Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_antishock8]

Wow. Someone from the "open-minded, tolerant, and diverse... and pro-woman" crowd hacked into Governor Palin's Yahoo account and posted it on Gawker.com.

Wow.

[_dartagnan]

It is so funny the extremes the left is willing to go to find something, anything to use against Palin. But the deeper they did, the more we realize there isn't anything to use against her. So they have to invent scandals out of context free "reporting."

I think the libs should have just left her alone and at least left it up to their imaginative fantasies to assume that maybe there is some dirt on her somewhere. But they've scoured every corner or Alaska and now the internet, and still come up snake eyes.

Can you imagine the dirt we'd find if we delved into the lives of most politicians they way the left has done with Palin? The hatred towards her is so palpable, and I think it will drive fence-straddlers to her side.

[_dartagnan]

Well it turns out that the emails weren't so incriminating after all, and have in fact vindicated Palin for terminating Monegan. What people don't seem to realize is that Palin appointed him. He worked for her. She can fire him for anything she wants. She doesn't need a good excuse, but the emails reveal plenty of good excuses.

Along with the papers filed Monday were a slew of e-mails from the governor's office purporting to show Monegan's "rogue mentality" as a member of Palin's Cabinet.

In one message, the governor's budget director, Karen Rehfeld, wrote that she was "stunned and amazed" that Monegan appeared to be working with a powerful state legislator, Anchorage Republican Rep. Kevin Meyer, to seek funding for a project Palin previously had vetoed.

To coincide with Monday's filing, spokesmen for the Republican national ticket of John McCain and Palin, his vice-presidential running mate, held an Anchorage news conference touting the "important new information" they said cleared Palin of misconduct in what has come to be known as Troopergate...

The papers filed Monday accuse Monegan, during his time as public safety commissioner, of "an escalating pattern of insubordination on budget and other key policy issues."

In pursuing his own goals for the Department of Public Safety, Monegan "sought out the governor's political opponents behind her back," Van Flein wrote, and in December 2007 he "unilaterally orchestrated a press conference" on his budget with state Sen. Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat who is leading the Troopergate investigation.

On May 7 of this year, Randy Ruaro, the governor's deputy chief of staff, complained in an e-mail to Rehfeld, the budget director, that Monegan's department "is constantly going off the reservation."

"The last straw" leading up to Monegan's firing, Van Flein wrote, was Monegan's planned trip to Washington to seek funding for a new, multimillion-dollar sexual assault initiative the governor hadn't yet approved.

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/799150.html

Turns out Monegan was just an idiot who didn't know his place.

[_asbestosman]

On the one hand, I tend to believe in the economic principles of Republicans. On the other hand, I'm not sure they have such a great record in that regard. Furthremore, I don't believe that we can afford the sort of tax cuts that McCain has been talking about--even his spending cuts probably won't be sufficient. If we're going to cut taxes, let it be realistically instead of merely to attract buisness or get votes or whatever. I'm not a huge fan of any spending, but I guess I'd prefer it being spent on social programs than costly wars. Sure, war may not always be avoidable, but it can be better when we have more support from the rest of the world.

Iraq was a mistake, no doubt about it. Getting out of it quickly may be a bigger mistake. Then again, not getting out quickly may be wrong, but anyhow it pisses off the rest of the world. There's a reason Aussies and other refer to us as sceptics (Cockney rhyming for sceptic-tank--Yank(ie) + the sting of being full of crap). I don't necessarily think it's good to have the world push us around, but I think it's important to make and keep friends. Keeping a republican in office will not help America's image. That to me is a huge negative, but not a deal-breaker. Sometimes it's best to do the unpopular thing although just how unpopular it is must be considered.

I very much dislike McCain's running mate Palin. That said, she may be redeemable if she actually admits to mistakes instead of just plays politics as I wonder about an incident involving her doing other things during state time while accusing another of that and then saying she was wrong. Just politics, or sincere? Who knows. Also, I've never cared much for people who were popular--I always want to bust their bubble and hope their life will be hard for a few years (campaign pressure doesn't count). Yeah, I'm prejudiced in that regard, but at least I take my hat off for McCain for being a POW and knowing what suffering is.

I don't know enough about Obama yet, but I've been disappointed at the spin from both sides.

[_dartagnan]

Keeping a republican in office will not help America's image. That to me is a huge negative, but not a deal-breaker.

I think most people in other countires couldn't tell you what the two political parties in America are, let alone which current candidate is a member of Bush's party. In Brazil there are 29 political parties. Most people will be happy that Bush is no longer President, no matter who his replacement is. They always ask me, "when is Bush going to be gone"? Then they'll plan their celebration accordingly, without ever asking me about the replacement.

Their main problem with Bush is that he invaded Iraq. And the war in Iraq is the primary cause of our economic misery today. I mean let's face it, it really is. Bush's "economic policies" are not to blame. He stuck to the typical conservative economic philosophy that was epitomized during the Reagan administration. The economy flourished during the 80's and Reagan got us out of the rut caused by the failed economic policies of the Carter administration. War always has a dramatic impact on a country's economy.

I very much dislike McCain's running mate Palin. That said, she may be redeemable if she actually admits to mistakes instead of just plays politics as I wonder about an incident involving her doing other things during state time while accusing another of that and then saying she was wrong. Just politics, or sincere? Who knows.

When they announced Palin as the VP pick I just rolled my eyes too. But then the more I learned the more I liked. It turns out she wasn't such a surprise or an "unknown" as many seem to think. Apparently, someone on FOXnews picked her to be the VP candidate of McCain's choice, more than a year ago! I remember they had him on the show so he could gloat about being right.

I also found out that Glenn Beck had her on his show way back in March of this year, and he was even entertaining the idea of her as a VP candidate during the interview. I've been out of the country too long, but apparently this woman has done some truly impressive work, and really made advances in cleaning up the political corruption in Alaska. I think this is the kind of person we need in Washington because she isn't a slave to lobbyists. She doesn't care about money the way so many politicians are in it for themselves. She has integrity, stands for what she believes in, and her vote can't be bought, even from those within her own party.

The problem with congress is that it has a long track record of doing nothing. We need someone who can win minds. Palin has that effect on people. She already has Biden talking about how impressive and attractive she is, and he refuses to attack her. That might seem silly, but these things matter. There is a reason why some of the best sales persons, particularly real estate agents, are attractive women. They are a pleasure to be around. I think Palin would be a pleasant addition to the atmosphere in Congress. The female politicians would admire her for representing women well, and the old grumpy men, well, we know how they all respond to a pretty face.

I think Palin would shake up congress. I think she would have the same kind of impact in Washington, as she had when fighting Big Oil in Alaska. She has an uncanny ability to win minds, and once she and McCain have removed the ball and chain of lobbyist bribes, they will have freed all politicians from obligations to scratch the backs of their campaign contributors and vote along partisan lines.

In essence, I don't even see democrats acknolwedging the disease in Washington, where as the republicans just might have a cure.

[_Trevor]

Hey Trev, I don't think the McCain ticket is really in a great position. Sure, they've meneged to move up in the polls, but since when have the polls really been accurate? The electoral college is what determines the next President, and I think the Obama camp has the advantage there as well.

Well, it seems they were quite inaccurate in predicting who would vote for Obama, and I think he may be very weak in Ohio and Florida.

For me there are far more important matters that the next President needs to address. First and foremost would be the current energy crisis and the war in Iraq. For me, I don't see Obama making wise decisions in these areas. Not only because of his lack of experiences, but because he hasn't made the right decisions thus far.

You don't think a stand against invading Iraq was a right decision? I do agree that his position on the surge was incorrect, and think that dealing with problems we face now is most important. I am at odds with many liberals on the withdrawal issue.

Further, Obama’s solutions seem to be throwing money at problems. This is typical democrat philosophy which is why they earned the reputation for big government and pork barrel spending. Obama wants the federal government to be a giant welfare system for people who don’t work. His policies will continue to drive employers out of the country, which will only agitate the situation more.

All of these statements appear to me to be points of contention. I register that this is your perspective. At the same time, I note that some of the largest spending hikes have come during Republican presidencies. The idea that Obama "wants the federal government to be a giant welfare system for people who don't work" sounds like boilerplate conservative propaganda.

But there is nothing in the constitution that says companies are obligated to pay for their employees' healthcare.

True, and one can't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I am simply uncertain about who it is who is doing that.

The fact is America’s corporate tax rate is 39%, second only to Japan. Because of this businesses are moving out of the country.

I think I was referring to personal income taxes, but I am open to all such information. I agree that high corporate taxes influence where businesses do business and whom they hire, and so does globalization. Someone near and dear to me is a tax professor, so I'll ask this person about your quoted statistics.

I don’t think there is any real comparison between Fox and CNN. Aside from Sean Hannity, Fox seems to be far more balanced than CNN or MSNBC. They don’t invent scandals out of thin air in order to attack Obama. But the Osama = Obama gaffe has been repeated in various venues. Hell, even Ted Kennedy accidentally called Obama Osama. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos)

What I observed, from personal viewing, was a tendency to place stories about Obama and Osama back to back, which seems not to be an error, imho. I think all of the various networks indulge in their antics, and I was not calling out FOX because I naïvely thing there are completely innocent parties out there, but because this was a case I knew about from personal experience.

So when these news outlets do this it is just a mistake. But when FOX says it, it is stupid and slimy? You have to admit how easy it is to make this error.

I'm sorry, did I say that? I don't think so, but perhaps you can correct me.

Because of people like Barack Obama, who thinks corporate America is a monster deserving to be robbed, as if it is a money tree that doesn’t give to his “community” because it is racist or what not.

This is what he really believes? Interesting, because I have never heard that. I mean, racial bias is real, and I imagine it can influence lending practices, but I do not recall hearing of him saying that "corporate America is a monster deserving to be robbed," and that it is a "money tree that doesn't give to his community because it is racist." Maybe you can point me to your sources on this. It strikes me as rather inflammatory and biased rhetoric, but I suppose you could be right.

See how the Democrats responded? They insisted this was just a "shell-game" proposed by the republicans and that these companies weren't really in a crisis at all. That is essentially how Obama thinks as well, and it makes sense because he spent a good portion of his life trying to make these companies give out unsecured loans to those who couldn't pay.

Interesting. I would be surprised if anyone in the current crisis really still believed it. But you have instances of Obama making such statements during the campaign?

Now watch the democrats today try to exploit this latest tragedy as evidence that we need to put Obama in office! They'll never admit credit for their part in making this happen.

I wouldn't be surprised. But are we taking on all Democrats here, or just Obama? I am trying to vote for a presidential candidate, not an entire party in one fell swoop. I am not a registered Democrat. I am an Independent. I really hold neither party as innocent of the disaster we find ourselves in.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I will look into the information you have provided further and get back to you with more questions.

[_dartagnan]

You don't think a stand against invading Iraq was a right decision?

I don't think we should have gone to war at that time, but then again, this is an position that doesn't require much insight. It is easy to say no to the option of war, because nobody really likes war. A strong case must be made for it, and most politicians in Washington were convinced it was the right decision because they were privy to evidence. Obama at the time was just speaking as a fringe legislator in his district, and was not in a position to be persuaded by the evidence. He had nothing to lose in saying what he did because he wasn't a senator at the time. I have no doubt he would have voted along party lines as he always has. But as it was, he had nothing to lose as a legislator in Illinois, by opposing the war.

I do agree that his position on the surge was incorrect, and think that dealing with problems we face now is most important. I am at odds with many liberals on the withdrawal issue.

I agree with this.

All of these statements appear to me to be points of contention. I register that this is your perspective. At the same time, I note that some of the largest spending hikes have come during Republican presidencies.

True enough, at least with this administration. But the brunt of it has gone to fund the war. The Dept. of Homeland Security was a response to 9-11, and it also drains the federal budget. But these were created out of necessity in response to circumstance, not born naturally from a conservative philosophy. By contrast, Democrats are notorious for creating entire webs of meaningless bureaucracies to run questionable social programs, like the one Obama worked for. It is their way of giving jobs to those who lack the skills to compete in the general workplace.

The idea that Obama "wants the federal government to be a giant welfare system for people who don't work" sounds like boilerplate conservative propaganda.

I'm sure it does, but just look at the facts. Obama is one of the most, if not the most, liberal senators in Congress. Democrats are traditionally in favor of every kind of social spending imaginable. Just look at the earmarks he's requested and you shouls get soem sense of what kind of things he's willing to blow money on. And most of all, look at his tax plan. He admittedly wants to hand over money to 30% of America's poorest families, in the guise of an "income tax refund," even though they never paid taxes to begin with.

True, and one can't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I am simply uncertain about who it is who is doing that.

Well, I think our health care system is nothing to be proud of. It might be the best in the world, but it is also the most expensive, and I think this has everything to do with the Federal government imposing its own restrictions. Why is it that when I have strep throat, I have to pay a doctor around $100 to get a prescription? He looks in my mouth, tells me to say "ahhhh" and then tells me what I already knew. "Yep, you got strep." He then writes me a prescription for Amoxicillan, which can be purchased without insurance for about $30. So everytime someone gets sick without insurance, he's out anywhere between $100-150 bucks, depending on the doctor and the brand of Amoxicillan.

In Brazil all I have to do is go to the local pharmacy, tell them I want Amoxicillan and I pay about 7 reis (around 5 dollars) for 30 tablets at 500mg, of the same exact brand I would have purchased in the USA. Why is it six times the price? Because of federal regulations.

I also think the outrageous prices for education today have made it impossible for doctors to make a decent living unless they're guaranteed to make 400k/year. Why would anyone spend ten years of their life to get a job making only, let's say, 150k/year, when it will take them another eight years for them to repay their student loan?

I think I was referring to personal income taxes, but I am open to all such information. I agree that high corporate taxes influence where businesses do business and whom they hire, and so does globalization.

I have mixed feelings on globalization. And I believe a defect in Republican thinking is the assumption that Corporate America feels patriotic in some sense. As if they really care about employing Americans over Indonesians. I'm not sure reducing their taxes would make much of a difference now. It seems they discovered the magic of outsourcing, and there is little we can do to deter them from this. Hewlett packard is now making their bases of operations in Brazil and Costa Rica. I have two friends who worked for HP in Atlanta. One has been making less than 40k/year even though he has been working there for ten years now. He is always reminded that HP is moving abroad, and his job could be handed over to a Costa Rican or Brasilian any day now.

I'm sorry, did I say that? I don't think so, but perhaps you can correct me.

I'm referring to the similar sounding. The difference between the two words is one letter. Osama bin Ladin had been all the rage from 9-11-01 up until a few years ago, when Obama became all the rage. It would be easy to misspeak on the matter when trying to reference one or the other.

This is what he really believes? Interesting, because I have never heard that. I mean, racial bias is real, and I imagine it can influence lending practices, but I do not recall hearing of him saying that "corporate America is a monster deserving to be robbed," and that it is a "money tree that doesn't give to his community because it is racist." Maybe you can point me to your sources on this. It strikes me as rather inflammatory and biased rhetoric, but I suppose you could be right.

This is my opinion based on my perception of what he has done and the things he has fought for. He encouraged minority groups to sue banks because they were being discriminated against when considering home loans. Of course, the idea that most of these minorities really don't qualify for these loans, doesn't seem to register with him. This is why so many black politicians like Jesse Jackson, Charlie Rangle and their ilk are always throwing up misleading statistics like, the fact that Army recruiters tend to locate themselves in poorer areas. According to their logic, they are racially motivated because they want the black man to go to war and get killed instead of white men. I mean it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the military is the better option for most kids finishing High School in poorer communities.

Likewise, they tend to point out things like the prison system being overrun by a majority of minorities. In their minds, this says nothing about how many minorities commit crimes, but rather, it says everything about how blacks are racially discriminated against by law enforcement. It is truly some crazy thinking. They seem to think that equal opportunity should mean equal results, hence, their need for affirmative action, which is essentially reverse racism.

And when higher institutions of learning do not admit an equal number of blacks as they do whites, again racism must be at play. This is the kind of thinking that proved to be invincible in todays society of guilt. This is why affirmative action is so important to them. This is why Obama's wife immediately started complaining because there weren't enough black people being hired as professors. Apparently it hadn't dawned on her that most qualified applicants weren't black. Who is she to determine this? Why does everything have to be about racism? Now that Obama is slipping in the polls, they are discussing on CNN whether this is due to racism! Nevermind the fact that most of Obama's supporters are white, and that far more blacks support Obama than they do McCain. If the situation was flip flopped, McCain would be the victim of racism.

It is almost as ridiculous as Jesse Jackson trotting around the country and threatening organizations like NASCAR for racism. Nevermind the fact that no black driver had ever been rejected by NASCAR. The simple fact that they don't see blacks in every corner of American culture, is only evidence of racism to them.

Obama is a product of this culture and it is his way of thinking. I get nuggests of this philosophy when I hear him speak. He is where he is because of his race and he realizes this. Heck, the only reason he even became a community organizer was because the man hiring him was looking strictly for an black person. Obama has already shown allegiances to some of the whackiest fringe liberals like Rev Wright and Bill Ayers, and he is willing to use federal funds to pay back favors. I just think he will become part of the problem, not the solution. He will help black Americans foster this mentality of exclusion in America.

Interesting. I would be surprised if anyone in the current crisis really still believed it. But you have instances of Obama making such statements during the campaign?

No, that would be political suicide for him to say a company that just went bankrupt, was never in a crisis to begin with. I was just showing you how out of touch the democrats have been, traditionally, and the latest tragedy with AIG will serve as evidence.
The funny thing is that Obama is trying to blame the Republicans:

Democratic rival Barack Obama blamed the Republican anti-regulatory fervor of recent years for part of the mess, saying the crisis is "a stark reminder of the failures of crony capitalism and an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary." -http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D938KARG0&show_article=1

Now that is pretty funny in light of the articles I presented citing McCain's realization of the crisis back in 2006 and his efforts to prevent it. Here is an interesting piece suggesting Obama might have played a role in its demise:

Lehman Brothers collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago.

Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.

A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.

Now remember, he's only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them.

Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.

Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.

Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem.- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html

A business operated by demcorats goes bankrupt. Gee, is this something we should be considering at the presidential ballot box? Do we want the same guys driving the US government to bankruptcy? I think this AIG tragedy is indicative of what the democratic economic philosophy will really provide.

Does anyone here doubt for a second, that if McCain, not Obama, were the No. 2 recipient of bribes from AIG, that every news agency and their dog would be moaning about this?

I wouldn't be surprised. But are we taking on all Democrats here, or just Obama?

Both, see above.

I am trying to vote for a presidential candidate, not an entire party in one fell swoop. I am not a registered Democrat. I am an Independent. I really hold neither party as innocent of the disaster we find ourselves in.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I will look into the information you have provided further and get back to you with more questions.

Thank you.

[_Trevor]

I don't think we should have gone to war at that time, but then again, this is an position that doesn't require much insight. It is easy to say no to the option of war, because nobody really likes war. A strong case must be made for it, and most politicians in Washington were convinced it was the right decision because they were privy to evidence. Obama at the time was just speaking as a fringe legislator in his district, and was not in a position to be persuaded by the evidence. He had nothing to lose in saying what he did because he wasn't a senator at the time. I have no doubt he would have voted along party lines as he always has. But as it was, he had nothing to lose as a legislator in Illinois, by opposing the war.

If it took such little insight, then I am surprised that so many of my Republican friends did not have even that much. I also seem to recall how unpatriotic it was considered to oppose the war. Maybe he didn't have a seat in the Senate riding on it, but he had his reputation within his own neighborhood to be concerned about, and that isn't nothing.

It is their way of giving jobs to those who lack the skills to compete in the general workplace.

???? A pretty sweeping, and perhaps needlessly insulting, statement. It doesn't take all that much savvy to drop off pills at a doctor's office. There are plenty of brainless jobs in the private sector, and the same skill-challenged folks working in these "meaningless" bureaucracies surely could have landed a job there too.

He admittedly wants to hand over money to 30% of America's poorest families, in the guise of an "income tax refund," even though they never paid taxes to begin with.

On the face of it, doesn't sound appealing.

Well, I think our health care system is nothing to be proud of. It might be the best in the world, but it is also the most expensive, and I think this has everything to do with the Federal government imposing its own restrictions.

Some would also say that market forces play a big role in the cost of both healthcare and education, but I was referring, in my statement about our American goose, which is cooking right now, to its chefs, who are arguably, depending on your point of view, either the Tax-n-spendocrats or the corporate elite. In the Later Roman Empire, where the wealthy were not forced to pay taxes to support the poor, you saw a similar explosion of wealth in an increasingly smaller demographic and, at the same time, less money going back into the system. I don't know why, because the ancient economy is not my thing, but similar trends seem to be emerging today.

And I believe a defect in Republican thinking is the assumption that Corporate America feels patriotic in some sense. As if they really care about employing Americans over Indonesians. I'm not sure reducing their taxes would make much of a difference now. It seems they discovered the magic of outsourcing, and there is little we can do to deter them from this. Hewlett packard is now making their bases of operations in Brazil and Costa Rica. I have two friends who worked for HP in Atlanta. One has been making less than 40k/year even though he has been working there for ten years now. He is always reminded that HP is moving abroad, and his job could be handed over to a Costa Rican or Brasilian any day now.

I am still waiting to find out how the whole global economy question will be settled. I fear it will not end up being that good for the US, but so many things seem to be cutting against us these days. I am not sure who, if anyone, is to blame for that.

I'm referring to the similar sounding.

Oh, I was referring to something else.

In their minds, this says nothing about how many minorities commit crimes, but rather, it says everything about how blacks are racially discriminated against by law enforcement.

But you really think this is an "either or" thing? Seems like trends and attitudes go hand in hand, from my perspective. Race is a sticky and a "no win" issue in many ways. I do think it affects outcomes in many different areas. I think there are folks who, when asked, will say that they'll vote for Obama, primarily because they don't want to appear to be racist, and then go to the polls and vote for Hillary, etc. One can say that there is an unreasonable stigma attached to the white person not choosing the black candidate, or it just may be true that white people are less inclined to vote for a black candidate. One thing is for certain, in my mind, at least--it takes a lot longer than half a century to reverse the effects of deep-seated prejudice.

Obama is a product of this culture and it is his way of thinking. I get nuggests of this philosophy when I hear him speak. He is where he is because of his race and he realizes this. Heck, the only reason he even became a community organizer was because the man hiring him was looking strictly for an black person. Obama has already shown allegiances to some of the whackiest fringe liberals like Rev Wright and Bill Ayers, and he is willing to use federal funds to pay back favors.

Maybe so. On the other hand, it is tough to get anywhere as a high-profile black politician without cooperating with folks may see as fringe figures. I recall when the question of Obama's "blackness" was raised. There were a number of African-Americans who were pointing out that he was not "black" in the sense they are--meaning that his ancestors were not enslaved in this country. Seems to me that it is pretty damn difficult to be a black politician in this country and not be crucified by one group or the other. How successful has Alan Keyes been as a candidate?

He will help black Americans foster this mentality of exclusion in America.

Well, he has at least spoken as though that is not the case.

Does anyone here doubt for a second, that if McCain, not Obama, were the No. 2 recipient of bribes from AIG, that every news agency and their dog would be moaning about this?

Recently I saw a video that showed how both candidates have lobbyists who have worked for the offending institutions of the credit industry in their campaigns.

Thanks again.

[_dartagnan]

If it took such little insight, then I am surprised that so many of my Republican friends did not have even that much.

It took zero insight. It was the same opinion made by many anti-war protestors who operate on 50% indignance and 50% ignorance. This doesn't mean they have the right stuff to lead a nation. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I also seem to recall how unpatriotic it was considered to oppose the war.

Well, that isn't how I remembered it at all. I remembered democrats were being called unpatriotic for giving comfort to the enemy after the war had started. There were all sorts of things they were doing to undermine the mission and the morale of our troops. They were advertising as fact, any rumor that would support their anti-war agenda. The same kinds of things took place during Vietnam, when the whacko left called the troops baby killers, etc. Simply opposing the war is not unpatriotic, and I don't know anyone on the right who thinks this way.

Maybe he didn't have a seat in the Senate riding on it, but he had his reputation within his own neighborhood to be concerned about, and that isn't nothing.

Of this you are certainly correct. After all, he was highly influenced by Reverend "God damn America" Wright, who sees no good from American government. It is no surprise, therefore, that Obama would oppose the war.

A pretty sweeping, and perhaps needlessly insulting, statement. It doesn't take all that much savvy to drop off pills at a doctor's office. There are plenty of brainless jobs in the private sector, and the same skill-challenged folks working in these "meaningless" bureaucracies surely could have landed a job there too.

I am referring to the fact that the federal government is partial to minority hires, specifically lower paying clerical type positions. I'm just going by what the stats tell us, along with personal anecdotes. When democrats start their social programs, they mostly consist of low-level clerical positions, which favor minority hires. And of course it makes sense since it has to live by affirmative action expectations.

On the face of it, doesn't sound appealing.

Well, it does to millions of registered voters who would like to receive money for doing nothing. I see this as another form of payoffs, of which Obama is an expert at receiving and giving. This is why I noted elsewhere that the least educated are inclined to vote for Obama. This wasn't a knock against the educated Obama supporters, just a statement of fact that Obama, as most democratic candidates, rely on the nations most ignorant to stand a chance in an election.

It is the usual scenario as always. They come at the public with tales about how their opponent wants to make the poor poorer and the rich richer. They don't seem to understand that what republicans really want is for Americans to work for what they get, and allow the richer to keep more of what they earn. Where is the rationale in making some people pay 40% of their income to the government, whereas others pay 15%? How is this not a step towards socialism via a redistribution of wealth?

Some would also say that market forces play a big role in the cost of both healthcare and education, but I was referring, in my statement about our American goose, which is cooking right now, to its chefs, who are arguably, depending on your point of view, either the Tax-n-spendocrats or the corporate elite. In the Later Roman Empire, where the wealthy were not forced to pay taxes to support the poor, you saw a similar explosion of wealth in an increasingly smaller demographic and, at the same time, less money going back into the system. I don't know why, because the ancient economy is not my thing, but similar trends seem to be emerging today.

Except in our case, the richest 1% are responsible for providing most of the tax revenues the government collects.

But you really think this is an "either or" thing?

For the Obamas and the Jacksons and the Wrangles, it is. I'm with you and think it is more dimensional than this.

I do think it affects outcomes in many different areas. I think there are folks who, when asked, will say that they'll vote for Obama, primarily because they don't want to appear to be racist, and then go to the polls and vote for Hillary, etc. One can say that there is an unreasonable stigma attached to the white person not choosing the black candidate, or it just may be true that white people are less inclined to vote for a black candidate. One thing is for certain, in my mind, at least--it takes a lot longer than half a century to reverse the effects of deep-seated prejudice.

What else can America do to prove it isn't racist? It launches a black American to the presidential race for Pete's sake. It puts up with every form of reverse discrimination propagated by the black community, and then bows down and abides by their rules for fears of being labeled a racist. I think the black community is its own worst enemy. It is responsible for fostering resentment, self loathing and a palpable sense of division between black and white Americans. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head.

1. They fret at the "N" word and yet they insist on giving it new life at every opportunity, in their own subculture (movies, rap music, comedy, hollywood, etc)

2. They refer to themselves as "African" American when hardly any of them have ever been to Africa. Why can't they just consider themselves "American"?

3. They cry racism if a white person disagrees with inter-racial relationships, yet when a black person protests against a black woman dating a white man, this isn't considered racism.

4. They feel entitled to strictly black magazines, black television stations, and even black churches and colleges. Yet, if there were ever such a thing as a white church, university, tv station or church, it would be a racist outcast by the rest of society.

5. And affirmative action adds further insult to injury. No matter if a black candidate is qualified, if a company doesn't have enough black employees, a black will be hired at the expense of more qualified caucassians.

AA reminds blacks over and over that they are entitled to something because of their skin color. What other race could possibly boast of such a thing? Only in America, the allegedly "racist" state.

Maybe so. On the other hand, it is tough to get anywhere as a high-profile black politician without cooperating with folks may see as fringe figures. I recall when the question of Obama's "blackness" was raised. There were a number of African-Americans who were pointing out that he was not "black" in the sense they are--meaning that his ancestors were not enslaved in this country. Seems to me that it is pretty damn difficult to be a black politician in this country and not be crucified by one group or the other. How successful has Alan Keyes been as a candidate?

Well the same can be said of Jesse Jackson, who rubs elbows with the usual suspects in the race-baiting industry. What makes Obama special is his educational background.

Recently I saw a video that showed how both candidates have lobbyists who have worked for the offending institutions of the credit industry in their campaigns.

Yes, well McCain has been in congress two decades, and Obama two years, so it was pretty odd that Obama was paid more than all but one other senator. The real question is, what were they being paid for?

[_Trevor]

It took zero insight. It was the same opinion made by many anti-war protestors who operate on 50% indignance and 50% ignorance. This doesn't mean they have the right stuff to lead a nation. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Well, I voted for 'W' in 2000, although I had hoped that McCain would win the nomination, and I have never been much of a peacenik, but I felt the Iraq war was a bad idea from the beginning. At the very least, I thought the stated reasons for attacking it at the time were absurd. I also believed that there would be a lot of backlash on the ground. I am not a genius in foreign policy, and I am not a peace at all costs kinda guy. I simply thought it was a bad idea for practical reasons.

Well, that isn't how I remembered it at all. I remembered democrats were being called unpatriotic for giving comfort to the enemy after the war had started.

Well, I guess this shows that we remember things differently.

After all, he was highly influenced by Reverend "God damn America" Wright, who sees no good from American government. It is no surprise, therefore, that Obama would oppose the war.

And you know that this was the basis for his opposition, or are you connecting the dots as you see things?

I am referring to the fact that the federal government is partial to minority hires, specifically lower paying clerical type positions. I'm just going by what the stats tell us, along with personal anecdotes. When democrats start their social programs, they mostly consist of low-level clerical positions, which favor minority hires. And of course it makes sense since it has to live by affirmative action expectations.

Well, my father spent his entire career in the federal government. He too loved to complain about minority hires. I don't recall, however, his complaining about a swollen secretarial pool as a result of these policies.

Well, it does to millions of registered voters who would like to receive money for doing nothing. I see this as another form of payoffs, of which Obama is an expert at receiving and giving. This is why I noted elsewhere that the least educated are inclined to vote for Obama. This wasn't a knock against the educated Obama supporters, just a statement of fact that Obama, as most democratic candidates, rely on the nations most ignorant to stand a chance in an election.

I know mostly people who want good jobs. I am not so familiar with the millions of people who prefer to sit watching soaps and get paid for it. It may surprise you that even uneducated people work, and many of them take pride in the work they do. They didn't happen to like school, but they are far from lazy and useless because of it. Obama and his ilk also rely on the most educated people in the country.

They don't seem to understand that what republicans really want is for Americans to work for what they get, and allow the richer to keep more of what they earn. Where is the rationale in making some people pay 40% of their income to the government, whereas others pay 15%? How is this not a step towards socialism via a redistribution of wealth?

It is a redistribution of wealth, and the nations that happen to have what we call a well developed "civil society" all do it. I am not aware of any serious person who would seek to eliminate it. The trick is finding the proper balance. Both parties compute that balance differently. From where I sit, it seems that you are buying into literalness of what is simply the moralizing rhetoric of both sides, which is aimed at persuading "the ignorant." You speak of the lazy suckling at the unwilling tit of the wealthy, and the Democrats talk about the greedy wealthy. Both are true to a degree, but they are also unsophisticated misdirection that is used to sway those who don't understand anything other than the moral argument.

Except in our case, the richest 1% are responsible for providing most of the tax revenues the government collects.

I'll get back to you on that.

What else can America do to prove it isn't racist?

Nothing, of course. And who isn't? I can't imagine a sophisticated person who does not understand that racial rhetoric is used as a wedge for the purposes of acquiring more power. From a position of weakness, one finds the weapons to defeat the strong. At the same time, black Americans continue to disproportionately suffer from poverty, crime, inferior healthcare, etc. I don't pretend to have the answers, but at the same time I do not deny the problems. Have some black politicians used racial rhetoric for their own cynical purposes? It would be surprising if they did not. At the same time, I am not convinced that Obama is one of these people simply because his pastor was. Wright sold out Obama, after all.

I would no more hold pastor Wright against Obama than I would hold Palin's somewhat fringy Christian associations against her. Frankly, I am uncomfortable with both.

1. They fret at the "N" word and yet they insist on giving it new life at every opportunity, in their own subculture (movies, rap music, comedy, hollywood, etc)

2. They refer to themselves as "African" American when hardly any of them have ever been to Africa. Why can't they just consider themselves "American"?

3. They cry racism if a white person disagrees with inter-racial relationships, yet when a black person protests against a black woman dating a white man, this isn't considered racism.

4. They feel entitled to strictly black magazines, black television stations, and even black churches and colleges. Yet, if there were ever such a thing as a white church, university, tv station or church, it would be a racist outcast by the rest of society.

5. And affirmative action adds further insult to injury. No matter if a black candidate is qualified, if a company doesn't have enough black employees, a black will be hired at the expense of more qualified caucassians.

AA reminds blacks over and over that they are entitled to something because of their skin color. What other race could possibly boast of such a thing? Only in America, the allegedly "racist" state.

And while you write of this "immoral they," I know of plenty of African Americans who do not fit this "negative" portrait you are drawing here in all particulars. There is a small minority of black conservatives. There are black opponents of affirmative action. There are some of these same folks who are conservative, and yet delight in celebrating their heritage. It does not seem to me that you have a coherent vision of what African Americans should be, and yet you have a pretty stereotypical view of what they ought not to be and yet somehow all are. I prefer not to go there.

Well the same can be said of Jesse Jackson, who rubs elbows with the usual suspects in the race-baiting industry. What makes Obama special is his educational background.

What makes him special is the same thing that nearly cost him his candidacy--he is a black man who is not "black" in the sense of most of these people to whom you refer, and by their own reckoning. He has had to make overtures in order to be accepted, wouldn't you think?

Yes, well McCain has been in congress two decades, and Obama two years, so it was pretty odd that Obama was paid more than all but one other senator. The real question is, what were they being paid for?

If McCain is against politics as usual, then why is he surrounded by lobbyists?

Thanks again.