A Vice Presidental candidate thread.

A deep need to be different I imagine. Only in rare cases is it logical argument.

It hardly ever happens in an aristocracy so something else must be in play.

Have we to psychoanalyse Debbie chaps? A rebel. (Like it.) But there's rebels and there's rebels. Do you eat with a knife and fork for example and place your hand over your mouth when yawning at posh parties?

Note- The aristocratic rebel usually rebels into more extreme forms of aristocratic behaviour that the norm. The Marquis de Sade for example who would have much approved of evolution theory and who despised with an intensity nobody on A2K dare come near matching any form of religion and particularly the Christian religion. He was very liberal politically. He made Debbie and JP look like right-wing nut-jobs. Really!

Well, they couldn't manage to get the debate called off, or moved to after election day , so tonight's the night.

Lots of people, who would not ordinarily watch VP debates will be tuning in tonight.

Well- we could do with some proper comedy for a change.

We'll tune in to watch at least part of the VP debate this evening. The deck seems to be stacked against Gov. Palin, and I'd like to see how well she responds to the challenge. How far will the moderator tilt to favor the Obama/Bidden ticket? Sen. Biden is, after McCain, the most knowledgeable and experienced national politician running this year. Will he condescend, or mercilessly attack his opponent? Will Gov. Palin try to convince the audience that she knows more about national and international affairs than everyone believes, or will she play to her strengths as an outsider whose common-sense can cut through all of the posturing and politics? Both of Palin's likely strategies are risky to at least part of the electorate. Biden could bury her with his extensive and detailed knowledge and experience, so I think she probably should choose different ground to stand on. How will Biden react if Palin avoids meeting him head-on and attacks him and Obama as being "insiders" more attuned to Washington and the needs of special interests? Can Sen. Biden hold his tongue? Can Palin slow down her speaking pace and avoid being drawn into long, humorless efforts to justify her candidacy? Only time will tell, and there's a reasonable chance that the debate this evening will be at least as interesting as a new episode of Gordon Ramsey's "Kitchen Nightmares".

Trying to twig why people choose one political philosophy over another is a fruitless exercise. Sweeping generalizations are especially dangerous when we try to deal with choices in a pluralist society that encourages individualism.

Liberals, it seems, tend to be very rich and highly educated cosmopolitans whose political agenda favors the poor and downtrodden. Some may be motivated by guilt over their own success, or a needed to be regarded as "Politically Correct". Some certainly are genuinely concerned about the inequities of competition that falls most heavily on the "disadvantaged". Who can be against "equality", "justice", "hunger", and "ignorance"? Those are all watch words of the Left, even though those goals are shared by the Radical Right. The largest difference is in the means of achieving the goals. The Left generally (there's that nasty word again) tends to lean toward Socialist and Marxist theories of Class warfare, and tend to favor Socially uplifting programs mandated by the Federal Government. They also seem to prefer a "pure" democracy over a representational Republic as described in the Constitution. Liberals tend to favor a strong central government that actively works to promote socially desirable programs, and redistribution of wealth and property.

Conservatives, it seems, tend to be drawn from the less well-educated, and those with the deep and abiding religious values held by working-class people who live in small towns and the rural heartland of the nation. They tend to be competitive and desirous of being left alone by government, yet they are also the most likely to be flag-waving patriots. They feel pride in whatever achievements, wealth and property they've managed to acquire through hard work and thrift. They aspire to more wealth and property, and resent having to give up what they've acquired to subsidize those who they feel want only a handout. On the other hand, they are the first to provide charity to those they personally believe to have been unfortunate. Conservatives are very centered on traditional values, and are dedicated to the notions of competitiveness, individual libertyand responsibility. Conservatives tend to favor a strong central government that protects stability and society as a whole so long as it doesn't interfere with their own pursuit of happiness.

There are doubtless countless Liberals and Conservatives who don't fit those sweeping generalizations. Those who have given up on the American Dream, or who have come to believe that they are "owed" all the good things in life are the constituency of the Left, just as those who have succeeded in life, gotten a good education and a satisfying career that provides them a modicum of luxury are the natural constituency of the Right.

These divisions have existed since the founding of the nation, and it is the continual striving of one against the other that has prevented ANY single political philosophy from gaining absolute power. The notion of a balance was really more the idea of John Adams than James Monroe, even though Monroe is generally given the credit. Though neither of them foresaw nor approved of the idea of partisan politics, in retrospect we can see that evolution as natural and necessary to the nation. Our system of checks and balances makes for a slow, awkward and sloppy system, but a system that resists radicalism from either wing of the political spectrum. There are kooks out there in the wings, and the vast majority of our citizens are protected from their foolishness by their very opposition. We should more often celebrate the political divisions than cry about them.

The reason more people will be watching tonite's debate is simple; it's make or break time for McCain. Palin is more popular than the presidential candidate, and if it wasn't for her, McCain would have been way down in the polls long before now.

It's funny how so many political pundits are rationalizing all the weaknesses of Palin, and trying to make her look "presidential."

I'm just wondering who the conservatives will be picking for the next election?

Er, c.i., I don't mean to pick on you, really, but why do you think Palin is more popular than the presidential candidate? (Not what I'm seeing.)

And polls are indicating that currently (I agree she gave him a boost for a while) she's a drag on the ticket, not a benefit.

soz, The current economic crisis is boosting Obama and deflating McCain; not only because of his playing politics with the bailout, but because he cannot be trusted. He says one thing in one speech, then says the opposite in another. Where does McCain stand on anything? Nobody in the conservative camp can identify them for us, because McCain has flip-flopped so often.

Palin on the other hand is being seen as a fresh new face in national politics; somebody that knows how to talk the talk without knowing what she's talking about; but the conservatives/pundits are rationalizing all of her weaknesses in attempting to tell the rest of us she's ready for the job of veep/president.

McCain down/Palin up; even as her popularity has been dropping. McCain is about 46%, and Palin is still above 50% from how I see the conservatives and pundit's posts and rhetoric - even on a2k.

One stop at Pollingreport.com would tell C.I. he's wrong about Palin being more popular that McCain (favorability ratings at 33 and 39 respectively in the latest poll)... but it kind of depends on how you define popularity. Ratings-wise, she's a superstar. She is a compelling figure who is certainly garnering the most face time on the news and talk shows of all the candidates. While many (most?) of us are mostly interested in seeing what idiotic nonsense comes out of her mouth next; we are nonetheless drawn to the coverage. I think the VP debate will likely be the highest rated VP debate in history... and I think that has next to nothing to do with Joe Biden.

Most recent fav/ unfav poll I found:



In order of popularity:

Obama (59)
Biden (53)
McCain (42)
Palin (40)

In order of unpopularity:

Palin (53)
McCain (44)
Biden (35)
Obama (31)

http://www.dailykos.com/dailypoll/2008/10/02

Additional info, from Pew:



and especially:



http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead

How do you figure he's second to McCain?

Quote:


You wouldn't know this from the conservative pundits rhetoric on TV - even today, but then, it's my fault for listening to them for the past several days without double-checking with the polls. I did know that Palin's popularity has been dropping, but that's not how the pundits are portraying her and how she'll perform tonite. Even the independents still view Palin with a positive view at 54%.

Interesting dynamics going on - in my biased mind too!

I'll admit that one might arguably take the opposite point of view; that Sen. Biden is the more knowledgeable and experienced. Sen. Biden has been in the Senate since 1973, and has had an illustrious career dealing with crime issues, among others. Sen. McCain came to the Senate in 1987, after serving two terms (1983-) in Congress. McCain has been active in the Armed Forces area, among others. Both have a record of crossing the aisle on occasion, and neither is terribly popular with the more Partisan members of their Parties.

As a Republican, I tilt toward Sen. McCain who is at the head of our ticket, whilst a Democrat would probably tilt toward Sen. Biden their Vice Presidential candidate. There should be no question that these two, McCain and Biden, are experienced in Federal government and have long records that demonstrate the sort of men they are. Both have demonstrated over the years that they are strong men with the courage to stand for their convictions and values under great stress.

Sen. Obama and Gov. Palin, on the other hand have limited experience and records. That makes them attractive to those who are looking for an "outsider" to come along and "clean-up" Washington made corrupt by career politicians ... legislators like Biden and McCain. Of course, Washington isn't nearly as corrupt as many would like to believe, and putting a novice at the controls of the largest, most powerful and complex governments that ever existed is a doubtful strategy. Personally, I would be less anxious of a Democratic victory if Sen. Biden was the top o'the ticket. Oh well .....

Show us where Biden has outright lied, and I'm not talking about his gaffes that doesn't end up killing people?

This is all I can find thru 2005:



Compared against other politicans, he looks like an angel.

I regard it as a given that all human beings tell lies, and that goes double for politicians. Then there is the problem of what is a "lie" and the question of whether all lies are equally reprehensible.

Folks say things that are not in accord with what is later determined to be some set of facts. Mistakes and misunderstandings that flow from not having full access to all facts are common. People say things that they truly believe, only later to find that they were wrong. Our individual prejudices, and we all have those whether we admit it or not, color our beliefs. That's being human, rather than some sort of logical rationalizing machine.

Intemperate and hyperbole during a heated political campaign without regard to the facts, or based on the flimsiest of facts, has been the norm in this country since the campaign of 1800. Anyone who believes anything said during these quadrennial affairs is either dim-witted or so dedicated to the Party-line that they are intentionally blind. It may be unfortunate, but the political game is played that way and any candidate that doesn't get down into the sty and wrestle with the pigs is likely to lose the election. Still, its a handy campaign tool to accuse the opposition of preferring lies to the truth while ignoring our own campaigns failings. The candidates, generally try to take the "high road" mouthing pleasant generalities and giving extravagant promises. They say as little as possible of substance, and leave it to their henchmen in the trenches to use brass knuckles, and innuendo.

Folks "spin" almost everything they assert because they don't want to offend, or they wish to spare the feelings of others. Using words laden down with emotional weights makes misunderstanding of intention easy. We all spin, but when a politician does it all of a sudden it becomes reprehensible. Politicians are supposed to keep their mouths shut, and say nothing that can be used by opponents against them. Both Sen. Biden and McCain are well-known for shooting from the hip without stopping to carefully consider the effects of their words. These guys, both of them, are passionate and sometimes let their emotional first response pop out of their mouths before thinking through all of the implications that might be drawn. They aren't "liars" in the same way that a person lies when committing perjury.

Perjury is an example of the reprehensible lie that as a society we tend to punish. That is knowingly and intentionally, under oath, representing known falsehoods as factual and true. People do that. Criminals do it all the time. Nixon was prepared to do that, and Clinton actually did commit perjury.

Personally, I don't believe that either Sen. Biden or Sen. McCain are guilty speaking reprehensible lies. They both speak out in ways that is open to misinterpretation, and sometimes the opposition doesn't have to work very hard to make their words seem terrible. These are both honorable men, men who have dedicated most of their adult lives to serving the nation to the best of their ability. I wish that they were not subjected to the mud slinging that is associated with Presidential campaigning, but thats the way it is. No ideal world, and no ideal candidates who aren't sullied in some manner.

Okay, here's my challenge to you; show me why McCain's lies are less or equally reprehensible than Obama's?

http://robschumacher.blogspot.com/2008/08/mccain-outright-lies-on-tax-claims.html

And this: don't miss the "FactCheck" statement against McCain and Palin:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjO6YPkd2LcstrGwzE3p9bRY7k0g

Mis-statements, distortions, spin, slips of the tongue, mistakes, and the emotional accusations that are exchanged between partisans during a hotly contested election aren't worthy of consideration. Both sides are equally guilty, or innocent, of charges of lying. There is no difference between them, and that is why ultimately we as responsible citizens should disregard virtually everything said by every candidate during the election season. What counts, what matters isn't the words spoken to influence, but the character and values of the candidate's life when no one was looking, and before they decided to run for election.

Over the years I've been reading your comments, it is clear that you are very fast to condemn a person on the basis of a even negative "news" report. You leap to the conclusion that people are guilty of heinous crimes merely because they are accused and/or hold beliefs that you don't agree with. You would be dismissed for cause in any ideal jury selection.

Ash, You can disregard what they each say, but I won't disregard what they say and how they say it. Your assumption that "they aren't worthy of consideration" shows your ignorance. There's a huge difference in policies between the democrats and republicans; you probably don't understand all of that fine stuff. I also determine the "trustworthiness" of a candidate by what they say and what they show on their TV ads.

I only condemn those who says things that I disagree with, and I usually say why. If you can't handle that, you don't belong here.

Of course there are huge differences between the political philosophies of the two parties, and of the contending candidates. I never said, or suggested otherwise.

Anyone who believes the rhetoric thrown about during a hotly contested campaign, and the political advertising that swamps the airwaves is a fool. There are no standards of "truthfulness" for this kind of political speech, and all candidates/parties/partisans go wild in their accusations, assertions and promises. They all exaggerate and make over generalized pronouncements.

I know you condemn those who you disagree with, but a more rational fair-minded person doesn't rush to judgment, especially not based on a personal belief rather than evidence. If I don't belong here, it is because I really do try to give even the Devil his due.