Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_antishock8]

I tend to choose the candidate I think is best for the job, not the one nominated by a particular party. I'm as independent as it gets.

All I'm saying is that I've never been as offended by a politician as I was watching McCain making this incredibly transparent move. I'm not very fond of politicians who think so little of the intelligence of their fellow citizens, or seem to strategize with that in mind. I can't decide whether republicans tend to appear to talk down to people because they think they need to, or they aren't smart enough to talk up to them. If they are talking down to them, maybe it's because they've read the sort of thing republican supporters have said in threads like these, and feel the need to make everything very simplistic. Who knows?

At least Obama speaks as though his audience has an IQ over 45. For that alone, he's ahead in the game.

How is the Democratic choice any less "transparent"? Surely there are Democrats with more Stateman-esque experience, more Senatorial experience, and... Well... Now that I think about it Hillary was a far better choice.

Unless.

They chose Obama because they think he can win.

[_Some Schmo]

How is the Democratic choice any less "transparent"? Surely there are Democrats with more Stateman-esque experience, more Senatorial experience, and... Well... Now that I think about it Hillary was a far better choice.

Unless.

They chose Obama because they think he can win.

Wow... well it seems pretty obvious to me that the republican choice was strictly made on the basis that a gap left by Hillary could be exploited... like it doesn't even matter that the two women are polar opposites politically. They both have estrogen, so now democratic women have someone to latch onto with Hillary out of the picture.

What could be more transparent and demeaning to women?

And to equate the choice of Obama for the nominee to the choice Palin for VP is to equate apples and oranges. The people picked Obama. The party leadership (McCain and advisors) picked Palin. I don't know about you, but that difference seems pretty significant to me.

[_Sethbag]

And by the way, how do you justify your support of Obama in light of his absolutely stupid remarks about inflating tires to save as much money on gas as drilling?

This is the guy who is going to solve our energy crisis?

This isn't stupid, actually. Every American whose tires are underinflated is burning more gasoline per mile than they could be. Properly-inflated tires would in fact save gas. The effect isn't huge, but then the percentage increase in fuel availability over the next few years as the result of increased drilling isn't huge either. The question is, which percentage increase is larger? I've seen articles state that in fact the percentage saved by properly inflating the tires would be bigger.

By the way, I bought a mountain bike recently and my daughter and I have been riding several miles almost every since then. We can definitely tell when the tire pressure has dropped significantly and it's time to pump them up again. My tires had gone from 62 psi down into the 30s over the course of about three weeks or so, and the biking required a noticeable increase in effort. If I were a car that would mean I was burning more gas. This is not rocket science, and I don't know why you think it's so stupid.

[_antishock8]

What could be more transparent and demeaning to women?

And to equate the choice of Obama for the nominee to the choice Palin for VP is to equate apples and oranges. The people picked Obama. The party leadership (McCain and advisors) picked Palin. I don't know about you, but that difference seems pretty significant to me.

Did you just drop the argumentum ad populum on me? Really? So because a bunch of people voted for a guy who's major political accomplishment is winning the Democratic nomination for President that, in of itself, makes him a less transparent choice than Governor Palin?

I see we're not going to agree as to whether or not you should feel insulted on behalf of women, but we're definitely having an issue with your transparency comment. I don't think either one is more or less transparent because both are politically expedient AND galvinized their base. THAT is what was intended, and that is what happened. That seems like shrewd politics because again, national level leaders are generally not prepared for something like Commander in Chief. They're chosen based on the electability in order to push their party's platform.

[_dartagnan]

Apparently you don't know what he actually said, do you?

He said that by inflating our tires (assuming every car in America is underinflated to begin with) we could save as much as we would by doing "all the drilling [the Republicans] are talking about."

Really? Obama's math is based on off shore drilling alone, and doesn't account for Anwar or Colorado shale. And why can't we drill off our own flippin shore when the Chinese are doing 70 miles off our coast line? It is going to be done whether the environmentalists like it or not, so why should we sit by and watch the Chinese drink it all up? It is money for our economy, but the liberals would rather us sit by with this delusion that they are somehow saving the environment.

This isn't only about reducing gas prices, but more importantly, removing the national security threat of energy dependence. If we were energy independent 30 years ago, 9-11 never would have happened because we would not have had such a strong presence in the Mid-East.

There has already been a test well drilled in ANWR and the oil drilling could be done from a concentrated small area, about the size of Dulles Airport. Compare this to the total size of ANWR, which is roughly equivalent to the size of South Carolina. Its reserves are estimated at 10 billion barrels by the U.S. Geological Survey, compared to 32 billion nationwide, almost a 33 percent increase. At full production, ANWR would add a million barrels per day to U.S. production. At $100 per barrel, this would equal over $36 billion per year that would not need to be spent on foreign oil. It would also create some 700,000 well-paying jobs, according to a Wharton Econometrics study - pdf.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/128096.html

"Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil - or more than five times the stated reserves of Saudi Arabia"- http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/OilShale.html

[Guest]

Newsflash:

Barack Obama will be on in three hours on the O'Reilly Factor for the first time. According to the website, Obama finally admitted the surge in Iraq "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

This was the point I was making to beastie. McCain proposed the surge, and Obama voted against it. "Our" dreams? Obama had no dreams about it. He said it would be a failure.

So who was right?

During Biden's speech he started ripping McCain for being wrong whiel Obama was right on the issues. Well, this proves to me that McCain has a better grasp of the situation and knows what he is doing.

There is no need to wonder what either guy would do in a war situation, because we are currently at war, and both are involved in current decision processes. Obama clearly hasn't a clue, but he is forced to admit when he is wrong.

[_moksha]

I'm laughing pretty hard about what a conundrum my Mormon friends have found themselves in. This November, they have no choice but to vote for someone who violates their basic standards. It's either:

A. A woman who works and has a career outside the home, or
B. Someone not a Republican.

What will they do? Will they simply stay home that Tuesday?

They will vote Republican. They will rationalize Palin. McCain's temper will not be an issue either, since it will simply remind them of Elder Packer.

[Alf'Omega]

Did you just drop the argumentum ad populum on me? Really? So because a bunch of people voted for a guy who's major political accomplishment is winning the Democratic nomination for President that, in of itself, makes him a less transparent choice than Governor Palin?

I see we're not going to agree as to whether or not you should feel insulted on behalf of women, but we're definitely having an issue with your transparency comment. I don't think either one is more or less transparent because both are politically expedient AND galvinized their base. THAT is what was intended, and that is what happened. That seems like shrewd politics because again, national level leaders are generally not prepared for something like Commander in Chief. They're chosen based on the electability in order to push their party's platform.

I'd like to think that at least some of the people who voted for Obama did so because they actually think he's the best man for the job. You don't. OK, I get it. But just because you don't doesn't mean that everyone had his electability in mind when they voted him in as the nominee.

So yes, because a bunch (a really big bunch, mind you) of people voted for a guy to be President, that, in and of itself, makes him a less transparent choice than Governor Palin, voted in by political strategists. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.

And it's certainly ok with me if you don't agree. Hard to believe (well, sort of... much experience has shown me what bias will do to a person, so it's not that difficult), but I'll live. I actually find it pretty interesting, in the same sort of way that I find it interesting that people continue to believe in the church, even after confronted with the evidence.

*shrug*

[_EAllusion]

And why can't we drill off our own flippin shore when the Chinese are doing 70 miles off our coast line?

I figured I'd isolate this one line. It's not just untrue, but it was corrected by its own sources almost immediately after it floated out into the Republican talking points list. It's one of the more obvious demonstrations that Kevin G. just buys Republican talking points hook like and sinker and regurgitates them.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/a ... coast.html

[_antishock8]

Some Schmo,

I think equating politics with belief in Mormonism takes a special kind of bragadoccio. That being the case, ultimately I don't really care if Obama gets elected. I'm excited for Palin/McCain probably much in the same way you're excited for Obama/Whoeverelsehenominatedasvip. There are things about both political spectrums that I don't like, at all. I can't have it either way. The bottom line for me is I just think McCain is the better Statesman, and Palin offers up a great example to my daughters reference accessibility to power.

If Obama wins I'll be the first to offer a hearty congratulations to the electorate (I've voted line Democrat for a while now), and we'll see how things go. If McCain wins, I hope people who were kind of like me, but just managed to go Left instead of Right get behind the Commander in Chief, America, and be supportive rather than divisive. That would be nice... :)

-AS8