge of character on people whom they've never met and know only through the lens of the media and intricately prepared speeches. These people are ruining my country.

Responsible voters make up their minds on candidates based on how those candidates have voted and governed in the past, the positions they have taken, et cetera. They attempt to pick a candidate who's voting record most closely matches what they feel to be right, recognizing that every vote is likely a compromise. They look both for excellence in policy as well as excellence in ability to implement policy through good politics (i.e. the "what" and the "how").

I don't look any more favorably on people voting for Obama based on race or personality than I do on people voting for McPalin for similar reasons. I'd just as soon deport the lot of them.

[wingFeather]

don't come at with me with prejudice accusations.

Men in their 40's drop dead, too. The VP of a company I worked for died unexpectedly at 47. Huh, isn't that Obama's age?

If you want to split hairs, Obama has a higher chance of dropping dead. He is not used to the stresses of true leadership. It may be too much for him!

Then we'd be stuck with Biden (Biden who?).

[wingFeather]

These people are ruining my country.

For once I can agree with you

My only contention would be that character is still an issue. Bill Clinton's lies and cheating on his wife brought this to the spotlight. Is it any wonder that today's generation is so lackluster with role models like Clinton?

[96Qowner]

People who vote on "personality" and "charisma" are the sorts of people that don't know enough about policy and the American political landscape to be able to vote intelligently and thus prefer to cast their vote for a "Mommy" or "Daddy" figure, someone who they can imagine being confidently at the helm of our nation while they lay asleep in their beds. They may not know what goes into doing the job of POTUS or why this person is suited to it, but they have "confidence in their character" and they can imagine the person doing a good job. They, for whatever reason, feel themselves able to be a good judge of character on people whom they've never met and know only through the lens of the media and intricately prepared speeches. These people are ruining my country.

*Sigh*, if only we could rid the world of idiots, yes. Unfortunately they will remain with us for eternity. Smart, clear-thinking people vote on issues. Many many American citizens vote on the basis of personality or looks, or race, or gender, or Party, or the best jokes, or a negative campaign ad, or ...

You get the picture. You can't govern if you don't win the election. Issues are always presented in an dishonest, distorted manner. Many of us can read between the lines and ignore the idiotic promises. Many others can't.

Personality, charisma and character will always be criteria for voting.

[szh]

Also, I don't wanna quote that whole list of women you gave, but are any of those women well known for their war time decisions?

One that I can think of immediately: Iron-Lady Maggie Thatcher and the Falkland Islands.

Z