Posted 3 months, 1 day ago in 
Loading ...
Defenders of the Republican VP choice are missing the point when they chastise those denouncing her small-town job background. Everyone I know would love to live in small towns if small towns were somehow able to offer the high-wage jobs, cultural, educational, social and entertainment benefits of large cities.
No one likes the interstate traffic jams, organized international crime, massive emergency services crises, labor strikes, gang activities, pollution, high real-estate prices and taxes and many other major problems that impact large cities. Mayors of large cities have substantial experiences dealing with these complex and varied issues. These experiences often include actions with federal officials, foreign dignitaries, high-level scientists and economists, union leaders, FBI/CIA operatives and many others.
Small town mayors who don’t participate in those scenarios just wouldn’t have the backgrounds to make appropriate decisions if forced to address issues of a national and/or international scope.
JOEL PRUDHOMME
Grand Junction
98 Responses to “Small town problems aren’t the same as big city problems”
Posted September 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Somewhere I heard a talking head on TV,–it may have even been McCain–speaking on behalf of Sarah and her many accomplishments and offices held. I can’t remember if being a member, or even an officer, of the local 4H club was on the list but the one that stuck in my mind was her being a member of the school’s PTA. If you have to dig that far down to find indication of someone’s creds that would seem to indicate that they are very thin, to say the least. Think of it, Sarah inheriting the presidency after McCain goes belly up and she can handle Putin just like she used to deal with obstreperous parents at those crucial PTA meetings when decisions had to made as to on which day to hold the bake sale.
Posted September 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That argument would have more sway if the Democratic ticket was reversed. You would have a hard time saying that Palin lacks the experience to be VP while trying to make a case that Obama has the experience to be President.
Posted September 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The experience issue isn’t really the point. It is policy, I say, policy!
Posted September 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan,
Did you watch the RNC tonight? I found out that John McCain was a POW!
Posted September 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And that is just about all we found out. Palin is a very good speaker but gave an awful speech. She played the POW card over and over and over ad nauseum. It would appear as though McCain has nothing else to offer. Her speech reminded me of gary Harmon: smarmy little insinuations and attacks. Indeed apart from the initial touchy-feely stuff about her children (no mention of the pregnancy) it was all about attacks on Obama and paeans to the POW. I do not think she took a stance on a single issue of national importance exccept to repeat the Dem call for alternative sources of energy (Repubs have had 8 years for this and have done nothing). She trotted out the usual Repub line on the Dems-high taxes, soft on security and completely falsified the Obama tax plan. She will get nailed on this, but the Repubs of course loved it. She also expressed contempt for the media and the Repubs loved that as well. This was a totally negative, Karl Rove (who probably wrote it) kind of speech and stands in stark contrast to the very positive speech given by Hillary. But the repubs love this kind of stuff and it worked with Kerry so they will continue.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 1:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s right Class. Republicans loved Sarah Palin’s speech. Not only because she explained Obama’s lack of qualifications to be president in plain terms that even Democrats can understand, but, more importantly, because we now feel even more confident that Democratic “ideas” will once again help Republicans on their path to victory.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 1:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class said: Indeed apart from the initial touchy-feely stuff about her children (no mention of the pregnancy)
Before you go overboard about Palin’s children, especially her 17 year old daughter being pregnant and not married, maybe you don’t know too much about Obama’s father.
Barack Obama Sr. was never divorced from his first wife Kezia, when he left her behind in Kenya to attend college in America in 1959, with their 2 yr old and a baby on the way.
While in America, he met Ann Dunham and they got married and had a son. He left them behind in 1963, (could not afford to take them with him), when he was headed for Harvard. They were divorced in 1964.
While at Harvard, he met Ruth Nidesand, who followed him back to Kenya. She was his 3rd wife and they had two children before they divorced.
He then he went back to his first wife Kezia and had 2 more children.
And now for my main point. Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham were married on Feb. 2, 1961, after discovering she was pregnant. Their son, Barack Obama (hoping to be the next president), was born on Aug 4, 1961. Hmmm!! Do the math.
So I would suggest you leave Palin’s children out of the politics.
The rest of you comment isn’t worth commenting on. Mostly BS anyhow.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 8:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Interesting comments from Tasha. I don’t know if they are true or not but that is what is floating around the net. They were meant to be a huge negative for Obama. Now, of course, all Palin’s family stuff is perfectly alright with the Churh Ladies of the Rep party. The issue is that Sarah Barracuda, rightly named, is woefully unprepared to become president in the event of McCain becoming incapacitated, which is not a remote possibility. Obama’s “lack of experience” discounts the fact that he was a constitutional scholar and is obviously intelligent, comfortable in his skin, thoughtful and not prone to shoot from the hip and, above all, very aware of how our government works and the various troubles around the world. He has the intelligence to get good people around him with expertise in all the necessary areas. McCain is a hothead with a military mentality and will get political toadies around him, just as GWB has done, and there would be little difference from the last eight years of macho BS, fear mongering and destruction of our country’s concern for all of its citizens in favor of the rich who have the means to flim-flam the public into believing that somehow things will “trickle down” to them. The last eight years is classic Republican rule. It is an object lesson that money talks and those with money have little interest in “community” and huge interest in feathering their own nests without regard for the future of the country. Classic,”I won’t be here so what do I care?”.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 8:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t know what a Churh lady is. Obviously I meant CHURCH Ladies just in case the composition critics are watching.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 8:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I know, it’s a minor little detail.
But it is a politically correct detail.
Is the messiah really a Constitutional Professor? Or merely a instructor posing as a professor?
Are “professor” titles handed out for accomplishments or political correctness?
From factcheck.org
“Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor,” most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was “senior lecturer” and not “professor.”
Recently, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:
Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.
The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave).” The Sun-Times said, “In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.” The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that “professors have tenure while lecturers do not.”
We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of “professor” is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.
Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be “a professor.”.
***********************
Well, quite obviously, the title is just handed out for politically correct reasons, and no “Professor” title was actually earned by the messiah.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 9:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gee, there was some resume “stretching” going on. What an unusual occurence in a political campaign. Was it wrong? Yep. But did he teach constitutional law, and did he study it at Harvard and was he the editor of the Harvard Law Review? The point is, and was, he knows far more than anybody else in the campaign on either side about how our gvenment was designed to function and correcting the constitutional abuse that has taken place in the last seven plus years is an important part of what has to happen in a new administration. McCain seems to know little and care less about the abuses that have taken place to the detriment of the rights and freedom of all Americans. We are not “safer” today than before GWB and the Repubs took office. In fact it is just the opposite.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 9:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And, by the way WLJ, the University of Chicago is a VERY Republican institution, the home of the late Miltion Friedman and others, and is not prone to handing out political favors to VERY Democratic candidates.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 9:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “Is the messiah really a Constitutional Professor? Or merely a instructor posing as a professor?
Are “professor” titles handed out for accomplishments or political correctness?”
Once again we see WLJ writing about a subject which he knows nothing about trying to score ideological pointws by twisting facts and words. Instructors, senior instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, full professors, visiting professors, and temporary faculty are all referred to by the generic name of “Professor” in American academia if they instruct students and have the terminal degree in their field. Obama’s use of the term is perfectly appropriate and in keeping with common practice.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 11:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Barack Obama is unquestionably very bright and an excellent speaker. And that is enough to qualify for the presidency? The man has never run or managed anything. He has been in the Senate for 3 years and most of that time he has been campaigning for the presidency. Anytime anyone talks of Sarah Palin’s lack of experience to be vice-president they help the audience remember of Senator’s Obama lack of experience.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 12:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, following the letter writers supposition of small city folk not being up to the task of managing a large community, there is nobody fully qualified to be President.
Even the mayor of NYC or LA are only capable of running large cities of a few million people, and not able to run a country with a few hundred million people.
IMHO, the people running for the Presidency are just a bunch of the people that caused the problems in the first place. The Senate is as responsible for the problems of this country as the House Of Representatives.
I vote to give the small town people a chance to correct the ills caused by the big city folks.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 12:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
On energy: Check out Magnetic Levitation transport systems at the following websites. Not only are these systems able to be integrated with the vehicles that we currently use, ie you drive into a maglev pod and then out at a certain destination, but they also use a small fraction of the energy our cars do. The energy that they do use is able to be substantially recouped as well. http://www.maglev2000.com/today/today-02-a.html or you can check it out at http://www.transrapid-usa.com/ or at http://www.american-maglev.com/
On Immigration: Why not use the massive and effective military force that we have strewn around the world protecting countries like germany and japan to patrol and shut down our borders to all unlawful traffic? This would create a physical barrier to terrorism as well as force all immigration into the lawful avenues it belongs in.
On Education: Lets have the money follow the child instead of the child follow the money.
On the Economy: Legalize competing currency so that the fed can’t devalue our dollar at it’s leisure. Getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with the fair tax would stimulate all kinds of economic activity as well.
Hooray! I’ve solved all of Americas problems in less than 10 minutes!
David Cox for President!
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 1:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
david-cox, I’m not sure if you are serious on Education or not. The founding fathers felt that democracy wouldn’t work unless there was some minimum level of education throughout the populace. I agree. “Free” public education was the answer. We all know nothing is free. Somebody pays or it doesn’t happen. You are saying that vouchers are the way to go. That means you can escape a bad school for a better one. In a voucher system there will be a hierachy of quality develop in alternatives to the public schools. That’s the market system at work. You can have whatever you can afford and people will supplement their vouchers with whatever they can afford to be able to get the best school they can. After all, they left the public school system because they were interested in good education. The public schools will likely become the lowest common denominator. Some say we’re already there. There is a direct correllation–in most cases, not all–between how well a school system is financed and quality results. School financing is invariably financed through property taxes and low income area schools are usually among the poorest. Unfortunately, parenting in low income areas often suffers and low parental involvement in poorly financed schools is a deadly combination. We are not coping with adequate financing of schools, adequate teacher skills and compensation and finding ways to get adequate parental involvement to ensure that the lowest common denominator is high enough to maintain our democracy. There is no question that the fact our jails are so full, more than in any country comparatively, that we are not instilling sufficient knowledge and citizenship in far too high a proportion of our population. Vouchers is an easy way to turn our back on the education problem to the detriment and peril of our nation. We need better answers to the root problem: a sufficient level of quality basic education so that all citizens are prepared to particpate fully in our nations governance.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JohnB: nteresting comments from Tasha. I don’t know if they are true or not but that is what is floating around the net. They were meant to be a huge negative for Obama.
The information was not something I picked up that was just floating around on the internet. Some of it is from what Obama’s step mother (Kezia) said. Her is the web site for that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2640079/Barack-Obamas-time-has-come-says-fathers-first-wife.html
The rest was from Wikipedia.
Nothing was meant to be a huge negative for Obama. It was, and I made it clear enough, to point out that Obama’s mother was pregnant with him before she was married. Palin’s daughter is being scrutinized by the media, and others, for being pregnant and not married. I stated, the children of politicians should be left out of the politics.
And I am not a CHURCH LADY of the Republicians.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Her is the web site for that.
correction, here is the web site for that.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tasha53, I don’t disagree with you that the children should be left out of the campaign. That would also make having a Down Syndrome baby irrelevant but that’s not the way it is being portrayed. But how did you happen by the website if it hadn’t been kicked around the net? How did you find it if it wasn’t through looking for “dirt” or having someone else point it out? For that matter, Wikipedia is a citizens involvement site that frequently has unreliable information until it is corrected, often followed by someone changing it right back to where it was. You were rightly, as far as I know, merely pointing out facts that I don’t dispute but the fact that the facts are out there is because somebody dug them up, not in the interest of merely adding valuable information to Obama’s biography. In the end it is about the intelligence and character of all the people involved in the presidential election.You have your favorites and I, mine. I think Obama is a fresh breeze blowing across our country and McCain is more of the stuff that has run our country into the ground. We probably disagree on that. That’s what makes life interesting.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 3:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John,
I appreciate your last comment in the manner it was put. I just happened to see a link to the article about Obama’s stepmother from being on another web sight. I was not looking for any dirt. It was an article dated Aug 28, 2008, so it is fairly new.
I’m not really happy with either candidate, and I have not decided who is best for the position. I agree with you that the intelligence and character is important, but experience, and ability is, in my opinion, is a bigger necessity to being in charge.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 3:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well tasha53, there is an email going around about 545 people.
100 Senators, 435 Representatives, 9 Justices, and one President.
These 545 people are directly responsible for every problem in this country today.
Congress creates problems, the President signs the problems into law, and the Justices uphold the problems.
2 of the presidential contenders are Senators, equally derelict in their duties to keep from creating problems.
1 of the VP contenders is another senator.
The other VP contender is none of the above.
She is also not approved of by the mainstream media, the hierarchy of either major party, not the bureaucracy in DC.
I expect the entire establishment to go into attack mode to destroy this woman.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 3:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here is a thought (mine of course), has anyone stopped to think about the fact that the woman who sleeps with the President is the one that really makes the rules (men, your hair is on fire so put it out before you slam on the keyboard to tell me I’m an idiot). For me, the choice would be Cindy McCain not Michelle Obama. I have more respect for Cindy simply because she is much more involved with causes for under privelaged children both here and abroad and she uses her own money to do it. Okay, let the screaming begin.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tasha5, my feeling is that Obama’s “lack of experience” is not that at all. He is obviously very intelligent; very involved; has a high degree of education, particularly as it relates to the constitution and the way our country should be run; has been around the power in Washington and Illinois long enough to know how things work; has the right instncts to get good people and generally bring about a higher level of governance that we have’t been experencing in recent years. He’s no dummy and I don’t think people will easily take advantage of him. To me, the experience thing is a red herring. He probaly understands our country and the world better than McCain, Palin and Biden combined and has great instincts about what should be done and how to do it. In the end, though, the composition of the new Congress will make or break whoever is elected. No man is an island someone much smarter than me once said.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ,
Yes, the mainstream media is always doing something to destroy someone if they don’t like them. Forget about what the person or persons stands for. And they will dig up more dirt than anyone out there. Doesn’t matter to them if the person they like is loaded with dirt, that never gets printed or spoke about.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 3:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tahsh53, I know, and they also go to great lengths to NOT report some minor details.
Were you aware that Michelle Obamas law license has not been renewed since 1993?
15 years is a long time to go without a license to practice.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 3:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John: In the end, though, the composition of the new Congress will make or break whoever is elected.
This is so true. I have mentioned this before in another forum. Candidates can say what they are going to do when elected, but when it comes right down to it, that doesn’t always happen,(but that is also good thing, other wise we all would really be in trouble.)
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ, you’re right. Palin will be attacked in the same manner as any man holding the position. There was hope by some that she would be given a pass just because she is a woman. Her speech put a stop to that. She attacked, be-littled and used poison talking points so she can expect them back at her. This will be the dirtiest election in memory and both sides will be guilty. The stakes are high and Demos breathed a big sigh of relief after Palin’s speech. She is capable of getting down and dirty just like the boys and she’ll be treated just like them.
Yes, Congress is at fault but the question is, of what? What should they have been doing and how could they accomplish that with the extreme polarization that exists? I’m not giving them a pass. But what is it that we can agree on that we want? I know what I want from them but based on your previous posts your’s are worlds different than mine. I’m sure you think you are right but, then, I think I’m right. How did our view of this country and what it means and should stive to fulfill come to be so different?
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ, was Michelle practicing law without a license? Or was she becoming a houswife with kids to bring up? Do you need a license to have all the education in your resume–and mind? She still has the LLD and has passed the bar and can renew at any time, can she not? Is not renewing your license indicative of anything meaningful? Just wondering. I’m also curious as to what the MAINSTREAM media is and what are the examples of favoritism that seem to be implied? Are Fox News and the NY Sun part of the mainstream? I know that the accusation of mainstream media’s bias is a big talking point with the Repubs but the other side says the same thing about the mainsream’s love affair with McCain. Who is right and what are the examples one way or other that prove the points?
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 4:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, I feel certain that we can find some common ground.
Do you feel the government knows better than you on how to spend your money?
Do you feel the government should control every aspect of your daily life?
Do you feel that government employees at 911 call center are better able to defend you from a criminal in your home than you would be with a gun in your hand?
Do you believe that a person of lesser skills and knowledge than you possess should be given preferential treatment based only on the color of his skin?
Somewhere John, I just know we will connect to make this a better world.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 4:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here’s the facts. The attacks from the left wing press on Mrs. Palin and her family started long before her RNC speech. No justification was needed. The fear is that she will chip away at Obama’s control of the women’s vote just like Biden was supposed to do to John McCains base. The reason that we are so far apart is partisan politics. We lose sight of what is best for our country and if we admit it, the other side takes advantage of it, and that serves to harden our position. I would like to see Presidential politics changed. I would like to see at least a hundred candidates who would publish the way they would vote on the top fifteen issues in the local newspaper for a three day period before the election. Their published stand would then become a contract with the provision that if it was broken, the office would be vacant. Most of us make our decisions as to who we will vote for on the basis of symbolism rather than substance. Try making a list of ten issues that you really care about. Wouldn’t it be nice to vote for someone who agrees with you and is willing to sign a contract that they will vote that way. We would still have partisan politics, but at least you could vote for someone instead of always voting the lesser of two evils. And the election process would only last less than a week.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP–but when did the attacks on Obama’s “lack of experience” and family background begin, including the supposed bogus Muslim connecton start and by whom?
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 4:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John,
The discussion was about Palin. If you want to go back, we can go all the way back to George Washington. The idea is to get the other side to admit they are wrong, not to admit the other side is right. If we were to do that, then we might end up with a rational decision, and I am afraid that is just totally unacceptable, because we need someone to tell us what we care about. We are incapable of making that decision for ourselves. Now you probably feel that you are, but I of course would have to disagree with you and vice-versa, because that is what someone told us we were supposed to do. I sure hope no one hears me talking like this and you better watch what you say too. We are not supposed to be satisfied with voting for who we want. We are supposed to persuade others to vote for who we want. Now if you would like to skip all the rhetoric, you can agree to vote Republican right off. Then we can both go back to what we were doing before the elections. You did want to do that didn’t you? Yeah, I thought not, me neither. But that is why we are where we are, and that is something we can both agree on.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 5:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, not going to vote Republican this year but I have on occasion in the past depending on who was running–on both sides.. A reminder about what the discussion was about was not necessary. It was about political attacks and I was reminding you that if you want to talk about victims of political attacks it is an equal-opportunity season.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 6:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That is why a Rasmussen poll taken prior to Mrs. Palin RNC speech found 54% of the public thought the news media was trying to hurt her. Only 5% thought the media was trying to help her. Now please John, don’t tell me that the majority of media lean to the right. I am easy, but I am not that easy. Obama’s wife is off limits. But Sarah Palin’s seventeen year old daughter is not. Snakes don’t bite reporters, as a result of professional courtesy. I don’t remember it being divided into left or right. I guess it just depends on which side the snake is on, and also the serpent. For the life of me, I can’t recall anyone from Fox news going after Obama’s kids. And I think most Americans understand that is way over the line, and has nothing to do with the candidacy. That is about as ridiculous as saying Obama is pro-second amendment.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 6:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Interesting points, AP. Even if the media is not trying to hurt Ms. Palin, they still suffer from a credibility problem.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 7:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, who said Obamas wife was off-limits? The only Palin kid that has been in the media was pregnant and un-married. The issue is not the kid but raised the issue of Palin’s staunch beliefs in abstinece-only sex education and no contraceptive information for kids. The bigger issue is evangelicals looking down their noses at premarital sex and those who get pregnant as a result. All of a sudden it appears to be okay. The kid is just the unhappy recipient of the mother’s beliefs and the hypocrisy of evangelicals all-of-a -sudden finding forgiveness, even adulation, of the poor kid’s mistake. As to the Rassmussen poll, Goebbels was correct. If you assert something enough times, people will believe it. You’ve got to hand it to the Repubs, their campaign of victimhood is working. Finally, if the kids should not be an issue–and I think they shouldn’t–then why is there such an obvious attempt to make Sarah a hero for bringing a Down Syndrome baby into the world and bringing him on stage with her. She followed her beliefs and chose to have him and care for him. Is that heroic or a sign of character transferable to the presidency. We all have various crosses to bear and she chose that one. And we are talking about the presidency because there is a better than even chance she may be called .
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 7:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
To be fair evangelicals do not seem to look down on teen girls once they get pregnant. They just want them to have the babies. And if the babies are white, they want to take the babies away from the teen moms and raise them “in their image.”
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 7:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP states: “That is why a Rasmussen poll taken prior to Mrs. Palin RNC speech found 54% of the public thought the news media was trying to hurt her.”
That is the result of the concerted campaign raised every election year by the ‘right wing’ of the Republican. They call it “media bias”. And, while there may be some ‘bias’ in some quarters, it applies equally to both sides, and on any issue. We see it all of the time. But, the Republican party has made good use of this tactic, not because there is that much bias, but because they believe they should not be investigated, questioned and compelled to anser those questions. If they can discredit the source, even if the charge of ‘bias’ is not true, they can then discredit whatever information that source digs up, or at least hold it captive until they can get done what they want. That is a tactic as old as man himself. And, it only works with those who have nothing else with which to work.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 7:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I don’t mean to be argumentative but the evangelicals I’ve been exposed to frowned mightily on pre-marital sex and considered those women who did to be hussies and deserved what they got. And THEN they wanted–no demanded–that the mother-to-be go through the birthing process so they could have the baby–as long as it was absolutely perfect and white. Other shades of either the mother or father still meant the woman was a hussy and must have the kid and take care of it, which was often predictably problematic. But that’s why we have a well developed, caring welfare system, isn’t it? It’s not necessary to say I’m being facetious or sarcastic, is it?
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 8:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s hard to really say anymore what evangelicals think of pregnant, unmarried teens. It’s a Baskin-Robbins out there these days with 31+ different flavors of evangelicals. There are evangelicals as Ash describes and as John describes. They’re having a bit of an identity crisis these days.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 8:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Brother John, you are not talking about me are you?
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 9:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, were you paying any attention at all? I am not trying to justify going after the kids. I believe they should be out of it. Palin’s beliefs may have caused her daughter’s misfortune. Or is it a misfortune? And why was Palin’s Down Syndrome boy made such big deal to the extent of having it on stage? Was there no opportunity to find a baby sitter? This is all about kids and campaigns. I am against using the kids. Obama’s use of them, as well. Why are you implying that there is some flaw in my character? I “don’t understand a mother’s decision”? I said she made her choice in line with her beliefs. There is nothing else implied there. Lets not drift back into sly character asassination yet again. Read what I wrote and don’t read anything else into it.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 9:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rv Wright, sorry to delay answering you. Since I don’t know you I don’t know if you fit into the same category as so many evangelicals I’ve known. Or was that the issue you had in mind?
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 9:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBC states: “It’s hard to really say anymore what evangelicals think of pregnant, unmarried teens.”
The reason may be that it is no longer a ‘religious’ movement, but a political one; i.e. using religion for political gain. Many may not be willing to admit to it, but that is what happens when two of the major forces in a society get too close together.
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 8:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually, RLaitres, what I meant was that evangelicals really, REALLY are having an identity crisis. True, there is a vocal segment of evangelicals that are active in political realm. There’s a growing segment that’s concerned with social issues. Some are becoming more reclusive. I think you’re generalizing too much about modern evangelicals. I would be considered, I suppose, as an evangelical, but I would not want to be associated with religious politicos such as Pat Robertson or John Hagee.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 1:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The Democrats are panicked over the Palin selection and all the scare mongers and smear artists are being deployed. The New York Times is out interviewing as many people as possible, who may have gone to church with Mrs. Palin, to see what they can come up with. Here is one thing the Democrats need to remember, when they start talking about where Mrs. Palin went to church, and what her religious beliefs may be: the tapes of the Reverend Wright are still fresh and ready for redeployment. Let’s see what the American public concludes when the Obama church and the Palin church are compared. A Rassmussen poll taken a couple of days ago shows Mrs. Palin with a higher popularity rating that either McCain or Obama. The more the media and the Democrats go after Mrs. Palin, the higher will her approval ratings rise.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 8:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The truthfulness in Bullishfrog’s statement “The more the media and Democrats go after Mrs. Palin the higher will her approval ratings rise.” was most recently exhibited in the local primary election for District 3 County Commissioner. In an all out campaign the liberals on GJSentinel.com attempted to brand Janet Rowland as “Ms. Bestiality” , and the Daily Sentinel editorial staff endorsed her opponent, Dave Kearsley. In spite of these efforts, Mrs. Rowland, after taking a public stand against the atheist agenda, won the election by a two-thirds margin, which proves even if you buy ink by the barrel, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
cc to file
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 9:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, you are correct in saying that the local huge Republican majority stuck together to vote for Janet. So, what’s new? Do you really think Keasley’s supporters at the time were going to say it was a very long shot for him to overcome the solidarity of the local Repblican establishment? The atheist “agenda” was not a factor in the real world outside this site and in your own mind.
Bullish, I hardly think the Democrats are panicked. They’re just loading their guns to give back in kind what Sarah is spewing out. I realize that Demos fighting back is a new concept but it will pay off. I’m not a betting man but betting against Sarah tripping up, either in what she says or from new revelations about her background would be a bad bet. She is the designated attack dog. But let’s see her be allowed to appear on the Sunday news shows and see how well she handles things without a script. Isn’t it strange that she hasn’t been interviewed yet without saying exactly the same things that were in the convention speech? She stays on message and uses the talking points. Let’s see her answer questions where those things don’t fit.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 11:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, if I go to someone’s house I expect to be able to stay there only if my comportment is acceptable to the host. What a concept! The words “Republican establishment” are key. If concepts of consideration for peoples property rights and the environment are Democratic-only concepts, I’ll go for that. Kearsley remains a lifelong Republican, market-driven entrepreneur and strong believer in small government. If those things are alien to the local “Republican Establishment” I wonder if they are out of step, not Kearsley.
By the way, I don’t recall any endorsements of Kearsley — discussion,primarily initiated by you, yes. There was only the fact that various posters knew him and appreciated his platform and the fact that he challenged the “establishment”. You really need to get over the Kearsley obsession. And you really need to get over the conservative victimization thing. You, and others, have had your say just like those who disagree with you. Disagreement doesn’t equal attack. If the information provided by the dreaded liberals overwhelmed you, I can’t do anything about that. Move on!
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 12:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If a two-thirds majority victory indicates that we are out of step as a majority, what does it say about the minority. Really what it indicates is that the majority is not buying the radical left wing proclamations of concern for the environment which is the liberals thinly disguised way of saying, we oppose oil drilling because it makes our alternative energy proposals not economically viable, and that is really all we care about. We don’t care if the public can’t afford to fill their gas tank, and now the Democrats are up to the same flip-flopping on the national election. First they cared so much about having a woman candidate. How apparent is it now that it wasn’t a woman candidate they cared about at all, it was their left wing political agenda. Well, here is a news flash for you John, women are going to play a big part in the Republican party. It is a position that they have worked hard for and deserve. And we are not going to turn our backs on them. And that is just something you are going to have to get used to. You see, we like women, so much we even marry them, and we are not looking for an alternative. Now we hear from the Democrats that they consider Sarah Palin a bad Mother, and I can certainly understand from their point of view, in this election year, why they would consider her “bad news”. As I recall, you were the one who was promoting Dave Kearsley as a good Republican. Now honestly, John, coming from you, how did you expect that to be taken, other than with a big grain of salt. As I recall, a brief overview of your message was that your friend Dave, was going to offer Republicans in the happy valley the first real choice they have had. Well, it appears that they made that choice, John, in overwhelming numbers, and I guess that is just something you are going to have to get over. The reason I brought it up was to point out your questionable political judgment, and lack of situational awareness, something that no doubt we will be reviewing again in the near future. That is unless you plan to vote Republican in the November election? Remember, John, Americans love a winner. And there are some politicians who use change to promote their careers, and there are other politicians who use their careers to promote change. You have a nice day, and remember, what we are looking for is change we can trust.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 1:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, it’s great the the Repubs are recognizing the importance of women. When was it that Geraldine Ferraro ran? Who was the woman candidate for president that would have been acceptable to most Demos if she hadn’t lost out in the lead in to the primaries? I don’t recall the name of Palin surfacing, until a matter of days ago. Poor Ferraro became a running joke and Palin will prove to be an even bigger joke, and it’s not because she’s a woman. We’ll have to see whether she even makes it to Nov.4. We’ll also see if the Repubs have an enduring love affair with the designated attack dog or whether that turns out to be her only attribute. As for my judgement, somehow I’ll stumble along. It’s carried me quite a way over the years. That’s personal, situational and political. I’ve spent way too much time wasted on a beautiful Saturday on the computer. Go find someone else to play with . Get over yourself with your stale talking points. It’s time to move on. Move On!
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog states: “The Democrats are panicked over the Palin selection and all the scare mongers and smear artists are being deployed.”
Where does this conclusion come from? As a Democrat I am certainly not “panicked”, and neither is the Obama campaign. As far as Palin goes, let us be honest about it, bullishfrog knows as little as the rest of us about her. Doesn’t it make sense to wait to find out before one makes a decision one way or another? Otherwise, it would mean that those who support her would support anyone, just as long as they have the correct ‘label’. And that brings into serious question whether the individual has loyalty to country or party.
bullishfrog also states: “The more the media and the Democrats go after Mrs. Palin, the higher will her approval ratings rise.”
Really? Now, that sounds very much like some ’supporters’ of Palin are resorting to donning the “victimhood” mantra or “You are criticizing me. Boo! Hoo!” Is that not a childish reaction, quite unsuitable for any adult, never mind one running of public office? Seems to us that such is exactly what that is. Or perhaps some believe that because an indivicual belongs to the local “politically correct” party, they should be above criticism. Seems to me that we see that in all dictatorships.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 8:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So much of Palin’s real character is being explsed now that I fully expect to see her self destruct before the election (except of course with the far right who excuse anything so long as the person is against abortion and evolution). For me the crowning blow to Ms. Palin’s desire to be vice president came when her attempt to fire the librarian who objected to censoring books which Palin did not like was revealed. She is thus exposed as a typical Christian right Republican who wish to inflict their moral code on the rest of us and will do so if they get into power. This by itself is enough to deep six her in my opinion.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 8:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Bill, Mr. Bill!! He is back!! Oh no!!
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
skippy,
Who is is Mr Bill?
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 9:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class: For me the crowning blow to Ms. Palin’s desire to be vice president came when her attempt to fire the librarian who objected to censoring books which Palin did not like was revealed. She is thus exposed as a typical Christian right Republican who wish to inflict their moral code on the rest of us and will do so if they get into power. This by itself is enough to deep six her in my opinion.
I think that is pretty minor compared to the things or people Obama has been associated with. Just my opinion!
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 10:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
tasha53,
I think what many of us are waiting for is to observe Governor Palin answer unscripted questions relating to the nations economy, foreign policy, etc. Not necessarily to see her fail but to develop a sense of how she would perform in her job if elected. It does appear that she has the cards stacked against her with her non acceptance of evolution or global warming and her parochial approach to energy based on her living in Alaska. Do you not agree?
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 11:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As far as Democrats are concerned, it matters not one whit who McCain chose for his VP. They were not going to vote for him anyway. It was , however, crucial for McCain to pick someone who would rally Republicans and Sarah Palin was a perfect choice. But the key to this election will be who can get the most “independent” votes. And here is where Palin’s choice turns out to be a stroke of genious. Why?
What are the two primary weaknesses that Dems are bringing up? First, that she has little experience. And that is certainly true. But it is also the primary weakness that Obama has. So every time the Dems charge inexperience, the voter is reminded of Obama’s lack of experience.
Second weakness, according to Dems, is that she is a Christian “fanatic”. Well, Obama’s second major weakness is that most folks don’t really know who he is. And one way to know who he is is to see where he went to church for 20 years. So when the issue of religion is raised, Republicans can throw the Rev Writght tapes out for comparison.
On the plus side we have a woman on the ticket. Women have historically favored Dems over Reps. Palin will surely diminish this advantage.
I am getting all kinds of e-mails from Democratic friends who are raising the specter of Jesus taking over the country if the Reps win the election. It is the same scare tactic used in the past. It did not work then and it won’t work now. No one was has been forced to convert to Chritianity despite the fact that Christian Republicans have been in the White House for 20 out of the last 28 years. And Roe vs. Wade has not been abolished despite all of the Supreme Court justices put on the bench by Republicans in those 20 years.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 11:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
Yes, I am also waiting for all of the candidates to answer the unscripted questions in the actual debates, until then, I have not made a choice totally. In my opinion, I don’t think evolution is an important factor, regarding my influence on voting for someone. I have not been convinced of the global warming, too many theories, and none to totally prove to me that it exists.
I will not judge any of the candidates about their stance on energy or anything else until I hear the debates, then I will be able to have a clearer understanding on their position.
Their thoughts or beliefs could change between now and then. Do you not agree? Do you not agree?
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 11:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
oops, didn’t mean to double up on the, do you not agree.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 12:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
tasha53,
I do agree, we need more information.
“Their thoughts or beliefs could change between now and then. Do you not agree?”
Having spent some time in Alaska, working, I appreciate the uniqueness of the Alaskan point of view. It will be interesting to see if Governor Palin mellows a bit. After all she was virtually plucked from the tundra and placed on the stage in St Paul and probably told what to say. Also we should be talking about Senator McCain, does he have a plan? Or the ability to carry it out. I agree we need to hear more from the candidates, not the press or bloggers. Will the handlers allow the candidates to express their opinions or are they going to campaign on personalities or perceptions? if the latter we lose.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 9:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Personally, I think her stance on evolution is very important, not because of the specific issue of evolution, but because it reflects how her beliefs influence her. Essentially, someone who does not accept evolution is someone who is willing to ignore evidence in favor of their existing beliefs. That’s a Bad Thing (TM) for someone who could be President. Now, they may be simply unaware of the evidence, but if they’re willing to hold a firm belief without looking at the evidence in the first place, its just as bad.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 11:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tasha53: “I think that is pretty minor compared to the things or people Obama has been associated with. Just my opinion!”
Your opinion is obviously shared by a lot of right wing Christians who always think it is just a minor annoyance that they are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Witness the unceasing attempts by the Creationists, which includes Palin, to attempt to get their faith based notions subtituted for (or in addition to) the science of evolution.
BFrog: “No one was has been forced to convert to Chritianity despite the fact that Christian Republicans have been in the White House for 20 out of the last 28 years.”
No but we would see the teaching of Creationism instead of evolution in the public schools if scientist had not put up terrific fights and if the legal establishment had not agreed with them that Creationism is religion, not science. Nevertheles the Creationists keep pushing even though getting knoceked down in every court case so far. We would also see the censoring of books a la Palin and indeed some censorship has already occurred under the guise of anti-pornography. (Nude paintings by Rubens are considered pornographic by many of these “hockey moms”)
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 2:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: Will the handlers allow the candidates to express their opinions or are they going to campaign on personalities or perceptions? if the latter we lose.
If the handlers don’t allow the candidates to express their opinions, we will be in big trouble. In my opinion, the media is playing on the personalities and perceptions. Bad mistake.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, you said “Personally, I think her stance on evolution is very important, not because of the specific issue of evolution, but because it reflects how her beliefs influence her.” If her stance on evolution agreed 100% with yours can you say that you consider for a minute voting for McCain? Because if you would not, her stance on evolution is truely insignificant to you.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 2:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
correction, my last post was meant for rm not Scott.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 5:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, what did Palin really have to say? If one listened to her speech carefully, not much. It consisted mostly of an attack on Senator Obama. The one line I found quite interesting, and which most did not at all notice, is when she pointed out the difference between a pit bull and a ‘hockey mom’ as lipstick. Perhaps many were suffering from and overabundance of testosterone, men and women alike, to note that she had just insulted women. It was a play on the old saying that once can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. The same applies to ‘pit bulls’.
If the only difference between Sarah Palin and a pit bull is lipstick, then not only is the Republican ticket in trouble, but should she get elected (perish the though), we all are.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 5:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually the pit bull/hockey mom joke did not go unnoticed, but has received substantial coverage. And most people were able to figure out that it was a joke.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 5:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skippy,
Her stance on evolution isn’t the issue, but it is indicative of how she approached subjects she isn’t an expert on. As an anti-evolutionist, she has demonstrated that she will not listen to experts if they disagree with her personal beliefs. I find that characteristic in a potential president to be quite dismaying.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 5:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: “And most people were able to figure out that it was a joke.”
A joke for whom, and to what purpose? Was it meant to make people laugh, or was it to show us how ‘tough’ she is? I would submit that it appeared to be the latter; i.e. nothing but an exhibition of machismo.
When looking at candidates, it is not how ‘humorous’ they are that some of us are concerned with, nor is it ‘making decisions’ alone. Any fool can make a ‘decision’. What concerns us most is whether the individual has the capacity and knowledge required to make the correct decision, at least most of the time (nobody is perfect).
What some of us find significant is that, following her introduction at the convention, she appears to be ‘hiding’ from interviews. And, only today has she committed to one. It was also notable that she granted it to none other than Charles Gibson of ABC news. People should pay heed to note what type of questions she is asked. Will they be about her and her record, or will they be formulated such that they enable her to ‘enhance’ herself, or provide an opportunity for her to attack Senator Obama and the Democratic ticket. I would venture to say that the ‘questioning’ will be of the latter two categories.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL,
Wow, talk about twisting the meaning of what Palin said. You did a good job of that.
She was referring to hockey moms, (moms with children on their local hockey team), being aggressive about the game of hockey, as in a pit bull of being aggressive in a dog fight. She was not calling women dogs. You missed her point completely. Guess you had an overabundance of testosterone when you put up your post!!
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 6:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tasha53 states: “Wow, talk about twisting the meaning of what Palin said.”
Given the context and situation in which she used that ‘joke’, perhaps Tasha53 wishes to explain to us, what was the purpose of saying what she did. No, she did not call women or hockey moms ‘dogs’ outright, and I am quite certain that she had no intention of doing so. But, when she pointed out what the only difference between the two is, she actually did.
Now, we may disagree as to what she ‘meant’ to say, but it remains a very real fact that she did say it, or at least her speechwriter did, and she spoke the words.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 6:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If the McCain/Pailin ticket gets elected what will Sarah Pailin’s function be. She certainly is not a Washington insider, like Cheney, and doesn’t have much if any Federal policy experience. She appears to be a firecracker and will not be satisfied being a pet “attack dog”/rose garden tea party host. She can claim they couldn’t have won without her giving her some leverage. If she gets snubbed and becomes angry could it be possible she will start whistle blowing on the Republican party like she did in Alaska?
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 6:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: perhaps Tasha53 wishes to explain to us, what was the purpose of saying what she did.
In other words, she was stating that she has enough aggression to take on a position of VP. (since she is being ridiculed by the public of not having enough experience, and just being a hockey mom). Being a political attack dog, kinda like what Biden is. Able to stand up to bullies.
“But, when she pointed out what the only difference between the two is, she actually did”.
And I say you are 180 degrees off on this statement.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 8:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres
Dick Cheney once commented that Hillary Clinton confused her trip to Bosnia with a time she had gone hunting with him. Point being if you can’t laugh at yourself then you should have a lower profile job.
I get the feeling if she turned her head to the right to sneeze that the left would find some conspiracy in that action.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 9:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan states: “I get the feeling if she turned her head to the right to sneeze that the left would find some conspiracy in that action.”
Actually, that is not the case at all. It is never what a person says that is important, as the same thing can be expressed in many ways. Things are or are not important because they were said or done, it is “why” they were said or done. What is also important is the venue. For instance, you or I may say or do many things on one occasion, and they might be appropriate. In another venue, they are not. That becomes important, in particular when one is seeking an office at the national level, where all words are analyzed, not only by ourselves but by others.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 9:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Back to the original letter, “Mayors of large cities have substantial experiences dealing with these complex and varied issues. These experiences often include actions with federal officials, foreign dignitaries, high-level scientists and economists, union leaders, FBI/CIA operatives and many others.” Community organizers do? Governors don’t?
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 9:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Any argument against Palin’s lack of experience can be turned around and used against Obama. And remember, she is the #2 person on the ticket, not the #1.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 9:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Johnson state: “Either that or his opinion of intelligent women needs to be raised to real world levels.”
Perhaps ‘little bobbie’ has had more experience with intelligent women than has Mr. Johnson, both in working for, and working for him. And, ‘little bobbie’ was not afraid of them in either role. ‘Little bobbie’, under such circumstance had the ability and intellectual maturity to distinguish the appreciate ideas and their value, and without paying any attention whatever to gender. It would seem to ‘little bobbie’ that such would indicate intellectual and emotional maturity on his part. It is only those who cannot make such a distinction who would evaluate a persons ideas and judge them depending on the gender of the individual who had them.
Could the possibility exist that such is what Mr. Johnson does, believing that Ms. Palin’s ideas or words should not be challenged, BECAUSE she is a woman?
Little Bobbie from Delta
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 9:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan states: “Any argument against Palin’s lack of experience can be turned around and used against Obama.”
Is this not what the McCain campaign campaign has been doing for months, even prior to Palin being selected? There is more to ‘experience’ than ‘making decisions’. Experience at what? Any fool can make a decision. The true consideration is making the correct one. Unfortunately, Ms. Palin has very little understanding of national issues, and absolutely none, at least as far as some of us can see, in international affairs. There is not only ‘none’ in experience, there does not appear to be any in her academic career either.
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 10:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has very little understanding of national issues, and absolutely none, at least as far as some of us can see, in international affairs. There is not only ‘none’ in experience, there does not appear to be any in her academic career either.
See what I mean?
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 10:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is merely a suggestion, but perhaps Sullivan should not resort to ‘cut and paste’ as is evident was done in post #83 (copied from my post #82). That is clearly evident by the fact that what was posted was verbatim in its entirety, with the exception of the name. Unfortunately, he neglected to change that part of the sentence from “in her academic career” to “his academic career.”
Posted September 7th, 2008 at 10:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWMxNGUxZWJjYzg1NjA0MTlmZDZmMjUwZGU3ZjAwNmU=
I found this article to be quiet interesting. It refers to community organizers, and what Obama did in this position during his time in Chicago. It is very important to read all of the article to get the whole true meaning behind it. In my opinion, the last paragraph of the article says it all. But please read the whole article and not just the last paragraph.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 9:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tasha, I read all of it. It struck me as a young man trying hard to help his fellow man get out of bad situations. It goes to the very root of the Left versus Right controversy. The Right says leave well enough alone and somehow natural market forces will lift people from whatever mean circumstances thay may find themeselves in. After all, everyone has the ability to lift themselves up if they have the gumption to do it. The Left, on the other hand, says that people need help to understand that they can lift themselves out of their situation. Years of neglect and generations passing on feelings of hopelessness, despair and self-destructive behavior and though-processes cripple people. Throughout the article it was plain that Obama was trying to help people and wasn’t motivated by self-aggrandizement. That’s a bad thing? How can you appraise his level of success without being there and seeing first hand what the obstacles to success were? Or reading about his years as an organizer in a hard-right magazine that had an agenda for going there in the first place? The National Review is not known as source of un-biased truth. Obama is interested in all the people. Sarah Palin is interested in furthering her career to benefit Sarah Palin as far as we can tell so far. We’ll know more after some interviews where she gets off the script, assuming she is able or willing. Tasha, I am a social liberal, and proud of it. You’re seemingly a conservative. Using the National Review to prove a point only reinforces that conservative bias. Obama’s website gives voluminous details of what he proposes. They are fair game for criticism. The McCain strategy of tearing the man down instead of his programs is highly indicative of what the McCain-Palin candidacy has to offer. More of the same! Macho posturing and tax cuts will solve all the country’s problems. Not in a million years!
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 9:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
SO, over the last couple of weeks we’ve had 2 conventions. The highlites were that Obama gave another speech and McCain chose Palin. And waht has been the impact on the polls? Read on:
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Republican National Convention has given John McCain and his party a significant boost, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken over the weekend shows, as running mate Sarah Palin helps close an “enthusiasm gap” that has dogged the GOP all year.
McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican’s biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 9:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tasha53,
I read the article and it struck me that Obama with his three years working in the trenches of the S side of Chicago, received valuable hands on experience with some of the most important issues facing this country today.
Trading URL’s here is a somewhat different take on the SP nomination:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article4692133.ece
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 11:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, and that proves what? Their strategy is working? Probably. On the other hand isn’t that the usual result right after the convention? If your contention is that Obama is not your guy, fair enough. On the other hand if you contend that what opinion polls show indicates that what people believe is the truth, I don’t buy it. The McCain strategy is to deceive. If Obama can’t get the word out to correct the record he probably deserves to lose, although in my opinion that means we’ll all lose.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 11:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, this was a peculiar situation where the two conventions went back to back. So there was no chance so the Democrats did not get much of a bounce before the Republican convention went on. Nevertheless, Democrats need to be concerned by the fact that Obama’s margin was contracting on the way to his convention and now, that both are over, he is behind.
Should Obama lose, Democrats will make a long list of the reasons for the defeat. But one item is sure to be missing from that list. And that is that the majority of this country does not share the liberal ideas of the party. Until Democrats get this figured out, they will continue to put of left of center presidential candidates and they will continue to lose.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 12:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, as you say, we’ll know whether Obama and his “liberal” agenda appeals to people or not in November. It may not be conclusive, however. Most people believed they knew what Compassionate Conservative meant and they expected certain supposed “liberal” kinds of things. They found out that what they got was a very orthodox conservative result. Some say people’s dissatisfaction with our current state of affairs is the result of an inept administration. It has been VERY adept at instituting conservative principles. Rove is a master at deception and now they are faced with McCain trying to do the same thing. If Obama loses it will be because he was unable to point out what has happened and how McCain is just more of the same. I don’t believe for a moment that people want the real conservative agenda. The state of the country and the vast majority of families is testament to what happens when people are sold a bill of goods about what is good for them by people whose objective is what is good for themselves. Marketing works and people buyy all kinds of things they don’t need thinking that they will do wonders for their well being.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 12:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You see John, you are already making your list of excuses. I will argue that the Democrats’ inability to defeat GW, and Obama’s inability to close the deal in what has to be one of the best opportunities ever for Democrats since Watergate, is what I wrote earlier, the majority of this country does not buy the liberal agenda.
I believe that if your candidate had been Hillary, you would be running away with this election.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 1:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, it’s not excuses, it’s fact. Obama has to be able to tell his story and he has seven weeks in which to do it. I definitely think he is the right man at the right time but if he ends up not being able to convince people of that fact we all lose. I don’t have any feel for whether Hillary might have been way ahead by now. If she was the candidate she would be bombarded with the “negatives” just like is true of Obama. Politics ia a nasty business and if you want to play you usually have to do it the way it is traditionally played. we’ll find out if he will do that or try something new. I hope he’s not the new Adlai Stevenson, very smart but unwilling to get his hands dirty.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog,
When you said “the majority of this country does not buy the liberal agenda.” you are absolutely correct. Coming off of the worst 8 years in our countries history they prefer higher taxes on the working class, a failing health care system, higher energy prices, loss of freedoms, etc. You might ask why? One reason is because there is no functioning press in the United States to challenge the corporate and religious Republican lies. They can get away with it so they repeat them over and over again until we are brainwashed.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, Obama has been telling his story for 1 1/2 years. The reason I think Hillary would win this election is, for one, because she is a known quantity and in a number of important positions she is more to the center than Obama. Second, Democrats would have garnered a lot of votes from independent women which will now go to McCain.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 1:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm: “One reason is because there is no functioning press in the United States to challenge the corporate and religious Republican lies”
Oh, man, talk of excuses. This one is about as far off the mark as any I’ve heard. You’ve got the vast majority of the press on your side. Give me a break!
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 1:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog,
“You’ve got the vast majority of the press on your side. Give me a break!”
This is not the point, “whose side” the press is on. They are not doing a proper job of reporting of either side. When someone makes a misstatement they should be called on it. My observation is that the National Republican party has gotten into the bad habit of excessively lying to advance their agendas. They should have their mouths washed out with soap by the press but its not happening. Maybe we have all gotten so used to this that we just snicker and say “Oh well” you know how those politicians are”.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John: How can you appraise his level of success without being there and seeing first hand what the obstacles to success were?
I could ask you the same question.
John: Or reading about his years as an organizer in a hard-right magazine that had an agenda for going there in the first place?
And the hard-left has not tried to do the same, to disprove McCain?
John: The National Review is not known as source of un-biased truth. Neither is Daily-Kos, MSNBC, CNN. I could list more, but don’t think it is necessary.
John: We’ll know more after some interviews where she gets off the script, assuming she is able or willing.
I agree, and this also for Obama.
John: You’re seemingly a conservative. Using the National Review to prove a point only reinforces that conservative bias.
Be careful about assuming what one is. Just because I used that site, doesn’t prove anything.
John: Obama’s website gives voluminous details of what he proposes.
Yes, proposes, but not accomplishments, is that what you are saying?
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 2:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment