Vice President Palin?

[Tigers]

The real question is, will she be able to be president if something happens to mccain, he is 72...

The real question?????

That should be about question #20 on the list. There are much more important issues/questions that should be addressed or worried about, before getting to that question.

I mean seriously? Is that "the" question that is really bothering Democratic voters, when Obama and his lack of experience is the guy who is actually leading the Democratic ticket to be President? It seems just a bit ironic to me if "The real question" is whether or not Palin has the "experience" to step in as President if something dramatic should happen to McCain during the next four years, when Obama is running to BE the President and has minimal, if any, additional experience than Palin has at this point in time.

I consider myself to be pretty middle of the road when it comes to politics and I'm still undecided regarding the current tickets. Hell, I voted for the Democratic nominee/ticket during the last Presidential election, but the last thing I'd be doing right now as a Democrat would be trying to point out Palin's lack of experience as a negative in the event that something should happen to McCain and she has to step in as President. Obama's lack of experience is similar and he's looking to be voted in as THE President right now.

I mean really, if the Republican ticket ended up winning and Palin received 6 months to a year of on the job training as VP, and then something happend to McCain, how could that be any worse than Obama and his lack of experience running for President right now?

Economic plan
Energy plan
Foreign Policy plan
Domestic programs
Immigration stance / Position on Social issues
Education System development
Social Security / Healthcare reform

Much bigger issues and questions that people should be asking of the candidates.

[Royals]

Soundbites is just the way of America today, it's not the "Rove Playbook" (which is much more a book of dirty tricks). The average American doesn't want to invest the time to become informed voters.

"If oil isn't drilled here it will be drilled in Russia, the Gulf States, South America, or Africa, and none of those places will drill with the same environmental safeguards that American companies would have to put in place here."
Jake, you know I generally respect you, but that has to be the first thing I've heard you say that is just absolutely 100% stupid. The US drilling or not drilling in Alaska or elsewhere in the nation isn't going to change one... single... thing... about drilling in Russia, S. America, Africa, etc. Those places are going to get drilled in no matter what. They're going to be drilled and they're going to be drilled the way those nations allow them to be. Just because other nations continue raping and befouling their natural environments doesn't mean we should.

Additionally, the oil shale that is found in the Rockies and elsewhere is much harder to extract and process than the oil that is pumped in the gulf. The claims of huge amounts of oil to be found are being made by oil companies and the head-in-the-sanders that don't want to admit that there is a climate problem. Consider the source there, if you think that those best case scenarios are going to even come close to coming true, then I have a bridge to sell you. Also, it will be a good 10 years, even if they started today, before any appreciable amount of petrol started coming out of there, probably longer. That's money that would be better invested in further developing alternative fuel technologies.

That oil doesn't just go into the American market though. It goes into the global market which is massive and getting larger by the day. It's not going to drive down oil prices, at best it might slow down the climb a little bit.

I think you guys know me enough to know I'm not opposed to drilling in Alaska just because it's a republican idea (it's not a republican idea, it's an oil company idea) but largely because of the environmental impact. It's a bad idea because it's terrible for the environment, because it's going to have negligible positive impact on the global oil market and because continuing to follow the same ideas and principles ISN'T going to solve our problems. We need a major paradigm shift.

[Giants]

Bren-ster, oil is a market-based commodity, meaning that its price is set by supply and demand, and yes, if oil is drilled here then it won't be drilled in other places if its more attractive (i.e. easier to get out of the ground). Meanwhile, if more oil is being drilled then the supply goes up which lowers the price. It's absolutely a short-term fix, but lowering the price of oil lowers the price of everything else and will do more to put money back into American pockets than any other option on the table. But let's table oil for a second, which is a much more complicated issue than Nancy Pelosi would have you believe (mostly because it's too complicated for her to understand, like most things).

The Karl Rove playbook is thus: Organize a rabid group of volunteers (most from the extreme wing of the party) who will pull long hours going door to door and making the case for your candidate, building a groundswell of support. Meanwhile build up a base on the internet to allow those supporters to connect. Let the staffers at the top of the campaign focus on establishing a message and insuring that it continues to be put out every news cycle. Respond to every story about your candidate within each news cycle and do not allow anything to shift the focus from your message, if you repeat it enough people will start to believe it whether or not it has any bearing on reality (such as Kerry is a flip-flopper or McCain=Bush). Finally, focus on the numbers. Know exactly how many people you need to get to the polls to win in each state, which demographics of your supporters aren't showing up and how to get them physically to the polls (It's no coincidence that in 2000 in Florida and 2004 Ohio were that close, the Bush people knew exactly how many people they needed in those states and got them).

That is what Barack Obama's campaign is doing to a t, it's much deeper than soundbites.

[Royals]

You think that people are going to wait on drilling in S. America, Africa and Russia? Because that's what you're suggesting and it isn't going to happen. The market is still going to be hot enough for them to make a LOT of money off of it. They're not going to sit on their wallets and wait. If they do, someone may find a way to beat them to it and a dollar today is worth a hell of a lot more than a chance at a dollar next week or next year. Cutting out the ethanol bullshit and making a genuine commitment to alternative energies and energy conservation would do a hell of a lot more to put money back in the American pocket than any amount of drilling will.

[Giants]

Viable alternative energy is 10 years in the future, and we need to begin developing it now, as it will absolutely create jobs and put money in American's pockets (as McCain pointed out in his speech tonight). Meanwhile, we also need to worry about the next 10 years while the stuff is being developed. Here's how it works, known reserves in Russia and the Middle East are getting more difficult to drill at, and they are really only profitable if the price of oil is at a certain point (I think the tipping point is around $85 per barrel). So, if there is more drilling in easier to access (because they haven't been exploited yet) drilling sites on the outer continental shelf and in ANWR, then the supply of oil will go up which (especially combined with the decreases in demand that we have seen with people choosing Priuses over Hummers, which have a small but significant impact) will cause the price of oil to drop to a point where drilling in those places is no longer profitable. Meanwhile we use the easily exploitable oil here, and as that becomes more difficult to get to we are already phasing in newer technologies like the Tesla or what Project BetterPlace is doing or some new technology that does something else. So yes, that they won't ultimately have to drill that oil is precisely what I'm arguing.

[Yankees]

First of all, I thought McCain did a good job delivering his speech last night. Outside of his, at times, distracting arm movements, I was quite impressed with his delivery.

The only reason I'm writing this is because you're using the word "alluded." McCain alluded to a lot of things last night - BUT HE NEVER TOLD ME ANYTHING I DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW ABOUT HIM. In the words of Eminmen, "pay attention, you saying the same shit (s)he said." I'm going to refuse to take the Republicans seriously if they refuse to tell me anything about their policies. They mock how vague Obama's "change" is, and then don't offer A solution when they say they are the change party.

I think I've made known that I'm liberal-leaning, but not the world's biggest Obama fan - but if McCain is waiting until a debate to launch the policy portion of his campaign, he's in deep shit. They keep saying what a great job Bush has done - but that this country is in dark days and needs massive change - well, which the fuck is it?

[Giants]

Um... What more specifics do you want? He specifically talked about lowering taxes, especially the corporate tax, he talked about improving access to education through charter schools, he talked about developing a combined program to drill for the short term while developing fossil fuels for the long term, and most importantly he talked about bipartisanship and acknowledged the failures of the Republican administration and talked about how to move on.

Meanwhile Obama listed off all of these grand plans that he promised to pay for by closing "corporate loopholes." I freely acknowledge being John McCain's biggest fan on this board, but I don't think that his speech was much more vague than Obama's, maybe Obama had more specific goals with less specific answers about how to make them happen while McCain had fewer specific goals with more specifics on how the government will be run. Either way, the most important thing for his speech was to break with Bush, and he accomplished that successfully.

The nice thing about Republican policies is that they are already pretty well known (hell Mitt Romney almost made himself the nominee by effectively parroting the Rush Limbaugh variant), if you'd like to know the Republican policy on anything just ask us, we'll tell you.

[Royals]

Those oil platforms and shit you want to build? It'll take ten years to get those platforms up and running and then it goes o the GLOBAL market, not the American market. Drop in the bucket, ten years down the line. That's ten years of burgeoning Chinese growth with the associated demand for oil. more fossil fuels? Yeah, that's a great freakin idea, lets do exactly what we've been doing, just with a different fuel that, oh, by the way, still contributes to global warming and is even messier to take out of the ground than oil is.

As much as McCain talked about cutting ties with Bush, his policies are the same old shit. He may never talk to bush ever again, but his policies, hyper-militarism, continued tax breaks for the wealthy, hyper-conservative social agendas, sitting in the back pocket of lobbyists, are no different from Bush's. This is a guy so out of touch with the realities of average Americans, he thinks that you're not rich until you make $5m/year. meanwhile, that nutcase he picked for VP cannot possibly be considered a rational human being. He'll do anything to get elected president, including picking an incompetent crackpot as VP.

[Yankees]

I'm not one to take a soundbite and run - but Palin scared me shitless when she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. I really hope she's smart.

[Giants]

No one knows what the Bush Doctrine is. If there actually was a Bush Doctrine that was followed we would have invaded both Iran and North Korea by now. I'm honestly not sure when "Bush Doctrine" became a household word.

[Yankees]

Simply because Bush is too lazy to act on it, doesn't mean he didn't make a big fucking stink about his Doctrine when it happened.

Most of it was outlined, ad nauseum, by Bush in his post-9/11 speeches - and actually outlined in writing in 2002. His obsession with creating this 'Doctrine' had, I'd bet the ranch, something to do with wanting his own Doctrine after how well the "Reagan Doctrine" worked out.

Let's put it this way, prior to about 6 months ago I didn't know next to nothing about politics or policies, and I still knew what the Bush Doctrine stood for at its core.

[Yankees]

"I didn't know next to nothing"

Nice English Brett - please insert "I knew next to nothing"

[Royals]

I really hope she's smart.

Her insistence on teaching creationism (even the Vatican acknowledges evolution as fact) in public schools as a science answers that pretty well. Insistence on ignoring facts in order to maintain adherence to what you believe is a dangerous trait in a world leader. You have to be able to look at facts objectively without personal bias.
That and she thinks it's wrong to have an abortion as a result of something as extreme as incestual rape. Some sicko could rape his 11 or 12 yr old daughter and knock her up and she'd call it a gift from God.

[Yankees]

Thought this was pretty good...

Family Values

(Someone sent this to me, but I'm not sure of its source. There seem to be versions of this floating around)



I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight:
If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different." If you grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, that's a quintessential American story.
If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim. Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
Graduate from Harvard Law School and you are unstable. Attend 5 differen t small colleges before graduating and you're well-grounded.
If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a constitutional law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator, representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, are elected to 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people and sponsor or co-sponsor 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with fewer than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highe st ranking executive

If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 daughters, you're not a real Christian

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your first wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian. If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system and then your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.

If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a high-paying job in a good law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.

If your husband [nickname "First Dude"], sports at least one DWI conviction and didn't register to vote until he was 25 but did belong to a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.


--
Nora Eisenberg, PhD
Director, Faculty Fellowship Publication Program, City University of New York

[Royals]

Thanks for posting that, I'll be sharing that one...

[Padres]

... It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.

What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events ó the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.

How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who canít, what has worked and what hasnít.

Experienced leaders can certainly blunder if their minds have rigidified (see: Rumsfeld, Donald), but the records of leaders without long experience and prudence is not good. As George Will pointed out, the founders used the word ìexperienceî 91 times in the Federalist Papers. Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opini ... ref=slogin

[Giants]

Couple things. If we could go ahead and not use this as a forum to post chain emails that would be a good thing (especially considering how chain emails have really fucked up this election cycle). Plus frankly the forum is more fun when its us arguing then if we're just posting things we've read back and forth.

Jim, in response to your post I'm going to post this sidebar from a recent [url=]http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... over_N.htm]USA Today[URL] story about Sarah Palin, who clearly and prudently put aside her more extreme views to reach a compromise with state Democrats about the really important issue of ending the corruption that Big Oil had in the Alaska statehouse.


PALIN AS GOVERNOR

Dec. 4, 2006 - Sarah Palin takes office.

Dec. 19 - Alaska Supreme Court rules that the state must offer benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees as of Jan. 1.

Dec. 20 - Palin signs a bill requiring a non-binding, statewide referendum on a constitutional amendment that would deny benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees.

Dec. 28 - Palin vetoes a bill that would have prohibited extending benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. She calls the bill unconstitutional.

April 3, 2007 - Alaska voters approve a non-binding referendum 53%-47% to amend the state constitution and ban extending benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees.

Dec. 19 - Palin signs into law a bill that would raise taxes on oil companies' profits to 25% from 22.5%.

April 23, 2008 - Palin writes a letter to state Senate President Lyda Green, a Republican, rejecting Green's proposal to add two anti-abortion bills to the special legislative session on construction of a natural gas pipeline.

Aug. 25 - Palin signs into law a bill that provides every Alaska resident a $1,200 rebate from net oil profits tax in addition to the annual dividend that Alaskans receive from the Permanent Fund as a share of oil companies' profits.

Aug. 28 - Palin signs into law a bill that allows the state to enter into a contract with TransCanada to build a natural gas pipeline and provide the company with a $500 million subsidy from the state.

Source: USA TODAY research

The story itself is worth reading because, rather than focusing on meaningless political speeches, it talks about what Sarah Palin actually did with executive power, and is especially instructive considering that if God forbid something happened to McCain and she became President she would have to work with a heavily Democratic Congress to get anything done. Point to anything similar in terms of working across party lines on that scale for Barack Obama, I've looked and I can't find that sort of meaningful bipartisan accomplishment in his record.

Bren, I still owe you a screed on oil, later this afternoon when I have some time I'll get back to ya.

[Padres]

...Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opini ... ref=slogin

First, this was not a chain letter. This was from a piece that David Brooks, generally known as a conservative writer, penned for the New York Times. While I do not always agree with Mr. Brooks, I do often read him and take his viewpoint into consideration when I am attempting to read material from across the political spectrum on a particular issue.

Second, this posting was not meant to be "anti-Palin". Brooks himself went to say in the article, "Sarah Palin has many virtues." This posting was reflective of my concern that this election not stink into a personality driven or simple partisan battle - as it appears that some people want it to become. We are voting for the man (either McCain or Obama) who will be responsible for providing new leadership for our country at a time when we so obviously need it. We should make that decision very carefully ... in my case, I feel this is likely the most important election on the national level in my lifetime - nearly 54 years young.

Finally, I was/am familiar with the Governor's work on that issue, i.e., the TransCanada pipeline, and I do agree that whether one is for or against the eventual outcome her work did display an ability to work across party lines to pass legislation which she (and apparently the majority of other elected Alaskan officials) felt was in Alaska's best interest. The reference you provided is a good review of her work.

[Dodgers]

Jim, Jake was responding to Brett's post that was clearly a chain letter AND anti-Palin.

[Giants]

Ya sorry Jim, I thought about quoting Z's thing in my post and decided it was too long and it would clutter the post. Sorry for the confusion, it would be especially hypocritical of me to give you shit for linking to a legitimate newspaper article and then link to one myself in the same post. Hope that clears up confusion.

[Padres]

I'm not one to take a soundbite and run - but Palin scared me shitless when she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is ...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... .htmlstory

This is posted both for it's humor value - and to explain the so-called Bush Doctrine.

[Dodgers]

I thoroughly enjoyed this quote:
"If John McCain hadn't said that 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' on the day of one of our nation's worst financial crises, the claim that he invented the BlackBerry would have been the most preposterous thing said all week," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/ ... index.html

[Yankees]

Sorry - I thought that chain letter actually made some absolutely fantastic points. If you want to go ahead and argue any of them, knock yourself out. I just think it's amazing how Republicans go so far out of their way to make personal attacks and totally eschew the issues. I guess that gets you elected these days, but it's hilarious to know that KARL FUCKING ROVE has said the Republicans have gone too far this year.

[Giants]

Z, propaganda is propaganda. What if I sent you this chain letter that is currently floating around Jewish emails all over the country:

Obama has had a decade long relationship with pro-Palestinian leaders in Chicago

the leader of Hamas, Ahmed Yousef, expressed support for Obama and his hope for Obama's victory

the church Barack Obama has attended is known for its anti-Israel and anti-American remarks

Jimmy Carter's anti-Israel national security advisor is one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors

Barack Obama was the member of a board that funded a pro-Palestinian chartiable organization

Barack Obama called for holding a summit of Muslim nations excluding Israel if elected president

Refute any of those points. The point is that arguments written in that style aren't arguments at all, they are written to inflame tempers and stretch the truth, and wasting energy refuting them is like banging your head against the wall because they aren't meant to be rationally debated.

[Mariners]

Lame example Jake, not even comparable!