The conservative wing of my PoliSci class (i.e. the group of us who went through the major together) would probably have disagreed with you. But then again, I think we had good profs.

I was including maintenance and All-State.

Perhaps you missed it, but that was my whole point. I think both are overblown. There's probably some moving that way on both ends, but they'll cancel themselves out in the end.

i'm sure someone has pointed this out, but I'm 4 pages back. There is ZERO chance that Hillary supporters will flock to Palin. She's pro-life. That alone kills that idea.

I think most people on the conservative side would rather utilize private charities to tackle problems like this, rather than letting bloated government bureaucracies handle it...which seems to be the only approach the donkey party will consider.

Yup I beat you to it my man;)

I don't think McCain is going after Hillary votes with his choice so much as energizing conservatives still sitting on the fence.

Reagan Democrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We won't see anything on that scale, but the general phenomenon could be relevant.

Unless they realize that a VP's aborition views mean NOTHING. In fact, she could do more harm to aborition rights as governor of Alaska.

Edit: Oh, unless McCain dies. I have to remember that.

Speaking of turning one's stomach, I think the biggest single factor that's turned more more anti-GOP (as opposed to pro-Democrat which is a longer-held stance) over the past few years is the "you're either with us or against us" and "liberals are anti-US and not patriotic" schtick. Given my experience with my brother, all that's served to do is make me more angry, even to the point of just being blanket against the GOP (at times) even though there are plenty of member who I'd normally objectively respect.

So it cuts both ways.

And I've had plenty of people give me shit about the very small peace symbol on the back of my car. Usually questioning my patriotism. When I explain that my brother served in Iraq while they got their fat ass down to Applebees to fill their lazy face they usually back down. I guess they assume liberals won't fight.

On a tangent, then, one of the reasons I do like talking about stuff like politics at FOFC is that there's very few people here who do the stuff above. I respect the conservative posters here, and if I had the chance, I'm sure I'd enjoy talking to them in Real Life. Even Cam. :p

Looks like all of the churches are in a fever over this and are now more motivated than ever to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. She was the Evangelical favorite.

It's not a good schtick. I think it's faded in use over the last 2-3 years or so though.

Obama would be a fool to bring up experience and I highly doubt you'll hear anything from anyone connected to the campaign. However, what this does is neutralize the experience issue especially for the media types. If experience is off the table as an issue that's a net positive for Obama.

But just to inoculate myself, I still think judgment is far more important than experience.

It's pretty telling about the current state of affairs in the GOP that someone who abuses her office to retaliate against her brother-in-law is still considered a paragon of ethical reform.

The Alaska GOP machine is generally considered to be one of the worst in the country. Almost as corrupt, really, as the Chicago Democratic machine which, ironically, Obama fought against to gain his initial seat to the Illinois Senate. I wonder how McCain's vetting process went, because I hope for his sake there's not a lot more to uncover there in the next two months.

I don't think that's true at all.

She already pandered to the Hillary supporters in her first speech.

Not like Obama or Biden have any ethical skeletons in the closet ... :lol:

[quote=Galaxy;1818946]Why have two kids when your making $30,000 in combined salary? What does $800 in car mean? Is that car payments?

Anyways, as I posted in a previous post:

1)
Isn't being rich the reward? That's the object of the game of capitalism. Hell that's why so many insanely rich people give away so much money. They've already won the game. What other reward is there? Oh yea, the reward of giving back to those less fortunate.


People have a misconception that people actually "want" to be on welfare. That's why I think the idea of driving towards renewable energy is so crucial. The same people that we complain about being on welfare and other government assistance programs would much rather have a job and dignity than ask for a handout.


Please explain further because I don't understand the validity of this statement.




I don't think making continuing tax-breaks for the very wealthy does anything but increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Well, I'm 35, with a house, a new child, and an income which places me in the highest tax bracket and my politics are still as progressive as they were when I was in College (though perhaps better focused).

In fact, it's telling that one of the GOP attacks on Obama is that he's got the support of a lot of rich, elite Democrats. So, is he a friend of the wealthy, or not GOP? Make up your mind. :D

Plus, look at his economics team again (from the free-market University of Chicago). Not a lot of pamby-mamby bleeding heart liberals there.

You're so cute when you pretend to have been the objective observer all along. :lol:

If the GOP gets any Hillary voters, it will be because McCain is already a RINO.

I could be wrong, but I think this VP choice will appeal to a lot of conservative voters who were thinking of sitting this one out. If that wasn't a concern for McCain, he would have chosen someone pro-abortion -- and his campaign did send out feelers to state GOP leaders to find out what reaction would be if he did pick a pro-abortion running mate.

Weren't you one of the people who flipped out in the Jon Edwards thread about people stating things as facts when they weren't?

We don't know the truth (yet). She certainly denies it and has offered an explanation for the dismissal.

I can tell you from my job that government employee terminations are always a tricky thing (one of the reasons government is so wasteful and doesn't work).

If you fire someone, they can come up with a poltical reason for it. That's why paper trials are so important, and you have to develop one for years before you can fire someone who's clearly awful. There's even a chilling effect. If there's some kind of dispute, you immediately think, "shit, now we can never fire that person".

This fired government employee knew he had this in his back pocket, and very well might have assumed he was untouchable and acted accordingly (he wouldn't be the first). Governments are filled with incompetent people (spending your tax dollars, by the way). A lot of that money you want to "liberate" from rich people is just being used to prepare for these termination lawsuits (and then defending them). So guess where that tax money ends up - with the lawyers. Might as well just let Walmart have the money, pre-waste, so they use it in the economy.

McCain's not my guy...never has been. I was seriously considering sitting this one out, and I still might.

But if I do vote, it will be for McCain.

One instance does not a person create. Atleast, those rooting for Biden better hope that's the case. Plus, there's not much substance here. Her husband may have done some questionable things, but she was not involves (it's like punishing Hillary for some things Bill did - I doubt much comes of it).

IMO, when your first act as governor is to put the "governor jet" on ebay and bring in $2.7 million in revenue, I would say that's a pretty powerful image on cutting wasteful spending. Combine that with how she slashed the bloated construction boondoggle and you have someone who has done more against powerful special interests than Obama or Biden combined.

One of the reasons she gained notoriety was going against both "machines" in the legislative branch. She beat former governors with strong machine backing in both the rep primary and general election. Then, she went on to take fiscal stances that hurt legislative members of both parties. Essentially, she went out and did what Obama has been promising he will do for 8 years (but not deliver).


Here's the positives of adding here:

1. It adds life and interest to a very dull campaign.
2. It reinvigorate the conservatives (both social and fiscal).
3. She has a strong background in business and running a very tricky state (esp from a political standpoint).
4. While many are pointing to her pro-life stance, she will still be very attractive to women (esp independents). Her history as a mom, business woman, governor and her persona will attract some women voters. If McCain just get a small portion of the independents (not even the democrats) who voted for Hillary, it could be huge.
5. She is very likable. Once people listen to here and see her make cases for different ideas, she comes across very well.

At the end of the day, this draws a stark comparison with Obama and steals his thunder from the convention. Obama goes out and says he wants to change Washington, then adds a guy who's been in the senate longer than McCain. McCain says he was to change Washington, and he adds a governor from out west with a strong reform background. One could read into this that Obama is more interested in winning the election than sticking to the principles he started his campaign with.

To turn this on its head, if one of the roles of the VP is to attack the other party's Presidential candidate, then would you rather have Biden attacking McCain or Palin attacking Obama?

She's got one week to get really good at public speaking or she's going to crash & burn at the RNC.

Somebody just mentioned John Edwards what the hell happened to him I haven't heard any word about him I was surprised he wasn't asked to be at the convention what happened did the guy go join the Peace Corp or something?

Say it isn't so!!! Not Obama!!!!

It's not that hard to give a prepared speech in front of a friendly crowd.

Biden is going to chew up and spit out Frontier Barbie at the VP deabte(s).

Of course, McCain has ZERO executive experience as well.

He tried to pull off a Clinton...

...but there is only ONE Bill Clinton. He has gone the way of Gary Hart.

So, of the four of them, I guess that makes Palin most qualified to be President.

Maybe you not hear. He get sent into exile for cheeterism.

Maybe. I have no idea if he's a good debater. Debating is a skill that isn't necessarily connected to being old, experienced, and isn't particularly reflective of one's qualifications regarding anything except debating.

Also pretty interesting to see a socially enlightened liberal be so overtly sexist.

To me it comes down to...do you believe there is a fair pathway to increasing your economic status, and if you do, how hard should one have to work to do this without negating what somebody else's hard work has earned them?

If you do not believe it is a fair pathway(i.e. due to discrimination by race, gender, etc.), then what specifically needs to be in place to change the fairness of that pathway?(rhetorical statement mostly)

I think most economic conservatives(this is my view as well) would argue that capitalism isnt intended for everybody to be rich, or to even be within X% of income/standard of living from the top tier. The point is to have a system that allows for anybody to increase their economic status through hard work, intelligent/informed decisions, and a pathway that does not discriminate against them for traits they were born with, and cannot be expected to change to fit a "system", or the people within that "system". But it does not mean the system should change the non-discriminatory rules for every individual that fails to increase their relative economic status, nor reward those who do not try to adhere to the rules of the system, where they are trying to pursue wealth.

There are certainly arguements that can be made for where and how the "system" is unfair, impossible, or otherwise non-optimal. And where those instances occur, they should be addressed, debated, lobbied for, and changed. But the idea of government, rather than doing their job of creating a fair system, deciding to just take more money from the wealthy to give out more to the poor is not only unfair to those who do adhere to the system...but it simply allows for the continued decline of the poor to perform more valuable services to society.

And, depending upon which states he gets them from, it could be completely meaningless too.

Really? How do you figure? The last relatively undistinguished 18 months aside, her resume rests on part-time experience at a very, very low political level.


Alternatively, she has 18 months of working with a friendly state legislature in a very thinly populated State with no current dire issues (aside from the corruption-related ones being engineered by the state GOP).


:lol:

Like Al Gore did to W? Expectations are a big thing here and if Palin can pull a draw out of the debates (not too difficult, IMO), she wins big.

I know youre just pouring Koolaid out and are saying this in jest since she was mayor of a then of less than 10K, governor of Alaska for 2 years earning herself a legislative investigation, etc.

This is all about the pillars of the Religious Right platform, you, I, and everyone else knows it....and that's OK. There is nothing wrong with that. It is what it is and if the people want that than thats great.

To say that she is more qualified to be pres than the other 3 is a very very ridiculous statement.

Nice spin!!! You sure you don't do this for a living?

I work with a lot of libbies, and most of them are kind of nervous about this choice. Just the simple fact that she is a hottie, especially compared to say Geraldine Ferraro or Hillary Clinton has them worried.

You say this:


But every positive you point out about Palin is a political consideration.

Well, she has spent her time in office shaking up government in Alaska and achieving results. Senator Obama has spent the majority of his time in office running for president.

I think that Biden stands a good chance of doing well in the VP debate, though given that he's debating against a woman, he could just as easily say something that he doesn't feel is derogatory towards Palin or women, yet it is perceived as being out of line. You always have to have that in the back of your mind with Biden. He's going to have to be very careful to not talk down to her, as it may be perceived by independents and women as being insensitive or being a bully. He wouldn't have had this issue if McCain would have selected a man.

As mentioned before, McCain should trump Obama in their three debates, which would more than offset any Biden gains.

Everyone should back off the VP debate. Nobody makes their decision because of the VP debate. It's the rhythmic gymnastics of the election.

But Obama's the one who's about change and being above all that.

Yeah, mostly in jest....but if a guy can win who's sole claim to fame is that he was governor of a state like Arkansas....who knows! :)

Do the people who keep saying that this won't get McCain any of Hilary's votes really believe she had 18 million abortionist voting for her?

A large portion of her vote were women who wanted to see another woman in a position of power. Infact, she probably got more votes from women overlooking the pro-choice than she did women voting for it.


And if nothing else, McCain has made a splash. This thread alone has blown up since, and it's definately made things alot more interesting.

Lunchtime. I'll respond in a little bit. Good post by the way.

Yes, and the McCain campaign also realized that the inexperience factor for Obama wasn't having that much of an effect, just as it ultimately didn't have much effect in the Democratic primaries with Clinton. Of course, with the Palin choice, every Republican in the country who believed that experience was important will no longer think so, and that every Democrat who didn’t think it was a big deal will now decide it is absolutely critical.

I think you need to read up on her a little bit (though nothing would ever even temper your opinion).

-She challenged the GOP governor and even defeated him in the primary
-She was not supported by the state GOP - but she won over the people
-She challenged Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation
-Has an approval rating consistently in the 80s and 90s, largely based on her "independent/outsider" views and actions.

Trying to link her with the problems of the Alaska GOP is absolutely ridiculous. Sometimes blind party unity isn't a good thing.