The VP Candidate from Alaska

First off, I appreciate everyone's comments. It's really great to see everyone's point of view. And Mathman...thanks for the overview with the govenor's.

It's funny because Ronald Regan was president of the screen actors guild before he became governor of California. I wonder what people would say about that now?

I am reading John Adams biography right now..(I haven't seen the miniseries yet and won't until I read the book.) Funny how even back them, they attacked people's character which had nothing to do with how they could run a country!!

Medussa - Wasilla is pronounced just as it's read. "Wah-sill-uh" Just like Obama isn't Obamy. If you're going to attack someone's experience or person, at least have the decency to say the name correctly of the town she's always lived in. And yes, as an Alaskan I can and will take offense to it. He's been campaigning up here (by surrogate) for months saying how much he understands about our culture and how much he wants Alaska to feel a part of his grand scheme of things, and then he comes up with this? Um, no. It was a put down, pure and simple.

It's one thing to have a hard times with places outside of your country and language, and if it's a BIG DEAL that the current president can't pronounce nuclear than it's a big deal that the one running for the position can't say Wasilla. and it's all in context. I cannot believe that Obama doesn't know how to pronounce it. Wasilly is a putdown term of the town that is well known and common up here. So either he was entirely ignorant and therefore does not need to bother commenting on the subject, or he knew and that just shows how little respect he has for us up here. (and no, I'm not from Wasilla, I'm from Kenai...which is always mispronounced and I don't get as upset because I get why it gets mispronounced - for the record it's keen-eye)


In the big scheme it doesn't seem like a lot, but I think Sarah had everyright to stand up for her town and state last night. The nation has never given a rip about us up here, and if Obama has his way they won't after this is all over either. We're just as much a state as the other 49 (or in a lot of cases 48 since I guess Hawaii gets it even worse than we do, from what I understand anyway)

and the quote about mooseburgers is unfair (one because moose burgers are dry and not good, moose burger is good for stuff like tacos lol) because Native Alaskans continue to get the short end of the stick by our national government. They just closed a massive portion of the beaches on the Kenai peninsula for no better reason than "homeland security" to protect a natural gas refinery - that is no longer operating. They closed it off not just to whites, blacks, and non-Natives... but to the Alaskan Natives who fish off those beaches for subsistance - ie as a way to survive.

Not as big an issue as the crap that goes on to the natives in the 'bush' which is even more rural than the Kenai... but still a huge blow. Most traditional native hunting grounds were taken away due to the Antiquities act... that both Carter and Clinton used in order to close off those portions of the land. Gore fought long and hard as VP to keep Alaska Natives from living a life they've always lived (al biet with use of new technologies) and saying that if they (and we) just understood how the real world works it would be so much better. The REAL WORLD up here is a different REAL WORLD than that of MTV or Washington DC. But no one seems to care to hear that.

Tonichelle said:

Medussa - Wasilla is pronounced just as it's read. "Wah-sill-uh" Just like Obama isn't Obamy. If you're going to attack someone's experience or person, at least have the decency to say the name correctly of the town she's always lived in. And yes, as an Alaskan I can and will take offense to it. He's been campaigning up here (by surrogate) for months saying how much he understands about our culture and how much he wants Alaska to feel a part of his grand scheme of things, and then he comes up with this? Um, no. It was a put down, pure and simple.

[...]

The REAL WORLD up here is a different REAL WORLD than that of MTV or Washington DC. But no one seems to care to hear that.

Click to expand...

But aren't there lots of different real worlds? What about this? Has Palin ever mentioned anyone who is not living in her real world? What about all the other real worlds? By the way, what's MTV?

Your entire post is a good example why democracy might be a failure to begin with. Because humans are egocentric, it's about their lives, about their homes, about their jobs, about their traditions, about their values - they are the ones that are important, they are the ones that are being ignored, they are the ones that suffer. And that's natural - and at the same time absolutely frustrating.

And not knowing how the name of a town is pronounced, that has about 8000 inhabitants is a put-down and deliberate insult to Alaska? Interesting. I am originally from a rural district with about 221 000 inhabitants in a state that mostly consists of big cities (Cologne, Dusseldorf, Dortmund, Essen) and no politician (except for the ones from the district) has ever been able to pronounce the capital of our district correctly. But I never felt put down by that, or had the feeling that the politicians are indifferent towards the rural areas and only care about the big cities just because they can't pronounce that name.

This Washington Post article has an interesting take on the "community organiser" story.

Washington Post said:

After all, Obama was an organizer from roughly age 24 to 26 -- after he graduated from Columbia University but before he went to Harvard Law School -- and Palin, at that age, was working as a television sports broadcaster.

If Palin's two terms as mayor are chronologically equivalent to anything in Obama's biography, it is to his eight years in the Illinois State Senate, which occupied roughly the same stretch in his late 30s and early 40s as did her time running Wasilla.

That, however, is comparison that shapes up a bit differently. Wasilla's population during Palin's tenure as mayor was roughly 5,000; Obama's Senate district held about 200,000 constituents, or about 40 times as many as Palin's Wasilla.

Slightly more than 1,000 people voted in Palin's reelection contest in 1999, which she won 826-255. Slightly more than 50,000 voted in Obama's 1998 reelection, which he won with about 45,000 votes.

Click to expand...

PS: Medusa is written with one "s", like the monster in the Greek mythology.
PSS: Thanks Mathman for that interesting overview about the presidents!

Tonichelle said:

Just like Obama isn't Obamy.

Click to expand...

Obamy? As in, Oh-balmy (=crazy)?

Medusa said:

By the way, what's MTV?

Click to expand...

Music Television -- a cable television network that shows mostly music videos for teenagers and fluff on rap singers.

Mathman said:

Music Television -- a cable television network that shows mostly music videos for teenagers and fluff on rap singers.

Click to expand...

Ohh, I know that - we have that in Germany too. I thought it might be some cool political abbreviation I didn't know. Never watched MTV though, I generally prefer music that was composed before 1943 and the guys on MTV never seem to broadcast that (that's what I call censorship!).

If you want to read really hilarious (and absolutely snobbish-European, elitist, sarcastic, mocking...) reports about the elections - read The Guardian, it's amazing. But The Guardian tends to write like that about lots of stuff, not just Americans - so I don't think it's really insulting. Favourite part tonight so far

8.59pm: Warning: Republicans dancing! Or shuffling to left and then to the right, in an embarrassing but socially conservative way. It's not pleasant, even though Johnny B Goode is a very good tune.

9.03pm: OK please stop now.

Click to expand...

It did insult a lot of Alaskans. As the left likes to point out we're a small state and everyone knows everybody. It's not hard to find out what's okay and what isn't, and we'll gladly inform the outsiders.

And again, it's not the fact that he mispronounced a random town. Wasilla has been on the lips of every newscaster and journalist in the political realm for well over a week before he went and said it incorrectly. It was a putdown, pure and simple. Especially to those of us in South Central Alaska.

And I don't believe that democracy is bad, I wouldn't like it any other way. I like having a say in what goes on, and having my own opinions and thoughts. And having what little say I do about what goes on in my home state and town. and not having to rely on a 'grade curve'.

My apologies to how Medusa was spelled, not sure why my s key got away from me.

Medusa said:

Or are you and that guy the same person? :scratch:

Well, if the strategy worked twice, the third time might be possible.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, but I can actually think for myself and that was a pretty obvious thing about her speech last night. I don't need pundits and the "experts" to tell me what was right there in front of me to see and hear for myself.

I still can't believe the Republican Party is trying to also do the "Change" thing. I'm sorry, but aren't you guys the ones who have run the US for the past eight years? Aren't the majority of the people from the Convention we've heard from the same that have brought in a good number of the laws over the last eight years? I guess we really shouldn't be surprised to hear "We will/are winning the war in Iraq." and "Iran is stocking nuclear weapons." in the speeches.

So much for Change!!

Tigger said:

Believe it or not, but I can actually think for myself and that was a pretty obvious thing about her speech last night. I don't need pundits and the "experts" to tell me what was right there in front of me to see and hear for myself.

Click to expand...

It was kind of meant to be a compliment and it was just a really funny coincidence, I basically read both comments at the same time. But be grumpy if you want to.

The experts I were listening to were on your side, Tigger...

Personally i love that the Alaskan is still in her and that it hasn't been beaten out of her yet, and I hope she doesn't ever change... but I wouldn't mind if she didn't punctuate her big points with a finger point, that bugs me to nno end (always does lol)

and no, I wouldn't say the Republicans ran everything in the last 8 years. The Bush Administration, yes... and for a while the senate/congress were republican held, but the last two years, when it all went to pot had a Republican Administration and a Democrat congress. They're all so busy bickering at each other nothing gets done.

That's the difference between the change campaigns. McCain is just dancing to Obama's original tune. The difference is McCain is talking about changing things up in Washington... and we're still not sure just what changes Obama has up his sleeve (if any, it took FDR several months after he was elected to come up with an outline of a plan)

I got a question.

Lots of American politicians talk about this pro-life / pro-choice - thingy. And the way I understood it, lots of Republicans are pro-life. But wasn't Bush the president for like the last 7 years and isn't he pro-life? And abortion is still legal. So what's the buzz about who is pro-life and pro-choice if abortion stays legal anyway? Did I miss something here?

Well if we are going to invade another country for Weapons of Mass Destruction we should be absolutely sure that's what said country has. The thousands of innocent lives slaughtered by orders from the President, and yet Iran may have the intention of building WMD, but it doesn't have oil. So what's point? The point is the Bush family can not stand any oil producing country not willing to take orders from the Oil rich Bush family.

Medusa said:

I got a question.

Lots of American politicians talk about this pro-life / pro-choice - thingy. And the way I understood it, lots of Republicans are pro-life. But wasn't Bush the president for like the last 7 years and isn't he pro-life? And abortion is still legal. So what's the buzz about who is pro-life and pro-choice if abortion stays legal anyway? Did I miss something here?

Click to expand...

The President has no power to enact laws, so he/she does nor really have any mechanism to declare abortion illegal all by himself. He would have to rally a lot of political support – in both houses of Congress, in the court system, and among the people – in order to prohibit abortion.

It is virtually impossible that this will happen. Any position a politician takes on the abortion issue is a no-win deal. The reason is that there are a few people who think abortion is simply murder and there are a few people who think there is no moral issue involved at all. But the vast majority of people can see merit on both sides of the argument and are unable to stake out a clear and unambiguous ethical position for themselves that can stand to every challenge. That is why politicians, when asked about abortion, usually just mumble something about how nice it would be in unwanted pregnancies didn’t occur in the first place.

Basically, they just wish the issue would go away because whatever position they took, they would end up making more enemies than friends.

One thing that the pro-life people might be able to accomplish, however, is to get the Roe versus Wade decision overturned. In this 1973 case a woman became pregnant as the result of rape, and she challenged the anti-abortion laws of the state of Texas (coincidently, the state that George Bush became governor of years later.) The U.S. Supreme Court (more left-leaning in the 1970s than it is now) ruled that the Texas law was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

This was a victory for the pro-choice side, and the decision prevents any individual state or city from having its own local anti-abortion law.

But legally, the decision was on shaky ground. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the U.S. Civil War in order to grant the full privileges of citizenship to former slaves. It says,

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Click to expand...

The Court held, in a majority opinion written by the great civil rights jurist Thurgood Marshall, that the language “life, liberty and property” implied an “umbra” of other coincident rights, and the right to abortion fell among them.

(For what it’s worth, I think that was baloney – they just wanted to throw out the Texas law and that is how they managed to do it. It is not the responsibility of Court to decide whether a law is good or bad, only whether it violates the Constitution. The plain fact is, the Constitution is silent on abortion. My two cents. )

Anyway, with a conservative majority on the court after several appointments by Republican presidents over the last 25 years, it is possible that the court might now review Roe versus Wade and come to a different conclusion. This would allow individual states to prohibit abortion, but would not comprise a national policy.

But I don’t think the court wants to touch the issue any more than the President or the Congress does.

where I think the pro-life/choice comes into play these days is the stem cell issue more than anything else... abortion won't be done away with (I wish doctors of moms with 'less than perfect' babies would quit pushing it when the mom has made the CHOICE to keep the baby, but that's just a personal rant. when a dr. tells a mom point blank that because the baby has health issues and she won't abort then she is not a main priority... GRRRR!) but the case comes down to what laws should be on abortion such as partial birth, or the rights of a young teen who goes to a doctor and does not want her parents finding out (I find it interesting that a 13 or 14 year old is able to make these decisions on her own, but if she's in trouble with the law she's not capable of making adult choices so she's charge as a child... makes no sense to me... but again that's another rant)

at least that's what I take it to mean when a politician takes a stand one way or the other. I think it matters more on a state level than it does a Washington level in the long run.

Mathman said:

The President has no power to enact laws, so he/she does nor really have any mechanism to declare abortion illegal all by himself. He would have to rally a lot of political support – in both houses of Congress, in the court system, and among the people – in order to prohibit abortion.

Click to expand...

But he can defy the findings of the United Nations and lie to his fellow Americans so that they will go along with his plans.

he had congress on board, including the 'other side,' so the checks and balances did their job whether we agree with it or not...

and you know, for a moron, he's gotta have some intelligence to be able to pull off such a big stunt (he's also god since he was the one who created Katrina to kill off the people in New Orleans)

How many in congress, if they had known the truth, would have ok'd his war to get the oil market? They all changed their minds once it was known that he lied about about the WMD. What he did to Colin Powerll was and is shameful.

If one belies lying is part of the game of war, then that's where it stands. Is it sinful? That is another question?

Palin has an interesting opinion on the war in Iraq.

The Guardian said:

The death toll among Iraqis as a result of the US-led invasion has now reached an estimated 655,000, a study in the Lancet medical journal reports today.

[...]

Of the deaths, 31% were ascribed to the US-led forces. Most deaths were from gunshot wounds (56%), with a further 13% from car bomb injuries and 14% the result of other explosions.

Click to expand...

The Guardian, October 11 2006

That was as of October 2006, only the civilian victims are counted. That makes 203050 civilians killed directly by the "allied forces". Of course those numbers and the study itself were much debated and criticised - but then again highly acclaimed experts also praised the study.

At this point I would like to quote governor Palin

Anchorage Daily News said:

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

Click to expand...

Anchorage Daily News, September 4 2008

If the Iraq War - that cost half a million, probably mostly innocent, lives - is a task from God, then the only thing I can do is to pray that Mrs. Palin and I do not believe in the same God. Because I don't want to believe in that kind of God.

Tonichelle said:

He had congress on board, including the 'other side,' so the checks and balances did their job whether we agree with it or not...

and you know, for a moron, he's gotta have some intelligence to be able to pull off such a big stunt

Click to expand...

President Bush did trick some people into supporting the war, but I think they wanted to be tricked. After the 9-11 terrorist attacks Bush pretty much had a green light to say, let's go after the bad guys and if you're not with me you are a traitor. The Democrats didn't want to look like they were soft on terrorism, so they went cheerfully along.

As for the American people -- they were just mad and fearful and wanted to shoot somebody -- anybody would do, it didn't really matter whether Iraq or Saddam Hussein had anything to do with Al-Qaida, weapns of mass destruction or anything else.

(he's also god since he was the one who created Katrina to kill off the people in New Orleans)

Click to expand...

I do fault the Bush administration for it's inadequate response, though. The people in charge of the relief effort were Bush's political cronies who neither knew nor cared anything about disaster relief. They were just given cushy high-payoing jobs as their reward for being loyal Bushies.

FEMA chief Michael Brown spent more time consulting with his advisors about which necktie looked best for his TV appearances than in doing anything to help the victims.

Joesitz said:

How many in congress, if they had known the truth, would have ok'd his war to get the oil market? They all changed their minds once it was known that he lied about about the WMD.

Click to expand...

I think it is more acurate to say that they changed their minds once Bush's popularity declined after the American people got bored with the war and started to wonder, sure it's fun to kill Iraqies, but is it a billion dollars a month worth of fun? I think the Democrats in Congress were playing a political game just like the Republicans.

What he did to Colin Powell was and is shameful.

Click to expand...

True, but that's politics. Colin Powell is a big boy. He could have stood up to Bush instead of being his toady.

So could we all have. We didn't. Shame on us.

I do fault the Bush administration for it's inadequate response, though.

Click to expand...

I remember a press conference where one of the local government leaders of New Orleans said - before the hurricane hit - that they wouldn't need outside help. I don't think the feds did anything wrong by letting local government make that call. Granted it was the wrong call, but that's what seperate but equal should mean. No one should be able to force their ways on another state (this coming from an Alaskan who knows what thats like).

I personally feel that choosing to rebuild right back on top of it all is a bit like thumbing your nose at 'mother nature'... kinda like what people in Anchorage are doing now in a part called "Earthquake Park" which basically was washed out into the ocean during the big earthquake of 64. You know it's going to happen again with the same if not worse results, why put yourself in that position again?

Granted, I understand that that's someone's home, but I guess I just don't have that strong of an urge because I've not been there.

I think the Democrats in Congress were playing a political game just like the Republicans.

Click to expand...

I don't think that goes along with just thoughts on the war. That's what's wrong with our government right now... everyone's too busy trying to beat the other guy at the same game. It's not working. That's why I like Sarah. I may not agree with everything she says or does but she DOES go up agaisnt anyone and everyone not just the 'other side'... it takes a lot of guts to stand up to your own side, especially when you have to try and be successful in the political structure. But she doesn't seem to care to play the political game. That's why I don't think she was being fake in her speech the other night when she spoke about the big boys in washington. she hasn't let them bully her so far as governor.


as for her quote in the Anchorage Daily News... they're great at taking bits and pieces of a press conference or other interview and putting them into whatever context they want. She's not completely for the war, based on her latest speeches. Considering she somewhat contradicts herself I wonder if the author of the article got it right. "It's a task from God" vs "Let's pray that it is in God's plan"...

Medusa said:

If the Iraq War - that cost half a million, probably mostly innocent, lives - is a task from God, then the only thing I can do is to pray...

Click to expand...

IMHO, as an armchair psychologist, the whole key to George Bush the younger and the Iraq War is 2nd Chronicles 10:10. King Rehoboam, speaking of his dad, Solomon:

(The people will see that) my little finger is thicker than my father's penis.

Click to expand...

The Sunnis and the Shi'ites have been fighting each other since 632 AD, the latest installment being the decades-long war between Iraq (Arabic Sunnis) and Iraq (Persian Shi'ites). U.S. foreign policy in the Persian Gulf for at least thirty years (following the fall of the U.S. supported Shah of Iran) was based on the principle of alternately supplying to each side just enough military aid to keep the other side from winning. If one side won and the other lost, the victor would emerge as the dominant power in the region. This would be bad for U.S. oil interests, bad for Israel, and bad for pro-U.S. factions among the other Arab states of the region.

When Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait in the first Gulf War, President George Bush Senior responded by sending some troops to the region to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait. This they did. Then they came home.

But the macho hawk forces, like the young advisors who counseled Rehoboam, criticized the father for being a wimp -- why didn't he continue on to Baghdad and string Saddam up to the nearest tree, like John Wayne (the late American cowboy actor) would have done? Saddam rubbed it in by thumping on his chest and bragging how he faced down Bush Senior and how Bush Sr. was afraid of him, etc.

Little Bush couldn't stand this. He plain hated Saddam for "humiliating" his father and, when young Bush became President, he seized his first opportunity to prove that he was a more manly man than his dad.

If you actually followed the months leading up the the invasion of Iraq, even if the weapons of mass destruction charges had been true (they weren't), even if Iraq had been pursuing fissionable material from Africa (they weren't), even if Al-Qaida had been trying to recruit in Iraq (they hadn't -- they were Arabians who hated Saddam and the Iraqis) -- even if all of Bush's eager self-delusions had been true -- there was still plenty of opportunity to head off a crises.

Bush would hear none of it. I can only describe his personal obsession with Suddam Hussein as maniacal. This obsession has cost the U.S. dearly. Among the costs -- Iran has now won the real Persian gulf war, negating decades of U.S. foreign policy in the region.

Maybe Mr. Bush feels that he won, since his vendetta cost the lives of only 5000 American soldiers, compared to 100 times that many Iraqis.

(Just my opinion, of course.)