Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
"That will not work."
Via dKos, this clip from just before McCain announced his VP pick:
Yeah, that's a couple of the right-wing pundits mocking the idea that Gov. Palin had anywhere near the necessary qualifications to become President if something would happen to John McCain.
Now, there are things about the Obama/Biden ticket which don't excite me. And there are some things about John McCain I like. But as far as I can see, his selection of Palin as his running mate shows his poor judgment - it's almost insulting that he would pick someone so vastly unqualified. Not that I'm worried about it - I think that this was a gamble that McCain made, figuring that his chances of winning were almost zilch and he might as well do something off-the-wall. But my opinion of him was lessened because of this choice.
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
LOL
Agree to disagree is an understatement, it seems. Even just on the observation of politics level. I believe Palin is a great choice for McCain strategically. There are many, many women out there who will vote for Palin BECAUSE she is a woman. There are plenty of single mothers and married mothers who were single when they had their children who will sympathize with Bristol if the media chooses to make an issue of it.
The Dems cannot criticize Palin for lack of experience because that's an issue that Obama suffers from himself, although as you say not as much as Palin.
The Christian Right was going to stay home this election, but Palin will bring them out in droves.
Palin as VP will steal some of the women vote from Obama, and bring the conservatives out. Excellent choice by McCain, from a strategic standpoint.
And those of you who say you would never vote for someone like Palin.... would you have EVER voted for McCain, regardless of his choice of VP? lol
That's my problem...
she's not a great choice for the country. Not in any way whatsoever, except as a cynical ploy; an amusing, useless trinket to keep idiots amused. If that's what gets you interested politically, I can see where we might have trouble agreeing.
Choices
Who would have been a good choice in your view? Pawlenty? Lieberman? Romney? I can imagine that you would have preferred any of the three to Palin, but probably only in less varying degrees of disgust, lol.
Good question...
If the repubs had it in the bag, and I was picking somebody to be stuck with, probably Romney. As contemptible and laughable as I find his particular cult and beliefs, he seems to be able to keep his lunacy and ego in check, some of the time. Lieberman has the real experience, and might be better at keeping a president from the kind of unconstitutional blunders we've seen from Bush, but I doubt it. He'd just be better at cover-ups.
I'm not familiar enough with Pawlenty to have a real opinion.
I tried surfing around to find a better choice, but couldn't. The only ones I could find that aren't obviously completely corrupt are insanely religious fascists, who don't have to be corrupt because their constituents are also insanely religious fascists.
I try asking republican voters that I know personally what they think republicans actually do for the country. The only answers I get generally have to do with us/them. Whoever "they" might be. Mexicans. Blacks. Women. Hippies. Muslims. Heathens. Eggheads. Potheads. Literates. Dissenters. Gays. Hate anybody you like, hate 'em for all your worth, until you feel like going to war with the first nation that doesn't kiss your ass. If this is your idea of civilization, there is a warm welcome waiting for you among the ranks of Republicans. As long as you tow the line. That's as far as they can go as voters and far too often, as humans.
Just wondering...
if you see the same vitriol in Democratic labels of typical Republicans the way you see Republican attitudes toward the list that you provided? You know.. white trash, trailer trash, rednecks, crackers, Oreos, coconuts, soccer moms, war mongers, cowboys, gun nuts, illiterate, home schooled, uneducated....
Generally not, for some strange reason...
when I hear liberals get angry at all, there are still usually qualifiers to show that they know they are talking about human beings, not necessarily enemies.
In fact, I wonder why you're even asking the question, unless you've been living under a rock for 50 years.
Republican rhetoric, and standard white trash politics are overflowing with references to deportation, disenfrasnchisement, persecution, and mass imprisonment or murder of those who disagree.
Be honest...when was the last time you heard an american liberal talk about any of those things as applied to conservatives? Who are the Ann Coulters and Jesse Helms of the left? Al Franken and Hillary Clinton? Please.
So no, I don't see the same vitriol, because it isn't there, although I think it should be. I don't agree with every big government plan that comes down the line, but based on all observable actions, I do believe that the average american liberal is more intelligent, more thoughtful, and vastly morally superior to the average american conservative. I guess if you leave out never-ending warfare, election rigging, constant lying, law breaking and constitution shredding, police state tactics, torture, name calling and smear tactics, love of ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy, racism and sexism, anti-drug hysteria, draconian punishments for harmless misdemeanors, and the absolute fear and hatred of independent thought, you could draw a more even comparison between the two. I choose to live with my eyes open.
Thanks!
The air of superiority in your post is an example of why middle America does not identify with liberals, and chooses to throw their lot in with people like Sarah Palin.
As bad as Bush has been for this country, the Democrats should have this election IN THE BAG. But Obama and McCain are actually tied in the latest polls? How do you explain this? If the Democratic party's positions are so 'obviously' superior to the neo-conservative positions, why is it so difficult to get the majority of the population to come on board? If it is so self-evident that liberal ideas so morally and intellectually superior, why aren't the Democrats winning every election in landslides?
Actually...
I believe you have that reversed. Most liberals(myself excluded, obviously) are too nice to say these things, and come off as weak because of it. We allow criminals and lunatics to claim the high moral ground because we don't want to seem too judgemental. I enjoy being called on my air of superiority when talking about the evils of current republicans. It always makes me giggle. I'm talking about a group of wannabe dictators. People who would criminalize gays, who throw people in jail for victimless or imaginary crimes, who lead the charge to murder hundreds of thousands of people, piss all over our freedoms and the constitution, claim ownership of our bodies, run entire campaigns based on chest thumping and fact-free slander, and have the nerve to tell people that they can act like this because God Himself came to them personally and said it was o.k. But somehow I'm the one with the air of superiority.
I believe that the dems lose elections because sadly, most Americans are more like republicans. Lazy, greedy, paranoid, and willfully ignorant. It takes effort to care about an issue. It takes effort to do some research instead of just believing what the preacher man says. It takes courage and patience to attempt diplomatic solutions to problems rather than just declaring war on something or someone. You can't buy curiousity, dedication and empathy at wal-mart or McDonalds. Can't get them at high-end retailers, either. Most hard-core republicans I know simply do not give a shit about anything other than the convenience of their daily lives and the continued privilege of their culture. Most of them don't seem to care about public education, the environment, the constitution, or anything else that the market can't fix with no effort on their part.
These are today's trends as I see them. While there could be more honesty all around in politics, it seems to me that conservatives are much more concerned with images than issues.
Experience? Really?
I'll just say what I've been saying on the experience issue...If the last eight years are a reflection of the virtues of experience, let's have some new blood! Preferably without suspicious connections to the oil, arms, and private security businesses, or dominionist churches, for that matter!
Aside from that, Palin's executive experience is a joke. Seriously, it's a joke and you know it. The Governator and Jesse Ventura have tons more experience, any mayor of a large city has more experience, the principal of a large high school has more executive experience! I would put more stock in the experience gained from being the mayor of Fresno for two years.
I put much more value on Biden's, Obama's, or McCain's experience in congress. Unlike many governors, they are likely to understand at least a little about how our government is supposed to work...the importance of the constitution, the separation of powers, limits on the power of the executive that many governors, particularly right-wingers, are proud to illegally ignore.
Of course, with his record of complete support for the Bush administration, there is no way I could trust McCain to do anything other than continue to illegally expand executive powers, as long as there is a republican at the helm.
There are other issues with her as well. She is obviously completely brainwashed by her religion, and will do anything in her power to help advance it. She admits this much freely. What she doesn't mention is that many americans, including religious folks view her church, the Assemblies of God churches, as one of the more pushy, batshit crazy varieties available. Check out this article at pharyngula, and follow the link at the bottom of the article.
(I've tried several times to post this with a link to Pharyngula with no success. The article is a couple of days old, the title is "Be Afraid." There is a link at the bottom of the article highlighting Palin's connections to the nuttier end of Assemblies of God churches. End times dominionists with paramilitary ambitions for christian youth...nice!)
Even if she isn't quite that crazy herself, she gives legitimacy, support and money to those who are. McCain, in his arrogance, has decided to show his support for women's rights by picking a female vp who would do away with women's rights entirely if given half a chance. Nice try, old man, but a few of us can still read, and still give a damn about freedom.
So go ahead and vote for "executive experience." Why not just go ahead and elect Fred Phelps? He's got plenty of executive experience! McCain and Palin both have plenty of experience in denying women full rights, denying personal liberty for individuals while protecting the extensive rights of corporations at any cost, raping the constitution and the environment, and encouraging the theocratic and fascist form of government so loved by right wingers these days...Corporations on top, all powerful and untouchable, followed by a thick layer of preacher/politicians who will gladly and proudly lie, torture, oppress, and kill at their whim to keep us sinners in line and keep profits flowing.
I would vote for a moderate muslim, a black separatist, or just an honest Gomer Pyle before I would vote for these jokers. A shift leader at McDonald's has as much useful executive experience, if you're concerned about the economy or protecting the constitution. As a country we seem dead set on delighting our enemies by destroying our liberty and economy from the inside out, long before any enemies could have, all for the benefit of a few billionaires and their freedom-hating christian Taliban.
Sorry to rant, but those who are seriously considering her "experience" in this election are a blight on this country. She wasn't chosen for her experience, but as a bone to throw to ignorant middle-class women who will give up every principle that benefits them just to see another bush in the white house.
palin2
I understand, she is a wingnut of the highest order. However...I'm a pervert and therefore can't help my thoughts! :)
Mocking?
And Obama does? I'd say Palin is probably more qualified than Obama to be President, which is unfortunate for both them and us.
18 million voters disagree.
Sorry, Sudo, but there's no way in hell she has anything approaching the qualifications that Obama has. She did two terms on the city council for a town of (then) about 7,000. Then one term as mayor. Now she's been Governor of Alaska for 20 months. At most, she's represented about 600,000 residents, won perhaps a quarter-million votes. She has no experience in foreign affairs, or in conducting governmental policy at a national level. She hasn't had to run a national campaign, with all the stresses and vetting that involves. She is on the record as saying that she thinks the Pledge of Allegiance was written by the Founding Fathers. I think she has a journalism degree.
Obama was a professor of constitutional law at a major university. And a two-term state senator in Illinois, then for four years a US Senator. He had to organize and conduct a national campaign in getting the nomination, along the way besting the Clinton political machine (which I would never have thought possible) and garnering something over 18 million votes. He has been involved in formulating national legislation, and has demonstrated an extensive knowledge of both national and international problems that the next president has to face. Rather than going for a gimmicky VP choice, he selected one of the most experienced and competent members of the senate - a man who himself was a contender for the presidential nomination - and thereby demonstrated the judgment necessary to be president.
So, no, she does not have better qualifications than he does.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
For a thorough comparison . . .
. . . between the qualifications of both Obama and Palin, take a look at this: Year-by-year break down of Palin & Obama resumes.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Kind of uneasy about this
Besides the inevitable spin D-Kos puts on this, isn't the fact that we have to see a side-by-side comparison of Obama's and Palin's experience (or lack thereof) kind of a wash? As I said before, I think the "experience" issue is a non-starter for Republicans, but it's going to be a third-rail for Democrats.
If the Democrats are going to insist on making an issue of this experience thing, they're going to shoot themselves in the foot just like they did twice against President Bush.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Playing it smart.
Actually, I think that the Obama campaign is playing it smart, and just staying the hell out of this. One of the basic rules of politics is that when your opponent is making a fool of themselves, you don't get in the way. With the hour-to-hour revelations of how bad a choice this was by McCain, there's no reason for the Obama/Biden people to say anything.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Now if the Liberal blogs would shut up about it too.
I imagine Obama/Biden will keep as quiet as possible on it; D-Kos and other far-left liberal blogs need to stick to actual issues, though, or they'll turn off a lot of the moderate base that the Democrats will need if they want to win.
Present company excluded, of course. :)
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
It's funny . . .
. . . but I both agree and don't. :)
Yeah, there is some value in keeping "to the actual issues", but I see Bristol's pregnancy as a legit topic for discussion for two basic reasons: Gov. Palin has not been shy about using her son Tracks' enlistment as a political foil and; she has been an outspoken advocate for abstinence-only education (along with some substantial degree of hostility against both contraception and the right to an abortion). Even in the statement issued from her (read McCain's) campaign, she stressed that Bristol chose to keep the baby - a right to choice that she and McCain would deny to others.
While I think there are plenty of "actual issues" to bring down her nomination (and McCain's chances), I believe that this serves a very real purpose - pointing out that the policies that she and the bulk of the GOP advocates have *real* impact on *real* people.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
I agree...
with your disagreement, but disagree with your agreement.
Is there any statement or policy decision that Palin has made, other than the answer to the questionnaire from 2006, that supports the notion that she has been an outspoken advocate for abstinence-only education? I can't find anything after an exhaustive, more than 10-minute search.
I have no problem with both sides pointing out the deficiencies (as they see them) in each others' policies. I think, on balance, the Democrats can finally win if they stay in that arena. I think they can even be successful in pointing out exactly how Palin's inexperience in certain political areas will be a shortcoming. They just have to realize that the same charges can be levied against Obama, and then it's the GOPs number two against the Dems number 1.
But if Democrats think they can get away with "well, it's just obvious that she's inexperienced and that's bad", they will lose. Obama's campaign doesn't even have to do it directly; if enough national supporters take it for granted, they will lose. And if those same supporters keep harping on Bristol's pregnancy, like they are taking some kind of schadenfreude out of it, ("Ha! It serves her right that her child became pregnant!) the squishy middle will turn against them.
Speaking of which, did Bristol go to a school that taught abstinence-only, or did she receive a more comprehensive sex-education?
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Sipping from the firehose...
...that is dKos on this topic, I can't find all the references to cite. But yeah, Governor Palin is for abstinence-only education (and was slated to address the Republican National Coalition for Life this evening), and she cut funding for housing for teenage mothers. She is also a member of Feminists for Life, as the Rude One noted today. Bristol was attending high school in Wasilla, which is abstinence-only, but then transferred over to an Anchorage High School.
It may well be true that the 'experience' question is one that isn't trump. But I don't think that the average low-information voter will really care about that - they're going to look at Palin and wonder what the hell McCain was thinking. And that's enough.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
As I was saying . . .
. . . http://blogs.abcnews.com/liveblogging/2008/09/how-palin-is-pl.html
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Difference in Kind - or Difference in Degree
I would put Obama's experience in the "Different in Kind" category, while Palin's is a "Difference in Degree" - granted, a large degree, but it seems to me to be more of a matter of scaling up a similar skill set.
I don't get the sense that Obama's campaign is all that skillful or organized by him - especially when I hear him give "off the cuff" remarks. It sounds too much like he is a front man for someone else who is really running the campaign from behind the curtain.
Palin
I don't care what anyone says...she has that naughty MILF quality about her. Just saying what everyone is thinking!
Um . . .
Um, no. Not what I've been thinking at all.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
One thing for sure...
I disagree that McCain's chances of winning are that small; two months ago I would have agreed, but I think now it's going to be a very close election. There's pluses and minuses on both tickets, as is usually the case, and I agree that McCain's choice doesn't seem all that smart a move. For one thing, they no longer have the high-ground on the inexperience issue. A McCain VP would have an excellent chance of becoming president if that ticket were to win.
However, one thing I do know for sure: the Obama campaign has no footing whatsoever in bringing up Palin's inexperience. What little experience she has is at least executive experience, of which Obama has (politically) about none. I don't know if experience ever really was a good debating point for the Republicans to begin with, but it's definitely not a good one for the Democrats.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Post new comment