This one is especially impressive. She has nearly statewide support in a time period where most state government GOP leaders suffer from low ratings due to the 'Bush Effect'.

Sorry, to of offended your feminist underpinnings:) Actually, don't be fooled I "ain't" all that socially enlightened just not a racist (not that anyone here is ). But I guess I am a sexist............and proud of it. jk.

Really? All of the rich? Does Paris Hilton do a lot more than the government? What about the uber-rich (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates) who demonstrably do add a lot to the economy and still think they should be taxed more and/or earn less?

Anyway, the concept that the rich aren't being rewarded is ridiculous. You're basically saying that if you raise taxes on the rich just a little bit they'll have no incentive to work harder to earn more money. That just doesn't make sense and isn't (at least in my experience) the remotest bit true.


Thanks, I knew there was an example, but couldn't think of one immediately. I blame sleep deprivation. :D


For the record, I've been saying this for a couple of threads now.


I'm pretty sure that was JPhillips and others, but my memory of events over the past week is pretty hazy.


I'm not talking about the crowd, I'm talking about the TV analysts.


No you don't. The left doesn't objectify women like you right-wing fundies do.


Very true. It's always been basically a side show, good for some one-liners or Admiral Stockdale.

I know you can't be serious...

You know, Palin has a rather feminine, intelligent, calm approach about (she's very different than Hillary in her speaking abilities and the ability to present her issues) her. She doesn't seem like she'll throw down like a guy does, but she does seem to have a different kind of charisma and aggression that could work for her.

I think she does.

When she goes out boozing in NYC, it's a financial windfall for bartenders, cab drivers, waiters. Those people than have more money to spend on TVs, playstations, and groceries.

When she pays too much for a house in Malibu, she has to hire dozens of employees to maintain it. If she buys another, bigger house, she needs more employees.

If she buys 10 cars next month that she doesn't need - she might be sole difference between a luxury auto dealership making a profit and not. That might allow them to keep more employees on.

We hear so much about "consumer spending" being the #1 indicator of the health of our economy. Paris Hilton drives that spending, that indicator.

I'm not saying she shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate than other people, but I don't want to curb her spending. The money that goes to the government escapes into a black hole where it benefits nobody. I'm all for providing her tax incentives to consume and invest rather than save.

$10,000 spent in a drunken NYC haze benefits America more than a $10,000 bill to Uncle Sam. That's where I come down in the end.

It's the 'kill them with kindness' situation. She may get beaten from a policy discussion standpoint, but if Biden does nothing but attack and she keeps an even keel, the perception may even out in the end. It's really hard to tell at this point, but I could see that happening. He's going to have to keep his attack levels in check, which has never been his strong point.

So, larrymcg421, are you going to go after flere-imsaho now or are you a hypocrite, and your criticisms only apply to conservatives?

I never said they weren't rewarded. My point is, when is enough? I don't want to take this into the whole tax debate; however, when do we start getting programs that are already in our system and start pushing people to take advantage of them. Just throwing money (and money we don't have) at problems isn't the answer. If Warren Buffet and Bill Gates believe the government can do more, why are they avoiding the estate tax and giving it through the Gates' private charity (free from government corruption, waste, bureaucracy, and politics) tax-free?

Why do people always bring up Paris Hilton instead of other people? As much as I despite her, she does create jobs and revenue through her name and brand.

Great point, especially with Buffett. One of the smartest financial minds ever knows that the government sucks with money.

Gates' charity does approximately a billion times more good the government would with the equivalent tax revenue.

Now that the VP picks have happened, it is probably a good time for me to mostly check out of this thread. Not really much going to happen going forward to change anyone's mind or provide new insight now that we are in 100% talking points mode. Nothing here for me but a rise in blood pressure. I'll be around, but for my health and sanity, I'm trying to cut back on political talk across the spectrum until November.

All that said, I have one random comment: the more I read about Sarah Palin, the more I like her personally. Smoked pot. Fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Generally pro-gay rights. Is actually pro-life (as opposed to defaulting to it because it pleases the base).

I'm not a fan of the GOP at all. But there are a lot of disgusting and worthless human beings on the GOP bench that they could have recruited for the VP role, and they didn't. They actually picked someone pretty cool, IMO. Good for them. I want Obama to win the presidency, but I wish governor Palin well.

Just got back in...

Hold on a second. By making a statement, and then laying out a reasonable roadmap for achieving that, that is specific. Look at his budget statement. That makes a lot of sense, and is something well within his power as the president to make happen (it might not, but it is a realistic scenario). His statement about nuclear power is a realistic statement. We're going to have more nukes. Why? Because I will spearhead the effort to cut red tape and make permitting easier? Yeah, that could happen. Even if he falls short of the goal, more efforts in that direction can lead to more power plants.

In short, McCain is listing goals that are achieveable and how he will reach them. Some of his statements are not realistic. How is he realistically going to reduce childhood obesity as a President? Force Congress to sign a law forcing kids to eat their broccoli?

Contrast this to Obama. We'll be off oil in 10 years. We'll make America respected in the world community again. Why? How? While you're at it, why not cure cancer and AIDS? The more I look back at this week, the more and more I think that the convention climaxed with the Clintons' speeches and not with Obama's. Plus the fact that McCain's naming of the a running mate is dominating the news today, and I'm not sure that Obama is not in deep trouble, which is the first time I have felt that way this year.

Leaving politics out of it, I have to say this is a remarkable and proud time for our country when you take a look at the four people on the tickets of the two major political parties.

Huh?

Hey now, let's get back on track. Attractive or somewhat attractive women in politics.

The more I find out about her, the more that McCain might turn this into a huge plus for him.

She can play to education since her dad was a teacher. Supposedly her husband and she were union workers. That could play well with Regan Democrats and your middle class union worker. She can play well with women, being one herself. She should fare well with soccer moms since she has five kids, etc., etc.

Plus, as governor of the state of Alaska, she should know something about oil, I would hope. If I was McCain, I would announce that I would give incentives and open up the rockies oil shale, use that tax dollars generated from those efforts and mandate that those dollars should be used to fund research and development of alternative fuels and energy sources.

She could also appeal to people with two legs and those that have or want hair. The VP pick just doesn't matter this much.

First, America needs to rediscover personal responsibility. You are responsible for maintaining your home. You are responsible for managing your money. You are responsible for how you react to the world around you. Etc., etc.

Second, we need to re-establish family values. Where I am from, most of the people that are from single family homes wind up in bad situations. (Just for the record, this is something that is not a government issue, it is a societal issue) We need to figure out some way to encourage people to have a stable home environment for their children. We have to restore ethical values (I am a big believer in some universal truths).

Third, we need to realize in this country that not everyone is cut out for college and encourage people to go to trade schools. We also need to improve our trade schools because many of the people that I have run across from the schools down here were not worth crap. I'm talking about machinists who couldn't read a ruler or tape measure type of stuff.

Finally, we need to revamp our public school system. It is absolute crap. I was lucky enough to have a wonderful kindergarten teacher for my son. Unfortunately, what happens in first grade? They put many of the smart kids in a class with a second year teacher. Bless her heart she is nice. But she does not yet know how to challenge students. The result is that my child is not getting the most out of his education. He can do better, but he is not challenged at all. Compared to last year when his teacher repeatedly challenged him to write and sing songs. The result is that he is used to performing in front of his peers, his hand writing is excellent for his age, and he has a great creative side as far as making up music. (But he doesn't want to be a rock star because then he would have to smoke)

Another thing regarding education is make ethics and civics classes mandatory. Additionally, we need to show kids why they need to develop skills.

But, all that said, we still need trash collectors, janitors, etc. We need to make unskilled labor more profitable so that people will work in those jobs rather than sit on their ass, which I see all too often about a mile from where I live.

I don't post much, but I've long enjoyed reading this forum. I'm particularly reluctant to dive into the political debates, although I recognize and applaud the general civility of those who are engaged in this thread.

However, I found McCain's pick of Palin to be a brilliant move. Risky -- certainly. But all the VP front runners from either party were open to attack for various reasons. This lady brings a lot to the table, and it doesn't hurt to old guys like me that she's easy on the eye. :)

I do have a question (which is the real reason for posting). I've read several of you argue that the Palin choice will not attract HRC's women supporters because Palin is pro-life. I've now heard several Dem TV pundits voice this same position.

Is that really logical? I think those making this argument are whistling through the graveyard.

Polls have said that 21% of the PUMAs were saying they were going to vote for McCain -- and this was obviously before the Palin pick.

McCain is staunchly pro-life, and has been forcefully voicing that position. If PUMAs were saying they were voting for McCain before Palin, isn't it more logical to suggest his position with the PUMAs will now be strengthened by the addition of Palin to the ticket? I mean, do you really think they're going to be saying "well, I could stomach him being pro-life, but not her too"?

By November I just don't think the PUMA types will number enough to matter. The bigger issue will be blue collar Dems that are up for grabs in the industrial midwest. I think the strengths of both VPs are being overhyped. In the end it won't make a bit of difference as we'll see very little of them between now and November.

How about that fact that she named her kids Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig?

But I thought the Biden pick for Obama was huge? I guess that doesn't matter much either?

FTR, I'm not picking on albion one bit here, not even opening up any of these particular things for discussion ... but, taking them as written as all basically true since I definitely haven't looked them up yet, I'm going to quote them as a lead into something else.

Up the thread a bit, there was a comment (and I don't entirely disagree fwiw) that this choice was basically meant to play to the religious right of the GOP base as much as anything else.

Then I read the quoted snippet ... leaving me thinking "Huh? WTF?"

Buffy might be overlooked but the other two don't exactly strike me as playing well with the religious right element of the GOP. And, again just taking these for accurate for discussion purposes, I start to wonder if she might ultimately cost the ticket as many votes from the base as it gains the ticket from outside the base.

Unless of course my usual position still holds & the unhappy parts of the party are still going to make sure they vote against Obama no matter what.
In which case, no harm done I guess.

Just because someone else may have said this doesn't mean I did. No, neither VP pick will matter much.

She is against gay marriage (in fact, Alaska was one of the first states to ban gay marriage, and she supported it), but open to other benefits for them I believe. So I don't think it will cost her much of any affiliation in that area.

I think her staunch pro-life and creationist stances outweigh everything else when it comes to the CHristian Right. As far as I can tell everyone from that faction is thrilled with the pick.

I guess what I'm wondering is how many of them know about the other points yet? (each was definitely news to me I'll admit)

Personally, I'm wondering where she stands on Angel and Firefly.

What's wrong with liking Buffy?

The "Clinton Democrats" are a pretty varied bunch. Palin could appeal to the blue collar voters that were as much anti-Obama as they were pro-Clinton. These people will likely have more conservative social views and a good portion of them are pro-life. However, she has no chance at nabbing pro-choice women, even the ones who are moderate. I don't think her gender is going to play as big a role as people think.

I don't know. IMO, though, with groups like this on both the right and left the biggest issue is if they're "one of us". McCain can lay out all the Christian Right policies he wants, but he'll never be, "one of us". Palin is considered "one of us" at least to the leaders of the Christian Right. She'll probably lose a few people over the witch thing, but not enough to matter.

The two things I think will be positive from this pick will be that she'll energize the Christian Right on election day which may boost turnout and she got the media to stop talking about Obama's speech.

I'd like to know what role Palin played in the scandal on Miranda. Did she know anything about the project? If so, did she do anything to stop it? I mean, she sounds like she'll be pretty tough against the reavers but that doesn't mean much to me if she helped create them.

I had to read this twice. :D

she is incredibly hot for a politician. i can't even think of anything else when i look at her, what a naughty librarian look she has. caliente!

i'm pro-choice and anti-gay marriage and anti-illegal aliens and anti-big government, i don't even know what that makes me in terms of liberal/conservative. isn't there a website that you answer a couple questions and it lets you know where you fall in the political spectrum.

World's Smallest Political Quiz

There are tons of others, of course.

I didn't say naming Palin wasn't a political calculation from McCain as well. But, atleast she fits his "theme" (reformer, goes against the Washington machine, a maverick type politician).

All I've heard from the left on Obama is how he's different and not the normal politician. Yet, from his funding (mostly high-dollar special interests), to his agenda (party line democrat agenda), to his partisanship (very little "across the aisle" efforts in the senate), to his VP candidate (35-year Washington guy) say that he is exactly the same as McCain, Clinton and everyone else that runs.

So, then, you would say that the judgment a VP candidate showed when he voted against the original Iraq war in the early 90s, for the current Iraq war and setup a plan to split up Iraq into three sectors is more important than his 30+ years in the senate of experience, correct?

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 70%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.

I'm LEFT.

Sitting on the edge with Uncle Milty! (Friedman that is)

Arles: Do you think you'll really nail me here? Sure, Biden's made bad decisions including IMO the bankruptcy bill. Obama's made bad decisions as well. DOes that make you happy? I've never tried to argue that Obama is perfect, he's just more in line with what I think is important than McCain.

As to your specific points, I haven't looked, but Obama probably has more money from high dollar bundlers, but he also has far more total donors than any candidate ever has and a lower per donor amount than any nominee. There's too much money in the system IMO, but it's simply fact that Obama has gotten more people at smaller dollar amounts involved than anyone else ever has.

Obama does have more than "very little" bipartisan achievements. He's worked with Republicans and the Independent Democrat on a number of bills.

With Dick Lugar on securing Russian nukes and pandemic preparation

With Joe Lieberman on protecting taxpayer privacy

With Tom Coburn on lobbying reform and no-bid FEMA contracts and making public all government contracts

With Olympia Snow on Veterans Health Care

These may not be the issues you think he should work with Republicans on, but he has a record of working with Republicans when interests align.

I agree that he is another politician, and I'm not likely to see half of the things done I'd like. Obama, though, is a guy I think can push us in the right direction and maybe pull off something big. I'm not looking for rainbows and bunny rabbits, just a President that has priorities more in line with my own.

In more in depth "quizzes" like these I always end up moving over to the democrat/edge of libertarian/democrat side of things.

Pretty much scored exactly where I figured:

Aka bitter bigoted women factory worker types you mean.

alan - that's right about where I scored, except I was slightly more in towards the center (not on the edge of he box)

No, that's not what I mean. Nice try, though.

I don't feel this hardcore libertarian, but hopefully it provides context to my ramblings in this thread.

The RED DOT on the Chart shows where you fit on the political map.


Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...



LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal

matters, but tend to support significant government control of the

economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation

of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,

defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action

to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Wow who would of thought I am born raised from Massacusetts and score as a liberal. I still think I fall more to the center but that quiz is rather short and generalized in nature.

Here's mine:



Your PERSONAL issues Score is 70%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 90%.

I didn't know I was a centrist although I do lean to the left alittle bit. I am still in favor of a third major party for moderates.