She has the power of her convictions. I like that even though I do not agree with much of her convictions.
She has the power of her convictions. I like that even though I do not agree with much of her convictions.
I don't want to pretend that I understand anything about your politics over there and I don't think I even want to try. But I seeing the campaign websites of Obama and McCain - I just can't shake off the feeling that the victims of Katrina were very unlucky because their catastrophe didn't happen in the election year.
Do the VPs even matter? Weren't they just chosen to pacify the voters? McCain chose someone who is young, pretty and fresh and very Christian - to balance his age and indifference towards certain conservative matters, Obama chose someone old and experienced - to balance his inexperience and youth.
E.g. if McCain wanted a woman - why not Condoleezza Rice? She is 53, it's not like she already has one foot in the grave. She has tons of experience, she was a professor at Stanford for political science, she was a diplomatic advisor during the end of the cold war, she was in charge of Stanford and sorted out the financial problems there, she is the secretary of state. What's the problem with her? Is she too driven, too ambitious, too much of an overachiever? Is it the fact that she is pro-choice and no former beauty queen? Is it that she doesn't have a perfect family to show off on stage, is not your average hockey mom and has no son going to Irak? Because having a son serving in Iraq apparently qualifies you to be president:
That's from the official press release of the McCain campaign! I mean, they are kidding, right? They have to be.as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops.
i firmly believe that if her gender was male, she would never have been even considered, let alone chosen. Women look at issues (at least this woman does), and don't vote with their uterus.
I'd have to agree with Medusa. If a woman were to chosen, I'd have gone with Condoleeza Rice. Sarah Palin doesn't do much to impress me. It was a wasted move to try to appeal to women who just want to vote for a woman. Thankfully I'm not one of those-the issues are more important.
It'll be interesting to see how she holds up in debates against Joe Biden.
I find the strategy of the nomination insulting. Not only do I not vote with my uterus, I won't vote for someone just because she has a uterus. But I'm not exactly the targeted audience. I voted for Clinton in the primary, but I'm a yellow-dog Democrat. There was never a snowball's chance I'd go GOP.
I believe this will be a big test for her (family values) and see how she handles it. I hope she can do better than those numerous other 'soul savers' with their "lord, i have sinned" confessions. I just can't buy that.
But willing to listen to her explain what a parent should do with an illegitimate pregnancy of an offspring.
She just makes voting for Obama more and more easier every day!! LOL
Actually my problem isn't that her daughter is pregnant. The problem is that she promotes abstience (spelling???) and didn't want schools to have sex education. Well apparently she's not very convincing is she?
Also, think about this....if McCain were to die or something bad happen to him...would you want her as your president? Just a thought.
Considering I live in Alaska, I know what Sarah is capable of. She's gone up against her party in this state to the point where she first ticked off a lot of well known and well liked Republicans... and then when it turned out she was not only right but good things happened she became an instant success in their eyes. She's not 'big oil' as much as the media is claiming. She actually voted AGAINST and chose a different company than the two big ones here in AK (BP and ConocoPhillips) when it came to the Alaska - Canada pipeline that we're hoping to see built. She's also upped the regulations and taxes of the oil companies in the state. She doesn't just push their crap under a rug like others have *cough*Murkowski*cough*
Her daughter's pregnancy is sad, but at the same time things happen. I can't imagine how hard this is for Bristol. It's bad enough to have your parents know, it's worse when the whole nation knows and uses it against the ones you love. AFAIK, Palin wants abstinence taught in schools ALONGSIDE safe sex... unless she changed her stance in the last two years and I failed to notice (wouldn't surprise me if I did). What disgusts me most is the way they were forced to talk about it, not because it had been noticed but because the media was circulating a report that Trig (Sarah's youngest) was really Bristol's son. It's just sick what they can get away with when it comes to 'reporting news' the national media is getting as bad as the tabloids. It's also why I'm a thorn in the side of a lot of my journalism professors because I don't see how that is fair/balanced journalism. Much less journalism at all!
I personally think McCain's choice is a good one, whether or not he truly believes that is irrelevant to me. And either way when this is all over Alaska wins. Either we get to brag that the VP came from Alaska... or we get our Governor back!
Last edited by Tonichelle; 09-02-2008 at 02:09 PM.
Thanks Toni for that view from a true Alaskan! I appreciate it. It's going to be an interesting election, that's for sure.
Sounds pretty clear to me. She didn't elaborate what "explicit" means - but this sounds to me like she is against sex-ed."Explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support,"
I don't know how you see this - but getting pregnant is in my opinion one of the better things that can happen to you when you have unsafe sex - what about STDs, what about HIV / AIDS? In my opinion this woman is nothing but grossly negligent if she is against explicit sex-ed. She (and everyone who is promoting abstinence-only talk) is risking the lives and health of children and young people everywhere. Young people need to be told how to protect themselves in heterosexual and homosexual relationships, they need to know what's dangerous and what's not, they need to know about the consequences, all the consequences, of unsafe sexual behaviour.
Source is Eagle Forum 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire Jul 31, 2006Q: What are your views on abortion?
A: I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an
She is against abortion in cases of rape and incest! Who does she think she is to make this decision for women who went through hell?
Source is Eagle Forum 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire Jul 31, 2006Q: In relationship to families, what are your top three priorities if elected governor?
A: 1. Creating an atmosphere where parents feel welcome to choose the venues of education for their children.
2. Preserving the definition of "marriage" as defined in our constitution.
3. Cracking down on the things that harm family life: gangs, drug use, and infringement of our liberties including attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights.
So preserving the definition of marriage (read: no same-sex marriage) is as important - or even more important (because it's point number 2) - than reducing gang violence and drug use. I just love people who have got their priorities straight.
Source is Eagle Forum 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire Jul 31, 2006Q: Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?
A: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.
Hmm. Yeah. I know that this is a pretty common view in some countries. Still find it questionable. Not possible here (Germany) though. You get thrown into prison if you don't send your kids to a public school or a government approved private school. I think it's the same in France.
Source: Governor's office press release, "2nd Amendment Decision" Jun 26, 2008Governor Sarah Palin today lauded the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision upholding the right of Americans to own guns for self-defense, hunting and other purposes. The high court's 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller affirmed gun rights by striking down the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns.
"This decision is a victory for all Alaskans and individual Americans. The right to own guns and use them responsibly is something I and many other Alaskans cherish," Governor Palin said. "I applaud the Court for standing up for the Constitution and the right of Americans to keep and bear arms."
Why is it a good one? What qualifies her for the job? What qualifies her in contrast to Condoleezza Rice, or McCain's personal favourite for the job, Joe Liebermann? In my opinion this choice is founded on a few superficial issues and not on experience or abilities.Originally Posted by Tonichelle
McCain wanted to pacify the evangelical voters - job well done, I guess. Now we all know that if the whole abstinence talk isn't working we have to accept it and make sure that the 17-year-old (!) poor girl is married tout de suite, so the child won't be born out of wedlock, will grow up in a beautiful world without STDs, with lots of gun-loving - but of course responsible - people, the child will grow up to know that it is living in a "real, legally and religiously approved" family, because there is a mommy and a daddy who are married (if not divorced at that point - I feel damn sorry for that girl, by the way).
In a world where a second cold war is on our doorstep, in a world where the threat of terrorism has not been reduced since September 11th, in a world where the sudden surge of food prices is going to cause disastrous famines in Africa and Asia, in a world where we have to find new solutions to our energy crisis, in a world where the economical situation is going downhill on your side and on our side of the Atlantic, in a world where old conflicts reawaken and new ones arise, in a world where real democracy and free speech is still a rarity - choosing this woman as one of the most powerful people in this world is the best McCain could do?
http://goldenskate.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=176. In short, she has the same strengths (foreign policy, security) and same weaknesses (economy) as he does.
Have to agree with you there. It didn't even occur to those "journalists" (and I am using the term loosely here) that it's far more likely to have a Down syndrome child when you're in your 40's!What disgusts me most is the way they were forced to talk about it, not because it had been noticed but because the media was circulating a report that Trig (Sarah's youngest) was really Bristol's son
BTW, Toni, what's your take on the investigation into firing of Palin's ex-brother-in-law? From here, it seems that she's certainly guilty. Which, in my book, is not even a matter of abuse of power, but of plain stupidity (why risk your career over this obviously vindictive act; it's not like him not having that job would have made it more likely he gave up on the custody battle; and, IMHO, her "cover up" of the whole thing isn't too believable). I had the same reaction way back way to Monicagate, BTW - couldn't care less what Clinton did with whom, but couldn't believe he would risk so much for that, nor that he lied about it so stupidly.
In general, this choice made it neither more nor less likely for me to vote McCain. He did not choose anyone as socially conservative as Huckabee (which would have insured I voted Obama), he chose someone who most certainly has a mind of her own, and while I thought McCain/ Romney would have been a stronger ticket, a McCain/ Palin one is far more likely to be a good working team (McCain has too obvious a disdain for Romney). I have always been a McCain supporter, but must admit that I am having some second thoughts lately. I liked the Economist headline last week - "Bring back the real McCain". I can only second the argument. The McCain I respect wanted new tax cuts but also did not want to make Bush's ones permanent; supported an enlightened immigration policy; was an environmental crusader, etc. With how McCain has been lately, I am probably about 60% likely to vote for him (not that the Massachusetts vote matters anyway).
Of the 4 Pres & VP candidates in question, I'd personally rate their them as follows:
Must agree here.She (and everyone who is promoting abstinence-only talk) is risking the lives and health of children and young people everywhere. Young people need to be told how to protect themselves in heterosexual and homosexual relationships, they need to know what's dangerous and what's not, they need to know about the consequences, all the consequences, of unsafe sexual behaviour.
Last edited by Ptichka; 09-02-2008 at 04:39 PM.
Yes, under the circumstances, Sarah Palin is probably the best McCain could do.
What I see as McCain's issue that is most important to him is against wasteful pork barrel spending and undue influence of lobbyists on government. Consider the difficulties of finding a Republican untainted by lobbyists under the Bush administration in Washington. Diogenes had a easy task compared to McCain. The entire of Republican Washington elite was in bed with Abramov.
Sarah Palin has an excellent record of vetoing pork barrel spending, refusing the Bridge to Nowhere, and fighting government corruption in Alaska. That fits well with McCain's particular message.
Condi Rice knows all about international affairs, but she has never held an elective office. The hole in McCain's resume is not international affairs, it's the day to day executive governance issues. A governor is a good choice for him.
McCain has said he does not envision a strong VP ala Cheney. He pictures the job of the VP as presiding over the Senate and checking McCain's health daily.
Palin was not chosen to appeal to Clinton voters--she was chosen to shore up the Republican base. From the reports coming out of the convention and the amount of $ McCain donated in the last couple days, it worked.
Yes, but McCain's VP choice is far more important than Obama's. I mean, no matter how we looks at it, there is a chance that something will happen to McCain's health (remember Ariel Sharon!) and Palin will have to take over. So, if you consider Obama to be a decent enough choice for president (which I do), but prefer McCain (which I do), you have to ask if you can live with the possibility of the Palin presidency. The more I think of it, the less certain I am that I can.McCain has said he does not envision a strong VP ala Cheney. He pictures the job of the VP as presiding over the Senate and checking McCain's health daily.
OTOH, Obama could also die. Presidents often get shot. In my lifetime, JFK, Reagan, and Gerry Ford were all shot at. I am fine with Joe Biden as VP.
Plus Obama's mother and grandfather both died of cancer. And his father died young as well.
However, it's not the question of whether the young Palin might be president on short experience (and very unlikely that it McCain would die in the first year, so she surely would have a lot more experience by the time he died, if he does die. It's a given that the young Obama would be president on very similar experience in January, if he is elected.
This is a tempest in a teapot to me. Bottomline, it's the two presidential candidates that we should be voting for or against, not their VP choices.
I feel they both made relatively good choices, considering.
And it means a lot to me that both Toni, who's relatively conservative, and Lainerb, an Alaskan gay guy who is more liberal than Obama, both have respect for Palin. Because she's a blank slate to us in the lower 48, we are letting journalists and politicians who know nothing about Alaska define her to us. I think we should wait to hear more from her own mouth before passing judgment.