McCain's VP:

@okie,

AARP does not support "Democratic causes", like all other lobbyists they advocate on issues they feel are important to their members, or in the best interests of their members (like allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices), and it is simply that the Democrats may support their positions more often than the Republicans do. However, the large drug manufacturers try to counter their efforts by throwing huge amounts of money at Republican legislators to insure that they are left alone to price drugs sky high and reap enormous profits. And the Republicans repay them by protecting their profits, and letting seniors on tight budgets be faced with the choice of buying food or their medications, because they can't afford both.

The problem isn't with lobbyists who provide an educational function, it's with the lobbyists who buy politicians, and their votes, by providing them with bribes and huge financial incentives. This works against the interests of the average taxpayer and consumer, the people the legislators should be putting first.

Palin hired lobbyists, not to educate, but to get her money for her town. She's benefitted from this whole business because all that federal money, and those earmarked funds, have directly contributed to her popularity in Alaska. While people in the lower 48 states grapple with state budget deficits, she mailed everyone in Alaska a check for $1200---that was our taxpayer money she was handing out in her state. That does boost her favorable ratings, but it's not due to her great fiscal management, it's the result of federal funds and money from the oil companies. Alaska got more federal funds per capita than other state. Rolling Eyes

Boy, is she going to be a great reformer in Washington Laughing

On the other hand...

Quote:

Mr. Obama led the successful reform of ethics laws in Illinois while he was state senator. Also, Mr. Obama's ban on federal lobbyists serving on his campaign and his refusal to accept funds from lobbyists for a major national campaign is unprecedented.

2 Replies

@firefly,

AARP doesn't speak for me. I will not join, although I could.

And I think it is despicable they claim to speak for all old people.

By the way, if you think Obama is not politically in debt to alot of people, I think you are wrong, and if elected, you will see tons of political favors and appointments, as rewards for their support.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

AARP does not support "Democratic causes"

Yes they do!

1 Reply

(What a) Wonderful Veep...
By ☠enghis - September 9, 2008, 12:27PM

with apologies to Sam Cooke

She don't know much about history
She don't believe in biology
She wants to change the science books
She wants to fire the White House cooks
But she does know how to speak on cue
And she knows if she makes fools of you
What a wonderful veep she would be

She don't know much about geography
She don't know much foreign policy
Don't know much about George Bush's war
Don't know what a VP is for
But she knows that one and one is two
And if McCain just tells her what to do
What a wonderful veep she would be

Now she don't claim to want any bridges
But she can sell you one
'Cuz maybe by pretending she never liked bridges
She can win your vote for John

She don't know much about history
She don't believe in biology
She wants to change the science books
She wants to fire the White House cooks
But she knows if she can hide the truth
Until we make it to the voting booth
What a wonderful veep she would be

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

plus 1

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

If liberals would redirect the time and effort they expend trashing McCain
and Palin into supporting their candidates they may actually have a chance.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2o man,
Some of the liberals are getting it...below are some quotes from Camille Paglia, a liberal feminist and abortion proponent that I gained a lot of respect for in just reading her fair and reasoned assessment of the Democrat's panicked response to Palin. I have to give her credit for her frank admission that "abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful" although I completely disagree with her justification of the act on the basis of some natural evolutionary right to "defy nature's facism". At least she has the courage of her convictions rather than joining the tortured legalistic and subjective arguments that Democrats and Obama continually engage with in order to justify their illogic.

I've just included the best quotes...worth a whole read, but long article. source

Camille Paglia wrote:

<<<<snip>>>>
Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.

<<<<snip>>>>

Over the Labor Day weekend, with most of the big enchiladas of the major media on vacation, the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics -- which has already caused a backlash that could damage Obama's campaign. When liberals come off as childish, raving loonies, the right wing gains. I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it. I don't see her arrival as portending the end of civil liberties or life as we know it.

<<<<snip>>>>

Now that's the Sarah Palin brand of can-do, no-excuses, moose-hunting feminism -- a world away from the whining, sniping, wearily ironic mode of the establishment feminism represented by Gloria Steinem, a Hillary Clinton supporter whose shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be. Sarah Palin, if her reputation survives the punishing next two months, may be breaking down those barriers. Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.

<<<<snip>>>>>

The witch-trial hysteria of the past two incendiary weeks unfortunately reveals a disturbing trend in the Democratic Party, which has worsened over the past decade. Democrats are quick to attack the religiosity of Republicans, but Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion. Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes. The party is in peril if it cannot observe and listen and adapt to changing social circumstances.

<<<<<snip>>>>>

It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism -- one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.

But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide.

0 Replies

@okie,

AARP does not claim to speak for all "old people"--it is an organization that basically speaks for, and advocates for, it's members. Do they push for anything in particular that you consider to be bad for "old people"?

I do belong to AARP. The mailings I receive are non-partisan. They will urge me to contact my legislators (regardless of party) regarding the passage of specific bills on both the state and federal level, and ask me to tell my legislators how I would like them to vote. They include a description of the bill, and an explanation of why they feel it should or should not be passed. That is one way they get their members to lobby. I don't have to agree with them--I am free to urge my legislators to vote any way I see fit. But they do provide a worthwhile educational service by informing members about impending legislation affecting seniors, explaining it to them, making them think about the issues, telling them why or why not it might benefit senior citizens, and urging them to become more involved in the legislative process. I find all of that to be rather good. On the whole, it is an excellent organization.

I'm not saying Obama won't owe favors if he's elected, of course he will, and so will everyone else elected to office. What I said was that McCain, with his very long period of time in the Senate, is likely to be much more mired in the complex web of the whole lobbying cash flow business, and likely to owe a whole lot more favors. And judging by why he put Palin on the ticket in the first place, he apparently does cave into pressure when making judgments. No one has claimed that she was really the person he wanted on the ticket with him when he first chose her.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Palin makes McCain look like a has-been; she's boosted the republican ticket when McCain's popularity was waning. I wonder why they don't switch places as president and veep nominees? They'll win for sure.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

This is good.

Liberals all over are feeling the heat and loosing it. Obama is toast!

And now President and Mrs. Clinton are being tapped to help Obama... this is going to get real interesting.

0 Replies

@firefly,

The point is, firefly, there are tens of millions of retired persons, and every person thinks differently, and has different politics. I don't need and the congress does not need some organization purporting to represent all retired people to speak for retired people. I can speak for myself.

The association makes about as much sense as an organization that would call itself American Association of Unretired People, or how about this - American Association of Blue Eyed People.

Question, if AARP is so nonpartisan as it claims to be, how come it is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, and how come it is involved with lobbying political policy? Non-partisan, that is an absolute joke.

Look, I would have no problem if they were honest and named their group, Association of Democratic Retired People.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, I belong to AARP and you don't, so maybe, just maybe, I might have a better idea of what they are doing than you do. I do think the 50+ segment of the population has special needs and concerns, particularly when it comes to healthcare. In unity there is strength. If I call my congressman about a bill, my views might, or might not matter, but if 39 million people, in an organized effort, call or write to their legislators about that same bill, their opinions begin to matter. That's part of what makes them a powerful lobbying group.
But they offer a lot of other services to their members in addition to their educational and lobbying activities.

Quote:

With over 39 million members, AARP is the leading nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization for people age 50 and over in the United States.

The group is known for providing a host of services to this ever-growing segment of the population by:

Informing members and the public on issues important to this age group
Advocating on legislative, consumer and legal issues
Promoting community service
Offering a wide range of special products and services to members
Membership in AARP is open to any person age 50 or above. With 25 percent of the U.S. population in the 50+ category, nearly half of all people in this age bracket are AARP members. However, U.S. citizenship is not a requirement for membership; over 40,000 members live outside the United States. People also do not have to be retired to join. In fact, 44 percent of AARP members work part time or full time. For these reasons, AARP shortened its name in 1999 from the American Association of Retired Persons to just four letters: AARP. The median age of AARP members is 65, and slightly more than half of them are women.

You can find out more here about what they do

http://www.aarp.org/about_aarp/aarp_overview/a2003-01-13-aarphistory.html

They are interested in the issues, and they support the legislation, that best serves the needs and interests of their members. They really are not involved with partisan politics, and I would assume that their membership includes the entire political spectrum of the population. Anyone who is over 50 and sends them a check for $12.50 can become a member. Considering what you get back from AARP, the $12.50 is a real bargain.

This is on their Web site. Do you think it really reflects a partisan view--or are they just providing info?

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html

1 Reply

Looking good!

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/07/Palintology.jpg

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Newsweek is hilarious.

Is it any accident she is toting a gun? And is it any accident the article at the top has the word "cancer" in it. Those losers are so pathetically transparent. I dropped my newsweek subscription years ago.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly, I have been aware of what they do. I have relatives that belong to the organization, so I read some of the propaganda.

I repeat, if they are not involved in partisan politics, they wouldn't be lobbying politicians. Politicians are political and partisan by definition. That much should be obvious.

Some of these groups that claim to be nonpartisan, its a joke.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I repeat, if they are not involved in partisan politics, they wouldn't be lobbying politicians. Politicians are political and partisan by definition.

If you mean partisan as in promoting the interests of its members, then you are correct.

If you mean partisan as in aligning with one political party, then you are wrong.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

If you mean partisan as in promoting the interests of its members, then you are correct.

According to who? That is the point.

2 Replies

@okie,

If the interests of its members, as determined by the organization, were not politically biased, there would be no need to lobby Congress. Again, the organization is joking if they claim to be nonpartisan.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

If the interests of its members, as determined by the organization, were not politically biased, there would be no need to lobby Congress

okie, that statement makes no logical sense.

People join AARP becauses the organization helps to influence the passage of legislation which is favorable to older Americans, regardless of whether that legislation is sponsored by Democrats or Republicans. The interests of the members of AARP are age-related--that is their bias. All bias is not political or partisan. Issues relating to older people cross party lines. Older Republicans who are AARP members are just as interested in healthcare, for instance, and what is included in Medicare part D, as are older Democrats. It is not partisan, it is not political, it is age-related. The only common factor among the 39 million members of AARP is that they are all over 50.

Legislation is affected by many factors other than partisan politics. AARP educates both Republican and Democratic legislators on issues which they feel should be addressed in particular bills. They advocate for legislation which addresses the needs of older people, so these needs are not overlooked or forgotten. That's why they lobby.

AARP are not the type of lobbyists who are corrupting Washington Laughing

Anyway, to get back to the topic of this thread....

I am really tired of the endless discussions in the media about Palin that are only based on minimal info about her past. The woman really has been relatively cloistered in Alaska, a state which is unique in many regards, and she hasn't been involved in national or international issues, and she admits she hasn't even given thought to such issues.

Therefore, we've got to start hearing Palin speak for herself, in as many unscripted interviews as possible, so we have some idea of her ability to grasp such issues. Issues on the national level are considerably more complex than anything she has ever had to understand or deal with in Alaska. I want to know whether she is up to the job of being VP. Being a rock-star campaigner doesn't mean she'd be a good VP. She's a great cheerleader for Alaska. I think it's time for her to start proving herself as VP material. And that means they have to be just as tough on her as they are on the male candidates without any whining from the McCain camp that she is being picked on.

0 Replies

Biden said Palin is an excellent choice, an even better choice for VP than himself.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know