Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_bcspace]

As a registered Democrat voter for Obama in the primary, I can say that McCain probably gets my vote now.

Hint: excoriate me.

You've made the right choice, but probably for the wrong reasons seeing as how you were actually considering Obama in the first place.

[_moksha]

You've made the right choice, but probably for the wrong reasons seeing as how you were actually considering Obama in the first place.

Sometimes people are more comfortable with what they know, such as an extended continuation of the last four years rather than contemplating change.

[_aussieguy55]

You have to give it to Obama. He has everything thrown at him. Just watch Bill Kristal on Fox News (Fair and Balanced). O'Reilly gets stuck into him, talks over liberal reps and really swears (See the YouTube video). There is a Youtube video of Laura Ingram taking God's name in vain.
Its either his name, his associations, his not wearing a pin, the "terrorist jab", his wife was not proud of America. Sometimes I wonder why one would not be. You have slavery for a few hundred years, segregation and lynching for over another hundred years, what have you got to be proud of?

[_beastie]

All that being said, I'm not surprised that the "progressives" on Exmo-Social are as ill-informed, bigoted, and vile as they're letting themselves known to be these days. I've suspected for a while that White Leftists are probably the most racist and bigoted people on the planet, and they overcompensate for their racism with hyperbole and s****y politics. The proof is in the pudding. Any time an opposition party nominates or places a minority or woman into a position of power the first thing Leftists do is attack them on their appearance and all the associated stereotypes. It's pretty sick, frankly.

Of course the left is not immune to the same racist and bigoted tendencies that all people tend to suffer from. However, to assert that white leftists are worse than a certain element of the right wing (you know, the element that the south lost after civil rights, and who now cling to the republican party like a life raft) is to deny reality. I cannot believe you were unaware of the sexist tendency of some of the remarks launched towards Hillary. Did you not hear all the comments about her ankles and how she dresses? Nor can you be unaware of the racist underpinnings of some of the remarks aimed towards Obama (he's been called "uppity" in various ways without using the actual word). You live in the Bible belt like me, and in my part of the belt, the "good ole' boys" vote republican pretty much en masse.

Jason - there's a lot of ideology showing on this thread, not just mine, and I have been upfront in stating my own biases. There are others here who have not been quite so upfront, and are presenting themselves as some sort of objective witnesses. In regards to "troopergate", I already explained my concern, which I bolded in my first post on the topic. Palin did not adequately vet Kopp, and due to that fact, his appointment caused an uproar that, by her own admission, disrupted the government and resulted in his resignation two weeks later. Now Jack maintains that it "shouldn't be" this way (ignoring the fact that he was removed as the woman's boss and reprimanded, which does not indicate complete innocence), but this is the way public life is. Effective officials recognize this. Palin either did not properly vet him (my suspicion, based on her initial reaction), or she is too inexperienced to recognize the potential problems that could ensue.

Antishock - my frank opinion is that since you agree with me that the Iraq war is one of the - if not THE - biggest mistake our country has made, then you better think long and hard about voting for McCain, who not only is incapable of recognizing what a grave mistake it was, but who has shown desires to expand the same sort of military tactics elsewhere in the mideast. in my opinion, this possibility has more potential for harm for our country than anything else under discussion.

[_beastie]

As noted you set up false dichotomy. McCain has 28 years as a national legislator. That counts. Obama had 3 and two has been running for president.

Palin had two years as a governor and what, 6 as a Mayor. Now I am not that impressed by the time as a mayor but I am with her as a governor.

Obama has not executive experience and little national legislative. And keep in mind he is at the TOP of the ticket.

The dichotomy is specifically for people who insist that executive experience counts in some way that legislative experience does not. If you are going to hold that standard in comparing Palin to Obama, then fairness requires you to hold that standard while evaluating McCain's resume.

My main point in all this was to show how McCain can no longer use the "not enough experience" charge against Obama, since he has chosen someone with even less experience and declared her ready to be president.

I believe I am correct in this assertion, and have read various reports already stating that the McCain camp has decided to retire the "not enough experience" tactic. Ya think?

[_antishock8]

Well, reference John McCain and the Iraq war, this is precisely one of the reasons why I'm voting for him. No one can change the past, but we're there and we have to exit in a manner that is morally responsible to the Iraqi people now. After reading through the two platforms reference this issue I think Senator McCain will handle the exit better than Senator Obama.

McCain:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Iss ... 3F11D8.htm

Obama:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

My personal thoughts on this matter is that Senator Obama got this one right, but in reality both Senators were politicking. Senator Obama's constituents and associates, in addition to being strongly anti-American, racist, and Socialist were also very opposed to the war. From his community, through his church, and around his circle of political connections they were and are, almost to a last, very Left, very anti-Bush, and very anti-war. So, in typical fashion, Barack's vote wasn't so much a position of prescience, but a politically expedient one.

The same can be said of Senator McCain, except that it's my belief, regardless of the quotes one can dredge up that had he been Commander in Chief we would not be in Iraq. I think he would have opted for diplomacy and containment. The same can be said of Senator Kerry, Gore, and a host of other, better suited candidates for President (than Bush).

Reference the Southern racism comment you made, I'm not sure how you can, by inference, insinuate that in the South most of the racism lies with Conservatives. I may have misunderstood you. I'm not sure. The most vile and overt displays of racism come from the African-American community, probably since they feel secure enough to say and do things that make others cringe with discomfort; perhaps a result of being in a protected statues thanks to social norms designed by white people. In fact, I find it amusing that someone like myself can live in a neighborhood that logs in about 30% African-American, in addition to a host of other races, and not have a problem with it, but am quickly labeled a racist by enlightened whites who in word are open-minded, tolerant, and diverse but somehow, amazingly enough, choose to live amongst mostly white people.

White Liberals talk a good game, but they always want other people to live their version of reality. I don't see white editors of newspapers and other media giving their positions to Afrian-Americans, but they promote affirmative-action relentlessly. If they really believed what they preach they would cede their jobs, along with those nice paychecks, to the "oppressed" minorities who are victims of White Privilege and Instituional Racism. I don't see the majority of whites who shame and castigate others for perceived racial insensitivity living in "diverse" neighborhoods, sending their kids "diverse" public shools, or being in close/intimate relationships with non-whites.

Anyway, the hypocrisy, as I'm trying to point out, IS on both sides. by the way, isn't JC Watts a popular Congressman from Oklahoma? And a Republican? I think racial divisions are fading away. I think the "good old boys" are more concerned with their values, and if someone, regardless of color, will stand up for those values. Change is happening, but it comes slowly. And sometimes, as exemplified by Leftist hatred toward Governor Palin and Senator Clinton, all the sugarcoating and "open-minded, tolerant, and diverse" facades fall away and reveal the truly ugly face behind all the flattering words.

[_dartagnan]

The dichotomy is specifically for people who insist that executive experience counts in some way that legislative experience does not. If you are going to hold that standard in comparing Palin to Obama, then fairness requires you to hold that standard while evaluating McCain's resume.

I corrected this nonsense earlier. There are in fact degrees of qualification and experience. And notice how beastie ended her last comment without actually comparing McCain's resume to anyone else's. She just said "evaluating" it. We are in fact comparing resumes, and the fact is McCain's is more impressive than Obama's and Palin's is more impressive than Obama's as well. For beastie to sit there and continue to mitigate the meaning of executive experience when considering the possible executive position, is really indicative of her own ignorance and bias. Of course executive experience matters. Obama has none. McCain has none either, executive experience has never been a requirement nor is it the most common experience presidential candidates have.

But we are not talking about what is required, we are discussing who is more qualified in the race.

My main point in all this was to show how McCain can no longer use the "not enough experience" charge against Obama, since he has chosen someone with even less experience and declared her ready to be president.

Earth to stupid. He can use this argument because Palin does have more experience than Obama, and she isn't even running for President. Its the quality of experience that makes her background more attractive, not the quantity. There are too many career politicians who rack up years of experience doing virtually nothing. That doesn't make them qualified to lead the country unless they have taken leadership roles and have a record of leadership. Obama hasn't any, Palin has plenty. Period.

[_dartagnan]

This from April:

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said Sunday that the leader for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, would be "absolutely" qualified to be president, should the voters elect him. But, he said, "I believe that my talent and my background and my experience, which has led to my judgment, ... qualifies me more."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk ... ualif.html

Get it yet?

[_beastie]

Well, dart finally recognized my point, except of course he tried to obscure it with insults and diversions:

Of course executive experience matters. Obama has none. McCain has none either,

Now, his entire argument that Palin has more experience, which he repeats in this latest post, is entirely dependent upon weighting her brief executive experience (if we can agree that being mayor of a "city" of less than 6,000 is pretty insignificant in terms of presidential resumes). Yet, when discussing the fact that McCain has no executive experience, either, he says:

executive experience has never been a requirement nor is it the most common experience presidential candidates have.

Ya think? So then why do you, dart, suddenly emphasize the importance of executive experience only when comparing Palin to Obama???? When comparing Obama to McCain, suddenly you assert that it's not a requirement nor the most common experience.

"Earth to stupid". LOL. Dart, you've always had the gift of insult along with unwarranted arrogance.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said Sunday that the leader for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, would be "absolutely" qualified to be president, should the voters elect him. But, he said, "I believe that my talent and my background and my experience, which has led to my judgment, ... qualifies me more."

This conveniently ignores the "woefully unprepared" ads.

If you are actually going to pretend that McCain's camp has NOT used the lack of experience as a major attack, you are even less observant than I already suspected.

[_beastie]

Oh, the irony, the irony...

Face the Nation

(CBS) Republican strategist Karl Rove said on Face The Nation Sunday that he expects presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama to choose a running mate based on political calculations, not the person's readiness for the job.

"I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."

Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."

Rove continued: "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"

You just can't make this stuff up.