JPB
 
  2  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 08:08 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I just disagree with you completely. I understand that the speech wasn't pointed at me, so I likely will miss much of the appeal..
<>
Her sarcastic and condescending tone isn't likely to attract independents. But I can see how the base would be happy with the speech.


I listened to the first minute. Heard Hillary's voice come out of a different mouth and walked away. I caught the sound bites this morning on the news. I'm not impressed.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 08:10 am
@H2O MAN,
or not...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  4  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 08:23 am
@sozobe,
Here's another:

Matt Yglesias wrote:
I understand that Sarah Palin’s fans find her critics loathesome and our motives dubious, but I wonder how they feel about the fact that her two national appearances have been so packed full of lies. To site the most obvious example, the story she’s now told in both of her appearances before national audiences about how “I told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks,’ for that Bridge to Nowhere” is an enormously appealing story. But to me, the appeal wore off when I learned it wasn’t true. Similarly, this is a nice idea:

Quote:
To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.


But then you read:

Quote:
However, a comment here notes that Palin actually slashed funding for schools for special needs kids by 62%. Budgets: FY 2007 (pre-Palin), 2008, 2009 (all pdfs).


Well that’s less appealing. Republicans who’ll cut social services for people in need are as common as politicians who favor pork for their home state.


Cites in original.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 08:23 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I get your point in your first sentence. But comparing her to Edwards is apples and oranges. His wife is a mature woman with cancer..... and that's not something that's going to make Elizabeth Edwards the butt of jokes and derisive remarks.

What I see is a man who can run for president even though his family needs him, and a woman who, for some reason, can't run for vice-president because her family needs her. That looks awfully similar to a double-standard.

When it comes to serving the best interests of one's family, I am reluctant to substitute my judgment for that of the family in question. Perhaps Palin and Bristol had a serious and frank mother-daughter discussion -- you know, the kind normally seen only in tampon commercials -- and mutually concluded that mom's opportunity to run as vice-president was worth the cost of publicity and embarrassment that would be paid by Gidget. Or maybe they didn't. Maybe Palin didn't even consider the consequences to her daughter. But I'm not prepared to say that Palin, in taking the risk that her daughter would be placed in an unflattering public light, is totally out of line. Politicians' kids, for better or worse, are often thrust unwillingly into the limelight.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
And you're wrong about Bristol and her pregnancy becoming obscure. Two word....Brittney Spears.

Two words: Bill Miller.
firefly
 
  2  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 08:35 am
@revel,
Watching Palin's infant in the audience last night, being passed from person to person to hold him for a while (four different people held him, including 2 of his sisters, his father, and Cindy McCain), I wondered why the sleeping infant was even there, in a crowded, noisy auditorium, rather than in a carrier in a more protected location backstage. To display the special needs child she chose not to abort? To display her credentials to the anti-abortion religious base of the party? It was hard not to feel that the 5 month old infant, who really should have been allowed to sleep peacefully elsewhere, was being exploited, by being put on display last night, to further his mother's political career.

I also wondered who looks after the children, particularly the three youngest, when Palin is off being governor or out campaigning to be VP. I admire working women who manage to balance the demands of motherhood and careers, but I also understand the problems in doing this, and I also know that it often is not a fair or even balance. Sometimes the children get short-changed, sometimes it is the career--no one is Super Woman, and able to do it all, with equal time and energy devoted to all things. Palin displayed her kids last night, but she didn't tell us how she manages their care or their needs. She pledges to devote herself to the job of VP, so where will that leave her children when they need her, or where will it leave her if she finds herself torn in two directions at the same time? Being governor of Alaska does not have the pressures, or time requirements, or travel demands, of being the VP of the United States.

I do not feel there is any sexism in raising such questions. We have never had a female, the mother of 4 minor children, including a special needs infant, run for such high office before. And she is at the top of the ticket for the party that has always preached about "family values". In fact, the religious right base of the Republican party has often espoused the view that mothers should not be out of the house working, but rather at home caring for their children and husbands.

So, how does Sarah Palin manage it, and how does she plan on managing it in the future if she becomes VP? I really would like to know, particularly because Palin's grandchild will soon be born to Palin's 17 year daughter, a child who still has to finish high school, and this will add yet another infant to the family.

Does Palin have a nanny to look after her minor children? Her husband apparently runs his own fishing business, but is he also in charge of caring for the three youngest ones? Is the "First Dude" also Mr. Mom? Can we see him as the supportive male partner who stays at home, and devotes himself to caring for the children, while his wife pursues her career (and how would that image fly with the conservative religious right)? Do extended family members care for the children? How are the Palins (both Mr. and Mrs) managing the care of their children? What problems do they have in this regard, and how have they overcome them?

Working women all over America have been wondering about these things, judging by what I've read on the internet and newspapers, and heard on TV. Since Sarah Palin is very much presenting herself to the public as a mother (in fact, she spent more time introducing her family, and talking about them, last night then she devoted to any national or international issues facing the country). I would like to hear her start answering some of these questions. They are not totally irrelevant to how much time and attention she could devote to the job of VP, particularly in light of her special needs infant, and particularly because she trys to present herself as being a rather traditional mom, who just happens to be a governor as a sort of side-job.

H2O MAN
 
  1  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 08:48 am
In a poll taken before last nights speech 40% of Americans thought Sarah Palin was more qualified to be president than Obama.

These numbers should rise now that she has introduced herself to America.
sozobe
 
  2  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 08:54 am
@H2O MAN,
And that was a record low for vice presidential candidates. I think only Dan Quayle had lower numbers... I can go look.

She's already been introduced. I don't think the numbers will go up too much. (I do think there will be a convention bounce of some sort -- but I don't think her "qualified" numbers will ever get very high.)
sozobe
 
  1  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:02 am
@sozobe,
Another fact-check:

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Palin on Obama

It was a great line:

Quote:
Listening to [Obama] speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state senate.


I guess we should thank Matt Scully for inserting the word "major." You can go look at Obama's State Senate legislative record here. And his US Senate record here. At last count, sponsorship of 820 laws in Illinois, and authorship of 152 bills and co-sponsorship of 427 in Washington. The 2007 Ethics Reform bill alone cannot be dismissed as simply non-existent. And since part of Palin's own claim to substance is an ethics reform bill, it seems extremely weird that she should believe that Obama's record is a total zero. At her first press conference, why not ask her why she said that Obama has never passed a single reform, when he passed the 2007 Ethics Reform, described by many as the most sweeping package of its kind since Watergate. Of course, she doesn't know. She was given this speech. But she should be asked to respond to the question of why she said something patently untrue to the entire country.

But you can see the idea here: to keep equating Palin's experience with Obama's. At one point, Rudy Giuliani claimed that after her first day as governor of Alaska, Palin had more executive experience than Joe Biden and Barack Obama combined. So there's your standard. It's fatuous and stupid. But if you repeat it often enough, it might just work.


Cites in original.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palin-on-obama.html
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:03 am
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

I think only Dan Quayle had lower numbers... I can go look.


Dan Quayle?

Who cares about Dan Quayle?

We are talking about Palin and Obama.
okie
 
  1  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:03 am
@FreeDuck,
I understand, FreeDuck, but I think policy stuff was needed to demonstrate her interest in and grasp of the important issues of our time. And I have as much confidence that she understands common sense issues as I do Obama, even excluding McCain. Red State Blue state thing, I think will take care of itself.

I would have kept some jabs in the speech, such as the community organizer comment, which I totally agree with. Community organizer, the whole concept is a joke in my opinion, to what 90% of Americans can relate to. I would have knocked out the DNC stage set comment and perhaps a few others as well, and would have concentrated on the positives of the Republican Party. The Al Gore comment, I agree with Romney, the man is a joke in regard to anybody with a lick of common sense. He doesn't need a jet to go to work, come on Free Duck, how about driving. All of his jetsetting around the world is ridiculous.

In regard to change, I think Huckabee summed up the best, Republicans are all for change, for some things, but not for changing foundational principles like freedom, etc., no way. The discussion of change needs to be accompanied by an explanation of what you intend to change. Dems are dead set against changing some things entrenched in Washington, that Repubs would like changing, but vice versa on other things.
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  2  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:04 am
@joefromchicago,
Point taken....except for Bill Miler. In 1964 there was not 24/7 news as entertainment cable service, the general population, although probably even then the Springer generation, didn't have the chance to have such crap paraded before them day and night.... and Bill Miller didn't have a deliciously pregnant out of wedlock child with a self styled "******* redneckl" boyfriend to drool over and read about while online at the grocery counter. If the opportunity is there to rubberneck...people rubberneck. If the opportunity for viewers and listeners is there....the media will trot it out as long as possible.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it is what it is and if Sara Palin wasn't smart enough to fully know and understand that simple little fact going in then she either didn't give a damn or isn't bright enough for the job. IMO.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:05 am
The shakeup Palin spoke of last night has begun Cool
nooks
 
  1  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:05 am
@H2O MAN,
That's so true. She actually did better than expected.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:06 am
@H2O MAN,
I'm talking about Palin.

40% is extremely low. If you're not interested in the historical context of HOW low, that's fine.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  3  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:09 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

The discussion of change needs to be accompanied by an explanation of what you intend to change. Dems are dead set against changing some things entrenched in Washington, that Repubs would like changing, but vice versa on other things.


This is what strikes me as funniest about the RNC. They keep talking about change... Romney was talking about "liberal Washington"! Exactly who do they think has been in charge for the last 8 years...?

If "change" is the overriding message of BOTH sides, guess who comes out on top?

The party that HASN'T been in charge for the past 8 years; the guy who DIDN'T vote with Bush 90% of the time.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:11 am
@sozobe,
The democrats TALK about change, but McCain and Palin will DELIVER change.
okie
 
  1  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:25 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

The democrats TALK about change, but McCain and Palin will DELIVER change.


+1

EXCEPT THE STUFF THAT WE DON'T WANT CHANGED, LIKE FREEDOM AND A FEW OTHER THINGS, AS HUCKABEE EXPLAINED, RIGHT H2OMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Diest TKO
 
  2  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:27 am
@sozobe,
Hey soz,
Since you are being so unkindly ignored after going to the trouble to bring facts into the discussion on specifically how false Palin's claims/attacks were on Obama.

Thanks for the links. It's a real shame that McCain chose to end his career this way. Win or lose, his dignity is scared for these tactics.

McCain seems like a nice guy, but he doesn't use his heart. His campaign would have been a lot different if he could truly stand up to his party as he claims. The result is instead a man reduced to an exploitable icon that the GOP can manipulate however they wish.

If he loses, I hope he can enjoy being free of that kind of abuse from his own party.

If he wins, maybe he'll show his old maverick self and make those GOP bastards regret it.

Either way, in a campaign that has now evolved into a narrative on his legacy, he'd better know that legacy isn't something he answers to the people for, he answers to himself. It's truly a sad day for him.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:30 am
@okie,
What are they going to change, Okie? Specifically.

For it seems to many of us that what McCain wants to do is NOT change - but continue the current order. McCain has as much as said so many times.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:31 am
@sozobe,
Don't forget, Sozobe, that the current Congress has the lowest approval rating ever for Congress, if I have it right. The times they are changin, and all kinds of contradictions abound right now, lots of cross currents, and who knows how this ends up. Romney ran on the idea that Washington needs fixing, and Obama / Biden represents Washington as much or more now than McCain, who is known as a maverick, and now a complete outsider in Palin. All of this depends upon who best captures the mood in November.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain's VP:
  3. » Page 31
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.24 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 01:17:08