Just to keep things focused.
I find it interesting that whereas Obama picked a running mate who complemented the shortcomings in his slate–someone with a good deal of experience in foreign relations, for instance–McCain chose someone who will appeal to disenfranchised voting bases from both sides: to women who will see an opportunity to put a female a heartbeat from the presidency (and with a president of McCain’s years, that takes on a serious reality) after Hillary’s campaign ended in flames, and to the conservative base who will embrace a bottom half of the ticket who is apparently somewhere to the right of John Wayne.
The easy answer, of course, is that women won’t support her because she’s anti-abortion. Except there happen to be plenty of women who are likewise anti-abortion–yes, even Democrats–and therefore won’t find that a turnoff.
Frankly, I think Palin was a nervy choice that could reap serious benefits. And the timing of the announcement knocked all the post-convention attention away from Obama and onto McCain, which will now build as they roll into the GOP convention.
Personally, I find the notion of an anti-abortion, pro-drilling, pro-creationism, anti-animal protection vice president to be nothing short of terrifying. Then again, anyone that the extreme right embraces is by definition terrifying.
PAD
• 
It’s not just bogus, it’s impossible. Look at the birthdate vs. the start of Buffy the series; it’s years off.>/i>
So it’s probably that I’m wrong about Shakespeare ripping off the writer of WEST SIDE STORY as well?
Well, unless your theory includes Shakespeare getting some help from a bloke in a flying blue box…
Lupo, I think Palin *is* a beautiful woman. Granted, I’m not attracted to women, but if I ask myself “Would I wish to look like her?” I’d say: “Yes, why not?” I give her a 7. And that is pretty high for a politician.
I think Obama is attractive too, though he is a little too thin for my tastes.
She’s still welcome to plunder my natural resources.
Oh, I think some people find that elitist and arrogant.
From news anchor to vice presidential nominee…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bza63nnqiKA
😉
Sports anchor and PTA mom aside, I’m just afraid that if we dig into her governing style and record, we’ll find someone who’s arbitrary, petty and small minded. Her looks, her children are all SMALL stuff. Firing people who didn’t vote for her, misplaced priorities in the state budget, running up government debts while raising taxes are bigger things to be concerned about.
Roger Tang: “Oh, I think some people find that elitist and arrogant.”
Yes, there are people like that. They haven’t tried to think in their own lives, so they make themselves feel better about that by taking pride in how ignorant they are. In some areas they’ll say that the smart guy is “putting on airs.” In other places they’ll say that they are “keeping it real.” It’s so bizarre that people take pride in being ignorant.
Oh, and dangerous. When we’re electing a leader, it’s bizarre and dangerous.
Wait a minute, am I to understand that Palin is being sold as qualified because she has a child with Down’s Syndrome? That this is her 4 month old?
The distrust of intelligence is another aspect of the distrust of “secularism” that came into vogue in this decade. Meaning, if you got good, old-fashioned faith, you don’t need fancy words, and a skeptical, rational mind is akin to a sin.
Manny: “Wait a minute, am I to understand that Palin is being sold as qualified because she has a child with Down’s Syndrome? That this is her 4 month old?”
Uhm… no. No one is “selling” Palin that way. Some parents of children with Down Syndrome, including conservative columnist George Will, hope that Palin can help raise awareness about the condition. Who with a human heart can blame them? But that’s a far cry from using it as a “selling point.”
Bringing up her disabled child in the context of this discussion is insensitive and unnecessary.
It’s not an experience issue, other than it being an “experience” that she shares with other families of Down’s syndrome kids.
However, there is a little spin attached to it. Some people are saying that it is a sign of just how Pro-Life she is. She had an amniocentesis and knew her child would be born with Down’s syndrome, but didn’t abort. The Right to Life people see that as a sign that she more than just talk on the issue.
Bill, I apologize if I gave unintentional offense.
My comment is rooted in my inwilling and unfortunately limited access to current news. Because of a glitch in my cable service, the only news I am getting is some right wing AM station that is making huge hay about how her child’s condition somehow proves she is going to be ready to step in if McCain dies in office.
Additionally, because I spend way to much time in truckstops, where the televisions are usually set on Fox News (gag), the various shouters there have been bringing it up, and have been somehow equating it to her ability to govern.
I apologize for th tone of my post. Upon rereading it, Bill, Ya got me.
Manny: “Upon rereading it, Bill, Ya got me.”
I didn’t realize any pundits were touting her child as evidence of her readiness. That’s as crass as suggesting she shouldn’t be campaigning because her child has Down Syndrome.
So no one got anyone. We’re even. 🙂
Palin’s child is part of her overall biography and as such is fair game for discussion to an extent. A candidate’s family life certainly provides an inkling (and ONLY an inkling) into who he or she is. But there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed.
I’m far less concerned about Palin’s family life than I am about her views on energy, which seem to amount to “oil is the future;” her lack of experience, which shoots to hëll McCain’s experience argument; and what this ill-considered move suggests about the kind of leader McCain is — or, in this case, isn’t.
There has been much talk about Obama’s sheen wearing off, yet people seem to give a free pass to McCain who has abandoned a great many principles in his race for power. The choice of Palin for veep demonstrates that McCain is no less prone to “playing politics” than Obama.
Her energy qualifications baffle me a little.
She knows oil. She definitely knows oil. Well, she definitely knows domestic oil issues, but that probably means she keeps up pretty well with foreign oil issues also.
However, I’ve seen several reporters talk about her being an energy expert. There’s more types of energy than oil, guys! If we ever want to get to a point where a war in Georgia or a storm that destroys oil rigs don’t send gas prices shooting up, we definitely need to improve those other energy sources. At this point, I wouldn’t call someone an energy expert who is only an expert in oil.
Bill, ya still winged me ;P. I think the pundits were using the story to hilight her pro life credibility, and by implication, her qualification as veep.
I think McCain is close to where Bob Dole was in his presidential run. He thinks it’s his turn, and he wants to make sure he gets his shot.
“Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at August 31, 2008 01:44 PM
Roger Tang: “Oh, I think some people find that elitist and arrogant.”
Yes, there are people like that. They haven’t tried to think in their own lives, so they make themselves feel better about that by taking pride in how ignorant they are. In some areas they’ll say that the smart guy is “putting on airs.” In other places they’ll say that they are “keeping it real.” It’s so bizarre that people take pride in being ignorant.
Oh, and dangerous. When we’re electing a leader, it’s bizarre and dangerous.”
I have to admit that I have encountered elitism and arrogance, and stupidity born out of arrogant elitism, in the left in my country.
But this is something you have to judge in a case by case basis. It would be foolish the reject something as elitist without examining it for its own sake. In any case, the statement Obama made that got him accused as being elitist was a little elitist — but I don’t think he was trying to be elitist. The opposite in fact. And as afr as I can tell, he doesn’t seem to me that elitist.
I have to say, the initial reaction to Palin has exposed some real ugliness in the minds of a lot of internet commentators. Not that this is any great revelation–some of the nicest people I’ve ever met have been from the net but some of the sorriest scumbags have also been from it. Nature of the beast, I guess–people whose loathsome personalities would probably make them unlikely to get the opportunity to interact with decent folk have just as much opportunity on the web as those with something worth saying. But you learn to take the bad with the good.
What is surprising is when someone like Alan Colmes–not usually a foaming mouthed hater–sees fit to post something on his blog critiquing Palin for improper pre-natal care for her Downs Syndrome baby, then, when he is predictably called on the carpet for it, erasing the past and blaming those who commented for being vicious–an n act of pure moral cowardice.
When people sell their souls for the price of a cheap political point–worth less than a cup of coffee in my book–they ought to be creamed for it. Especially by the people who agree with their overall political points.
When the ex-chair of the DNC Don Fowler is caught on tape saying “The hurricane’s going to hit New Orleans about the time they start. (laughs) The timing is — at least it appears now that it’ll be there Monday. That just demonstrates that God’s on our side.(laughs some more) you have to just hope that somebody is willing to demand he apologize, or better yet, go away for a while…but more likely the typical reaction will be something like “Hey, some idiot at Focus For The Family asked people to pray for rain when Obama spoke so it’s all good.”
It’s sad that people feel they can get away with this kind of grotesque behavior. Sadder still, they are probably correct.
I’ve heard elsewhere that Palin is an energy expert, so that could be a big plus for her. I’ve not seen anything to go either way myself, so that’s still in the “something I heard” pile.
Unfortunately, that’s so much of what politics has become. Or maybe it always was. “Well, you know what I heard about YOUR guy? Woman? Whatever?”
“What about the magazine Getting Someone Fired for Flimsy Reasons-boy? The one with the person getting fired for flimsy reasons of the month centerfolds?”
Ya know, all of a sudden, every conversation I’ve ever had with Micha makes sense. And, my friend, I don’t know that an action figure of cereal box would sell all that well.
As a slight divergence, I found it amusing that both George W. Bush and Ðìçk Cheney are skipping the Republican National Convention. Officially, the reason is so they help coordinate the responce to hurricant Gustav. Realistically, I think it’s an attempt to keep opponents from further tying McCain to W., as having Georgie on stage talking about how great McCain is wouldn’t resonate well with the percentage of Americans who disapprove of George W. (What’s his disapproval rating — 70%? 80%?) Reminds me of a joke from SNL’s Weekend Update a few years ago: “Sixty percent of Americans have given George W. Bush a negative approval rating. The other forty percent believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.”
His disapproval ratings aren’t quite that high, James — most polls I see have his approval in the high 20s / low 30s, with disapproval in the low 60s.
Not good, mind you, but I don’t want to overstate things.
TWL
Posted by Bill Mulligan:
It’s sad that people feel they can get away with this kind of grotesque behavior. Sadder still, they are probably correct.
The lovely Michael Moore has also come out with his own praise for God on Keith Overblown’s show saying something along the lines of. “Gustav is proof that there is a God in Heaven.”
He did go on to say he hopes no one gets hurt…..
Bush and Cheny skipping the convention may be advantageous to McCain, but it’s still the right thing to do. During Katrina Bush was on vacation. He stayed on vacation for another two days after it hit. He dámņ well better be working this time.
Wow. A lot of points here, which is to be expected. So I’ll summarize mine.
1.)Palin definitely does represent an opportunity to appeal to women voters. A woman I met Friday said she doesn’t feel Obama is ready to be Commander-In-Chief, that McCain is and that she is impressed by Palin. A blonde female employee at a Chinese reaturant I went to today came up to me because she saw I was READING about Palin and said how excited she was, how she had backed Hillary because she’s a woman but would now back McCain because he picked Palin. One of my friends in Florida called and said she had “thought McCain was just some old codger” but would now vote for him because she was impressed with his pick of Palin. These type of feelings may be more broad than many of you think.
2.)To many, this marks the return of the “maverick” McCain people – especially independents and Democrats – liked about McCain back in 2000. At the same time, it energizes the conservative base. If that’s not a masterstroke, I don’t know what is.
3.) Rather than a “hotheaded”, “desperate” decision, if Palin continues to perform well it will strengthen McCain’s argument that he thinks “outside the box”. And Bill Mulligan, with the major problems we face, I don’t see that as a minus. Why not dare to do great things?
4.) Palin’s record is actualy impressive and should appeal to those on both sides of the aisle who care about things like taking on corruption.
Few states – maybe Jersey – are as corrupt as Alaska has been. She took on the hierarchy in Alaska and defeated the incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski in a GOP primary. The Murkowski family and the family of Senator Ted Stevens have run Alaska for decades. Frank was a Senator, then gave that up to run for Governor and into that seat slid his daughter lisa, who the people then elected.
Want an idea of how hard it was for Palin to defeat Murkowski for governor? The disgraced and indicted Stevens just won his primary for re-election! So Palin obviously knows how to campaign and do battle with the big boys.
5.) Yes, she wants to drill for oil. Obviously, she feels giving working families more oil to heat their homes so thay don’t freeze and fill their tanks more cheaply so they can do more with their paycheck is more important than the concerns of radical environmentalists. This is one issue the Republicans are pounding the Democrats on.
6.) At the same time, she uncovered Republican corruption in the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which she had been appointed to lead. She reported the violations of ethical regulations by her co-commissioner – who also happened to be the Republican Party state chairman. barred by state law from from going public with her charges, she quit and revealed her accusations. She was vindicated when her co-commissioner agreed to pay a $12,000 fine for breaking the state ethics law.
7.) She took on the state attorney general over his corruption and forced hime to resign.
8.) Isn’t that the type of “change” we need? Someone who will stand up for what is right regardless of party? This reinvigorates McCain’s claim to be a reformer and different from Bush. As Ðìçk Morris put it: “Her appointment demonstrates the crucial flaw in the Democratic attack on McCain: the accusation that he is another George W. Bush. Bush chose Cheney. McCain chose Palin. That’s emblematic of the difference between them.”
That’s all for now.
.) Palin’s record is actualy impressive and should appeal to those on both sides of the aisle who care about things like taking on corruption.
Actually, I’m concerned she’s can fight corruption aimed at her, but would engender a little corruption herself. Firing a police chief and a librarian for supporting the person she defeated (and supposedly lying about ti) seems to be less than right.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at August 31, 2008 11:43 PM
“1.)Palin definitely does represent an opportunity to appeal to women voters. A woman I met Friday said she doesn’t feel Obama is ready to be Commander-In-Chief, that McCain is and that she is impressed by Palin. A blonde female employee at a Chinese reaturant I went to today came up to me because she saw I was READING about Palin and said how excited she was, how she had backed Hillary because she’s a woman but would now back McCain because he picked Palin. One of my friends in Florida called and said she had “thought McCain was just some old codger” but would now vote for him because she was impressed with his pick of Palin. These type of feelings may be more broad than many of you think.”
Jerome, you are to right. Anyone who casts their vote based on race, gender, religion, or ethnicity is voting based on their prejudices and will get the leadership they deserve.
“2.)To many, this marks the return of the “maverick” McCain people – especially independents and Democrats – liked about McCain back in 2000. At the same time, it energizes the conservative base. If that’s not a masterstroke, I don’t know what is.”
I don’t know haw “maverick” the choice is. Beyond the possibilty of the first female veep, it seems more like an attempt to go “so nyah” to the dems. She will energize the neo-con base, but the term masterstroke will have to wait until after the debates. If Biden chews her up and spits her out, she could become the new Dan Quayle.
“3.) Rather than a “hotheaded”, “desperate” decision, if Palin continues to perform well it will strengthen McCain’s argument that he thinks “outside the box”. And Bill Mulligan, with the major problems we face, I don’t see that as a minus. Why not dare to do great things?”
McCain may think outside the box, but Palin seems very comfortable in the Bush hard right conservative box. I see her more as an attempt to appeal to those religious conservatives that are still p.o.’ed with being called “agents of intolerance”, as well as siphoning some disgruntled Hillary supporters. However, Hillary’s speech may minimize that effect.
“4.) Palin’s record is actualy impressive and should appeal to those on both sides of the aisle who care about things like taking on corruption.
Few states – maybe Jersey – are as corrupt as Alaska has been.”
Ever been to Louisiana? ;b
I am hearing some stories that seem to paint Palin as somewhat vindictive. If true, they are very disturbing.
“5.) Yes, she wants to drill for oil. Obviously, she feels giving working families more oil to heat their homes so thay don’t freeze and fill their tanks more cheaply so they can do more with their paycheck is more important than the concerns of radical environmentalists. This is one issue the Republicans are pounding the Democrats on.”
However, the Rebuplicans are not insisting that the oil companies develop the 70 million acres already under lease. Her oil industry past is showing. The last thing needed is another administration beholden to big oil.
The type of change neede is for someone willing to tell the voters a few ugly truths.
1)There are no free lunches. If you want security, cheap energy, infrastructure, and kids able to read beyond a fifth grade level, it’s gonna cost, and the money’s gotta come from somewhere.
2)There were a finite number of dinosaurs, ergo there is a finite supply of oil. The time to but money into alternate fuels and cheap mass transit was 30 years ago. Any one who says the oil situation can be solved by drilling is living an illusion.
3)The technology for large scale wind and solar farms has been around for decades. The technology for large scale geothermal energy has been aroung for years. What’s the delay?
Just my humble 2 bits.
The idea that Palin reinforces McCain’s “maverick” status is odd.
I get that nobody was expecting this. So in the sense that he did something wild and crazy, sure, that’s “maverick”.
But the other part of being a maverick is supposed to be going against your own side occasionally. Palin is a deeply religious oil expert who likes to go out in the woods and shoot things. How exactly is that a change from our current VP?
And it’s not even something that people are trying to hide. Some of the same people who are saying this is a maverick move by McCain are also saying that she appeals to the Republican base. Sometimes they say it in the same sentence.
It’s great that McCain is open to having a female VP, but I don’t think that’s enough to make him an actual maverick.
This all really saddens me. I used to like McCain a lot. Now he keeps finding new ways to make me lose respect for him.
And Bill Mulligan, with the major problems we face, I don’t see that as a minus. Why not dare to do great things?
McCain as president will face a overwhelmingly Democratic congress and senate. Also, the Democrats will be absolutely crazed by the fact that they lost a presidential election they had every reason to think would be a cakewalk. I see 4 years of paralysis. If Obama wins it will be a lot easier to get congress to do the right things.
On foreign matters I just don’t know if now is the time for taking chances and I see Obama as less of a risk taker than McCain, the way both handled their choices for VP shows that.
I can see where you can make a perfectly valid argument the other way but as of now I’m leaning toward Obama. Let’s see what happens in the debates.
Manny,
“Jerome, you are too right. Anyone who casts their vote based on race, gender, ethnicity is voting based on their prejudices and will get the leadership they deserve.”
First, let me say I’m glad you responded to so many of my points. It shows you really care. I respect that. As for the point above, I agree…to some extent. The problem is the education system and media in this country have failed miserably in educating people in how government really works, what the true significance of legislation is, etc. the result is many people feel “all politicians are the same”; “they’re going to do what they want when they get in anyway”; “they’re not going to do anything for me anyway”, etc.
So if so many people grow up thinking “it doesn’t matter who you put in”, then unless you feel strongly about an issue or two, it becomes natural for people to vote for others who they feel share the same life experiences.
2.) “I don’t know how ‘maverick’ the choice is. Beyond the possibility of the first female veep, it seems more like an attempt to go “so nyah” at the Dems.”
No. She is a reformer and conservative who will reinforce the fact that Obama has spent the last two years stopping a woman from becoming president and now he is going to spend the next two months stopping a woman from becoming Vice-President. Many women are going to say “here we go again” and resent this. Obama could have taken the issue off the table by picking a female veep himself – who was not Hillary – and made his a truly historic ticket.
He failed to do so. McCain did. Many Independent women are unlikely to forget that.
“She will energize the neo-con base”
This term is horribly misused. A neo-con is not someone beholden to James Dobson or Big Oil. Neo-cons believe in a very aggressive foreign policy to promote and advance American interests and power, which could involve strong actions against Iran, for example. As of yet, she has yet to demonstrate an appeal to those voters. As of yet, she has demonstrated an apeal to evangelicals and those who favor limited government.
“But the term masterstroke will have to wait until after the debates”
Well, I certainly it was a masterstroke right now.
“If Biden chews her up and spits her out, she could become the new Dan Quayle.”
Yes, that is a possibility. How about these: That the media portrays her so much as Danielle Quayle that she blows everybody away because of the expectations, that Biden is really tough on her and creates a backlash or that she really kicks his ášš to the point where Obama thins to himself, “Ðámņ. Why didn’t I pick HER?”
From what I’ve heard, she’s supposed to be an excellent debater.
“McCain may think outside the box, but Palin seems very comfortable in the hard-right conservative box”
Which is what he needs. Also, if you consider hard-right to be anti-abortion, a hunter, and someone who wants to drill for more oil, where about half of America can relate/agree with her on all those issues.
“Hillary’s speech may minimize that effect”
To a small degree. I still don’t see her helping Obama out a lot from now on, though.
“Few states – maybe Jersey – are as corrupt as Alaska has been”
“Ever been to Louisiana?”
No. And good point:)
“However, the Republicans are not insisting that the oil companies develop the 70 million acres already under lease.”
Because the oil companies say they don’t want to drill in certain areas because the amount of oil do to updated surveys is not worth it. Would you rather the Oil Companies drill on land where they don’t feel they would get a significant return just because they own it? How is that environmental?Or economical? It’s like a collection agency that buys $40 million worth of paper, but as part of the package, they get call small, 20 year-old accounts they have no info on or ability to sue in order to get the plum accounts that are large, can be sued, do have info, etc. Which accounts are you going to devote the majority of your resources to?
“The last thing we need is another administratio beholden to big oil”
And McCain has blasted oil companies (unfairly, in my opinion) and Palin has taken on Big Oil as Governor. So why wouldn’t you want that?
Palin is a deeply religious oil expert who likes to go out in the woods and shoot things. How exactly is that a change from our current VP?
She’s got better aim.
Posted by Jerome Maida at September 1, 2008 03:54 AM
No. She is a reformer and conservative who will reinforce the fact that Obama has spent the last two years stopping a woman from becoming president and now he is going to spend the next two months stopping a woman from becoming Vice-President. Many women are going to say “here we go again” and resent this. Obama could have taken the issue off the table by picking a female veep himself – who was not Hillary – and made his a truly historic ticket.
He failed to do so. McCain did. Many Independent women are unlikely to forget that.
Obama did not spend two years keeping lots of people from being president. It just happens that the last. and highest ptofile one was a woman. I am fairly certain that if we were dicussing Dem Candidate Clinton, we would be debating the merits of an African American GOP veep candidate.
His decision not to nominate Hillary was political. The GOP hates Clinton with a passion. Her husband managed that Holy Grail of conservative economic dogma, balanced budgets, surpluses and economic prosperity, all with moderate taxation.
He and his advisors also knew that an African American president and woman as veep would be to many firsts on one ticket.
Clinton would be a more useful ally in a high cabinet post, or retaining her Senate seat for the duration of her term.
“And McCain has blasted oil companies (unfairly, in my opinion) and Palin has taken on Big Oil as Governor. So why wouldn’t you want that?”
And, despite that, they are still giving ExxonMobil et. al. exactly what they have wanted. If the unfair blasting you are referring to is in regard to constant record profits and bonuses despite the cost of crude, IMHO McCain hasn’t blasted nearly enough.
I’m no economist, but I believe when the cost of your largest single raw material sky rockets, either your profits drop, or they remain static.
Setting record quarterly profits in the wake of Katrina smacks of profiteering and gouging.
“This term is horribly misused. A neo-con is not someone beholden to James Dobson or Big Oil. Neo-cons believe in a very aggressive foreign policy to promote and advance American interests and power, which could involve strong actions against Iran, for example. As of yet, she has yet to demonstrate an appeal to those voters. As of yet, she has demonstrated an apeal to evangelicals and those who favor limited government.”
The neo-con social agenda seems to please Dobson. Pro-life, anti-gay marriage, intelligent design as science.
The first truly neo-con administration was stuffed with former Big Oil people, and under this administration B.O. has enjoyed unprecedented tax breaks and Administration access.
Aggressive foreign policy to advance American interests is what got the US into the mess it’s in now.
“Would you rather the Oil Companies drill on land where they don’t feel they would get a significant return just because they own it?”
I would rather the oil companies didn’t drill at all. I would rather see money put into serious alternate power networks, and let the oil boys either get on board or sink.
Well, it looks like I was wrong on something again. Someone, I think Bill Mulligan, suggested that McCain would claim that Palin *was* experienced because Executive Experience is twice as good as Senate Experience.
He didn’t make it exactly that way, but he is tauting her experience. When asked why, he says it is because she was an executive. So he’s just letting it be unsaid that 2 years as Govenor is worth more than 4 years in the US Senate.
The audacity of that claim still blows my mind. Again, it seems like such a transparent political argument, yet I can’t say it won’t work.
Bill Mulligan is considering Obama in spite of my public championing of him? Do you folks now see how awesome Obama is?
A woman or a black man in the highest offices of the country already are potent social messages in themselves. I can see why someone could vote based on that fact only, and I would not criticize them for it.
Still, if you’re a voter interested in equality and civil rights, far more important than a candidate’s race or gender, is said candidate’s VIEWS on race and gender.
For instance, I would never vote on a gay candidate that were also a Christian than advocated sexual abstinence for gays and stuff like that.
I would think Palin’s hardline Christian views would turn at least a portion of her potential female support base off. Granted, I’m not familiar with all her views, except that she is Pro-Life and very religious.
Hmm. Didn’t know I had the power to terrify you so easily. 😉
I find it amazing how conservative views scare those on the “left.” Opposing the murder of an unborn child is scary? Being for drilling so that we can actually avoid another war in the Middle East because we have our own source of oil is frightening? Believing God created everything (a belief shared by many top scientists over the years who made many life changing discoveries) is in and of itself a problem? Being okay with hunting (the only thing I can figure out you mean by being against animal protection unless you mean the absurd claim that Polar bears are in danger — in spite of the growth in their population) is dangerous?
Any viewpoint can be taken to an extreme and become harmful, whether it is conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. I think some concepts in the Democratic party are quite important — things like a desire for justice, a belief in treating workers fairly, and caring for the poor. We just happen to disagree on the best way to accomplish some of these values.
Yes, I do embrace Sarah Palin. If you are looking for a real change from the corrupt nature of politics (on both sides of the aisle), Palin sure looks like a far better choice than Biden. So it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
I actually think McCain now stands a chance to win against Obama. Time will tell.
Iowa Jim
I think Creationism is relatively harmless, even a comforting idea. But I don’t think it’s harmless to introduce religious teachings in school. Kids must be taught religion at home and at Church, keep schools a completely neutral, secular ground for the interaction of people of various faiths and even people with no faith. Ironically, I do believe in the Conservative notion of a crash of civilizations. Ultimately we’ll have to choose which societal model to follow: secular or theocratic.
As for abortion, I have mixed feelings. Most Christian concerns on morality and sexuality look like control freakism to me, except for abortion. In abortion, the Pro-Life faction can make a good case that here there is actually someone innocent being victimized.
Honestly, I don’t know how to feel about that. On one side, I find the notion of abortion to be distasteful. On the other side, I’m very distrustful of Pro-Life people also wanting to push other related notions that I consider truly invasive of civil liberties, like banning birth control or recreational sex.
A) I wish more people on the right wings believed that.
B) I wish more folks used some reality based facts as welll. For example, belief i God is fine, but misusing science and distorting facts to support that belief is not.
It’s not the views that scare anyone Jim, it’s the single mindness behind them.
Like this one: Being for drilling so that we can actually avoid another war in the Middle East because we have our own source of oil is frightening
America has 3% of the oil in the world, but uses 25% of all oil produced. In the 1970s approximately 30% of our oil was imported, now it is over 65%. There is no chance that any amount of drilling would get us off foreign oil. ANWR and the proposed Gulf coast drilling combined wouldn’t be nearly enough.
Even if we did somehow manage to produce as much oil as a third of the rest of the world combined, we still wouldn’t be safe. Those middle east countries would still hate us and they’d still be getting gigantic gobs of money from all the other countries that buy their oil. Since the price of oil is four times what it was before 9/11, they could cut us off entirely and they’d still be making more money than they were 8 years ago just from what they sell to everyone else.
Yet you phrase it as this easy thing of “more drilling equals safe America.” It’s not the idea drilling that people fear, it’s that you’ve latched on to one tiny fact and ignored everything else. Huge mistakes are made that way.
“I would rather the oil companies didn’t drill at all”
And I would rather it not rain on my day off. Seriously, though, sometimes in order to get a desired result, you need to do something you may not be thrilled about.
“I would rather see money put into serious alternate power networks, and let the oil boys either get on board or sink”
#1, I don’t want the government dictating energy policy. They should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Just look at ethanol. Subsidies of that have been a major cause in food prices going up dramatically. Just because every candidate – including Obama, McCain and Biden – wants to kowtow to Iowa, we have a disastrous policy regarding that. And it turns out ethanol, actually uses more energy to make than it gives off.
And that’s one example of where the little people are hurting because the government mandated funding for “alternative energy”. Obama, Biden and McCain can all withstand the increased food prices – and Palin can just hunt a bit more:) – but the “little guy” is paying more for corn, flour, etc. These mistakes don’t hurt Big Oil. They hurt the little guy. All because government tried to pick a winner on energy policy that is turning out to be a disastrous turkey.
It will be a long time before alternative energy sources become more than that. In the meantime, to prevent us from using every bit of the resources we do have – like oil – because you would rather “save the earth” like Nancy Pelosi strikes me as disastrous for the American people. This means the guy in the pickup truck in rural America where they don’t even have cable and is getting killed by higher gas prices. He can’t just make a decision to get a hybrid and pat himself on the back and look trendy. What is he supposed to do?
Plus, with good-paying jobs supposedly vanishing it always amazes me when jobs that do pay well – on an oil rig at a pharmaceutical company, to name two – are always under attack and endangered by the Left because they feel the parent companies make “too much” money.
We can alleviate to at least a small degree the “pressure at the pump” if we drill where we know there will be oil. Also, many on this blog talk about America’s perception around the world. How do you think it looks when we ask, say, Saudi Arabia, to increase their oil production when we won;t do everything to increase our own?
Finally, blasting oil companies because they want to produce more oil and demanding they invest in “alternative sources” of energy is like asking McDonald’s to stop selling hamburgers, because, you know, turkey sandwiches are healthier for the American people and they should really start selling them. The scary thing is, some people might actually think that’s a good and proper idea.
And the policy we have right now is kinda disastrous as well. The free market isn’t a magical decision maker; it has its drawbacks as well, which we’re seeing.
Supply really isn’t going to go up, but demand certainly will. You can either plan for a changeover, or you can let the changeover plan for you, but a changeover is going to come.
Personally, I’d like to be in control, but that’s just me…
Posted by: Jerome Maida at September 1, 2008
12:43 PM
“Finally, blasting oil companies because they want to produce more oil and demanding they invest in “alternative sources” of energy is like asking McDonald’s to stop selling hamburgers, because, you know, turkey sandwiches are healthier for the American people and they should really start selling them. The scary thing is, some people might actually think that’s a good and proper idea”
Sort of. McDonald’s is a restaurant chain, they serve food. The nature of the food, within the context of cheap family dining, should be irrelevant. 30 years ago, Rude Ronnie’s serving salads, wraps and yogurt would have been unthinkable. Look at their menu now. Similarly, ExxonMobil is an energy company. They’ve just over specialized in one area. Better to make the inevitable change at a safe pace than in a panic.
When children can be used as hostages by bloodsucking áššhølëš to discourage divorce or control a mother who hasn’t had the opportunity to build a decent work history, yeah, scary might qualify.
Hows this for irony
Gov. Palin’s 17 year old daughter is pregnant and is planning to marry the father
From my research over the last few days, in addition to what has been coming out re: Gov. Palin, I am now convinced that the obituary of this campaign will end up being: PALIN ’08 = EAGLETON ’72
Guess that abstinence only sex education is working…
(Seriously, I don’t get that. Sex education should be about the biology and mechanics [as it were]. Morals should be taken care of in the home. Why try to mix? Are abstinence only proponents trying to foist responsibility off on others?)
Maybe, Daemsonson. However, as Chuck Todd likes to point out, there are other comparisons.
1968: Spiro Agnew was a surprising VP pick for the Republicans. They won.
1988: Dan Quayle was a surprising VP pick for the Republicans. They won.
2008: Sarah Palin is a surprising VP pick for the Republicans.
They seem to be hoping that this is a 20 year cycle.
…which is, of course, the hope of the Hillary-holdouts for their daughters.
Go fundamentalist-friendly abstinence programs! Whooo!
“I find it amazing how conservative views scare those on the “left.”
Let’s review:
1 “Opposing the murder of an unborn child is scary?”
Obviously that’s the issue in debate. I think the main fear is not the debated belief that abortion is wrong, but the wish to make it illegal. The fear is that this would result in either (a) the birth of unwanted children by people who are ill equipped to care for them; (b) worse, women getting unsafe illegal abortions.
(2) “Being for drilling so that we can actually avoid another war in the Middle East because we have our own source of oil is frightening?”
I don’t see the relation between not drilling and wars in the middle east. But I think the main fears are: (a) that drilling will cause environmental harm with out actually improving the the situation it is supposed to improve; (b) drilling delaying again the development of alternative energy sources, thus continuing the dependence on oil.
3) “Believing God created everything”
This philosophical or religious belief is not frightening at all. I think the fear is the introduction of religious beliefs into and instead of the teaching of the science. Where I live there is no constitutional seperation of church and state, and I stil would be concerned if religion was taught instead of science.
4) “Being okay with hunting (the only thing I can figure out you mean by being against animal protection”
You answered that one yourself. I think we can al agree that some animals need to be protected from hunting to prevent extinction, while others do not.
“Any viewpoint can be taken to an extreme and become harmful, whether it is conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc.”
True. That’s why debate and balancing, and understanding opposite point of view is preferable.
“I actually think McCain now stands a chance to win against Obama. Time will tell.”
Her choice certainly gave McCain a needed boost, at least for the short term. And since both candidates are so close, that boost might win him the election. Obama will have to pick up some speed to catch up. McCain also has the advantage that he has only two months that he and Palin need to avoid making the inevitable mistakes and keep their newly aquired momentum. But still, a lot can happen in two months.
Re: free market.
I think we all support Market economy. But I agree with Roger, it shouldn’t be deified. If we agree that the government should interfere in order to protect people from terrorism and hurricanes, shouldn’t it also interfere to deal with the dangers of economic storms and the dangers of the dependence on oil?
The vicious and absurd rumor about the “real” mother of Trig is just plain appalling. What is worse is when it is brought up on this site, it wasn’t more strongly denounced. It is just plain beyond belief that anyone would even start such an attack on Palin.
We now learn the daughter is currently pregnant, making the rumor obviously impossible. Nice. Take what should be a difficult but joyful event and make it into a media circus because of a vicious, uncalled for rumor.
On another note, to imply this shows abstinence teaching doesn’t work is both illogical and making a lot of assumptions. While admittedly not all the time, birth control does sometime fail (as a relative of mine well knows). The reality is, if two reproductively healthy people have sex, there is a risk of pregnancy. So abstinence is a logical option if you don’t want to get pregnant. (But we like having our cake and eating it too so denying oneself sex outside of marriage is no longer a valid option.)
Iowa Jim
Response to how opposing the murder of an unborn child can be seen as scary:
When children can be used as hostages by bloodsucking áššhølëš to discourage divorce or control a mother who hasn’t had the opportunity to build a decent work history, yeah, scary might qualify.
So would you take those children being used as hostages and kill them to solve the problem?
Look, I understand that having a child completely transforms a woman’s life. I understand that biologically it can seem “unfair” that the woman faces these issues while a man can go on his way none the worse for getting her pregnant (other than, maybe, paying child support). But to start there is to not deal with the root issue: Is abortion murder? If it is, then it really doesn’t matter how hard it makes someones life. Murder is murder. Period.
You don’t have to agree with me that an unborn child is exactly that — a child. But please don’t hide behind excuses like the ones you offered. Because if you are willing to sacrifice a child just to make life better, it becomes easier to tolerate other forms of injustice and abuse.
Iowa Jim