Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_bcspace]

Palin just passed the earmark section of Gibson's interview with flying colors.

Edit: She's kicking butt on the social issues questions too. I think I have some small nuanced differences on a couple of them, but she's just about the right kind of conservative.

by the way: Yes it IS sexist to be asked by a liberal if a woman who has children can hold a job or elective office. More than that, it is hypocritical.

[Guest]

McCain, by his own admission, agrees with Bush on all the important issues, and has voted with him over 90% of the time. Wow. That’s some change.

Of the time? What time? Last year or his entire tenure in office? Get your facts straight and consider that most of the voting last year has been on the Iraq situation, which many democrats agree also. You have to name specifics, not just vague statistics as if that makes an argument. This is such a lazy way to argue. Obama is more loyal to the far left than McCain could ever be to the right. "Change" anyone? Reaching out anyone? Not Obama. He's your typical partisan, and thyis is why he is regarded as the second most liberal politician in Washington. He knows where his loyalties lie. According to factcheck:

McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001)... [readers] may wish to consider that Obama's votes were in line with the president's position 40 percent of the time in 2007. That shouldn't be terribly surprising. Even the Senate's Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, voted with Bush 39 percent of the time last year, according to the way Congressional Quarterly rates the votes.

The McCain campaign points out that Obama told a local TV interviewer recently that "the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush." Obama was actually wrong about that. In 2006 he voted alongside the president 49 percent of the time, and in 2005, the year before Democrats took control of the Senate, Obama voted with the president only 33 percent of the time.

Also, Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006, according to CQ.

So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 95 percent of the time most recently, but less so in earlier years. And Obama has voted pretty close to 100 percent in line with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career.

Now that beastie has been forced to eat crow over Palin, she now turns to attack McCain for all sorts of stupid reasons that won't hold water. All the while giving Obama a pass and excusing his wrongs with a wave of your selectively forgiving hand. I mean, he's obviously not as religious as Palin, so she has to pick the lesser of two evils.

All politicians are conniving, to a certain extent.

Funny how you're forced to take this lame defense, now that you cannot answer for Obama's sins which exceed anything you've been able to dig up on Palin or McCain put together. This was similar to Obama refusing to admit he was wrong about the surge on O'Reilly. He had to say "we were all wrong" about it in order to make his stupidity seem not so stupid. This is just a typical exercise in cognitive dissonance. It isn't rational thinking, it is merely a confirmation bias run amuck, and you're doing the same thing but excusing Obama as the lesser of two evils.

But, in my view, McCain has out-whored them all. He is willing to do and say anything to get elected.

Evidence? You haven't presented any. All you've done is make broad generalizations and empty charges. When faced with specifics regarding Obama, you appeal to the lame "Oh all politicians are dirty" cop out. Let your brain get a little exercise and stop being lazy. Think!

Bush’s camp smeared McCain back in 2000 with disgusting, vile, behind the scenes phone attacks implying McCain had an illegitimate black daughter

Two things.
1. You don't know Bush had anything to do with this. It was a poll conducted by anonymous sources, which, unsurprisingly enough, is what you frequently rely on in your political rants. These are sources who are as connected to Bush as the anti-Palin scum on MTV are connected to Obama. Calling everything part of the "Bush camp" or "McCain camp" is just another lazy detour around critical thought.

2. How in the hell is this pointing to McCain the victim, evidence for McCain the "whore"? You're not even beginning to make any sense.

And McCain turns around and kisses this man’s arse afterwards.

Translation: McCain disagrees with you and your anonymous sources who insist it was Bush who designed these low blows, and that pisses you off, so you call him a whore. You're a real class act beastie. And it certainly flies in the face of your picture of McCain as a ill-tempered hot head. Wherever McCain goes, the guy comes across as sweet, reasonable and above all, forgiving - despite 35 years of opportunities to let his private side show on occasion; I mean who the hell has never yelled outloud? He's even willing to subject himself to a predictable mental gang rape by the cackling hens over at The View.

In 2000, he called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell agents of intolerance. Today, he not only kisses the arse of folks like Hagee, but actually changed his religion from Episcopalian to Baptist.

Do you have any earthly idea how simple minded you sound at this point? McCain says something you like by calling to a couple of televangelists intolerant, but because he doesn't condemn every single speaker that exists in the Evangelical Christianity as a whole, you think he is a hypocrite? And moving from one Protestant denomination to another is hardly "changing religions."

I know, first hand, that conservative Baptists tend to view Episcopalians as the equivalent of catholics, whom they barely accept as Christian, so it was a very smart political move

Ah, so you're trying to say McCain changed his religion for political gain. Do you realize how scummy you sound right now beastie? I thought religious banter brought out the worst in you, but I was wrong. Political debate does. The fact is McCain has been attending North Phoenix Baptist Church for more than 15 years now. Who cares if he isn't baptized? His pastor says that's normal for adults attending. Are we to believe that this was just a setup from the start, and 15 years ago McCain decided he would attend a church every Sunday under false pretenses, so that one day he could campaign for President in South Carolina and win the hearts of fellow Baptists? Do you and Moksha ever think about what you say before typing, or does this kind of blind loyalty to your party just come natural?

He was morally opposed to torture before he apparently decided it was politically expedient support torture.

Well according to TIME, "Despite the claims of some partisans, McCain's decision was not a flip-flop, but rather the continuation of a position he took in 2005 when he first championed a bill to restrict the Bush Administration's ability to mistreat detainees."- http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 91,00.html

He supported campaign finance reform, but has obviously allowed his 527’s to run ads accusing Obama of wanting to teach kindergartens about sex.

Obama supported a bill that would have lowered "comprehensive sex education" to the kindergarten level so long as it was "age-appropriate." So what is "age appropriate"? Obama endorsed the SEICUS program which includes the following topics for ages 5-8. I don't disagree with everything therein, but here are a few items that I think most parents would find inappropriate:

Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.

Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.

Some people are heterosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of another gender.

Some people are homosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender.

Homosexual men and women are also known as gay men and lesbians.

Most children are curious about their bodies.

Bodies can feel good when touched

Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.

Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.

Masturbation should be done in a private place.

People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good.
Both girls and boys may discover that their bodies feel good when touched.

Like other body parts, the genitals need care.

Abortion: Sometimes women become pregnant when they do not want to be or are unable to care for a child.
http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/imag ... elines.pdf

This is just way too much information for kids who can't even read yet. Obama supported this, so it isn't far fetched to say he supported sex education to those in kindergarten.

Do you think it is appropriate to teach a 5 year old about homosexuality and masturbation?

[_bcspace]

Obama sounds like a walking Planned Parenthood ad to sexualize children.

Also, have you checked his allegiance to Public Allies? This is what he wants to model his new force, "as well-funded as the military", that will Hitler Youth us into socialsm/facism.

[_antishock8]

I also believe that tempered capitalism – ie, capitalism tempered with reasonable regulations and taxation, and some social networks – is far preferable than unfettered capitalism, which I think would end result in a two-class society filled with violence and possible outright revolution. I’m sure you, antishock, don’t agree with me on those points...

Beastie,

I think you and I are probably a lot closer to our political realities than you think. I agree with you wholeheartedly reference 'tempered capitalism', but I'm sure we would just niggle over the 'tempering' aspect of it. Creating a nanny state that employs whole demographics of people via government programs that are inherently bureaucratic, paternalistic, and expensive is something the Left tends to do, and it's something I don't find very useful. However, if the Left and Right focused on real infrastructure, ie, energy, commerce, roads and bridges, school buildings, mega-projects, etc... rather than welfare-ish sinacures on the one side and a ridiculous military industrial complex on the other I think most of America would be pleased.

It's too bad that both sides are ruled by demogogues that don't see the wisdom in my politics. ;)

[_antishock8]

All I know is anyone who get in bed with Ayers, Dohrn, Rezko, Wright, and a host of others that push extreme ideologies or are criminals, votes for infanticide, funds a war he swears he doesn't support, picks freakin' Joe Biden because he thinks he'll get Whiteyman's vote, etc etc... Seems to me to be a man who views political expediency as a virtue, and just can't get on board with that. To claim that Senator McCain is a "whore" and then turn a blind eye to Senator Obama's political record is partisan behavior.

Now. Just to be fair. Here are some things I wish Senator McCain would do that he won't:

1) Open up everything for oil exploration. He's telling his constituents what they want to hear, but he's not going to do it. I'd be very surprised if he moved forward on this promise.

2) Massive investment in solar, wind, tidal, natural gas, and nuclear energies and infrastructure. Make it a National Defense issue, and move forward, quickly. Instead he'll push for nuclear, which is a good thing, but it takes a long time to get a plant built and operating. The hysteria over nuclear energy is undeserved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usg7-xbQ ... re=related

3) Economic and diplomatic sanctions against Saudi Arabia and other members of the Islamic bloc. To include resident aliens that live here; they have to go back to their countries. Sharia law is anti-thetical to womens' rights, democracy, and Islamic countries are incredibly violent and discriminatory toward minorities, non-believers, and women. Until they stop their mondern day apartheid, relegate Sharia to the past, give everyone the freedom and liberty they deserve, we should engage them as someone who is at odds with democracy, which they are. We did it with the Communists. We can do it with Islamists. We're hypocrits for how we conducted ourselves with Soviet Russia and South Africa, but somehow make allowances for the vile and repressive ideology of Islam. I don't get it.

Oh. Wait. They have a lot of money. crap. Go see #2.

4) Massive investments in infrastructure. We need more subways. Mass transit lines (Anyone love driving in NY/DC???). Massive investments in mega-projects that deal with annual floooding problems, water shortages, power grids, etc... Re-build bridges, update and upgrade schools, etc.. I'd much rather see this than spending $15,000,000,000 on a new weapons system.

5) Secure out border, and streamline the vetting system for Mexican nationals that want to work here. Let them work here. No worries. However, our prison systems, and state budgets are overran with immigrants that deplete their resources. This is an issue that needs to be worked out between Mexico and the US. If Mexico doesn't want to play ball then we get arsey. Senator McCain will do nothing to resolve these issues.

So. I have serious concerns with Senator McCain, but the bottom line is I think he's better suited to address issues, get legislation passed, and work in DC. Senator Obama is too partisan, and will create nothing but rancor in DC. Just from a "let's get something done" point of view, I think Senator McCain has the advantage.

[_beastie]

Yeah, we do agree on many of these issues, although not all. We'll just have to agree to disagree, and hope for the best, whatever that may be.

(although I hope you don't forget McCain's associations with his own ideologues and criminals, like Keating)

For the nuts who think Obama wanted to teach five year olds details about sex:

Fact check thoroughly debunked this one

It's an old Keye's attack, recycled. Apparently it didn't work in 2004, I suspect it's only working with a few total wingnuts like the ones on this thread today:

Keyes, Oct. 21, 2004: Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be "age-appropriate" sex education. [It] made me wonder just exactly what you think is "age-appropriate."

Obama: We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.

I'm sure this will mean nothing to the wingnuts, but I offer it for those more sensible folks who worry there might be something to it.

In the end, all we can do is our civic duty and hope for the best. As liz pointed out on a different thread, there is no denying that there are wingnuts on the left as well as the right. It's just too bad that our political system today seems to pander to them. And it's even more sorry that it seems to work. I think it's because the country seems to be pretty evenly divided between the two camps, so one way to push it over the edge is to get the wingnuts excited enough that they will all rush out to vote.

[Guest]

For the nuts who think Obama wanted to teach five year olds details about sex:
Fact check thoroughly debunked this one

Thoroughly? This is such classic beastie. First she accuses McCain of lying in an ad which says Obama wants to "teach kindergartens about sex." Then she links us to an article that proves the point without realizing it.

I presented all the evidence that prove this is no lie. I go on to show that the only democrat defense is to rely on ambiguity over what it means to be "age appropriate." But I also presented excerpts from the program Obama supported, which removes that ambiguity because it clearly teaches 5 year-olds about everything from sexual sensations, homosexuality to masturbation. Who in their right mind doesn't consider this teaching "about sex"?

Now she has to shift her ground and say it is "nuts" to think Obama wanted to teach "five year olds details about sex." But the ad didn't say the "details" about sex now did it? It used the same exact language that existed in the bill: "comprehensive sex education." The factcheck website she failed to read, says it perfectly clear: "It's true that the phrase 'comprehensive sex education' appeared in the bill." It takes issue with the claim that this was Obama's "one accomplishment" but agrees with the ad's main premise:

The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed 'comprehensive sex education' to include kindergarten.

It goes on to defend Obama because his intention was to educate children about pedophiles, but this doesn't change the fact that they were to be taught about sex in kindergarten, and the list of items taught in the curriculum make it perfectly clear the education is far more "comprehensive" than beastie would like to admit. What does masturbation and homosexuality have to do with protecting children from pedophiles?

The ad said Obama wanted to pass legislation which would allow public schools to provide 5 year-olds "comprehensive sex education" before they can actually read. And this is a cold hard fact. How in the hell is:

"Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join."

... not teaching about sex? That is pretty "detailed" too, for five year old minds.

I hope you don't forget McCain's associations with his own ideologues and criminals, like Keating

OMG this just gets better and better. beastie just can't seem to make anything stick to McCain so she has to throw out the kitchen sink as well. I mean think of 35 years in the Senate and never becoming friends with any politician who has been accused of corruption! The funniest thing about this is that all of these "friends" who were accused were democrats!

[_beastie]

No thanks, dart. Repeat as necessary.

[_dartagnan]

Beastie thinks I'm talking to her apparently. I am addressing the audience who might actually think she has some knowledge of what she is saying. Or more accurately put, whatever crud she is relaying from these left-wing lib blogs.

She wanted to pummel Palin the first day after the convention, throwing out every crap news article that had an accusation to fabricate. Since then it seems most of that has been put into its proper perspective, most of it has been proved to be rabid hatred by the left, but beastie doesn't want to be held accountable for her errors. She'll stick to voting for the least religious while pretending she actually cares about the real issues.

[_Pokatator]

Just a warning - I will not engage in an endless political debate. They're worse than religious debates.

16 pages later....