Disgraceful, how they keep tearing into The Best Veep Choice Ever.
Political considerations always enter into the selection of the vice presidential nominee, as they should. But no politician would ever publicly express the intent to allow political considerations to dictate the selection of a running mate who is unqualified to serve as president. In fact, McCain publicly stated that fitness for the presidency would be his primary consideration in selecting a running mate. Indeed, all presidential candidates say this. That’s because we would seriously question the fitness for the presidency of any candidate who did not say it.
In sum, we expect presidential candidates to consider politics when selecting a running mate, but not to the point of selecting one who is unqualified to serve as president. Only in the extreme case where the presidential candidate cannot win except by running with an unqualified running mate should we be other than disappointed by the nomination of such a running mate.
It can be argued that McCain was in this position. But some argue instead (or alternatively) that Sarah Palin’s credentials are adequate. These arguments are mostly laughable. We are told that she was a courageous whistle-blower. But whistling-blowing isn’t evidence of leadership skill, administrative ability, or familiarity with vital policy issues. We are told that Palin challenged an incumbent governor and called him out for his corruption. But mounting an insurgent’s campaign for governor isn’t evidence of fitness for the presidency either. We are told that she is responsible for her state’s national guard and visited its troops in Iraq. How this amounts to foreign policy or national security experience, or otherwise qualifies Palin for national office, is unclear.
What’s clear is that if Democrats made these sorts of arguments on behalf of a candidate for national office, conservative commentators would excoriate them for it.
Another crazed leftie. Only it’s not – it’s one of the most conservative (and often bat-shit crazy) blogs out there. They’re to be commended for having the courage (for once) to speak the truth in the face of their party’s drunken celebration of…well, we don’t know what. But they sure seem higher than a kite. The source of that link also has his own article on the topic that’s worth a glance:
What we have learned about John McCain from his selection of Sarah Palin is that he is as impulsive and reckless a decision-maker as George W. Bush. We know this not because of what we have learned about this Pentecostalist populist since she exploded on the scene last Friday morning (and God knows we have learned more than we ever wanted). We know it because of how McCain made the decision…
McCain picked someone he had only met once before. I repeat: he picked someone he had only met once before. His vetting chief sat Palin down for a face-to-face interview the Wednesday before last. It’s very hard to overstate how nutty and irresponsible this is.
Would any corporate chieftain pick a number two on those grounds and not be dismissed by his board for recklessness?
Finally, The Best Veep Choice Ever proved her savvy today in a discussion of the Fannie/Freddie bailout.
Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” The companies, as McClatchy reported, “aren’t taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization.”
Well, I’m sure her heart was in the right place even if she kind of messed up on the facts.
Meanwhile, I’ve noticed a remarkable trend, a truly classic meme fostered by the NRO/Malkin crowd to immediately claim that any criticism of The Best Veep Choice Ever is bullying, or sexist, or cowardly or hateful or unhinged.
Look, it’s not about leftists and nutty accusations. It’s just about who she is, what she has said and what she has done. We have the right to know this about our next president, the person in whose hands we are entrusting the fate of the earth. For all Obama’s shortcomings, discussed here multiple times, we all knew his name when he started campaigning, we had all read about him, heard him speak, seen the criticisms and the praise. He had a very long vetting process, living always in the public eye since his extraordinary speech at the 2004 DNC. With The Best Veep Choice Ever, on the other hand… Well, let me put it like this: I am willing to bet my entire vast fortune that when literally every one of you heard Sarah Palin was McCain’s choice, your first thought was, “Sarah who?” And that kind of says it all. Now, if the answer to that question had included a dazzling resume of actual achievements and successes, we might have grounds to argue that McCain wasn’t either clinically insane monumentally cynical when he nominated her. Unfortunately, that resume is less than nothing.
Let’s give the final word to our arch-ultra-mega-conservative friend at Powerline linked above, someone I never would have thought I’d ever link to here.
It’s true, of course, that no governor really obtains meaningful national security or foreign policy experience. (Many Senators don’t get much of it either, though by voting on these issues they at least enable us to test their judgment). But governors who have served for an extended period of time obtain important executive administrative experience that is directly relevant to serving as president. It’s very difficult to find someone with both extensive executive experience and a background in foreign policy/national security. People like the current vice president don’t grow on trees. But we expect one or the other from a nominee for president. Palin lacks both.
That’s why those who defend Palin’s qualifications typically end up moving to more defensible terrain — the argument that her credentials compare favorably to Obama’s. This may constitute an additional reason to vote for McCain, but it’s not a defense of McCain’s selection of Palin.
Big kudos to him for telling the truth, and to myself for having the tolerance to read his post through and then link to it despite the pain of linking to a site that once referred to our boy president as a man “approaching genius.” (Same blog, different blogger.)
Anyway, expect to hear this chorus again and again: to point out St. Sarah’s deficiencies and mistakes and outright incompetence is snide, elitist, nasty, cruel and desperate. It’s not. These things merit discussion, and it is beyond all belief that we are willing to sequester away the person who may be our next president because we are afraid she may not be ready to communicate with the press. Virtually unprecedented. She could be your president in three months. I admire the candidate’s intelligence, speaking ability, charisma and her having the strength of conviction to give birth to a Down’s syndrome baby. They are noble qualities, but not nearly enough to entrust to her the keys to mankind’s destiny.
1
By fatbrick
First, you put too much weight on the US Veep. It is nowhere close to the keys to mankind’s destiny, even remotely.
Secondly, read FT’s comment today and learn to show some respect. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f1984d88-7cd5-11dd-8d59-000077b07658.html
Thirdly, talking about the economy, lets say that both sides have no idea how to get the country out of this mess. Rep might be the less of the 2 evils according to business surveys.
September 9, 2008 @ 2:11 am | Comment
2
By Richard
Um, the president she would serve will be the oldest ever elected, so she actually would have a far greater likelihood than usual to have to step in as president. He is also a cancer survivor.
Show me where I need to show more respect, please. I do try to show respect, but I say that we have the right to ask questions. If I slammed her for her being a woman or said she was stupid or insulted her it would be one thing. This is exactly, precisely what I said the meme is – simply to raise the question or to cite her record is to disrespect her. Not so.
About the economy – you have a fair point. It is an unsalvageable mess, and I wouldn’t wish this presidency on my worst enemy. We have Bush to thank for that, 100 percent.
September 9, 2008 @ 2:33 am | Comment
3
By Richard
And about the “respect” issue and how the Dems should show more – please note that the quotes I cite are from one of the most right-wing, pro-Republican blogs. The other is from a former Bush cheerleader, former proponent of the Iraq war and an outspoken fiscal conservative. He has fled in horror from what Bush has done to the country and is now an outspoken Obama cheerleader. And still, both are respectful, as we should all be. But to point out things she has said, whether it’s how she shoots moose or calls the Iraq war a task from God, is not disrespect. If you want disrespect, take a look at what the other side was saying about the Clintons in the late 1990s.
And speaking of disrespect, what do you think about telling this “joke” in public:
“Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father!”
The teller of that delightful joke was none other than John McCain. Chelsea was a teenager. And we are damning democrats for disrespect? One favor: show me the disrespect to which you refer. How does it compare with what McCain said? (And no, two wrongs do not make a right, but first let’s see what the second wrong is – what are we referring to about Democratic disrespect? Where is it? Most democratic politicians have been quite restrained, while I hear a lot of the usual idiocy from some of the far-left bloggers, whom I don’t hold in very high esteem. Nothing I’ve ever heard even approaches the disrespect of that despicable McCain joke. And he is my senator, and this was much talked about back then – an ominous side to the great maverick and war hero.
September 9, 2008 @ 2:48 am | Comment
4
By boo
Not that I like either of them, but I do hear she was a very popular governor, which puts her into the same qualification category as Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, except they were running for president, not VP.
Anyway, this talk of “qualifications” is more appropriate to running a world-wide military empire than a republic. It’s clear what Powerline wants. Your choice as to what you want your country to be.
September 9, 2008 @ 3:52 am | Comment
5
By Serve the People
George W. Bush was also a very popular governor, in a much more important state. See how he has worked out.
September 9, 2008 @ 5:33 am | Comment
6
By PB
Sometimes I’m REALLY happy I live in Canada. Frankly, I understand our dear southern neighbours less and less all the time. How the Republicans are possibly giving the Dems a run for their money after the last 8 years of insanity is truly beyond me, as it is many others. There really isn’t much one can say.
Oh wait…
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/04/poll-results.html
Time to pack my backs for Scandinavia? At least they have good hockey there too.
September 9, 2008 @ 5:35 am | Comment
7
By Pete Braden
@Richard: The Chelsea Clinton joke you mentioned is wild, but it pales in comparison to what McCain called his own sugar-momma wife, Cindy, on a bus full of journalists. It rhymes with “punt,” and it’s really the only dirty word left in America. But he is an honorable man.
@boo: Let’s be serious here. Jimmy Carter was an Annapolis grad, had experience in the Navy, and was running a successful peanut farm before he became governor. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar who managed to turn around a floundering state (to a degree). Palin is the distillation of American anti-intellectualism. We are the only country in the Western world where potential leaders have to pretend to be stupider, funnier and more “honest” than the people they lead. It’s pathetic.
September 9, 2008 @ 6:54 am | Comment
8
By stuart
Please don’t forget to vote, Richard.
September 9, 2008 @ 9:15 am | Comment
9
By Math
Why Are American Politicians Such Good Public Speakers?
I have been watching the American election coverage recently. And i noticed that the Candidates like Obama and Mccain are both very good at speaking, they can speak very fluidly, very pleasantly, very appropriately, very beautiful, very professionally, and without any scripts. It’s as of they are trained at speaking and can always come up with very good words and sentences in a very short period of time, as if they wrote those before hand, but in actuality they did not. At first, I was very impressed by this. If you compare this to Chinese or NOrth Korean leaders like Hu Jintao or Kim Jong Il. They are not very good at speaking fluidly and naturally in public without script, and always have think long before they can organize their sentences, and always sound very clumsy. Sometimes people listen to what they say, and think they are retarded. So why is there such a gap in the speaking ability of American leaders and Chinese or North Korean leaders? This post will investigate this.
First, I will invent two new terms. It’s OK, because I have too much time on my hand anyway.
One term is “theater politics”. Theater politics views politics as a theater, and all politicians are actors on the theater. Some are good actors, others are bad ones.
The other term is “academic politics”. It treats politics as an academic discipline, and all policies are derived from scientific reasoning.
This post will try to say that academic politics is advanced and theater politics is backward. And all human societies should strive for academic politics.
First, I believe that a politician of theater politics is usually very glib and a very good rhetorician, because he/she is raised in the culture of “theater”, and is trained to be a good actor. It’s very rare that a western politician does not know what to say in front of a camera, they always have very smooth and glib answers.
But Communist officials like in China or North Korea often get stuck on camera because of a lack of smooth words. And as a result, they try to avoid things like press conferences and debates. And many people make fun of them, saying they are “wooden”, “old”, “rigid”, etc. etc.
As an engineering mindset, I very much prefer the style of the latter ones. It is an indication that they are members of “academic politics” and therefore are not trained in the art of “talking smoothly”. If they are also trained in it, they will be just as glib. For a rhetorician, it’s very easy to construct a convincing answer to any question, is it not?
In fact, in theater politics, all politicians have things like speeches and debates. I always throw trash at those things. How can you get honest and true information from a speech or debate? How is a speech’s script any more honest or informative than a movie’s script? A speech is an entertainment just like a movie, if you take it seriously and hope to base your decisions on speeches, you are crazy.
Now you may scream: “Math! What is wrong with theater, what is wrong with being able to talk smoothly?”
Imagine what will happen if that “theater” is applied to other areas, like say in medicine. What happens if a doctor promises his patient, in very dramatic words, that he has a cure for his disease, even if he knows that disease is uncurable. Then suddenly, every doctor is confident in curing everything, just like every candidate in an election is confident he’ll make things better. What a fake world that would be.
You’ve never seen a candidate say “I have no solution for this, and I will not be as good as the incumbent in solving that problem”. Why does no candidate ever say things like that? Do you really believe every candidate always have solutions to every problem? I myself of course do not.
In fact, if there’s a candidate who comes up and says “I may not have a solution for this problem, and the current president is doing a very good job in this area and I’ll continue his policies. and I don’t know if I’ll be a good president, so you don’t have to vote for me if you don’t want to.” If someone says those things in an election, I’ll surely surely vote for him.
China and North Korea’s politics is an “academic politics”, that is, it does not emphasize making scripted speeches or photo-ops or ads. It focuses on the actual details of policy-making, and treat it as a science. You don’t see scientists come out and make speeches promising they’ll discover new theories.
In conclusion, there’s no need for China or North Korea to abandon its advanced “academic politics” and follow the rather backward “theater poltics” of America, Canada or Europe.
September 9, 2008 @ 9:46 am | Comment
10
By lensovet
can someone explain why this was filed under “aids” and “gays” “in china”??
September 9, 2008 @ 10:18 am | Comment
11
By Sam_S
The Chelsea joke used the word “ugly”, not “old”. Which makes it even worse.
That article in Financial Times holds the kernel of a very instructive point. Democrats, or the “American Left” or whatever, seems to love the working class IN THEORY, all the while displaying a bit of shock, disgust, and disdain for its actual lifestyle and value choices. Probably the main reason there’s a tight race, even when the Republicans are in such bad odor they shouldn’t even bother to run.
STP, Bush wasn’t that popular as governor, if I remember correctly. Certainly not the most popular governor in America, which Palin is currently. Suppose that could account for part of McCain’s choice? “Well, John, you’re in a near-impossible campaign, representing the most hated party on earth, up against a brilliant orator with an aura of freshness and change. For VP, you can choose from these 3 boring white guys in suits, or a good-looking firecracker of a woman who’s the most popular governer in the country. What’ll it be?”
September 9, 2008 @ 10:21 am | Comment
12
By Andy R
@Math
If you want to write posts, why not get your own blog? Why piggy-back on Richard’s site? Have some balls to do it on your own rather than use someone else’s hard work to get your nutty ideas out there. China doesn’t need democracy…FINE! I don’t give a crap. The problem with all your “posts” is that the (pre-formed) conclusion leads the argument. Another word for it could be intellectual dishonesty, but who cares when you are just playing politics, right?
@Richard
Sorry Richard, but it seems ridiculous that each one of your posts inevitably be corrupted by this idiot who is just using your blog for exposure for his crazy off-topic pseudo-intellectual rants.
September 9, 2008 @ 12:19 pm | Comment
13
By Richard
Sam, that was a typo on my part – the joke is much more devastating and cruel with your correction – thanks.
Sam, about the “working class” and how Dems are elite toward it. Maybe. But nothing is more cynical than the GOP’s attempt, often successful, to come across as NASCAR-loving, pretzel-munching folks next door when they went to prep school, were members of Skull & Bones and lived lives of unimaginable privilege.
Andy, Math is here for comic effect.
Thanks to everyone for the civil and respectful conversation. I was getting really worried with some recent threads.
September 9, 2008 @ 1:03 pm | Comment
14
By Jeffrey -- New York
Richard,
Thanks to everyone for the civil and respectful conversation. I was getting really worried with some recent threads..
I really don’t want to say this, but I can think of no other way of describing what you seem to be today (and on most other days): a pussy. Sorry, but that’s my opinion. Your need to have a “civil and respectful conversation” is the mark of a wimp. Hey, I know you’ll delete this, but I simply had to express my personal opinion here. And wouldn’t you know it that you’d go right back to gnawing on your Palin-bone. *shakes head* Richard, your manias control you. Political partisanship is your master. C’mon, step out of the party line just ONCE in your life and vote McCain-Palin. The first time is the hardest, but after that you’ll be able to vote for the best candidate, no matter if they’re Republican or Democrat or Independent.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey — New York
September 9, 2008 @ 1:25 pm | Comment
15
By Richard
Jeffrey, I’ll leave that comment for now, but you’re on thin ice. Why would you do this?I give reasons, quote Republicans, and try to give her credit where due. This and all things concerning the race will be my “bone” for the next two months. Don’t like it? Please, there are many other sites to visit. Another bone I gnaw on is the CCP. No one minds when I do that. But the GOP? They are your sacred cow, and this rude comment reflects your own prejudices. I am a Democrat and a liberal and despise what the GOP has done to America. I am hardly alone and I am not nasty or over the top about it. Can’t say the same for you.
September 9, 2008 @ 1:47 pm | Comment
16
By Si
@andy r
i got as far as math describing mccain as a “very good at speaking, [he] can speak very fluidly, very pleasantly, very appropriately, very beautiful, very professionally, and without any scripts.” laughed and continued down.
@jeffrey
i love you man. posting the same comment three in 20 minutes because you are so desperate to insult the guy running a blog as a hobby. what a classy guy you are.
@everyone
the palin pick is worrying and i am not surprised that there are those on the republican right who are deeply concerned. american politics is not my forte, so i would appreciate comments and amendments on what i am about to write, some of which i am sure is wrong. my understanding is that the republican party is essentially made up of a religious faction and a libertarian faction, an alliance which has been coming apart over the past few years. mccain has risen on the rhetoric of a small govt libertarian even going as far in the 2000 race as decrying the influence of the evangelicals on the gop. now however he is trying to keep this alliance together for the sake of winning the white house. hence the palin pick.
what would have been the really maverick step would have been to go with his initial pick Lieberman. this would have possibly split the gop, and probably would have lost him the election. this might have led to a permanent split between the religious right and the libertarians, possibly even opening a gap for a libertarian right wing party in the us. this party might be able to attract independents and right wing democrats who are turned off by the babies, guns and jesus aspect. this would have been a greater achievement than anything he could do in the white house.
September 9, 2008 @ 9:06 pm | Comment
17
By Thomas
“and try to give her credit where due.”
No, your posts read like endless cathartic rants, made the more pathetic by the fact that you hold up the commentary by one Republican article you read as silver-bullet proof.
Richard, you still have not made a case why she is not qualified. Again, you say she is a poor candidate because you don’t like her. She has as much experience as Obama, but a different sort. She has been governor of a state with a population that is around the size of several other states in the union. Would a governor of Delaware, for example, fail this test too?
Everything else you keep saying hinges on your dislike of her person and her views. Look, I wouldn’t say she is terribly qualified, but I would not say Obama is either, and he is running for a higher office. Gee, all I have to say is that I don’t like him, and we are on even ground. I have more confidence that she can learn than that he can run it from the get go. And like it or not, that is a valid argument.
You know, FT is absolutely right. Until people like you stop treating people like me as if I am stupid or inferior (yes that is how you sound) for my political views, just because you find those views to be repellant, then you deserve Jeffrey’s criticism. Note, I did not say you have to agree or even that you have to be neutral (this is a personal blog, after all). But you should learn to control your shrill tone. Your knee-jerk rants about the “Rethuglicans” or, what was that name again…. oh, yes… Commander Codpiece, or whatever you call any one of a number of things, are childish.
And what does it all come down to again: “Don’t like it? Please, there are many other sites to visit.” It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to. Cute.
Si, you are right. Lieberman would have been a good choice for McCain but it would have indeed lost him the election due to the reaction of his party. Unfortunately, the Republican party is split between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives with quite a bit of overlapping. And unfortunately for critics of McCain, he is indeed trying to win. Palin may not be the BEST pick, but I don’t think she is the worst either, and she does give McCain some buzz, as this thread should have proven already.
Palin is a smart lady and she does bring McCain positives nationally. The key will be if she trips up somewhere (it won’t take much). If she somehow performs above expectations, McCain does well in the debates and McCain continues to outmaneuver Obama (which he has been doing for six weeks), then I would say McPalin does indeed have a solid chance. If Palin is as bad as everyone says, she will trip herself up. Troopergate could also still blow up. Therefore, Richard’s rants on the matter serve little purpose. If he is right, it will be undeniable sooner or later.
The fact is, regardless of the weaknesses of Palin or McCain, the inability of Obama to be convincingly ahead in a year that is so unfavourable to the Republicans shows that over half of the country (if you count the undecided voters) DOES have doubts about him. He himself is a weak candidate. Harping about Palin’s weaknesses can only hurt him as a result. The pot that calls the kettle black…
September 9, 2008 @ 11:56 pm | Comment
18
By Raj
In regards to VP candidate statements, I liked what Biden had to say about Obama last year.
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy…”
With comments like that, you know he has to be “The Best Veep Choice Ever”.
September 10, 2008 @ 1:07 am | Comment
19
By Raj
Thomas, I think that you’re right about Palin. In a perfect world McCain would have chosen Lieberman because his party would have taken the hit and the Democrats and their sympathisers in the media wouldn’t have used their collective ages as a point of criticism. Yeah, after you hit 65 in the U.S. you’re useless – go put on a pair
of slippers and watch TV all day, grandpa!
So Palin has shored up McCain’s party base, whilst not necessarily put significant numbers of independent voters off – otherwise he wouldn’t have received the poll bounce he did recently. What happens next is anyone’s guess – perhaps the VP candidate debates will show us the way. It’ll be “Pitbull-HockeyMum” versus “The Mouth”.
September 10, 2008 @ 1:13 am | Comment
20
By Richard
It’s quite droll. I put up a post about how any criticism at all, no matter how measured, or perhaps simply raising question about her record or contributions, raises a cacophony of accusations of all sorts, with no discussion of the actual issues. Instead, it becomes all about the person raising the questions: something is wrong with them, they are crazy, they are obsessed. Right out of The Crucible.
Thomas I once used a term, in the comments, “Rethuglicans.” Okay, sorry -it was a moment of passion and I never used the term before and it was probably ill-considered. About “Commander Codpiece,” no such contrition – his wearing a codpiece under the Mission Accomplished banner was a defining moment and he brought the term on himself.
Meanwhile, the very people I expected to echo the Republican line that any question about Palin is unhinged has proven true, of course, with resident righties Jeffrey and Thomas chanting in unison. Look carefully at the post above and tell me where the hatred of Palin is. I don’t hate her. I hate the idea that she could become the single most important person in the world in a cynical act of political pyrotechnics.I hate that McCain did this. The frustration is far more with him than with her.
Thomas: And what does it all come down to again: “Don’t like it? Please, there are many other sites to visit.” It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to. Cute.
Thomas, anyone who wants to come here and personalize the conversation and derail threads the way Jeffrey has is indeed urged to go to to other sites. This site is run for my amusement and to share my nearly always correct view of the world for the betterment of humanity. I write this blog for me, not for you. Thus I say that if my posts move you to be unhappy, angry or vexed to the point that you (Jeffery in this case)must write personal invectives (“you’re really a pussy”) then yes, I do want you to go elsewhere. Comments are a courtesy. Argue about anything. Don’t make the argument personal. If I were to apply Jeffrey’s tactic against Palin and call her a pussy or other insults, imagine how you’d complain. That is true disrespect, and you won’t find it in any of my comments about Palin, as much as you have convinced youself in thinking it’s there. It isn’t.
The thing that’s so interesting is how not one of the righties has addressed, again, any of the substance of the post: her statement about Freddie/Fannie; the Powerline quotes about the irrelevance of her inexperience to foreign policy; the fact that McCain picked someone he only met once, etc. Read those quotes again by Republican Mirengoff. He got it exactly right, as this thread shows.
I was nice (foolishly) to Jeffrey and allowed him to post after a truly nasty comment that he even acknowledged as such. I actually wrote him an email and explained why he was deleted, and let him in again because I try to be fair (anyone who is banned is always allowed back at least once). Then, he pounced again with the lovely comment above. Again, I would indeed like him and anyone else moved to such maliciousness to go elsewhere, for their own sake. Argue and fight anytime – Sam is off on the and right argues with me all the time, but it never descends into insults. Never (at least not sine 2004). So all I ask is be polite, don’t needle and don’t provoke with personal swipes. Thanks for your understanding.
September 10, 2008 @ 1:16 am | Comment
21
By Raj
Richard, do you want to change the categories – or leave it up to someone else?
September 10, 2008 @ 1:30 am | Comment
22
By Richard
I had changed it a minute before your comment, thanks.
September 10, 2008 @ 1:37 am | Comment
23
By Lindel
Just watch O’reily’s behavior in his “interview” with Obama then you know Obama is being too nice to people who think they are waging a holy war with evil.
After watching and supporting Jim Webb defeat George Allen here in Virginia for the Senate race, I think there is a good chance Obama can win Virginia. Since 2006 a lot of people have gotten sick of the same games from the social conservatives.
Obama has to stay focused on his message, and attack Bush, Cheney, and McCain.
He can leave Palin to the media, surrogates, and people like me who are ready to take it to the social conservatives on their home turf in Virginia.
Barack has to think of playing basketball on the streets in chicago, and learn how to jab and elbow when the refs are not looking but keep his focus on his main game of talking about the future, the economy, and getting away from Bush and Cheney.
McCain is trying to distract from the Republican record. Obama needs to make sure that poor republican record is front and center in his campaign.
September 10, 2008 @ 12:19 pm | Comment
24
By Lindel
She meets the age requirement stated in the constitution and apparently she was born in the US so yes she does meet the basic qualification to be president.
Judging whether a candidate is more or less qualified than another is up to the jury of the american electorate to decide.
The jury will be out until November 4th. Until then she needs to answer any question any voter cares to ask her if she wants our votes. First question from me a registered voter is what do you think of Cheney’s performance and how will you be different if you get elected?
September 10, 2008 @ 12:30 pm | Comment
25
By Lindel
The republican party basically has three factions since Reagan.
1) Social Conservatives – ie Christian Fundamentalists who only care about Abortion and Gay Marriage issues and who believe the bible was written by god
2) Big Business Republicans – people like Steve Forbes and Mitt Romney who are primarily driven by lowering or elimintating taxes and reducing government regulations.
3) National Defense – stalwart anti-communists who believe the primary role of the government is to spend money on the military.
Reagan forged an alliance between these three elements of the republican party and attracted independents and democrats to vote for him.
The Social Conservatives have pretty much taken over the party. They are the ones who recruited and campaigned McCain to select Palin.
McCain is from the National Defense camp of the republican party, he is less conversant in economic issues and is now pandering to the social conservatives with his palin vp to win the presidency.
September 10, 2008 @ 12:39 pm | Comment
26
By Richard
The jury will be out until November 4th. Until then she needs to answer any question any voter cares to ask her if she wants our votes.
No, she does not need to answer any questions. As the Best Veep Choice Ever, she does not have to go through such annoying formalities like sharing her experience, answering the most fundamental questions about her record in office and interacting with the public in any meaningful, non-scripted manner. Totally unprecedented, but to many Americans it’s just great – she has charisma and relates to the “everyday American” although Alaska is in no way an everyday state. I strongly recommend readers examine the way Alaska works, how it is supported entirely by oil and how each citizen there is given wildly generous
kickbackstax rebates by certain politicians there. This notion that since she can govern this state means she can govern America is an interesting one. Again, study up on how Alaska is unlike any other American state in just about every way. Some fast facts from a non-liberal source:I don’t expect my readers on the polarized right to read this and actually discuss the content. I have read all about Obama and am not happy with him in many ways. I ask questions about him and want to know the good and the bad. of course, simply raising these facts about Alaska constitutes a vicious attack by elitists. Of course, back in 2004, attacking Kerry for the most trivial of things, often personal, like his windsurfing or his wife and accusations he married just for money, was totally fine. I guess we set the bar wherever we want to. And in the case of Palin, the bar has never, ever been set lower. It’s hands-off, which is in its own way sexist. A mean, elitist media is badgering this poor woman, who deserves special treatment and can only be dealt with if the press dons the softest, most generously padded kid gloves in history. Unprecedented.
September 10, 2008 @ 1:20 pm | Comment