Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_Pokatator]

I would like someone to explain to me why the Democrats were and are against the surge in Iraq and can't in any way shape or form admit that it has and is working but then at the same time call for more troops in Afghanistan. One surge is bad and politically incorrect but another surge is good and politically correct. They just can't and don't call it a surge. They are disingenuous at the very least.


What I like about Palin, in general, is that she not a Washington insider. She doesn't have the Rev. Wright, William Ayers, Rezko, and Chicago politics for baggage. It is sad but corruption seems to be the normal path to political success. Palin is virginal, clean and pristine compared to Obama. But wait for the Democrats to dig into everything they can about her family. I expect a real smear campaign against her, her husband and even her children, nothing will be off limits or private or sacred. Now I hope and pray that she is as clean as Ralph Nader was when GM went after him. The country needs some new blood, clean blood. This is why decent people usually don't enter politics. I am not sure I would want my family subjected the savagery of the American political system.

[_beastie]

I would like someone to explain to me why the Democrats were and are against the surge in Iraq and can't in any way shape or form admit that it has and is working but then at the same time call for more troops in Afghanistan. One surge is bad and politically incorrect but another surge is good and politically correct. They just can't and don't call it a surge. They are disingenuous at the very least.

I'm not opposed to the surge. I think it had to be done. I oppose ever going into Iraq in the first place. Now that that grave mistake was made, we are going to have to be dealing with it for a long time, and that will include choosing between bad and worse options. There are no good options.

[_beastie]

What I like about Palin, in general, is that she not a Washington insider. She doesn't have the Rev. Wright, William Ayers, Rezko, and Chicago politics for baggage. It is sad but corruption seems to be the normal path to political success. Palin is virginal, clean and pristine compared to Obama. But wait for the Democrats to dig into everything they can about her family. I expect a real smear campaign against her, her husband and even her children, nothing will be off limits or private or sacred. Now I hope and pray that she is as clean as Ralph Nader was when GM went after him. The country needs some new blood, clean blood. This is why decent people usually don't enter politics. I am not sure I would want my family subjected the savagery of the American political system.

I hope the democrats are just as vicious are the republicans have been. It's sad to say, but vicious smear campaigns work. That's how Bush beat McCain years ago, remember? Republicans understand that very well, and have already implemented it against Obama.

Washington Post analyzes the Weatherman connection, a vicious ad airing in my area

I would prefer to see a campaign based on the idea that we can all accept that these candidates are decent people who want to serve their country, albeit likely suffering from grandiosity and worrisome ambition. I would prefer to see the serious issues being discussed, rather than smears. But as much as everyone decries negative campaigning, studies consistently show that negative campaigning actually works. (again, probably not unrelated to the fact that 1 in 5 americans think the earth revolves around the sun) As long as it works, and the republicans are so willing and able to use it, I want the Democrats to do it, too. Sad, but true.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I am unhappy with both Presidential candidates.

There seems to be no way I can get past the general un-likeablility of McCain. I don't think I can vote for him, even with Palin on the ticket.

I'm curious: Is there any evidence McCain belittled his wife in public? I've heard rumors, but haven't read much about it.

If it's true that he belittles his wife, he's unfit for the Presidency, in my opinion.

KA

[_dartagnan]

I had no idea that dart was actually going to challenge me on my assertion that McCain has attacked Obama for his lack of experience.

Earth to stupid, I never said that. I said comparing Palin's VP qualifications with Obama's executive qualifications, is something altogether different from whether or not McCain is simply "qualified". You can't seem to wrap your mind around that, but that's your problem, not ours.

My Rove quote was not offered as a rebuttal to that, but instead to underline the irony of Rove predicted that Obama would be the one to make a VP choice based on who could get him elected, versus who could help him govern.

Since Palin was not chosen for the purpose of "getting him elected" and was instead chosen because she is supremely qualified to tackle the biggest issue facing the nation: our energy crisis, there is no "irony." She has fought tooth and nail on this and has been successful in everything she has set out to do.

Do even the McCain supporters suggest that, out of all the other possibilities, Palin was the most qualified to help McCain govern???

I think that is precisely why she was picked. I said as much the other day. Saying he was picked to get him elected is ridiculous. There might very well be a backfire to picking her, it was a very risky move. Picking her was no guarantee of anything. Romney was a solid choice but McCain didn't go with the sure thing. He wants to tackle the energy crisis, and Palin is better qualified in that dept. She is a fighter who doesn't just propose something and leaves it at that. She follows through with it until she gets what she wants.

Wall Street journal cited McCain camp using Biden’s former argument to bolster their own that Obama does not have enough experience:

More straw, bonehead? Please go ahead and quote me where I said McCain never criticized Obama's lack of expertise.

I have to say that the fact that some of you are seemingly incapable of even admitting this one point – that the Palin choice neutered McCain’s “lack of experience” attack – demonstrates that some of you are just as biased as I am on this issue, but less able to admit it.

Some of us have a brain. Some of us can distinguish between saying Obama has less experience than Palin and McCain is also more experienced. You're so caught up in your own little straw man fest that you can't take time out to catch a mental breath. You haven't even addressed the two analogies I gave you, proving that quanitity and quality of experience are not synonymous. So go ahead, claim you'e being misread, and keep howling at the moon about how nobody "admits" that you have a valid point. I submit that there is a reason for this.

My point is that in order for McCain's supporters to continue to attack Obama due to his lack of experience, they will have to alter their argument as dart has demonstrated.

I haven't "altered" a damn thing you nimrod. Keep up with the hyperbole beastie, it is about the only thing you've got going for you. First I "suddenly" responded, and now I've "altered" my argument? Give me a friggin break. You're the one who changed yoru argument from what McCain argued (your first post), now "suddenly" to McCain's "supporters," and you're even willing to misuse something Karl Rove said, which doesn't even begin to make the point you think you're making.

This is a much less persuasive line of attack, because it relies on the willingness to weight Palin's gubernatorial experience as meaning more than Obama's legislative experience. As dart had to admit above, when I pointed out McCain's lack of executive experience, executive experience is not a requirement for the job nor is it a common denominator in presidents overall, or successful presidents in particular.

"Had to admit"? You keep acting like I changed my argument somhow. Well prove it!! I refuted your stupidity and now you're pretending you were forcing me into admitting something?

LOL.. Typical beastie!!

[_dartagnan]

At least McCain is smart enough not to pick someone who just months ago, attacked him and said he was not ready to be President. Talk about the perfect commercial for McCain. Just run video of Biden saying Obama was not ready to be President, and then amazingly, after he is picked to be the VP he completely changes in his opinion and says he is ready. Gee, amazing how that happened huh? What happened that changes his mind? Did Obama prove himself somehow over the course of a few months? No, the simple fact is, Biden got bought. Typical old school politician. Biden is a "yes man" if there ever was one.

At least McCain had the integrity and the sense not to pick Romney, who criticized him the same way Biden criticized Obama.

[_dartagnan]

Beastie thinks the Iraq situation is the biggest issue, but I think it is the energy crisis, and most Americans agree. Iraq is dwindling down now that the violence has subsided and the surge seems to have beens uccessful. We now know how to win in Iraq. The surge proved that. But democrats like Obama don't want that to happen and neither does beastie. They want to carry this in their back pocket as the proved "disaster" that they can bring up for eternity to show how the republicans have bad judgment, etc. They don't want us to win in Iraq and they never did. Once things took a drastic turn for the worst in Iraq, Democrats saw a glorious opportunity, and they have been exploiting it ever since.

Palin doesn't pay much attention to Iraq? Good for her. I don't either. Nowadays from Iraq we hear more good news than bad. I'm worried about our energy crisis and Obama has NO PLAN. Nothing. His idea is to get people to inflate their tires and get a tune up! He said this would save us just as much gas than if we started tapping into Anwar and elsewhere. This is a bonafide MORON we are talking about, pure and simple. Ahd his idea of capturing Osama bin Ladin is to invade Pakistan! What an idiot.

[_Droopy]

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

And could you identify that element for us please? Without the Republican party, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have seen the light of day.

In all actuality, the last time I checked, it was the Democrat party, and only the Democrat party, of the two major parties, that had, over some thirty years, grounded much of its political and cultural capital in identity politics and compensatory institutional racism, not the Republicans.

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).

Let's see you feminist Freudian analysis of Obama's critics Beastie, in some further detail.

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.

I'm sure they do. And secular atheists, anarchists, punk rockers, drug users, environmentalists, and subscribers to Playboy vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

So?

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,

Nonsense. Mistakes were made in its execution, to be sure, but the war itself (which began, not in 2003, but in 1990), was no mistake, as were its long term goals.

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.

Unfortunately, one's enemies always choose the nature of one's own response themselves. We have two choices: surrender and compromise, or the use of force.

Example: if Iran continues on with their nuclear program as they have been, then at some point before it becomes an imminent threat (precisely Bush's argument for the finishing the Iraq war his father left in limbo), it will have to be destroyed. The other option is, well, not to destroy it, with all the potential consequences that implies.

in my opinion, this possibility has more potential for harm for our country than anything else under
discussion.

Wrong, as usual. the "potential for harm" in the Middle East rests entirely with the forces of totalitarian barbarism that exist in that region, including Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the remains of Al Qeada, and dozens of other similar groups, all with similar goals and aims.

If someone breaks down your door and attacks you with an ax, he has chosen your response, and it is only for you, if you can, to respond at that point. You are now very limited as to the possibilities. You probably have potentially three: collapse in fear and allow him to hack you to pieces, the fight or flight response (probably panic and flight), or determined physical resistance, if you are capable.

Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo choose the Allied response as they were the aggressors. If you bomb London, then England has no more latitude for a plethora of possible reactions. Surrender or resistance are really the only options left once aggression has become a clear threat of is in progress.

[_Droopy]

Beastie thinks the Iraq situation is the biggest issue, but I think it is the energy crisis, and most Americans agree. Iraq is dwindling down now that the violence has subsided and the surge seems to have beens successful. We now know how to win in Iraq. The surge proved that. But democrats like Obama don't want that to happen and neither does beastie.

This was always, for me, the most serious problem, of both image, ideology, and practical political calculation, that the Democrats have faced over the last several years: that the Democratic Party invested itself in the defeat of its own country in Iraq and then grounded its future political fortunes in that outcome.

This meant that good news in Iraq, of any kind, and in particular, good news militarily, became a political liability for this party. Surrender and defeat - the thorough Vietnamization of the Iraq war (and the attempt to create a similar situation by the party itself) - became the basis of the party's position on the war. Now, there's no way out for the Democrats on this issue, no matter how successful the war ends up in the long run.

[_beastie]

Yes, dart, no doubt, your amazing responses have definitely proven my stupidity beyond a shadow of a doubt. Well played. As usual. You consistently demonstrate your mastery of the topics you address, and, at the same time, show how idiotic everyone who disagrees with you is. You did it on this thread, as you did on the old evolution threads. It is an amazing gift and power. I can only hope you use it wisely.

Just a few comments, that, no doubt will simply reaffirm your supremacy in this, as in all debates:

At least McCain is smart enough not to pick someone who just months ago, attacked him and said he was not ready to be President.

Yes, only a complete idiot would choose a VP who had criticized him during the nomination process.

VooDoo Economics

Palin doesn't pay much attention to Iraq? Good for her. I don't either.

I think that would make a great bumper-sticker.