Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:18 am Post subject: Sarah Palin: Good, Bad or just the wrong choice?
It is apparent to anyone who does NOT think GWB was a good choice that the Palin pick was a result of a total lack of judgement on our senior citizen of a candidate, John McCain. What do you think?
So the Republicans wanted short answers...I wonder why!?
To the Republicans here...are you not embarrassed by this pick for VP? They certainly have been keeping her under wraps and out of the camera's eye. And UNlike Cheney, I doubt she is doing is to be under the radar so she can control the presidency with Rover.
She is really a doink! lol
BUT...they will probably get elected because this country is full of doinks that just cannot see the doinks for the trees.
I voted that she is too inexperienced to lead this country. But she has far more experience than Obama and therefore Obama is also too inexperienced to lead our nation.
I voted that she is too inexperienced to lead this country. But she has far more experience than Obama and therefore Obama is also too inexperienced to lead our nation.
What kind of experience are you talking about, Chris? Palin has been a mayor and governor, sure. But it seems to me she's been fairly insulated from the center stage of U.S. politics and being from a small town I think she's probably fairly out of touch with the mainstream. Obama, as a law professor, has much knowledge in the study of law and very little experience in executive position. But he's a U.S. senator and it also seems pretty clear (to me) that he's far more knowledgeable than Palin in matters of history and politics. A world leader needs to be able to see the big picture. Experience helps, but I don't think it's the sole, defining criterion.
To me it looks like Palin is flying by the seat of her pants. Frequently when she's asked for specifics she comes out with these loopy non-sequiturs. I just don't think she's going to look good against Joe Biden tonight, but we shall see.
I voted that she is too inexperienced to lead this country. But she has far more experience than Obama and therefore Obama is also too inexperienced to lead our nation.
No Chris, she is not more experienced than Obama. Think about it. He was involved in a national goevernment. She governs a state with the population of a large city.
And she is just a dope from what comes, or does not come, out of her mouth!
I don't think anyone is qualified to be President: period. But some are less likely to make terrible disasters than others.
I think Palin is a bad choice. I think Obama is a bad choice too, as is Biden and McCain as well. We are left with simply bad choices and it seems, once again, to boil down to a lesser of two evils vote.
I think Obama has much greater potential to achieve the kind of public good that I hope and work for. My vote for Obama would be a vote for his potential. Likewise, my vote against Palin would be a vote against her potential. Neither exhibit the kind of experience that would warrant a safe choice.
At the same time, McCain and Biden have truckloads of experience, very little of which reflects the kind of public good I want to support and protect. I think their experience reflects much that has substantially damaged the public good, and I have no reason to think this destructiveness will not continue.
At the same time, McCain and Biden have truckloads of experience, very little of which reflects the kind of public good I want to support and protect. I think their experience reflects much that has substantially damaged the public good, and I have no reason to think this destructiveness will not continue.
Well put Dissident. But at least with Biden, he would be number two with little chance (natural causes) of finding himself in office of the President. So his experience would only help Obama make decisions but not trump policy decisions. I would rather be concerned about the Main guy, and McCain, IMO, is not the guy. He is too old, too much in line with what we have had and basically, I am one that says that ANY change from a bad situation is something good. Even if it just shakes things up. Republicans have had pretty much total control of the government for 8 years (discounting the Daschle 'majority' every congress since at least 99 has been Republican controled from what I have researched).
109th Congress (1/2005-1/2007)- Senate: Rep-55, Dem- 44, Ind- 1
109th Congress - House: Rep-232, Dem- 201, Ind- 1
108th Congress (1/2003-1/2005)- Senate: Rep-51, Dem- 48, Ind- 1
108th Congress - House: Rep-229, Dem- 205, Ind- 1
107th Congress (1/2001-3/2003) - Senate: Rep-50, Dem- 50, Ind- 0 (fluctuated, Dems had ’control’...the Daschle years)
107th Congress - House: Rep-222, Dem- 211, Ind- 1 (Repub Control by Slight)
106th Congress (1/1999-7/2000) - Senate: Rep-55, Dem- 46, Ind- 0
106th Congress (1999-2000) - House: Rep-223, Dem- 211, Ind- 1
The old idea of checks and balances is a good thing. I even fear total Democrat control of the government. I would LOVE to see more true INDEPENDENTS hit the scene. I mean real independents, not former party fence-sitters.
Here is another bit of useful current events summary for those Ludites like myself (if there are any others) who don't get TV reception. I rely on the kindness of my friend Garth to forward me items like this to supplement print and the internet.
Come on. This is a bit of interview broadcast today of Biden and Palin. (4:00) The last part of the clip is a question about what other Supreme Court decisions Mrs Palin might disagree with (besides Roe v Wade). Listen carefully to the answer. This woman may be folksy but she is totally unprepared intellectually for national office. She talks and says nothing. She is George Bush on steroids. No, seriously, anyone who thinks this person is qualified for the White House probably believes that George Bush brought peace and prosperity to America.
She does sound as if she has never given thought to Supreme Court decisions. I think even a good number of "people on the street" would have had an answer or two to this question about Supreme Court decisions they disagree with. When she vaguely mentions "states rights," it reminds me of what people used to argue who were for slavery, and later, against the racial integration and voting rights rulings. States in the South wanted those to be "states rights" issues. Is that what she means?
I can't believe people in this country are actually as racist as this election is making them look. Ugly.
Well, Palin did not pull any "Palin" moments, she did well in the debate. Just well though. Debates are poor indicators of what one would do in office however. She was ultra-prepped for this.
She came off as very basic to me...repeating lines, avoiding (somtimes painfully) topics and answers.
She is also annoying as hell with that voice and that ultra-large jaw of hers! lol
``Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backward,'' Palin said at one point. ``Now, doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future.''
This is the most annoying thing she said yesterday IMO. If you are proposing change away from one of the most destructive Presidencies in our history, what is wrong with pointing that out and trying to juxtpose that with what you are offering? Of COURSE they want everyone to forget Bush and those that were president.
I have heard the term "Folksy" applied to Palin. Susan Jacoby spoke about this in her latest book. How the Republicans are trying to appear folksy. I aint buying it Sarah. You are just not the right person.
Oh...I also take some offense to this "Joe Six-pack" term. But Rubes and Rednecks will probably eat it all up! Sheep.
The say-it-ain't-so-joe clip was on the radio this morning, hilarious. She does really well changing the subject, perhaps a strong point for American politics?
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: Fact Check
From Fact Check.
Quote:
FactChecking Biden-Palin Debate
October 3, 2008
The candidates were not 100 percent accurate. To say the least.
Summary
Biden and Palin debated, and both mangled some facts.
Palin mistakenly claimed that troop levels in Iraq had returned to “pre-surge” levels. Levels are gradually coming down but current plans would have levels higher than pre-surge numbers through early next year, at least.
Biden incorrectly said “John McCain voted the exact same way” as Obama on a controversial troop funding bill. The two were actually on opposite sides.
Palin repeated a false claim that Obama once voted in favor of higher taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000 a year. He did not. The budget bill in question called for an increase only on singles making that amount, but a family of four would not have been affected unless they made at least $90,000 a year.
Biden wrongly claimed that McCain “voted the exact same way” as Obama on the budget bill that contained an increase on singles making as little as $42,000 a year. McCain voted against it. Biden was referring to an amendment that didn't address taxes at that income level.
Palin claimed McCain’s health care plan would be “budget neutral,” costing the government nothing. Independent budget experts estimate McCain's plan would cost tens of billions each year, though details are too fuzzy to allow for exact estimates.
Biden wrongly claimed that McCain had said "he wouldn't even sit down" with the government of Spain. Actually, McCain didn't reject a meeting, but simply refused to commit himself one way or the other during an interview.
Palin wrongly claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.
For full details on these misstatements, and on additional factual disputes and dubious claims, please read on to the Analysis section.
Analysis
Vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin met for their one and only debate Oct. 2 in St. Louis, Missouri. The event was broadcast nationally. Gwen Ifill of PBS was the debate moderator.
We noted the following:
Palin Trips Up on Troop Levels
Palin got her numbers wrong on troop levels when she said "and with the surge that has worked, we're now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq."
The surge was announced in January 2007, at which point there were 132,000 troops in Iraq, according to the Brookings Institute Iraq Index. As of September 2008, that number was 146,000. President Bush recently announced that another 8,000 would be coming home by February of next year. But even then, there still would be 6,000 more troops in Iraq than there were when the surge began.
Biden Fudges on Troop Funding
Biden defended Obama's vote against a troop-funding bill, claiming that McCain voted "the exact same way."
Palin: Barack Obama voted against funding troops there after promising that he would not do so…He turned around under political pressure and he voted against funding the troops. ...
Biden: John McCain voted the exact same way. John McCain voted against
funding the troops because of an amendment he voted against had a timeline
in it to draw down American troops. And John said I'm not going to fund
the troops if in fact there's a time line.
As we've pointed out before, the squabble refers to a pair of 2007 votes on war funding. Obama voted for a version of the bill that included language calling for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Biden is simply wrong to say that McCain voted against that bill; he was absent and didn’t vote at all. McCain did oppose the bill, and he urged President Bush to veto it. Bush did. Obama then voted against the same bill without withdrawal language. He had voted yes on at least 10 other war funding bills prior to that single 2007 no vote.
Palin's False Tax Claims
Palin repeated a false claim about Barack Obama's tax proposal:
Palin: Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. That's a lot of middle income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy.
Obama did not in fact vote to increase taxes on "families" making as little as $42,000 per year. What Obama actually voted for was a budget resolution that called for returning the 25 percent tax bracket to its pre-Bush tax cut level of 28 percent. That could have affected an individual with no children making as little as $42,000. But a couple would have had to earn $83,000 to be affected and a family of four at least $90,000. The resolution would not have raised taxes on its own, without additional legislation, and, as we've noted before, there is no such tax increase in Obama's tax plan. (The vote took place on March 14 of this year, not last year as Palin said.)
Palin also repeated the exaggeration that Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes. That number includes seven votes that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on corporations or affluent individuals; 23 votes that were against tax cuts; and 17 that came on just
