Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more

I didn't like this question. I support cutting spending, but I don't support cutting taxes until our national deficit is gone.

I want more nuance in the questions, but pretty much where I would expect. Libertarian on social issues and more liberal on economic issues.

I scored as a centrist, but I think it had me a bit more liberal than where I really am because of the type of questions asked and how they were asked. They didn't ask anything to do with some of my more conservative leanings either. I bet a more in depth quiz woudl have me a notch or two to the right or up where I am closer to the center and a little bit closer to libertarian as well I bet.

My point is that Biden's "experience" is often on the wrong side of history. It would be like McCain bringing on Jimmy Carter as a VP for his economic fiscal policy.

The bolded part is the point. As a parallel, think of a republican candidate who rails on people who use pot and then gets caught smoking it. Most people don't have a huge problem with someone smoking pot, but because he railed so vehemently against it - it shows a great deal of hypocrisy to use it.

Obama constantly stated early on how Washington insiders were in the pocket of lobbyists and special interests and how public finance was the answer and he was going to change thigns. Then, when a ton of people (and lobbyists and special interests) wanted to support him, he quickly changed his tune and went private financing, gladly taking the big checks from special interests.

The problem here is that the republicans here agreed with the democrat agenda. There wasn't any "compromise" from Obama, just a few fairly liberal republicans (or democrats in Lieberman's case) joining on. McCain atleast has shown some compromise on things like campaign finance, tax reform, education, health care, immigration and energy. In fact, I wish on some he would not have compromised. Still, I can't think of any issue where Obama went "centrist" to get a bill passed. It's either you join him or he votes against it. Again, much like with the special interests, the fact that he is like that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is this picture of a "enabler" he has created when his actions in the senate are just the opposite.

Hey, Obama has some ambitious policy plans and if you agree with them I can understand why you want to support him. My issue is that not only do I not agree with many of them, but he has done nothing to show me that he can cultivate the support (either through persuasion or compromise) to get the ideas I do support through congress. As much as McCain has frustrated me on numerous issues, he has atleast been able to accomplish things that many did not think possible through compromise/persuasion.

So, if you like the concept of someone bringing reps and dems together to get things done, I think the records of McCain and Obama are stark contrasts from a results standpoint (to the frustration of many conservatives in McCain's case).

I'm more hardcore than you. :p

I'm fine with disagreements on policy, and I'm fine with believing that McCain will be a better President. I think some of your criticism of Obama applies equally to McCain and using those points is a way to cover up the real issues.

I do want to touch on the idea of bringing people together. First, as a snarky aside, if you want to say the Democratic agenda is securing Russian nukes, pandemic preparation, protecting taxpayer privacy, lobbying reform, regulating no-bid FEMA contracts, making public all government contracts, and Veterans Health Care, I think the Dems would pll at 70% or higher. Also, Tom Coburn would be a little upset at being called liberal.

The bigger point, though, is that I rarely agree with a splitting the difference approach to policy. I'm all for trading components, say ANWR drilling for higher CAFE standards, but trying to always find a middle ground doesn't accomplish anything IMO. I prefer politicians that have convictions and work with opponents where those convictions meet. Bipartisanship to achieve common goals is great, but bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship isn't worth much if you ask me.

This feels like a panic move to me by McCain.

It makes me wonder if he decided, after absorbing the Demmy convention, that he didn't like his choice of finalists (presumably Romney and Pawlenty) and decided to make a gut choice. I also wonder if Palin was his first ("gut") choice or if he may have put a feeler out for someone like Kay Bailey Hutchinson and she was not interested.

Overall, I think Palin will probably be a pretty neutral/non-factor in this election.

Weirdly phrased.

Although, considering that the site is run by "Advocates for self-government," probably to be expected.

I was surprised by my score:



Not by the libertarian, but by the idea of being a slightly left-of-center libertarian.

Awesome.

What a shocker! :p

Hi neighbor!

I kind of think Palin was a good choice. From what I've heard early on, she could solidify McCain's base and maybe draw some Hillary supporters who just wanted to see the first female president.

Look at the size of that flag pin! Nobody can question her patriotism.

It is very heartening to see a majority falling in or near the Libertarian grid. There has to be something to that, you know?

correction of my earlier post. Apparently, the Buffy the Vampire slayer thing was a rumor. Her kid is named Willow, but not based on the character from the show.

Don't know if that'll change anyone's vote or not.

As far as the VP, I think it was almost a process of elimination. Pawlenty and Romney would have been duds. A pro-choice VP was out of the question. And Huckabee was too kooky to be seriously considered. There's the old white guys (like Guiliani, Ridge) but those are out of the question too. That left with Jindal but he's busy. Had to go with a bold/risk choice that appeals to the conservative base.

Personally, I think she brings an interesting dynamic to the race as well. But as I said a little while ago, it has become too partisan to have fun.

|
|
|
|
\/

The "something to that" is that it's a test designed by libertarians.

Nothing wrong with that. :)

But unless its with their voting records, it's kind of a moot point.

From Time.com:

Why McCain Picked Palin - TIME


I think that Palin was a brilliant choice. High risk, high reward. But it reinforces McCain's ethical reform image.

But who should we vote for?

I think it is a matter of educating and advocating libertarian ideals to the voting population, and encouraging those elected or wanting to be elected to not go along with more government growth and the increasing of federal powers.

I like David Gergen and find him one of the more well-reasoned analysts on CNN. But, on the Campbell Brown show, he just said that a big negative for Palin is that she's pro-life and a member of the NRA and won't bring as many pro-choice Hillary voters as Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

Wow, there's no way he can think Hutchinson would have been a better VP pick. She may be the only US senator that makes McCain look young and vibrant. Plus, if the abortion issue is your main concern, would you really have gone for McCain anyway? He could have added the 1970-version of "Jane Roe" as his VP and those people still would have not voted for a McCain ticket. The more I listen to all these pro-democrat beltway analysts bash this pick, the more I think it was a very strong pick. It also helps that I lobbied for her a few weeks back in this thread ;)

David Gergen. Pro-Democrat. Malfunction. Need input. Need input.

That would be the last thing his campaign would want. :)

That's true. I should have said "pro-Obama". Not all the beltway crew that's in favor of Obama support the democrat rank and file. Thanks for the correction!

As I said earlier, I do like Gergen, but he can't possibly believe what he said above. To put it in another light, if someone stated that his political future was staked to either Palin or Hutchinson as the VP, there's no way he would choose ole' Kay Bailey. He's too politically savvy to do that.

haha, someone already registered vpilf.com

Finished reading the Time article, then did some additional reading.
I didn't think it would be likely but now I'm even less enthused about the ticket than I was before. Sigh.

Buffet is an Obama fundraiser/backer by the way, so I wouldn't make this assumption....

Warren Buffet Backs Obama For President

Neither are you "libbie" friends. See? You're learning.



Apparently I missed the sarcasm tags for you guys.... :lol:


Same here, but once I did, it was full of win! :D

I know you're pretty strongly pro-choice, but I didn't think you cared enough for it to be a make/break issue. Is it the lack of experience?

hmm..same spot as usual for me...

How do you all feel about her having a kid that's less than a year old and she's trying to get elected Veep? I mean, I know she's an independent woman and stuff. But 5 kids, with a working husband? How is that going to connect? Especially a newborn with a disability?

When she got off stage today, did anyone notice that she didn't even acknowledge the kid? Apparently one the daughters? was carrying the kid or maybe it was a babysitter...but that's gotta be traumatic for a newborn for a crowd of that many people.

Though it was a McCain rally, so at least it's not like an Obama rock show.

But I wondered legit about how that's going to play. I listened to talk radio on the way to Chicago this evening and it seems the right wing pundits love the pick, while wingbats like Michael Savage hate the pick because it kills whatever McCain advantage over Obama vis a vis experience.

FWIW, my wife mentioned that point with a very disapproving tone within the first hour of the pick being announced.

The experience thing bugs the hell out of me and I believe it was a poorly thought out giveaway of the #1 factor in McCain's favor (or more specifically the overwhelming reason I don't want Obama anywhere near the White House except with a tour group). But that's not what shoved me so far back today.

I've already had to swallow hard to deal with RINO McCain. Getting stuck with a governor who vetoed the blockage of non-married partner benefits legislation is damned near too much for me to stomach frankly. And yes, I read the deeper background & her reasoning behind the decision & while that makes it less offensive, it still ultimately plays to me like a bad call. Bordering on unforgivably bad.

Between McCain's weakness on immigration and this, I'm starting to wonder again if it really makes much difference which party presides over ... well, I'm bordering on a real rant here so I'll stop there.

+100

This isn't a quiz - it's a cleverly designed tool used to influence people into identifying themselves as libertarian. The questions couldn't be more biased towards libertarian ideals. To score as a conservative in that quiz, iyou'd have to: (1) want to abolish sex for adults (2) want the gov't to "censor speech..." (3) reinstate the draft...

You say that like those are bad ideas????

A local blogger is getting nationwide attention as he had been promoting Palin for VP since early 2007

Not to mention that I've heard McCain and Kay Bailey can't stand each other.

Who said it?

No one, actually - but if you replace Sarah Palin with Tim Kaine - it's Karl Rove.

Hell , thats easy..the geriatric and the hot chick!

Is there going to be a "None of the Above" choice on Nov 4th?

DNC is already faxing out its talking points? Cool! :p

heh...

Choice No 1. Geriatric and the Hot Chick

Choice No 2. Empty Suit and the Motormouth

Choce No 3. None of the Above

Bill Mahar tonight (paraphrasing): Palin was the mayor of Wissilla, Alaska. That's who we want at a time in crisis, when she got the call at 3 in the morning it was because a moose had gotten into the trash can.

Good Lord, I know this is supposed to be a joke, but no damn wonder McCain brought in a new team of advisors.


edit: Although his new team may be just as bad. It sounds like Palin may have a deposition soon over the trooper firing and a report on the matter is scheduled to be released in early November.

OMG JPhillips - that is WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too funny.

Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would feel comfortable having her just one misfire of a 72 year-old heart away from being in charge of the most powerful and complicated nation in the world. She is so completely unqualified for that, it's shocking.

Funny...as has been pointed out, of the four, she has more executive experience than ANY of the other candidates.

I'm assuming since Obama made his European rock tour, you now consider him a qualified foreign affairs expert.

So why is Obama more qualified than her? At least she has actually run a state. That is more than Obama can claim to have done. Heck, for that matter she has more experience running things than anyone else in the race.

This fetishization over executive experience is ridiculous. ARe you honestly trying to argue that Palin, because she was a Governor is more qualified than McCain, Obama and Biden? Can you honestly believe that being the Governor of a state that has a population smaller than Indianapolis carries more weight than the US Senate?

I don't really care what you think of Palin as I still don't think either VP really matters, but the idea that any sliver of executive experience is always better than a lifetime of legislative experience is crazy. Does her time as Mayor of Wasilla, where she ran things, outweigh 20 years in the Senate?

Which is a loftier decision than Obama has ever had to make.

No, but I'm not discounting it either. Clinton was the governor of itty bitty Arkansas, and yet many of you consider him the greatest president ever. Obama has been in the national legislature for less than four years...and he has spent most of that time campaigning for the presidency. His resume of accomplishments is surprisingly bare. And unlike Obama, Palin won't be running for the top job.

It wasn't me originally on that point, but yes I'd say I believe that, at least in terms of having faced scenarios where executive decisions are required.

Congressional experience proves little to me beyond an ability to conduct a successful campaign for office. And as rare as agreements on political matters for us might be, I think you'll probably agree that winning an election & being capable in office really aren't guaranteed companions.

On the experience issue, I'd rather have a 2-year governor (with a proven record of accomplishments) ready to fill in for McCain than a 4-year US senator (who spent the last 2 years campaigning) stepping into the job on day 1 regardless.

Plus, it would be nice to have someone in the executive branch that actually understands the ANWAR issue and knows the local variables involved. Maybe she can help explain to Obama how you need to drill for oil during the process to get all that "clean natural gas" from Alaska that Barack's been touting for so long.

dola -- on top of that, Palin has actually had a career outside of politics, something I don't think any of the other candidates can claim, unless you want to count McCain's military service.

Huh, I didn't even think of the domain registration angle (I did arrive at the same basic term myself pretty soon after the announcement though...hey wait, DC, are you responsible for this??).

If you count McCain's military service then you've got to count Obama's time as a community organizer and a lecturer (not sure if he was actually a professor or not).

McCain was the Repblican nominee clear back in April - he has had 6 months to chose a running mate, and this is his first decision?
He blew it, and I mean, he blew it big time.

i'm getting too worked up in this thread and I can see myself saying something i'll regret soon, so i'm going to bow out now, at least for a while.

I've said repeatedly that I think judgment is far more important than experience. I certainly don't consider Clinton the best president, but I do think he did a good job, however, I wouldn't credit much if any of that to being governor of Arkansas.


If it's just "executive decisions" I think a Senator has to make those as well, at least in terms of running the small business that is a Senate staff.

As much as we disagree, at least you're honest enough to stand for what you think no matter what.

btw- You should be happy to hear that some gays in Alaska are claiming Palin is a bigot!


Not true. Obama was a lawyer and law professor. McCain worked for his father-in-law's beer distributorship. Biden was a lawyer.

Woops.

Obama Campaign Attacks, And Backtracks, on Palin

If McCain blew it, you should be pleased as Obama is on the fast track to the presidency. I don't see where all the anger comes from.

I've been thinking about this. What exactly are the needed qualifications for president these days? Has it been narrowed down to active politicians with law degrees? Ex-military? Business? If foreign policy is such a concern, how would any Governor (Clinton? W? Reagan? Carter?) be considered to have enough experience there? If that's not the worry with "inexperience", what is?


Also, has the office of president gotten a little too powerful or out of balance with the other two branches of government? In theory, if a president that is as off-the-mark as W is thought to be comes along, shouldn't the other branches be able to more or less bitch-slap him back into line (of course, it's much easier for them to not do anything, but to point fingers when things go wrong and take credit anyway when things go right)?

FWIW (which ain't much since I only get one vote) my take after 12 hours or so is about the same. I don't think it's a huge mistake, but I think it's a mistake.

I can't help but think that maybe he's hoping she blows "it" big time...

I don't have anger...just saying that I can see myself sliding towards saying something i'd regret, or getting too worked up by people taking what I said and twisting it because I don't have the time or the inclination to monitor this thread to the extent some others do.

idk...

from a blogger in Wisalia


hxxp://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/

and from the next post later on the blog

I wondered if her attacks on fellow Alaskan Republicans might come back to bite her a bit. Stevens seems pretty effusive, though, so she'll be fine. If Don Young or Murkowski has something bad to say it will be all over the media.

I do love this:

As far as experience, I'm usually good with anyone who has NOT been a career politician from day 1.


Actually, the branch that has gotten completely out of control IMO is the judiciary.

The only people that dislike Palin more than the Alaskan democratic machine is the Alaskan republican machine. But, that's what happen when you actively go after and expose corruption in both parties. Of course, that's also why she has between 60 and 85% approval in the state.

Again, if Obama wants to paint critical comments from a very corrupt state republican party as a knock on Palin, have at it. We'll see what the people think when it's all said and done.

Funny, she's been to Iraq the same amount of times Obama has. And she was in Germany recently, and she actually, you know, decided not to skip the stop to visit injured US Troops.

Yes, I feel soooo much more confident seeing Osama bin Bama negotiating that treaty.


Apparently, she has.

I'm a political idiot, but I will toss in that since Palin took over, she's been VERY popular up here on the anti-corruption stuff, and "take back the government" type of platform. I can see how this would appeal to a lot of Americans.

Racist much?

:rolleyes::deadhorse:

with a comment like that you've basically shown your true colors and indicated that it's fruitless to attempt to engage you in any type of adult conversation.

Sexist much? See, I can do it too.

I usually don't attempt to engage in adult discussions here...it's generally pointless, especially in regards to politics.

And I made a sexist comment when exactly?

To quote Anchorman...
"Take it easy, Champ. Why don't you sit this next one out, stop talking for a while."

last time I respond to something you post -- nobody is attacking Palin because she is a woman. They're attacking her on actual issues and positions and behavior, not her plumbing. Unlike your bigoted bullshit.

Watch the blood pressure there Daddy-o.

so you're trolling then? good to know

Bigoted bullshit...because I think Obama is an empty suit, that makes me a bigot? Nice! Put someone like Colin Powell in there to negotiate that treaty, I feel completely different about things.

Well, you started the name calling...just thought I'd return the favor.

no - bigoted because you intentionally messed up his name to try to make it more muslim-sounding to play on that fear and heighten it.

FWIW - I'd feel better with Biden negotiating the treaty than I would with Obama, and I suspect that in Foreign Policy that Biden will have a substantial role to play.

Considering your attempt to paint Obama as the terrorist who attacked us on 9/11, I'd say that my "name calling" is minor compared to what you did.

edit: I'm done responding, shouldn't have done so in the first place. Don't want to double my post count over this ;)

Yes...I'm sorry my playful turn with "the One's" name frightened you so badly.

And I'm sure you or no one of your persuasion here has ever referred to Bush as "the Chimp" on these boards either.

Some info for those of you wondering who this blogger cited in Alaska politics:

Quite an unbiased group there. Next thing you know, we'll see some negative comments from senate republicans on Obama.

Arles is dominating this thread

Hadn't noticed...too occupied being a racist.

Actually, all the attacks seem to be centered on her lack of experience when in reality her and Obama have about equal amount of experience, just in different areas. If Obama is good enough on shaky (at best) experience, why isn't Palin?
I'd say some of it is over the fact that she's a woman, and some people have it set in their minds that no woman could be ready for the job.

I personally don't have a problem with either in the experience department, because ultimately anyone who becomes president ends up having so many advisors that they'll be informed enough to the point that any bad decisions will be piss poor judgement or foresight, not a lack of experience.

You mean the Don Young who was connected to both the Abramoff debacle (adn.com | alaska : Young linked to Abramoff's tribal clients) and one of the main culprits in the Veco scandal? (adn.com | Alaska political investigations : Paper reports Young's Veco ties investigated in federal probe)

You mean the Frank Murkowski who was a complete disaster as governor, created a ton of wasteful spending and left office with a whopping 14% approval rating because of scandals/spending?

About the only thing that would hurt Palin from those two winners would be a complete endorsement. Why don't we just ask Jack Ryan his opinion of Obama while we're at it.

I think history has shown that there are women up-to-the-challenge of leading a nation.

Yeah, I agree. Geez I can actually see his white hood all the way from Colorado.

Well played sir.

LOL for real.