McCain chooses Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

Paul has said repeatedly he thinks Obama and McCain are the same person.
Paul also thinks it's a great idea to get rid of the CIA and the FBI. He also believes there is a conspiracty to create a NAFTA Superhighway as the first step toward creating a North American Union. He also falsely claims that we spend 1 trillion dollars every year maintaining an 'empire.' He wants to get rid of Social Security and any other safety net.

Every 3rd Party candidate says the Reps and the Dems are the same. It's in their interest to, as 'change' is always a big claim during election season. Incumbancy opens one up to a 'change' opposition.

The facts of the matter are different, however. There are differences in priorities in domestic spending; national defense priorities; the balance of the Supreme Court; the never-ending abortion battleground; the right to keep and bear arms, and whether government can ban certain kinds or mandate locks, etc; and who has access to the bully pulpit.

People can claim these things don't matter, if they choose. I choose not to wear the tinfoil hat. 8)
User avatar
TSDguy
Posts: 1831
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am

Post by TSDguy »

We do spend trillion of dollars maintaining an empire and social security is going away whether you like it or not. And if we went back to not fighting around the globe, we'd no longer need a CIA. The FBI certainly isn't necessary. I'm not seeing any problems here?
User avatar
Uechij
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2002 6:01 am

Post by Uechij »

My Shen Is Raised And My Chi Is Strong... I Eat Rice And Train Chi Gung
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

TSDguy wrote:We do spend trillion of dollars maintaining an empire....


That was debunked as soon as it was said. He included domestic spending like the Border Patrol, and down payments on government debt, to get that rediculous sum. Yeah... good luck convincing people we don't need that.
and social security is going away whether you like it or not.


I favor the investment route, myself, and that's part of the Republican plank.
And if we went back to not fighting around the globe, we'd no longer need a CIA.


You're living in a fantasy world. If we stayed home and did nothing, we'd have them all knocking on our doors. We'd never be safe. And we'd never see it coming. A government with no spies deserves to be blindsided.
The FBI certainly isn't necessary. I'm not seeing any problems here?


Tell that to the next person whose kid gets snatched, or to the next bank that gets hit. The FBI helps with tons of cases that local and state agencies don't have the resources for.

I do lean libertarian. I don't want government meddling. I do however believe that government resources should be available.

And with an eye on the original topic, McCain/Palin has overtaken Obama/Biden by 4 points on Zogby. With that and everything else taken into account, McCain made a good choice in Palin.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

This is a pretty good critique of Palin from the Anchorage Daily News.
Anchorage Daily News

Palin's leadership
Governor has been effective, but leaves details to others


Now that Sarah Palin has burst onto the national scene, Americans may be wondering:

As governor of Alaska, what kind of leader has she been?

In our view, Sarah Palin has been very effective -- surprisingly so, considering her previous leadership experience was as mayor of a town with about 6,000 people.

Gov. Palin is not the kind of leader who gets bogged down in minutia and works 100-hours a week. Instead, she uses her charisma and a simple, clear vision to mobilize mass support for her agenda, then leaves the details and heavy lifting to others.

THREE BIG SUCCESSES

As governor, she has focused almost exclusively on a handful of high-priority issues -- ethics, oil tax reform and state incentives for building a natural gas pipeline. And she has had dramatic success. With Gov. Palin leading the way, the Legislature passed strong legislation on all three fronts. On two of those issues, she had to take on Alaska's previously all-powerful oil industry. Twice she easily defeated them.

Palin has a knack for the populist gesture, and Alaskans know it's sincere, not just for show. She pledged to sell Gov. Murkowski's state jet -- and she did. She drives herself to work. She found other duties for the chef at the governor's mansion. Palin is the only major political figure in the past 20 years who regularly comes to Daily News editorial board meetings by herself, with no flunkies or handlers.

LIMITATIONS AS A LEADER

Outside of her top priorities, though, the limitations of Gov. Palin's leadership style begin to show. She delegates much of the detail work and spends little time on second-tier subjects.

That management style can work -- if you have assembled a crackerjack, detail-oriented management team. That's what she did with her effort on the natural gas pipeline -- and it helps explain her success on that issue. However, in many areas, Palin has had to rely on people with a weak track record of running state government or working with the Legislature.

As a foe of the Republican establishment, she doesn't have a deep pool of talent to draw on. She has not yet found a replacement for the public safety commissioner she forced out earlier this summer. Her first replacement choice resigned after just two weeks because he had misled Alaskans about his record of sexual harassment. A stronger staff would have done a better job of vetting the candidate and spared the governor the embarrassment.

NOT A GREAT LOBBYIST

Palin racked up her legislative victories even though her allies in the Legislature criticized her lobbying effort. Here at the Daily News, we repeatedly heard the complaint: The governor is missing in action; her staffers aren't working the halls the way they should be.

Palin dislikes the give-and-take that usually helps smooth the way for political decisions. She states her case and expects legislators to base their actions on the merits of the issue.

FEARLESS, RIGHTEOUS

One of Gov. Palin's great strengths as a reformer also has a downside. She has a fervent sense of what's right and what's wrong and has little concern for political consequences. This fearless sense of righteousness has generally served her well -- as when she went after Alaska's arrogant and corrupt Republican political establishment.

But Alaskans have seen in Troopergate how this part of Palin's character can be a weakness too. In Palin's mind, her ex-brother-in-law was a violent, intimidating, irresponsible person who has no business being a state trooper. And she's right about that. But she had no sense of how continuing to push her concerns as governor might lead to political, or even legal, trouble.

BIPARTISANSHIP

One big surprise about Palin's term as governor: She has been thoroughly bipartisan. Her most reliable supporters on her big three accomplishments have been Democrats. The partisan side that Palin showed in her acceptance speech Thursday is something Alaskans haven't seen in her time as governor.

Earlier this year, Palin told a cable news interviewer that somebody is going to have to tell her "what it is exactly that the VP does." In some ways, the vice president's job is a perfect fit for her. She wouldn't have to run the country. She could focus on a handful of high-profile issues, inspire people with her passion and star power, and try to accomplish a few great things.

The big question is whether she'd be ready to take over as president should 72-year-old John McCain die in office. Gov. Palin doesn't have the typical resume of a vice-presidential candidate -- but she does have proven leadership skills, and she has two months to demonstrate them to the country.

BOTTOM LINE: Palin is strong on vision and rallying public support; she's not so strong on the detailed work of governance.
- http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/518451.html
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUttfiYl4UQ

Man, why do we have to focus on such stupid ##### in the news?

Why isn't anything of substance discussed?


She scares the crap out of me though. I believe in the seperation of church/mosque/Synagogue and state. I believe the teachings of religion are good, but well, too many times people have turned greed and made it look like a religious virtue.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

AAAhmed46 wrote:
She scares the crap out of me though. I believe in the seperation of church/mosque/Synagogue and state. I believe the teachings of religion are good, but well, too many times people have turned greed and made it look like a religious virtue.
I hear you, Adam.

We all know where she comes from. She was born a Catholic, and now is a non-denominational Christian. (See the Wiki biography on her that one of her handlers carefully edited.) She has certain religious beliefs. They happen to be prevalent beliefs in the central part of the US. She has shown in the past that she can rally social conservatives with her beliefs, and yet has shown she can put those beliefs aside to compromise on important issues (like the deal-making for the Alaska pipeline).

What kind of person would get elected to be leader of Iraq? Pakistan?

I don't know of any politician out there who doesn't has a belief that I have to hold my nose over.

It's a big game ALL these politicians are playing to get elected. How can I rally "the base"? That means getting certain groups we may not like to get off their butts and vote. Without rallying that base, you won't get elected.

Problem is... the myriad "base" groups aren't moderate. You've got granola eaters, right-to-lifers, tree huggers, creationists, believers in government-run health care, rednecks, etc., etc., etc.

Most of us could never be politicians. It's difficult herding all those cats.

It's much more fun being a late-night comic. So much material; so little time... 8)

Image

- Bill
User avatar
mhosea
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Post by mhosea »

Bill Glasheen wrote:
AAAhmed46 wrote:
She scares the crap out of me though. I believe in the seperation of church/mosque/Synagogue and state. I believe the teachings of religion are good, but well, too many times people have turned greed and made it look like a religious virtue.
I hear you, Adam.
I'm very much for secular government as well. If I thought Palin would be a theocrat, I'd be against her, but, to the contrary, I haven't seen any indication yet that the way Palin applies her religious thinking is theocratic in nature. I think it was one of the articles that Adam cited earlier that pointed out that she resisted some effort to make bars close earlier. Leaders should have a moral compass, a set of principles adhered to, lest reason degrade into that so human of talents--rationalization.
Mike
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

If she were a theocrat, I think the Anchorage news would have tarred and feathered her. They didn't.

I agree with Bill that just because a politician believes something, doesn't mean we're going to have to swear to their religion just to get a paycheck and our kids through school.
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

No, having an evangelical president hasn't meant that. It has meant:

* nonsense about HPV vaccination

* nonsense about abstinence only education--a cause of both babies and straight-up dead people, because funding restrictions have prevented the message from getting out in Africa, where people are being told to Nancy Reagan the sex on their dates, or in the evening with their ? HIV+ spouses who use prostitutes. Yikes. Stupidity kills.

* SCOTUS changes. People will eventually find Roe v Wade overturned or further blurring of the church-state distinction if one party, and in particular one fundamentalist religion, appoints all the judges.

* complete certainty where uncertainty and self doubt should rule. Presidents need to act, but they ought not believe they were chosen by God to fight just wars in the holy land. That kind of pseudocertainty terrifies me. i have to make decisions at work that affect people's health and lifespan, sometimes with limited information. I have no trouble actually acting, but at every step I question my decisions and worry if I've made the right choice. I stop and ask other people, "tell me what I'm missing / doing wrong." GW on the other hand surrounds himself with yes men and has strict criteria for service that have more to do with ideology than qualification. This was, afterall, the administration that was sending college students who had to wait for their new passports over to head projects in Iraq because they said their were pro-life in interviews. Such was the overconfidence in that project that key errors were made, an insurgency was armed and allowed to snowball, and thousands and thousands of young american men and women are dead, many more Iraqis are dead, and we've made new enemies throughout the world. Jesus Christ.... save me from your followers (some of them). At least I got a laugh reviewing clips of Bush promising to be the consensus builder in his convention speech years ago; he's been a very divisive leader.

I hear Lincoln used to fill his cabinet with people of opposing views to challenge his logic and keep him on his toes and free of blinders. Sigh.
--Ian
User avatar
TSDguy
Posts: 1831
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am

Post by TSDguy »

Actually Bush has unified the country... he has 75% percent against him. Way to take one for the team. :lol:
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

IJ wrote:No, having an evangelical president hasn't meant that. It has meant:

* nonsense about abstinence only education--a cause of both babies and straight-up dead people, because funding restrictions have prevented the message from getting out in Africa, where people are being told to Nancy Reagan the sex on their dates, or in the evening with their ? HIV+ spouses who use prostitutes. Yikes. Stupidity kills.
The situation has improved in Africa. Want improvement beyond that? Make African countries buy their own damned condoms. We're told time and again that we can't change arabic culture to get beyond the constant inter-clan fighting. Yet these same people think we can change African culture? Can't have it both ways, Ian. Handing out condoms to idiots who won't use them is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
* SCOTUS changes. People will eventually find Roe v Wade overturned or further blurring of the church-state distinction if one party, and in particular one fundamentalist religion, appoints all the judges.
I think you realize that nowhere in the constitution is there a privacy clause of the kind that would make abortion protected. I think the issue does need to be revisited in a meaningful manner. Besides, everyone on both tickets is from a different denomination from the sitting president, and you could hardly call them 'fundamentalist.'
I hear Lincoln used to fill his cabinet with people of opposing views to challenge his logic and keep him on his toes and free of blinders. Sigh.


Actually, I read he filled his cabinet with people of opposing views from eachother, to keep them off-balance and less interfering in his job. Something very necessary for a president without a major party backing.
User avatar
mhosea
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Post by mhosea »

IJ wrote:GW on the other hand surrounds himself with yes men and has strict criteria for service that have more to do with ideology than qualification.
I think this is a valid criticism and much more to the point of what's been disconcerting about his presidency than his evangelical faith.
At least I got a laugh reviewing clips of Bush promising to be the consensus builder in his convention speech years ago; he's been a very divisive leader.
Having lived in Texas during his governorship, I actually believed him based on his record. It was, to me, credible, despite a few warning signs by the occasional disgruntled democratic state legislator who felt there wasn't any real give there. At any rate, the results speak for themselves.
Mike
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

A long war will divide any population.

Here's the thing to consider though. As divisive as Bush has been, he is a 2-term president. Jimmy Carter couldn't do that. W's dad couldn't do that. In spite of the presidency appearing to be their race to lose, the Democrats weren't able to come up with someone to beat GW in 2004.

It's partly the sign of the times. Remember how polarized the population was in 2004? As much as some folks hated GW, Michael Moore et al scared a good chunk of the population as well. As crazy as it seems, the man who barely won in 2000 won by a bigger narrow margin in 2004. Go figure...

The good news about 2008 is that the war appears to be winding down (no longer a top campaign issue), and folks appear to be approaching November with the rational side of their brains.

- Bill
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

Bill Glasheen wrote:
The good news about 2008 is that the war appears to be winding down (no longer a top campaign issue), and folks appear to be approaching November with the rational side of their brains.
Amen.
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”