Today, John McCain announced his selection of first-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate and Vice Presidential candidate. Most of the country immediately responded, "who?", and at least this blogger is pondering, "why?".
It is not particularly uncommon to select someone who is an unknown quantity to the public at large, but Palin strikes me as a particularly odd choice for a few reasons:
First, she immediately nullifies McCain's primary argument against an Obama presidency. The Republicans, even in their rebuttal to Obama's speech last night (which was masterful, BTW), have been criticizing Obama's relative lack of experience as The Reason he shouldn't be President. That's officially off the table, at least to any rational mind. Sarah Palin may be a fabulous person, but she has significantly less experience than Barack Obama. She has been Governor of Alaska for two years, before which her highest office was as mayor of a town of 8,000 residents. John McCain turns 72 years old today; his VP better be able to immediately step in and assume the Presidency.
Second, she's a horrible match with Joe Biden, Obama's VP selection. Biden will eat her alive in the VP debate in Missouri, and that has nothing to do with her gender.
Third, she is unlikely to swing many Hillary Clinton supporters. The Dems did an impressive job of unifying the party at their convention, and both Clintons gave rousing endorsements of Obama. There is very little doubt that the party is anything but Obama's at this point, and as I see it, the vast majority of Hillary supporters are now officially on the bandwagon. Those voters that are hell-bent on having a woman in the White House may give her a look, but I'd bet that many are too liberal to seriously consider a Republican despite her gender.
Fourth, she hails from a state that is relatively irrelevant to the electoral map. I do think the notion that a VP is supposed to bring his/her home state on board is overblown, but it does have some merit I think. Alaska wasn't going to land in Obama's column regardless of either candidate's VP pick.
Fifth, on the one issue on which Palin does have significant experience, oil (specifically on drilling for the stuff in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge), she disagrees with McCain. McCain has opposed drilling there, and Palin famously (in certain circles, anyway) supports it.
Sixth, she looks like she could be his daughter. :P
For all I know, she is a wonderful person and beauty pageant contestant (runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant back in the day), and she does deserve credit for her corruption-fighting in Alaska. But all in all, I find her to be a curious VP choice that highlights what I feel to be an increasing sense of desperation in the McCain camp.
Sarah Palin - A Curious Choice
Posted by big.bald.dave on 8/29/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
150 comments:
Thank you for writing a post on Palin so I (as the lone active conservative right now) didn't have to. But, I do disagree. I think she is a very smart choice.
First, what is the rallying cry around Obama? Change! What was the one thing Romney was pitching? A Washington outsider. Here is a woman who is definitely a Washington outsider who has a track record of change - even taking on corruption within the Republican party. She is a type of Maverick herself with regard to the Republican party. I really like that about her.
Second, she is a strong, pro-life, family values conservative. McCain needs to address that in his base.
Third, not all women are liberal feminists. All women don't want a woman like Clinton. There are a lot of us who would like to see a smart, accomplished woman in office who DOESN'T beat a liberal drum. I think Palin has a good chance of picking up a lot of those women for McCain.
Fourth, I think that McCain and Palin perfectly match Obama and Biden. A couple of old, experienced Washington senators vs. a couple of new, rising stars.
Any argument that the Democrats throw at Palin can essentially be thrown right back. What? You are pandering to the woman vote? Oh? Are you pandering to the black vote? Look at all that inexperience. Oh? Look at all of your inexperience!
Fifth, next to mean old grouch Biden, Palin will come across as refined and respectable - definitely giving her the upper hand.
I do agree that I have the same thought with Alaska. How relevant is the experience in Alaska compared to the rest of the U.S., but she has done amazing things there. She is an impressive woman. Good choice McCain!
Any argument that the Democrats throw at Palin can essentially be thrown right back. What? You are pandering to the woman vote? Oh? Are you pandering to the black vote? Look at all that inexperience. Oh? Look at all of your inexperience!
Sure, but it also puts the Republicans on the defensive. Up until now they have been in attack mode, and their most effective attack vector has been experience/qualifications. They can't do that anymore unless the public isn't smart enough to see through it (which is possible).
Honestly, I have a more difficult time with an inexperienced President than an inexperienced VP. The VP can at least gain experience while working toward President. The President is there, so we all get to experience the mistakes in the "learning curve".
The comment I'm hearing often from women is that they feel insulted that McCain thinks he'll get the women vote simply because he chose a woman as a running vote. I don’t think woman are that naive.
The fact is, McCain, a 72 year old presidential candidate is not likely to live through his first term. Average male life expectancy predicts he won't make it through. He's not a picture of health either
There's a reason federal employee's have a mandatory retirement at age 65.
So, in reality, this is your next president of the United States. Younger than Obama, educated in journalism, only 2 years as governor, a husband who is in the oil business and already tangled in a corruption scandal in Alaska.
I expected better for our country.
Anonymous, that (McCain, a 72 year old presidential candidate is not likely to live through his first term) is exactly why I was hoping for Romney. :)
Gosh, do you really think McCain will croak before he finishes out his term? I know he's old, but he seems like a reasonably tough nut. "twill be interesting I guess.
Question: What is more likely - that we get to a Palin presidency via McCain's death of old-age-related-something-or-other, or a Biden presidency via Obama's assassination?
Am I so simple-minded to be relieved that it isn't Romney, simply so that I don't have to listen to inaccurate negative statements about the church on the news?
"next to mean old grouch Biden, Palin will come across as refined and respectable - definitely giving her the upper hand."
I'm glad to see well informed and educated reasons for opposing Biden. That big ol' meany!
LOL!
=)
Anon, I'm not talking about Biden's qualifications. I'm talking about how he will come across in a debate.
Seriously, what is this, conservative talk radio?
I thought this blog page was about intelligent debate. Some of you should really leave out the Ad Hominem fallacies and leave that to people like Michael Savage and O'Reilly.
Uh oh. I'm hearing rumors she just said the word "nucular" at the introduction event this morning. I've *definitely* had enough of that. :)
Thank you Stephanie,
I agree that Palin will get sympathy votes because it will come across like Biden is a mean old man who is trying to pick on her. However, from the speach that Palin gave this morning it sounds like she can stand on her own.
She was authentic and great!!!
Kennedy killed Nixon in the 1960's televised debate because of how he looked and came across on the TV.
Reagan was much older than Gorbachev when they first met for their historic cold-war talks; however, because Reagan, the actor, was wearing a slick suit and didn't have an overcoat on (like Gorby) he looked like the younger more engergetic statesman.
The main thing Obama has going for him is that he comes across well when he gives a speach. Obama's policies and statements don't hold any water and he doesn't have any experience that supports any of his claims. If anything, he has done the opposite of what he now says he is going to do.
Unfortunately, in our "modern" world of 24/7 Television the media has become a fourth branch of the government. How well someone comes across and how they look on TV plays a huge part in winning the "hearts and minds" of the american voter.
I was extremely impressed with Palin's acceptance speach today. It had the freshness that I like in Romney, but it had the heart that seems to be missing in politics. Romney had a hard time showing his heart (because I think he was under constant attack for being mormon).
I wonder if Romney would be the nominee or the VP if one of his sons was serving in Iraq like Palin's son is. Hmmm...
Palin's husband is a captain sniper in the US Army and has served in Iraq. She is the young mother of 5 kids and many people will relate to her.
This is going to be a fun show to watch...
With McCain's experience as a maveric on the inside and Palin's rise as a reformer they are a powerful team.
I am glad to think that if McCain and Palin win then they will have Romney in the administration helping with economic policy and reform. Romney is now positioned very well to help.
Palin's husband is a captain sniper in the US Army and has served in Iraq.
That is interesting. The New York Times article just listed his occupation as "her husband, Todd, who owns a commercial fishing business".
Stephanie's basically nailed it. Palin is a very smart choice politically, for many of the reasons already covered by Stephanie. I don't think Palin will peel away many Democratic Hillary supporters (mostly because Palin is pro-life). But then, I think that whole "digruntled women defecting to McCain" thing was way overblown anyway.
I do think Palin will defang Biden somewhat in the VP debates. You can get away with going on the attack against a male opponent, but do that to a female opponent and you risk looking mean. Biden can be aggressive in other arenas, as long as he's going after McCain--but not in any debates with Palin.
And she'll definitely help McCain with the evangelical base--whereas Romney would have hurt him there.
FWIW, I've always believed that America's first black president, and first woman president, would be a Republican.
Wizzle, I don't think McCain's going to die in office, but you have to admit that his chances of doing so are probably a lot greater than Obama's. And if McCain does die in office, well, Palin's definitely not ready for the job--even less ready than Obama, and certainly less ready than almost all the other possible VPs on the short list.
In sum: a politically smart choice but potentially bad for the country.
--David
reuters is reporting that her husband is a blue collar oil worker. so what is the truth?
sorry. i'm answering my own question here. gov. palin herself said her husband is a lifelong commercial fisherman who works in the oil fields on alaska’s north slope. he's also a member of the us steel workers.
She has a son serving in the military who is going to Iraq. Perhaps that is what you meant, Jonathan?
On another site I read that Palin's husband quit his job to be a stay-at-home dad. Can I just say that I LOVE this family?!?!
Here is what I meant...
This morning I read the following in an article from the NYT about Palin:
"In November, Ms. Palin spoke at a redeployment ceremony for the company of her husband, Daniel Norman, an Army sniper who was awarded a Purple Heart."
If you do a Google News search for "Palin Sniper" the reference still comes up.
However; when I click on the link of the The New York Times on the Google search it goes to the article that I read before, but it has now been "updated", and it no longer has the reference to her husband's Army service.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?ref=us
I guess there are two things we can learn from this:
1) You should never rely on the NYT as a reliable source of news. The NYT's just makes it up, and then when you fall for it and reference them as a source they leave you hanging. They recommended McCain and then stabbed him in the back.
2) We really don't know much about Palin. We know about as much about Palin as we do about Obama.
Check out this lawsuit by a Democrat that shows that Obama is not eligible to be president. http://obamacrimes.com/
Obama's birth certificate was faked, he is a citizen of Kenya, and he was adopted in another country.
Obama's speech talked about him being raised in Kansas and Chicago, but it never said that he was actually raised in Hawaii and Indonesia.
"In November, Ms. Palin spoke at a redeployment ceremony for the company of her husband, Daniel Norman, an Army sniper who was awarded a Purple Heart."
Perhaps Daniel Norman was the sniper and it was not an army company, but her husband's fishing company.
Either way the NYTs dropped it.
LOL Jonathan. I'll keep lesson #1 in mind.
That lawsuit is completely bogus - when that gets to court and they find something legitimate, let me know. And I think we know a *little* bit more about Obama than Palin at this point.
Also, you could make those NYT statements about any news source in the entire world - they're wrong occasionally. At least they had the good sense to correct it.
Exactly, BBD. To cite a simple mistake (a mistake which, furthermore, does not comport with the NYT's political leanings) and then say the paper "just makes it up" is, OK, I'll be nice here, considerably worse than just wrong.
I doubt Jonathan would apply the same logic to FOX News and its erroneous reference to John McCain as "D-Ariz."
Anyone who's ever worked in journalism knows how easy it is to make a mistake--and how ludicrously conspiracy-minded and mean-spirited some readers can be about those mistakes. Even readers who call themselves Christians.
--David
I took jonathan's comment tongue-in-cheek like a joke
So did I, but I don't think that is how it was intended. :)
Wow, you take my jab at the NYTs and turn into a question about my Christianity?
Wow, touche'
Did any of you notice how Obama's tongue was literally in his cheek a few times during his speech? He is a textbook excellent presenter.
I remember a few times when he was making some jabs at McCain and then deftly planted his tongue in his cheek as if to say, "Oh, I am so funny..."
If Obama is taking a jab at McCain like that can he really be Christian?
Or, could it just be that this is politics and it is expected that people will take jabs at eachother when there is an opening...
Then again maybe Obama really isn't Christian?
(I am laughing right now anticipating how this last question is going to get you all fired up.
Go ahead take your jab... tear me down with your best shot)
;-)
The cynic in me is beginning to wonder if all of this excitement over the pick of Palin is due to Repubs looking for something, anything, to take some of the shine off of Obama's awesome speech last night. You can quibble with the words and the policies, but it was an amazing speech and the atmosphere was totally electric.
Other than that, I really can't add anything to your post BBD. You summed up my impressions exactly.
Well, steve, not this Repub because I really could care less what Obama said in his speech since I am not going to vote for him even if it WAS the best speech ever. But, I think that Repubs are excited about Palin because she is something/someone to be excited about. I might not have to hold my nose in voting for McCain (well, maybe just one nostril).
In all honesty, I have to admit that it was clever of McCain to announce this morning. The day would have been spent talking about Obama's speech, but instead McCain (Palin) got the limelight. Very clever, IMO. (and I am sure Obama will find a way to sock it back to him)
it was an amazing speech and the atmosphere was totally electric.
Yes, and that is what people used to say about Hitler's speeches.
Personally I'm all for having a mother in the white house. Sarah keeps a crib in her office back in Alaska. And she chose not have an abortion when they found out they were having a Downs' baby. That is hard core conservative. GO ELEPHANTS!!!
--
I think Palin is a great choice! I can honestly feel good about voting:). I don't have to vote for Barr anymore, yah!
I honestly think Dems are jealous of McCains pick. Here's why:
1. It's true she lacks experience, but in what little experience she has, she completely trumps Obama as far as accomplishments.
2. She is exactly what Dems want when they say "someone outside of Washington" or the "change" that Obama supposedly is. Rather than meddling in corruption she actually fights corruption. Imagine that!
3.She is a really well rounded WOMAN (for reasons already mentioned)
4. She sexy!!!:)
I am glad that McCain went with someone to balance his liberal side. Had he picked a Liberman, I and many other Reb's. would have given up on this Rep ticket.
I find it interesting that in Obama's "electric" speech he uses language such as "we Democrats..." as if the Dems are better and Rep's can't do anything worth while. Not what a "uniter" should say. He also constantly ties McCain to Bush as if Bush is the anti-Christ. That's fine, just don't get your panties in a bunch when McCain ties Obama to Jerimiah Wright, Ayers and other extremist "friends".
One more thing on Obama's "awesome" speech, what specific solutions did he spell out again?
I am very excited for Palin. She will be awesome!
Sadly, I do fear an assassination/s attempt on Obama.
BBD, I heard Palin say "nuculer" in her speech today and It made me think of you:)
...the atmosphere was totally electric.
Yes, and that is what people used to say about Hitler's speeches.
They said that about last night's lightning storm, too. What exactly is your point? Are you honestly comparing Obama to Hitler? We're only 30 comments in - are we already invoking Godwin's Law?
It has been said that Obama will bring out the African American voters who have never voted before, and that will be his trump card. I think the same type of thing will happen with Palin because of the historic nature of voting for a female Republican Vice President, women who have never voted will come out and vote for Palin.
As for the executive experience question I think two years as governor trumps Obama's lack luster legislative time in the Senate.
Wisdom is what I see in Palin. With wisdom as an attribute I think Palin could do quite well as President if that is required of her. Wisdom is what makes a great president. Wisdom can be found at any age. I have yet to find it in Obama's choices.
I sure do hope Romney's vast talents are put to use in McCain's Presidency. I think Romney's talents would have been wasted as VP. Vicki
"(B)ecause of the historic nature of voting for a female Republican Vice President, women who have never voted will come out and vote for Palin."
I doubt this because those women who would find Palin most appealing are those who are like her: smart, educated, white, middle to upper-class American, pro-life women. These are women who already vote for the most part, and they would have already been leaning towards the Republican party. The ones that don't vote are lower class, uneducated, often minorities. IF those women feel compelled to vote in this election, who are they most likely to vote for? Probably not McCain.
If we want to look at the "overall packages" here, then let's compare. Yes, a lot of people have issues with Obama's lack of experience. Obviously, a lot of people think that he lacks experience, which is understandable, but at the same time a lot of people certainly think that he is ready to be president, if we go by what the polls say. Yes, he only has a slight lead, but a lead is a lead. For those who think that Obama doesn't have the experience that it takes, I think that Biden's experience makes them a very attractive "package." Obama is a diplomat. He's liked around the world, whether that's deserved or not, and he already has a head start abroad simply for not being a Republican. Fair? Probably not, but that's certainly the overwhelming perspective abroad.
I've been thinking a lot about the new Cold War brewing. The rhetoric is starting to get ugly between the US and Russia over the Georgian crisis. The US (including McCain himself) has dismissed any possibility of Russia's initial move into South Ossetia as being legitimate. That, IMO, was not only wrong (even the US ambassador to Russia admitted that Russia's first move was legitimate), but it was a huge diplomatic mistake. I'm not saying Russia is the good guy here, but I think that Georgia has gotten away with this unfairly unscathed. A couple of days ago, Putin accused the US of orchestrating the whole conflict in the first place. Ridiculous? Absolutely! But any less ridiculous than the US reaction to Georgia's actions? Probably not.
So, with a possibly new Cold War looming, I'm just curious as to why the Republicans think Palin is ready (in the possible event of McCain dying) to be thrown into guiding the US through such a scenario. So Palin is bringing the Republican party back to its roots. So she's pro-life, pro-NRA, very conservative. That's great for the Republican party. But how does that help in the real world abroad?
I realize that Americans have huge domestic issues to concentrate on, but they also have to think about what's going on in the world. McCain, at age 72, could be going head-to-head with Russia, as well as all the other wars, cold or real, that the US already has going. Here he's chosen a VP that may be strong domestically, but brings zip to the table in foreign affairs. And, potentially, she could end up running the whole show. I've been watching and reading all the reactions from both Reps and Dems and despite all the praise she's getting from Reps, I've yet to hear anyone say that she's ready to lead the country in the event that McCain dies.
It's just my opinion that Obama-Biden is a better total package than McCain-Palin for the times that we live in now. Biden fills in the experience gaps that Obama has and when you combine their intelligence, diplomacy, popularity (as shallow as that may sound, it counts!) and experience, they become a very strong ticket.
McCain may be able to unite the Republican party with Palin, by bringing it back to its roots. But when it comes to world affairs, he's on his own. Sure, she can get experience, but that takes time and the reality is that when you're 72, you may not have all the time in the world to train your VP to be President -- especially with the Russian Bear breathing down your back. I just feel that Obama-Biden will have a better chance of averting further conflict, especially with Russia, via diplomacy than McCain-Palin would.
So there's a foreigner's perspective on McCain-Palin vs. Obama-Biden. :)
Vicki - good point on Romney. I hope that if McCain wins, he puts Romney in his cabinet or in a position relating to the economy - something that plays on his strengths and can help us get out of the mess we are in.
Jonathan suggests that "maybe Obama really isn't Christian."
Of course he's not Christian, if by "Christian" one means adherents to the beliefs of Christ. Jesus detailed his return in the Last Days and said it would all happen before his generation passed away. That prediction did not come true, which is to say he turned out to be a false prophet, and and so his words and worldview began to be reinterpreted in ways that changed the early church into a variety of churches that became increasingly different.
Ever since, the word "Christian" has come to mean less and less, and has become more and more a prestigious brand-name to be fought over by competing institutions (like Mormons and Southern Baptists are so vigorously doing today).
As for Jessie and that Hitler remark: one could just as easily compare Obama's oratory and its positive reception to Ronald Reagan's. It all depends on the rhetorical effect one is after. Jessie's quip was pure rhetoric. Jessie might want to take a look at the responses of people like Stephanie and Amy--they don't support Obama either, but they actually try to make a rational case for their positions rather than just compare their opponents to Hitler.
--David
One interesting perspective on McCain picking Palin:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/12997
Army sniper source:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080829/BREAKING/808290286/2055/NEWS&title=McCain_picks_Alaska_s_Palin_as_running_mate
In Alaska, Carrie Hollier, a 27-year-old resident and supporter of Obama, said she would feel some wistfulness about not voting for the governor she admires.
“It definitely makes it difficult, because you can’t help but love Sarah Palin,” she said.
In November, Palin spoke at a redeployment ceremony for the company of her [meaning Hollier's] husband, Daniel Norman, an Army sniper who was awarded a Purple Heart for shrapnel he took from a roadside bomb in Iraq.
Jessie, I am hardly what you might call a "hardcore conservative" and I would never, ever, terminate a pregnancy for Down's. I don't think that's quite your exclusive territory there. ;)
Son of a gun, that last comment was me, the Wizzle, posting on vacation from my husband's laptop. Although the comment does apply to him as well!
Sure, wizzle. Welcome to the darkside. :)
Okay can I just say this, McCain picked Palin as a brilliant political move that made the Obama/Biden ticket look like two stuffed shirts pompous guys and McCain/Palin look like relatable sweethearts. Who doesn't like their grandpa and their mom? I seriously doubt McCain would die during his term, average life expectancy takes into account people taking horrible care of themselves. But if he did and Palin had to take over then she would be told what to do left and right and experience would have little to do with it. Can I throw something out there? Why does Obama think that everyone who makes less than 50k should get a free ride in life? That's purely stupid and it would encourage people to make less money. Why strive to be more educated and make more money when it would only cost you more because you lose all your free healthcare and schooling? Not to mention the cost of living varies throughout the country. 50k in New York and Cali is not alot, but 50k in Texas and Utah is sweet! Someone please explain this, even though I know I will disagree with your answer (fair warning). P.S. Biden needs some serious help with his hair plugs....YIKES. And for the Wizzle, over 90% of women who discover their unborn baby has Down Syndrome have an abortion. It is indeed rare :)
valerie, particularly since the median household income in the U.S. in 2007 was $50,233, which means half of the households in the U.S. make more than $50K and half make less.
More evidence of the death of Christianity:
Valerie wrote this above: "Why does Obama think that everyone who makes less than 50k should get a free ride in life? That's purely stupid and it would encourage people to make less money. Why strive to...make more money when it would only cost you more because you lose all your free healthcare and schooling?"
Valerie's clearly assuming here that Americans should strive to make more money and that we should judge presidential candidates, at least in part, on the degree to which they would encourage such materialistic striving.
How can anyone honestly read the Sermon on the Mount and come away from it thinking Jesus wants them to strive to make more money?
No one operating under such assumptions is even remotely Christian. They're materialists in Christian clothing.
--David
Holy snap that is the funniest thing ever that you think that I am not Christian. Way to judge bro, way to judge You still didn't answer the question by the way. I am saying to you, why would someone go to college and strive to do well at work (which would make them more money shudder the thought) when they could do the opposite and be given such free perks? The church encourages us to get as much education as possible by the way. I am in school so I can get a job and make more money to provide nicer things for my family. If doing that instead of working at McDonalds makes me not a Christian then you have a seriously skewed perception of Christianity. 51k a year is not living the big life let me tell you. I think being a Christian means a lot of things, but money or lack thereof does not define your religion. The 12 apostles are a great example of the middle class and the wealthy, all great Christians.
So, "why would someone go to college and strive to do well at work (which would make them more money shudder the thought) when they could do the opposite and be given such free perks?"
First of all, please read carefully enough to avoid misunderstanding me. Nowhere did I even remotely suggest there was anything wrong with desiring to make more money. What I said was that such a desire was not Christian. There's a difference. I actually agree with some of what you have to say. But then, I would not for a minute think I was a Christian. I've read the Sermon on the Mount, pondered it honestly, and rejected it. I don't like the idea of fooling myself about who I really am, that's all.
Anyway, think it through. Without a college education my income might be $30,000 a year, while with the college education it might be $50,000 a year. Do you really think the freebies I might lose by moving into that higher income bracket amount to more than $20,000 a year? Over the last several decades we've seen the addition of all kinds of means-tested entitlement programs, and for ages now we've had a progressive income tax, yet none of that has convinced people not to strive to make more money. You're basically asking an empirical question to which the evidence has already come in, and the evidence says you're just wrong. Makes a nice talking point, though.
--David
How can anyone honestly read the Sermon on the Mount and come away from it thinking Jesus wants them to strive to make more money?
Maybe because if 50,000 isn't enough to meet all of the needs of you and your family (including planning for college education and retirement), then you ought to make more money. Please quit trying to tell us that we aren't Christian, David.
1 Timothy 5:8 "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
D&C 75:28 "And again, verily I say unto you, that every man who is obliged to provide for his own family, let him provide, and he shall in nowise lose his crown; and let him labor in the church."
Kind of sounds like "striving to make more money" to provide for your family and their needs (instead of relying on the governmnent) is a very Christian principle. So is "striving to make more money" to do charity. Who are you to judge everyone else's intents just based on the fact that they might want to make more money? Sheesh.
Anon David, Okay, I guess my interpretation of not being Christian is an insult, but you didn't mean it to be an insult just an observation. My initial reaction to that is to be defensive, but I suppose our views of what is Christian and what is not just differ. As far as the 50k limit, I'm most interested in those right around the bubble. For instance I pay more than 3k a year in very mediocre insurance for my family. Per say my annual household income is 50,500. I am also going to school, which will leave me with a lot of student loans to pay back. 501 dollars a year will end up costing me thousands in one year alone. Not to mention the extra taxes I would have to pay to support those receiving the government benefits. That is my biggest problem with the limit.
Sigh.... There's a difference between striving to care for one's family and striving to make more money.
Note also, Stephanie, that neither 1 Timothy nor D&C 75 contain the words of Jesus. They contain the words of Paul and Joseph Smith, respectively. Note how I refer to the words of Jesus and you refer to the words of two other people. Just reinforces my belief that I've made a more honest appraisal of what it means to be a follower of Christ.
Of course, I realize you have every right in the world to call yourself Christian. So does Fred Phelps. But I'll bet that at some point even you, and even Valerie, would look at the values of some people who call themselves Christians and make the same sort of judgment I have, and judge them not to be Christians.
Many a prophet in the Book of Mormon did just that, if I recall. What else are we to make of all that stuff about the Great and Abominable Church? What does it mean to say that the Church of the Devil, the Whore of All the Earth, "hath perverted the right ways of the Lord" (1 Nephi 22:14), unless it means that a church and its members present themselves as Christian even as they deviate 180 degrees from the words of Jesus?
My point is that telling folks who call themselves Christian that in fact they are not--well, the Book of Mormon does this repeatedly. I do the same thing as the BoM, though of course I apply a different (and I would say far more sensible) criterion in making the distinction.
Well, there's one more difference between my judgments and those of the Book of Mormon. When I say that this or that person who professes to be Christian is actually not Christian, I pretty much leave it at that. I just think the person is mistaken, that's all--led astray by the powerful pull of modern society's materialism and consumerism, perhaps, and perhaps also unwilling to give up the prestige conferred by the label "Christian," but that's it.
Compare that to the Book of Mormon, which declares its opponents to be members of the party of Satan: "Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10).
Which kind of judgment is worse, mine or the Book of Mormon's? Whose language is more respectful? I would never accuse you or Valerie of belonging to a "church of the devil," but that's precisely how your scripture describes me. Which of us has more reason to feel insulted? Heck, according to your scriptures, I'm one of the "tares of the earth," which is to say, a weed. I'm an undesirable element, fit only to be burned. Nice respectful metaphor, that.
--David
I hope you have a good evening, Anon David.
Back atcha, Stephanie. Soup's almost done, and it smells delicious. Enjoy the rest of the weekend! I'll try to enjoy my dinner without falling any further into the snares of the devil.
--David
Well, anyway, to get back to the topic of the blog.
If women choose not to vote for Palin just because she is a woman McCain chose, those women will be choosing to be gender biased. We should look ONLY at her record and judge her by that. Any man who accomplished what she has accomplished would be called a great leader.
"By their works ye shall know them" If one looks at Palin's works and judges them good, then discounts those works because they were accomplished by a woman, that is gender bias.
I think McCain saw Palin's works and judged her works good then chose Palin because of her good works, not her good looks! Good for him!
And let's praise Mr. Palin, for supporting his wife so she can be all she can be, and not impeding her. At first glance, the world could use more men like Mr. Palin.
The following are links to some great articles about Palin. Please look at the links that are contained within the Hugh Hewitt link. They are very good.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=304903742659205&src=DMARTCL
Vicki
Too bad McCain isn't taller then the Republican Presidential signs could read "Sarah Palin and Tall". This of course is a reference to the book seris Sarah Plain and Tall. Perhaps Sarah could start wearing flat heeled shoes!
Maybe in 2012 when Romney runs again that is what the signs will say, because Romney is tall. The question will be though who would be the Presidential Candidate? Romney for Pres 2012! Palin for Pres 2020!
Vicki
All this debate over being Christian shouldn't really matter because Mormon's aren't really Christians anyway.
Just ask Palin. Palin knows Mormon's aren't Christians.
--David
So the media is showing us a picture of "future" Vice President Palin shooting a caribou and then Russia releases a picture of Putin shooting a tiger. Could there be some meaning in this?
Oh, and lets not forget Vice President Cheney who shoots his friend! Really there must be some hidden meaning in all of this!
:-) Vicki
This seems like a better place than any to vent my disgust at the vitriole from liberal bloggers about Sarah Palin's baby. The DailyKos has posted a story accusing the 16 yr old daughter of Palin of being the mother of the baby using 2 year old pictures of the daughter. They have absolutely no proof to back up these claims. It's slander and extremely disturbing. Also Alan Colmes of Fox New wrote a blog post about Palin's "lack of judgment" in conceiving a child at her age. Her age presumably the reason her child has down syndrome. I am the mother of a disabled child. Is it my fault that he was born with a disability? No. Where do these people get off making claims like this? I am sickened. Is this what politics in America has come too? I don't care what Palin's politics are. Too drag her children especially an innocent baby into this cesspool of hatred is disgusting. And please, don't tell Palin opened the doors by accepting the VP nomination. Politics have reached a new low.
I don't think there's anything un-Christian about having a good work ethic and providing for your family. Whether you make 31 K or 51 K a year, I suppose it really doesn't matter as long as you are doing your best to be a good person and take care of your family.
That being said, if I had to name the best example of what I deem to be pure Christianity, it wouldn't be anyone in our church, including the prophets and GA's. It would be Mother Teresa, hands down. Although any of the above-mentioned Mormon leaders did wonderful, Christlike things throughout their lives, Mother Teresa did what probably none of us are willing to do: literally sacrifice her entire life, meaning all possessions, family, and ambitions, to dedicate it 100% to Christ and His work. Only she, and others who have followed in her footsteps, did what Christ told us to do: forget ourselves, and serve our fellow-man. She did that utterly and completely and her story blows me away.
I think Mother Teresa is a good example of that - so is Tolstoy - who many woudl call an "apostate" Christian. Gandhi is probably the second best example of this in the modern era, and he wasn't Christian. It's amazing - the people who truely have followed Christs teachings from his life have been from many religions, many walks of life, and many situations - they are very few and far between - it seems that the average person is incapable of being the "Christian" that David brought up earlier - for the rest of us, we are forced into a quasi-Christianity due to our being normal, worldly (to some extent) human beings. Christ demanded a very lonely difficult road.
Mother Teresa is great example of a Christian woman, but I think that to define pure Christianity as sacrificing family loses a lot of what Christianity is about. It doesn't appear that Christ had his own family during his ministry on the earth, but I have to think that in eternity he does. Why is it that in our society, and even in the Mormon church, we discount service given to our own family, and only "count" what is given to the community? Even I feel like I am not being charitable if I am not constantly serving outside of my home. I know many, many parents who work and sacrifice and give up pretty much everything they would want for themselves to provide for their children. That is service and is Christian. And yet, in a lot of ways, our society seems to discount that. It seems that childbearing is seen as selfish by a lot of people, so to have children and take care of them is your own "want" and so it doesn't "count" as service. It is Christ-like to support programs to take care of other people's children (people who can't take care of themselves), but not Christ-like to take care of your own children so other people don't have to. Our values as a whole are becoming so skewed. (I am not directing this toward you FD, just talking in general)
FWIW, everyone, the post above with the claim that "Palin knows Mormon's [sic] aren't Christians" isn't mine. I have no idea who put it up.
Also FWIW, F.D., Mother Teresa lost her faith, sort of, decades before she died. In the words of one article written after her letters were posthumously published, "for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever — or, as the book's compiler and editor, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, writes, 'neither in her heart or in the eucharist.'" See here. To me, this fact makes her story all the more impressive.
--David
Anon David, that is funny. They even used two little lines like you. Mysterious Anon, please don't impersonate other commenters (if that is what you were trying to do).
I see what you're saying, Stephanie, and I don't discount it. I totally think that raising kids with values is in a way serving the community and the world -- it's very admirable. I just think that sometimes we Mormons tend to lose ourselves in our families so much that we can't see what's going on in the outside world. I'm not saying that that applies to you personally, but I think that some other churches actually put us to shame when it comes to service. I've often wondered why we, as a church, can manage to send out over 50,000 proselyting missionaries and yet so few humanitarian missionaries. I know that the Church is active in lots of service projects and that's great, but just think of how much more we could do! Personally, I never thought I could handle a proselyting mission and therefore I never went on one. However, when I was around 18-19, I was looking for an opportunity to do service abroad. I almost decided to go to Russia, but things didn't work out. I think if the Church organized humanitarian missions for younger people, and not just adults, we could do so much more good in this world. The thing I admire about the Catholic Church is that they value both the decision to marry, have kids, raise a family, AND those who choose a life of charity and service through the priesthood or becoming a nun. There is so much focus on having a family in the LDS Church (which is not a bad thing in itself), that choosing such a path as Mother Teresa did is unheard of in Mormon circles -- perhaps even impossible if one is to do what Mormons are "supposed" to do: get married, have kids, raise a family. Charity is at the heart of Christ's teachings, but I sometimes feel that it's not upheld to the same level of admiration among Mormons as having a spouse and family is. Mormonism is a very family-centred religion and culture. That's generally a very good thing, but the downside is that we lose sight of the individual.
I guess when I think of what it means to be a Christian, I think that it means to follow Christ's example in doing what the Lord asks of us. Christ repeatedly said that He didn't do anything but his Father's work. So, to me, being Christian is to ask God what He wants you to do and to do it. That means that some people will do what Mother Teresa did and give up everything to serve the poor. Others will serve in church capacities that demand a lot of them like apostles and prophets. The Lord needs all of us to do His work, and He'll tell us what to do if we ask.
David,
The book to which you refer, by Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, is the one I am referring to. Although she felt no presence of God throughout most of her life, she never lost her faith completely and always felt that she was doing Christ's work, not her own. She had her periods of doubt, as we all do, but she continued to trust that God was with her, despite the fact that there was nothing to indicate to her that He really was. I agree with you that this makes her story all the more impressive. It's one thing to leave your life, your family, your home, and go and live in the slums of Calcutta if you feel that God is with you. However, if you feel utterly abandoned and surrounded in spiritual darkness, I can't imagine what it must have been like. One can feel her spiritual anguish through her letters and it's truly mind-blowing, since this darkness she described didn't just last 2 or 3 years, but about 40 years. And no one knew except for her few spiritual confidants.
I'm curious about what you all think about Palin's pregnant 17 year-old daughter. The fact that she is pregnant should not, in my opinion, be blamed on Sarah Palin by any means. Goodness knows that the best of parents can have kids that make some pretty big mistakes in their lives. But what do you all think about the fact that she is going to marry the father of the baby? At 17, she's not even legal yet. But even if they wait until she's 18, would you encourage your daughter to get married at that age if she had a baby?
Remember what YOU were like at 17 or 18. I'm trying to imagine what it would have been like to be married back then, baby or no baby.
Oh, wow. Ouch. That is disappointing. I bet it will hurt her with some voters. On the one hand, when I hear that her daughter is pregnant, I think, "Where was her mom? Was mom too busy with her work that her daughter felt the need to get love elsewhere? Or, did the attention from the baby make her daughter want a baby of her own?" - in other words, looking for some kind of blame to put on Palin and her husband. On the other hand, kids will do what kids will do. I know lots of good, nice Mormon girls who got pregnant. The family response is very admirable. Two examples now of where they are pro-life. Sure, the daughter could get an abortion. Perfectly acceptable in some circles. Contrast this to Obama's comment on not wanting to punish his daughters with a baby (which, in the context of the whole statement, I understood what he was saying and agreed). The Palin family support of their daughters appears to be impressive. But, wow, what a lot for a family to go through. If elected, she would be starting at exactly the same time her daughter is due.
Fd, with regard to your question, I think it would depend on who the father is. If he's a great guy with lots of potential, and they want to be together, then yes, I would encourage them to get married. It would be a bumpy road, but if they plan to stay together and they already have a baby, then I think marriage would be a good step. If he's just a bum, I would try to get her to see the mistake it would be to marry him and instead encourage her to consider adoption so the baby could have two parents. It would just depend on a lot of things. I pray I am never in that situation.
Things like Bristol's pregnancy happen all the time, and I don't really think it should have any bearing on the election. What strikes me as really sad is the possibility that, for obvious political reasons, Bristol and the father will be under a lot of pressure to marry--even if he is a bum.
Anyway, I certainly wouldn't want to be judged on the basis of the behavior of one of my teenaged kids!
Here's what Sarah Palin can and should legitimately be held accountable for. Apparently the candidate questionnaire she filled out when she ran for governor contains this little nugget:
Q: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
A: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me.
Can't get much dumber than that. Maybe she thinks the Knights of Columbus (who stuck "under God" in the pledge in the 1950s) were the Founding Fathers.
--David
The Palins have said, "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby."
I'm not suggesting that I would support Bristol's decision to have an abortion if she wanted to, but how many of you think it was really Bristol's decision? What choice does she really have when her mother is a very conservative VP candidate who views abortion as wrong even in cases of rape? And what if she HAD been raped? (I'm not saying there is any evidence to support that at all, but it can happen to anyone.) If she had been a rape victim, her mother's political career would stop her from being able to have an abortion. Doesn't help that she's a minor.
So when you think about it, Bristol doesn't really have a "choice." Adoption probably isn't even really realistic in her situation because the press would hound her, the baby, and the adoptive parents.
Of course we don't know anything about the father. He could be Mr. Wonderful, but chances are he isn't. I fear that her "decision" to marry the father is more a way to "save face" among Christian conservatives, unfortunately at the potential cost of the well-being of Bristol and the baby.
But then again, they could be a match made in heaven. Only time will tell and I hope that for all of their sakes that it works out the way the hope. My guess is that Sarah Palin is about to have her 6th child.
According to ABC News, "Palin is an outspoken opponent of abortion, opposing the termination of a pregnancy in all cases except when the mother's life is in danger. Palin also opposed sexual education programs in schools, other than an abstinence-only curriculum, during her 2006 Alaska gubernatorial campaign."
Makes you wonder if maybe she's re-thinking that abstinence-only curriculum now.
I just find it ironic that Christian Conservatives are overjoyed by the fact that Bristol is keeping the baby when a more liberal sex-education curriculum in schools may have helped to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. Bristol was probably going to have sex anyways, but maybe she didn't know enough about how to not get pregnant.
Hmm I think Palin's daughter being pregnant is not a big deal to me. I think most teenagers have done the deed, some gotten pregnant and some not (not saying they should have, just stating probability). Palin being for strictly abstinence sex education is somewhat silly, yikes I shocking my conservative views! I think the major element missing throughout the American people is EDUCATION! I think proper education would lower the abortion rates, which I personally would like to see. It does seem like common sense would tell you that birth control equals not getting pregnant, but some teenagers just aren't getting the message.
Before the 2004 Presidential election, I remember it getting really ugly as personal attacks were slung from side to side - really, really ugly. I was relieved when it was all over. It was refreshing that thus far in this campaign (even in the primaries), it wasn't that ugly. I noticed that the media didn't attack McCain nearly as much as they attacked and vilified Bush. I thought that maybe they were going to give balanced coverage. But, no, I think the reason they didn't attack McCain is that he is fairly moderate. It wouldn't be so bad with him elected with a Democrat congress. Half of the things he does are liberal anyways, and the other half aren't that conservative. No, it's the conservative Palin that is drawing the ire of the liberal media, and they are getting uglier and uglier by the minute. Dredging up the stupidest little things to attack her about. They are going crazy. It's enough to show me that the culture war is real, and there is no doubt in my mind that I am voting for McCain. I just have to look at the groups, organizations and individuals that support Obama and crucify Palin and listen to the things that they say to know that McCain/Palin have my vote. I think P Diddy is a prime example:
Sarah you need to be down with the whole cabinet. You are not ready to be no vice president. What is the reality in Alaska? There isn't even any crackheads in Alaska. There isn't any black people, no crime. There isn't even any foreign policies in Alaska. . . I am going to get focused and make sure that all the young ones, all the forgotten ones that they get busy on November 4 and vote in record numbers. This won't be the last time you hear my name. I am going to bring millions out to the polls to make sure . . . If you really think we are going to let you win this election with these crazy decisions that you are making then you are bugging. I am calling all youth, all colours, all youth voters - November 4 we have to protect our future because John McCain is bugging the f**k out . . . [Palin] is not respectful to our lives. Would you let her keep your kids? Raise your kids? For real? No.
Yeah, I would say that he definitely inspired me to get out and vote on November 4 - FOR MCCAIN! Please don't tell me that people like P Diddy and the youth who listen to and agree with him are "our future". Can you imagine if a white person ranted like that?
The most curious thing is that (after I heard the short soundbite about crackheads on Glen Beck), I found the whole story on an Australian website. No U.S. news agencies have run the story (besides those crazy right-wingers like Rush and Glen). Sure, there's no liberal bias in America *wink* *wink*
Yes they did, Stephanie. I saw Diddy's video yesterday on abcnews.com. That's how I heard about it.
I just have to say, I hope that no self-respecting voter, liberal or conservative, would consider themselves to be well-informed on political issues after watching Diddy, P. Diddy, Puff Daddy, Puffy, Sean Combs, whatever the heck is name is.
:D
You're right, FD. I was able to find the video on abcnews.com (but no article or written transcript). Watching it is even better than reading it. The lunacy is that much more apparent.
Don't forget "So-Rock Obama" as in my friends now me as a Diddy, a.k.a. So-Rock Obama.
Sarah Palin and the Two Americas pretty much sums up my opinion on Palin and the news coverage surrounding her.
Stephanie, don't forget his "government name." LOL.
I read the "Two Americas" article and I agree with it. All the "white trash" and "trailer trash" comments are childish and ignorant. Leftists shouldn't have to stoop to such levels, neither should they be dismissing her so easily. I certainly haven't. I'm seriously worried that McCain is going to win this election.
At the same time though, I find it hard to dismiss the label of "dangerous religious fanatic," because of her political policies -- not her personal religious views. If she was personally against abortion in cases of rape and personally against sex-ed, then I'd say that's fair enough. But when she wants all Americans to adopt her views, then I think it becomes a problem. Then it becomes very hard to avoid the stamp of "dangerous religious fanatic."
Well, she's truly conservative, and that's what conservatives want.
Speaking of Palin and all of her "lack of experience", Obama himself told us how he has more:
Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We've got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years.
Um, okay. So Obama discounted her governor experience (again) and instead compared his campaign experience(?!?!?) to her mayoral experience?
So, FD, does that make "the faithful dissident" your government name? :)
This whole discussion about experience cracks me up. I certainly don't think Barack Obama is the most experienced guy, but then again I obviously don't think experience is the most relevant qualification for the job.
But to compare Obama's and Palin's experience levels is ridiculous. Obama had eight years in state politics vs. Palin's two, and Obama has four years in national politics on top of that. Add in his Political Science degree from Columbia and a Harvard Law degree vs. Palin's Journalism degree from Idaho. Add Obama's ten years teaching Constitutional Law and seven years in Chicago politics vs. Palin's terms in city council and as mayor of a town of 8,000, and it's not even close.
Of course, as I pointed out in the original post, the fact that we're even discussing this is a big win for Obama. McCain no longer has any right to question Obama's experience. Those attacks were the only ones resonating with the public, and now America is calling his bluff.
BBD, that makes Obama's explanation of his own experience that much more amusing.
Another interesting thing is that the media was trying to push the idea that McCain is not qualified because he is not "one of us" - he has seven houses! Now that Palin is a "one of us" and an "average gal", I am reading liberal blogs that say, "We don't want an average leader. That's not good enough". There is enough irony and hypocrisy for all this election cycle.
I can't wait to hear her speech tonight. For someone who is so unknown, it will give us a better idea of who she is.
Another interesting thing is that the media was trying to push the idea that McCain is not qualified because he is not "one of us" - he has seven houses!
McCain started this one - he was trying to paint Obama as an elitist, and the "seven houses" argument was the Obama camp's response. Of course, McCain's big blunder was that he couldn't remember how many houses he owned when asked. Who's the elitist now? :)
There is enough irony and hypocrisy for all this election cycle.
I'll definitely agree with you on that one.
I can't wait to hear her speech tonight. For someone who is so unknown, it will give us a better idea of who she is.
I'm with you there, too. I think her speech tonight is potentially even more important to McCain's campaign than Obama's speech was last week. If she comes off looking like a liability to McCain (unlikely, but possible), this thing is OVER.
At the Republican Convention tonight during Palin's talk,
Levi, Bristol's "babydaddy", as they say in Connecticut, could be introduced as Bristol's husband. Quicker marriages have taken place, I'm sure.
Vicki
I'm interested as to why Palin is being compared to Obama as opposed to Biden? I am firmly convinced BBD that you will see and hear things as they work well for your party, but I hope you see things as they truly are. The media is liberal, it is bias, it is trying so hard to declare Obama the president already, and trying to convince everyone who is too lazy to research the issues that Obama is the man because every celebrity loves him. I read more articles about how his wife dresses, how his house is decorated and what his plans are for the weekend than I do his policies. The media acted like the DNC was the Emmys or something. Isn't it Obama who wants equal media coverage for both political parties? Does that include the liberal media that disguises themselves as fair?
PS you still rock so don't be mad at my conservative rants :)
Conservative rants are always welcome here. ;-)
You're right, Valerie, the media is biased ... both ways. And unfortunately, it's awfully dumbed down, too. There are very few places to go for uncolored, intelligent coverage of the campaign. I think NPR does a pretty darned good job, and that's where my ears (and my money) go.
BTW, which media outlets are you calling liberal? I'll give you CNN and most major newspapers if you'll concede that Fox News (the highest-rated news network, BTW) and talk radio are absolutely dominated by the right wing. Either way, the media in general does little to sway my opinion one way or the other; I prefer to listen to candidates on all sides and make up my mind. Yes, I usually fall left of center, but your "liberal media" doesn't have much to do with that.
I'm obviously an Obama supporter, and it has nothing to do with the media or his celebrity. I have been a supporter of his and contributor to his campaign for about a year and a half now, since I first read his last book. The official Democratic Party position has very little bearing on my opinion or my vote; my stances on same-sex marriage and the regulation of abortion are proof of that.
There was a time (ask Rachel) that I said I would vote for John McCain over a generic Democrat, but that was before he aligned himself so heavily with Bush and his nutty foreign agenda. In doing so he lost his "maverick" voice and his integrity, and he lost the vote of at least one willing Democrat by pandering to his base.
His selection of Sarah Palin just puzzles me. On one hand she has a track record as an independent reformer (insert joke here about how brief her track record is), but on the other hand, she's a hard-core Evangelical conservative, which can't help him with anyone BUT his base. The VP pick, like it or not, is about winning the election, and I don't see what it does for McCain in that regard.
Valerie, "the media" includes Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, FOX News, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and the National Review. Saying the media is liberal is like saying Mormons are blonde. It's a tipoff that someone has mistaken a right-wing talking point for reality.
--David
And thank goodness it does!
And thank goodness it does!
I think I just threw up in my mouth. Quick tangent - does anyone here actually listen to Mac Watson on KTAR (a Phoenix, AZ radio station for the uninitiated)? I had the misfortune of having to suffer through his show while waiting for a traffic report the other day - never, ever again. He didn't speak an intelligent word for over 10 minutes.
Now you know how I feel about NPR, BBD.
The problem is not that we have a "liberal media." We have media outlets of all political persuasions. The problem is that the quality of our broadcast media is so poor--and that most conservative media is atrocious. But let me clarify. There's plenty of quality conservative media. But the good conservative media consists of magazines like the Weekly Standard, which very few people read, while the stupid conservative media (Limbaugh etc.) is vastly more popular. Contrast that situation to that of the liberal media, which contains any number of outlets that are both widely read (NYT, WashPo, etc.) and high in quality. These comparative imbalances tell us something, namely, that conservatives overwhelmingly choose stupid conservative media over smart conservative media. Maybe liberals like the NYT for its liberal perspective, but they would not for one minute tolerate its becoming a crappy newspaper. Liberals have higher media standards than conservatives. Just look at the choices they make.
--David
Spoken like a true liberal elite, Anon David. Those neanderthal conservatives are just too stupid to figure out what is "quality" -like the New York Times (cough).
Sigh- anon David you are so apt to thinking what you want and ignoring all else. I personally love Sean Hannity, I don't listen to much else. I'm sure you don't like it but that's why I'm me and you're you. I'm not talking about AM radio however, I am talking about mainstream in your face whether you like it or not media that plays to people who go whichever way the wind blows.
Congratulations, Anon. David, you are officially a member of The Elite. How can I be more like you? ;)
Honestly, my issue with the talking heads like Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. is not that they are conservative, it's that they don't respect opinions that differ from their own. I have honestly tried to listen to several right-wing talk radio shows over the years, but I am so turned off by their attitudes it disgusts me.
Just start pointing out how stupid all conservatives are who don't agree with you, BBD, and I will bestow the same honor on you.
I like Hannity a lot, too, valerie. And O'Reilly. Glen Beck is some good entertainment. My mom really likes Hugh Hewitt. I don't care for Limbaugh much. He just sort of rambles from one thought to the other. I can't follow his train of thought.
"All" conservatives are stupid who disagree with me, Stephanie? I've never said that. Look. Smart conservatives read the NYT and appreciate its quality. Perhaps they even rue the fact that they don't have a comparably good newspaper of "their own." And yes, stupid conservatives get their news from FOX instead. Stupid liberals likewise don't read the NYT and get their news from the broadcast media instead. If being part of an "elite" means preferring smart to dumb, count me in. What more can I say?
To get back to Sarah Palin: some have complained that people are unfairly dragging her teenager daughter into the discussion. I agree that Bristol should be off-limits.
Now then. Does anyone remember John McCain's joke from the Clinton years? Drumroll, please...:
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."
Such manners! And such economy of expression! McCain can gratuitously insult a president's teenage daughter and bash lesbians in a single lame joke!
Your candidate, not mine.
--David
Or, smart conservatives DON'T read the NYT because they are sick of the liberal bias and aren't willing to overlook it for the "quality" (quality like articles produced by Jayson Blair).
Oooh Stephanie I like Glen Beck too. Thanks for being a voice of reason, this blog can be taxing to read :)
Here's a Rasmussen Report on viewership of the major news networks.
Maybe you should stop digging, Stephanie. And Valerie, maybe you shouldn't try to help her out by referencing Glenn Beck.
Here's a short list of some of the smartest, most knowledgeable conservative journalists/commentators writing today:
Robert Novak
Charles Krauthammer
George Will
David Brooks
William Kristol
William Safire
The smart conservative reads their stuff. (So does the smart liberal, for that matter.) And where does the smart conservative read their stuff? In the Washington Post and New York Times, which have been publishing their work on their editorial pages for decades. (Despite their liberal bias, these newspapers believe in providing their readers with a range of viewpoints. The very idea of providing a range of viewpoints is a liberal idea, and just another reason I'm proud to be a liberal.)
You can read George Will, or you can listen to Glenn Beck. You absolutely have a right to your taste. And you obviously have your agency. You can be as smart a conservative as you want to be. It's up to you.
But maybe, just maybe, the reason I understand conservatism so much better than you do is because I chose a long time ago to read smart conservatives instead of listening to stupid ones.
--David
Or, I could just disregard YOUR interpretation of what "smart" is. Why can't you respect the fact that other people have opinions that, although they might be different, are just as valid and count just as much as yours?
Yikes, I think anon David hates me. Is the definition of elitism thinking you are smarter than everyone else? I do not think you, anon David, think any conservatives are smart. And that to me is naive thinking.
PS you are not by chance my 12th grade government teacher are you? J/K
In all honesty, my husband and I were a little disappointed with Palin's speech. I felt like she spent a bit too much time on the details of her family (details that are already publicly known like the hobbies of her husband). She got a few good digs in at Obama, but, besides the "Watch out! He'll raise your taxes!", I don't think she gave enough of an explanation of why she is a good pick or why people should vote McCain/Palin. It seemed to me to be more a speech of sound bites (of digs at Obama) that will be played over and over again.
That said, I think she did play up her strengths and why she was chosen: she's an outsider, she's willing to take on the establishment, she'll do the right thing for the people, not for Washington.
She showed that she is scrappy, willing to take on the "enemy" and strong. She's not going to shy away from the personal attacks on her and her family. I thought she addressed that appropriately by introducing her family, poking fun at the media, and moving on. I like her personality and persona a lot. Her speech didn't change my voting plan, but I am also not sure she will bring in a lot of independents either. Choosing Palin was definitely a gamble on McCain's part. It really could go either way. She showed that she is a people's person and played up that she is "small town America". I think that will appeal to a lot of people but also put of a lot of people, so I am really not sure how it will go. If I had to grade her speech, I would probably give it a B- (barely above passing, but not great).
Whatever, I am SO tired of each side claiming injury at the hands of the other, via The Media and a Vast Conspiracy. Yawn. This feeling is as old as humankind - our thoughts, our opinions, our perceptions, all are colored and formed by our experiences and our life context. We all have our "pet" issues and thoughts, and we are naturally attuned both to people or agencies who either "hit the nail on the head", in our minds, or who disagree with us in a way that ruffles our feathers. People hear what they want to hear.
Conservatives hear liberal bias in the media, liberals hear conservative bias. Big freakin' deal. We're never going to get anywhere unless we acknowledge each other and stop this tit-for-tat crap!
I'm listening to Palin's speech right now, and so far I'm not having to grit my teeth because all she's done is talk about her kids. They're beautiful, and I'm just oing to pretend she didn't name the poor defenseless darling Track, Tryg, and Bristol. (WTF???) She didn't come right out and say that having children serving in the military and being proud of them is the Sole Proprety and Dominion of the Republican party, which I appreciated.
Seriously, though, how is this speech any more substantive than any of Obama's vaguest, most smoke-and-mirrors "hope/change" performance? I'm not saying I think there's anything wrong with making speeches periodically that are more motivational than nitty gritty, but if it bothers everyone so much when Obama does it...
Wow - I haven't commented on this once - I think because the last thread wore me out so bad, and seriously, right now, I'm feeling like Wizzle - what's the big deal - so what - we hear what we want to hear - we see what we want to see. Oh well. I'm sick of conservatives constantly calling liberals elitists, just as I'm sick of many liberals constantly calling conservatives simpletons - it is totally unproductive and just not helpful in any way. And it really shows that we are all lacking in the most important attribute of the human experience - love for others.
I LOVE Dennis Miller's radio show, website, and when he is on the O'Reily Factor. I read the website RobinsonandLong.com. It has a lot of bloggers sited on it. Townhall.com is a good read and a good lead to numerous bloggers. I like Dean Barnett and Love Peggy Noonan. I enjoy Orson Scott Card's blog. Vicki
Masterfully delivered speech by Sarah Palin. Amazingly beautiful people in her family. I teared up upon seeing her parents. How they must feel? I do hope all can go as hoped for.
I was glad to see booties or shoes on Trig. It surprised me he did not have them on when Sarah was introduced as the V.P. Perhaps Trig was to be wrapped up in the blanket that was spread over Bristol, (I think in an attempt to hide her pregnancy for the time being) and therefore he would not have needed footwear. There was no baby blanket tonight.
It was nice to see Mr. Palin holding his son. Whole families can hold on to each other and thereby grasp their destinies.
I imagine the job of V.P. to be less demanding than the governor's job Sarah now holds and thus allowing more parenting time. Vicki
It definitely goes both ways. Both Liberals and Conservatives only want to see what they want to see.
I admit, I've only seen the highlights of Palin's speech because it didn't start until at least 4 am my time. So what I've seen/heard is limited to clips and the highlights from different news sites that I've watched and read.
It appears that it wasn't her job to point out the specifics on how they are going to bring change to Washington, but perhaps McCain will make up for that tonight in his speech.
That Palin was able to fire-up Conservatives and attack Obama is evident. She's gotten them excited about this election. If that's what McCain was after, then she appears to have delivered very, very well. She gets an A+ for that.
In talking about media bias, I want to try to be objective and fair. I keep on reading all these negative things about her and I ask myself: is the media being fair? Are they being too harsh on her? Are they just out to paint her in a bad light? For instance, I look at the headlines on Yahoo at this very moment and the #1 and #2 stories (1 from the AP and 1 from McClatchy Newspapers, which I admit I've never heard of) are very damning of Palin. Is it really all just liberal biased propaganda or is there truth to it? Honestly, what sort of conclusions is an average person like me supposed to come to about this woman, particularly after reading the first of these two links:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080903/pl_mcclatchy/3035478
Truth? Pure bias? Or a combination of both?
I realize that the fact that I'm not American means that certain issues are perhaps more important to me personally than the rest of you, and vice versa. That's only natural. I'll be honest, the biggest reason why I want Obama to win is because I think he'll take the US in a better direction globally. America isn't really getting along with anyone too well these days and relations between old allies and virtually eveyone else suck pretty bad, to be blunt. What Obama lacks in experience, I hope he will make up in his temperament and diplomatic personality. The biggest issue I have with the Republican party is that their rhetoric scares me -- and frankly most people outside of the US. Now, in a way, what we think of America is irrelevant. America controls itself, we don't control it. At the same time though, what America does tends to affect a lot of people around the world and therefore Americans should care somewhat about what the rest of the world thinks about them.
Take Palin's self-description of "a pitbull with lipstick," just as one example. Sure, it fires up staunch Republicans like her, but what kind of message is that sending to already-very-skeptical-pissed-off leaders across the globe? That if they deal with her, they're going to be dealing with a pitbull? What a great start to diplomatic foreign relations! I've already commented before on McCain's one-sided reaction to the Georgia crisis and I can't say I'm optimistic about US-Russian relations when you have Medvedev and Putin in Russia, whom I wouldn't trust for a minute, and then McCain's Georgian bias combined with his trusty pitbull of a VP. Rhetoric matters and stuff like that is just scary, IMO. If America has any hope of re-gaining respect and trust among its closest allies, then I just can't imagine that McCain and Palin are going to be the ones to do it.
Lastly, I have to admit, I felt a bit sorry for Levi Johnston. 5 months ago, I'm sure he never could have guessed that he was knocking up the daughter of the possible future VP of America. Talk about being thrust into the spotlight. :)
One last article that was a bit entertaining in regads to media bias against Palin from politico.com:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13143.html
I couldn't get either of your first two links to work, FD. I think they ran off the page.
Seriously, though, how is this speech any more substantive than any of Obama's vaguest, most smoke-and-mirrors "hope/change" performance?
I have to say that I agree. I think that's why I was so disappointed. She's shown that she's coming out swinging and won't cower, but I am hoping to see some more substance in the coming weeks. I think it's there - I just don't know if 30 minutes was enough time to fit in all the things she needed to say (well, if she had left out some of the unnecessary information about her family . . . ). Anyways, I am interested in hearing her speeches and interviews to hear more of what she has to say. I hope it goes beyond the rhetoric.
A couple things to remember: first, this speech was written for her by the professionals on the campaign staff (as are all major speeches for both party's candidates), and presumably it was written to be more of an introduction and a fire-em-up speech. Second, since she's the VP, when she does start talking more about specific policies, they'll probably line up with McCain's. VPs are obviously going to be expected to toe the boss's line. My guess is that she won't say much about foreign policy but will say a lot about government reform. I guess if I were McCain's campaign manager, I'd see Palin as most useful for 1.) turning out the evangelical base, and 2.) bolstering McCain's image as a maverick/outsider/reformer.
--David
. . . which sounds exactly like what the intent was in bringing her on as VP.
Intimidation. That is the word I was looking for. She has shows that she is not going to be intimidated by the personal attacks, so you can treat her like a politician and hit her with the real issues. She showed that she doesn't need to be handled with kid gloves because she is a woman. That is a plus, in my book.
Palin gave a good, effective speech last night. At the very least, she has helped to unite the Republican base and allay any fears about her ability to shine on a big stage. She came off as very genuine, she has a beautiful family, and she can give a good speech, so good for her, and good for Republicans. Many of her attacks on Obama were ridiculous, especially in regards to experience and tax "increases", but that's to be expected when you're behind on the scoreboard.
I've never figured how to post an html link on here.... sorry. Sometimes they run off the page like that and sometimes they don't. Not sure why.
Stephanie, thanks for the lesson on html links. Let's see if I get it right on the first try. :)
here and here
Guess not. :) It worked fine in gmail but not once I pasted it into blogger. And then blogger wouldn't take the html coding.
I'll try again. :)
first link
Wow, McCain's speech was good. A+ from me.
McCain's speech gets a big "meh" from me - didn't screw it up by any means, but didn't win anyone over, either. Palin's was MUCH better if significantly more controversial.
Really? You think? Both my husband and I were impressed with McCain's speech and not so much with Palin's. Palin's was more the "Democrats are bad, Republicans are good" rhetoric ('m tired of that. Republicans have screwed up a lot of things. It is not Republicans I am interested in - it is conservative principles of government). McCain actually talked issues that are important. I felt inspired. Actually, I thought he did a good job of delivering the message, "I am the right leader, and I'll work with both sides" rather than just "Vote for me because I am Republican". Overall, between the two of them, I feel better about voting for them. I won't have to hold my nose at all, I don't think.
I actually liked McCain's speech. I just watched the whole thing on CNN. Very good, except for I thought he painted Obama's policies all too black-and-white, like "he'll raise your taxes, I'll lower them," that kind of stuff. Aside from that, it was very inspiring, encouraging. He's the type that can pull at your heartstrings and feel nostalgic, while Obama is more motivational and inspiring, just based on their different styles. I find both styles to be effective and therefore I expect to see McCain get a good bump in the polls.
His account of being a POW was of course touching and no one should ever try to discount what he went through or take away from his bravery. He gets 5 stars in my book for that.
He is one for glorifying soldiers and their work, which they absolutely deserve. However, I think he needs to focus more on avoiding those wars. He perhaps thinks that he's doing so, but I'm not convinced. He made it clear in his speech whose side he's on in the Georgian conflict. As I was listening to him and watching people in the crowd, I thought to myself, "all these people are sitting here thinking that it was simply a case of big, bad Russia going in and invading poor, little, defenceless, democratic Georgia." It's just not that simple. And the day could come where more young American men and women get pulled into a war against Russia. Sorry, but I wouldn't want to get caught up in the middle of such a war, or see my child sent to war, over Georgia. Especially since Georgian actions were the catalyst in this conflict. I think that while McCain is glorifying the sacrifices of individuals in war -- which they totally deserve -- he is also glorifying the causes for which America has gone to war. And I just don't think that those causes have always been as noble as he makes it sound.
I actually sort of like McCain's personality -- certainly much more than Palin's. I think he's an all-round good guy. If I were to sit down and have a chat as friends with both of them, I would perhaps connect better with McCain than Obama. I just wouldn't vote for him because of his policies.
In all honesty, I made my last post about five minutes before his speech was over, and as it turned out, the last five minutes were easily his best. Quite rousing, inspirational, non-partisan stuff. All in all, I'm still not sure it accomplished much with undecided voters, but like I said before, he didn't hurt his cause either.
This is a very biased look at bias. Funny! :)
Ha! That was a good one, FD. (But you did reveal that you get your "news" from Comedy Central. Tsk tsk.) ;)
Yeah, I appreciate Jon Stewart's objectivity. :)
Ya put lipstick on a pitbull and it's still a pitbull. Go get them Sarah!
Vicki
Ya can put lipstick on a barracuda and it will still be a barracuda. Go get them Sarah!
Vicki
So what do all of you think of Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment and the aftermath? Do you believe Obama that McCain and the right-wing media are lying and making up stories?
I listened to both the original comment in its context and his explanation given today. I don't think he was necessarily calling Governor Palin a pig, but I think he definitely knew what he was doing. With all of media coverage of her self-description as a pitbull in lipstick, he knows that lipstick is a buzzword right now, and he played to that in his comment. Yes, he was referring to Bush-type policy, but the innuendo was clear. At best, IMO, it was distasteful and disappointing.
I think a better reaction from Obama than to attack McCain and the right as liars would have been to calmly explain that it is a common phrase, he was speaking off the cuff, he apologizes for any perceived innuendo because he didn't intend it that way. He doesn't have to admit it was a mistake in judgement (which he doesn't want to do because judgement is supposed to be his strong point). Just apologize for perceived offense - that transfers responsibility from him to the audience. Instead, he reacted with anger, which isn't very becoming of him. It doesn't fit the image he has been trying to portray. Any way he plays it, the innuendo was clear. The audience (full of Obama-friendly citizens) caught it - you can tell by the way jeering way they reacted. The conservative Palin supporters definitely caught it. He is in damage control here, and I don't think he did much to help himself.
Speaking of "pigs", you've heard the old "How to catch a wild pig" fable, right?
There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Prof noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.
The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms - just a little at a time.
One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
I think that cool-as-a-cucumber Obama's temper is finally starting to wear a little thin. I don't think he was calling Palin a pig. I personally thought it was an allusion to "pork" as in "earmarks," "lipstick," as in "Palin." Still, I doubt his advisors came up with that one because he should have known it would come back to haunt them.
I think that Obama has played it pretty cool and now it's getting down to the nitty gritty and it's getting dirty out there! I think that he's definitely getting frustrated -- especially now since some polls have McCain in a slight lead -- because of all the blatant lies. From all the different sources I've read and heard, the Republicans seem to have (at best) reeeeaaaallly stretched the truth on a lot of things, or just flat-out lied. Palin keeps on touting this "no thanks to the bridge to nowhere" but there's a whole lot more to that story than she's making it sound like.
Now, to be fair, the Democrats have also stooped to a level of perpetuating flat-out lies circulating on the internet. For example, some liberal bloggers have been accusing Palin of cutting special needs funding in Alaska, when in fact the truth appears to be just the opposite. Yesterday I was watching Larry King and some Democrat woman used that lie against Palin. They aren't checking their facts.
I came across a very good article on CNN money. For the first time, I've been able to see an actual breakdown of tax increases or decreases for Americans under either McCain or Obama. The Republicans always harp on the fact that "Obama is going to raise your taxes." Well, that's true -- but certainly not for the average American. Average Americans will see a decent tax cut under Obama, whereas the tax cut difference under McCain doesn't become that significant until you make over 161K per year.
You can read it here if you're interested.
Hmm. On first glance, just looking at the chart, I almost said that Obama's plan sounds good - that seems "fair" that people who make a lot more pay a lot more in taxes. But, when I look at the specifics of what McCain and Obama are proposing, McCain's proposal is much more geared toward economic expansion: In addition to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, McCain says he would double the exemption for dependents, lower the corporate tax rate, make expensing rules more generous for small businesses and lessen the bite of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum tax.
Those are all very good ideas, and things I definitely think need to happen. Obama's proposals are all aimed at income redistribution: Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000, and he would increase the capital gains tax.
Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax. None of these would lead to job growth or economic expansion. They would just provide a disincentive to make more money.
Honestly, increasing the after-tax income of the bottom group by $500 each while decreasing the income of the top group by nearly a million (or up to 1/3 of their entire income) just doesn't feel right to me.
I like the way this guy summed it up: Holtz-Eakin characterized McCain's plan as one geared toward "reshaping federal bureaucracies and protecting taxpayers' money. [His] plan is based on kicking down doors in Washington, and delivering tax dollars back to the American taxpayers who are struggling with record gas prices, soaring food costs and a down economy."
Plus, McCain is talking about cutting expenses, and Obama is talking about adding programs that raise expenses. I think that when you factor that in, McCain is obviously my choice. Thanks for the confirmation, FD!
"None of these would lead to job growth or economic expansion. They would just provide a disincentive to make more money."
Or it would result in more money in the pockets of average Americans, who will then spend it. Wasn't that the purpose of that economic stimulus cheque that everyone got a few months ago? Obama's plan may provide a disincentive to make more money for those who are making enough to feel the tax increase (although I doubt that people who make 161K+ per year really care that they are going to pay about 2000 bucks more in taxes and will therefore decide to work less), but for those at the bottom of the ladder, who will will be benefitting most from the tax cuts, the money will often go to every day things that a family needs, like food, clothing, perhaps little extras like going to the movies -- the consumer spending that drives the economy. More shopping = more people needed at Wal-Mart. :)
Either way, both plans are going to increase the deficit and they're similar in terms of revenue. Perhaps the only real difference is that Obama's plan gives more relief to people who will actually notice it.
FD, this is one of those fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals. I disagreed with the "economic stimulus package" that was done a few months ago, and I disagree with the one the Democrats are proposing again (although I was fine with the one done several years ago because it was just a forward of an actual tax rebate - not giving money to every person under a certain income in America. I didn't get a check that year because I didn't pay any taxes). The payout this year wasn't conservative just because GWB did it.
Or it would result in more money in the pockets of average Americans.
True, but if it isn't money that the average American earned (such as increased earned income credit), I don't feel good about it. That's just taking from the rich to give to the poor. It's one thing to let people keep more of their hard-earned income. It's another thing to take it from one person and give it to another. I do think that people who make 3 million a year and only have 2 million after tax will notice it.
"True, but if it isn't money that the average American earned (such as increased earned income credit), I don't feel good about it. That's just taking from the rich to give to the poor. It's one thing to let people keep more of their hard-earned income."
The way I look at it, it's a good way of helping out the little guy. Under the conservative system, how will he ever get ahead without a little boost once in a while? Yes, people should be aiming to get an education and the best job possible. And when more people do that, it's a very good thing. However, what about all those "regular" low-paying jobs (i.e. restaurant workers, janitors, grocery check-out workers, delivery people, maintenance workers)? The economy is totally dependent on them. Let'say that everyone in America has a BA or Masters degree and wants a job that corresponds to that education. Who is going to be there to wash offices and schools? Who is going to pick corn (besides illegals)? Who is going to deliver your paper in the morning? Who is going to stock the shelves at Wal-Mart or at the grocery store? I'm not saying that these people should be making 100K per year, but why not cut them some slack? Somebody has to be at the bottom of the ladder. That's capitalism. Someone has to do the jobs that no one really wants to do and they have to make less. And the economy is just as dependent on them as they are of those with a college education and managerial experience. We need those at the bottom and so I think they should be given a little boost here and there, even if it means taxing more heavily those who aren't so dependent on it. If those low-paying jobs that are at the bottom could be eliminated from society without any economic impact, then taxing the rich would perhaps be more unfair. But because the economy is dependent on the fact that some people are going to do less-than-desirable jobs for low pay, I say help them keep their heads above water. We are, after all, totally dependent on them.
"It's another thing to take it from one person and give it to another. I do think that people who make 3 million a year and only have 2 million after tax will notice it."
OK, they'll notice it. But to them it'll mean less than to a person at the bottom of the ladder. I mean really, a person who makes 161K isn't going to see a huge increase/decrease in their life if they do or don't get that extra couple thousand bucks. Same if it's 2 M vs. 3 M. Most likely, they would put it in their already healthy bank account. To a family that makes an average or below income, two thousand bucks is a decent boost that can mean the difference between a few extra outfits, a weekend getaway, or better quality food. It's money that is most likely to be put right back into the economy as soon as it's received.
Who is going to be there to wash offices and schools? Who is going to pick corn (besides illegals)? Who is going to deliver your paper in the morning? Who is going to stock the shelves at Wal-Mart or at the grocery store?
Teenagers, people working through college, people with limited capacity who want to work in addition to receiving assistance, people who want to work part-time for a little extra income. Teenagers in my ward have a HARD time finding jobs because they are all taken by people older than them. McDonalds is entirely staffed by adults (I would venture to say that a good number are illegal immigrants). Several never found one all summer.
I'll agree to disagree, FD. I like McCain's proposal better.
Maybe I missed it before, but I just came across something interesting regarding the "lipstick on a pig" comment. It seems that this term was just re-cycled by Obama when he said it last week. It's already done a first round, by both Obama and yes, even McCain himself. Leave it to the ladies at "The View " to bring this to my attention. :)
Here is McCain using the phrase and here is a clip from "The View."
Yes, FD, it is a common phrase. BUT, given the significance of Palin's bulldog/lipstick comment and all of the attention it has received, it took on a new context. Like I said before, I don't think Obama was calling Palin a pig. But the innuendo was clear.
Noted conservative writer David Brooks wrote an excellent piece on Sarah Palin today. His basic argument is that Palin may be an excellent candidate if destroying a corrupt establishment is your goal, but if you want a constructive, pragmatic leader, she's not. He also brings up an interesting comparison with our current President that I hadn't before considered. Definitely worth a read.
Argh. Here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?em
I think that O'Reilly is right that the introduction of Palin into the political race has made it into nothing about politics and everything about the culture war.
BBD,
Thank you for the article. I certainly don't feel that Palin is the best person for the job but what this article points out to me is that if Palin isn't qualified for VP, then Obama most definatley is not qualified for President!
I enjoy all of the media harping on Palin when every arguemnet they use applies 10-fold to Obama.
Post a Comment