Is trickle-down economics necessarily a failed policy, or could it be that, like communism (baggage-filled example, but it’s all I have at the moment) it has never been truly implemented?
During the two extended periods of its quasi-implementation (Reagan/Bush II), there were massive, unaccounted-for and quite arguably unwarranted military expenditures. If McCain/Palin are able to avoid such spending, and engage in eight years of reduced government/taxes, what are your principal objections? Are they based in economic theory or principles of fundamental fairness?
Of course, there’s the question, WWPD?
Does she have any published writings or other pre-nomination body of work that delineates her view beyond catch-phrases? I’m not asking about mayoral or gubernatorial policies per se, but whether or not she has engaged in some analytical or policy deliberations that would assuage the perception that she’s not up to par.
Well, yeah, true. But that’s a dangerous line of thought, isn’t it? Doesn’t it suggest that there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept, just that it’s been poorly implemented?
The people who would still vote for Bush if he were running will be happy to vote for McCain on the fact that he picked a Bush clone who happens to be a woman. He is hoping to solidify the extreme right voters who want a woman, and someone who knows less then him.
The Evangelicals want a social extreme conservative,it seems (by the emails I get), they are only interested in having Christian beliefs pushed on the nation. Many seem worried that they will lose Christianity if their ideas are not made the law. Most other Christians do not agree and truly want freedom of religion for all. Some Catholic voters will go along with the radical right so the pro-birth policies can be forced on others. Now they want the morning after pill banned because they believe that it is a possibility that “Maybe” a conception has taken place.
If the majority of people disagree with them and do not vote then we will get another 4 years of the same. Gore won the majority of votes, but lost because the supreme court judged him to be the winner. Every State needs every person to vote that is eligible then our Democracy will tell the tale.
Yes, because of course when Obama is sworn in, on January 21st the Red Army will arrive on your doorstep to turn you into the street with nothing but the clothes on your back.
There was a lot of talk about Edwards - how he was picked because he was “pretty” and “would appeal to women.”
Personally, I’m rather insulted when either political party assumes that I’ll vote for someone due to physical features - whether that is “he is so good looking” or “she has the same body parts I do.” To me, its sexist when we choose one person over another because of their gender - and that is a far worse sin than making fun it when it happens.
Do you think Sarah Palin would have been tagged had she not been a woman? If you truly believe that, then the response from the left has been sexist. However, I cannot believe with a straight face that Palin would have been chosen had she not been a man.
My big problem is the repubs have screwed everything up. We have had 10 bank failures this year. There are 200 on a watch list . Do banking failures bother repubs.?
250,000 foreclosures a month. People being tossed in the street. Does that bother repubs?.
10 billion dollars a month in Iraq . Does that bother any repubs?.
Unemployment heading for 10 % . Wages stagnant or dropping ,especially when taking inflation into the equation. Bother anyone?
One half of one percent own 22 percent of the wealth. We are being splint into ultra rich and poor as the middle class disappears.
Our infrastructure is falling down. Somehow it has to be fixed. When Bush came in we had 500 billion surplus. We now have a 9 trillion dollar deficit. Do the repubs have plans to deal with that.? They caused it.
The repubs started a war of choice. War is a sin against mankind and should only be done in extreme circumstances. The repubs make money off war.
We have serious problems. Palin is in no way the person to deal with them. Those getting rich off the system will control her like a puppet. It will simply get worse.
We had the national debt under control. Just the interest on the debt will keep us broke. It has to be fixed again.
Secession: It’s not just for Confederates anymore!
Of all the things we have learned about Palin this is the most serious. Well, so far anyway. It’s only Wednesday.
How can she join a group like the Alaska Independence Party and still be part of McCain’s “Country First” campaign? Secession is to that group what marijuana is to the Grassroots Party. How on earth can this woman be a heartbeat from the Presidency?
You didn’t answer my question, either (which I asked before you asked yours). Did her looks get her the governorship, too? What about her mayoral position? Has her life been one long beauty pageant?
I have no idea. I think there are definitely some qualities she has that McCain thinks he needs. She seems to be an old-school, small-government conservative, which are getting hard to come by these days. McCain has received a lot of criticism in that regard, so maybe he thinks it will score him points with those types. Maybe the juxaposition of that quality with the fact that she’s female seemed appealing, sure. But to say that the fact that she’s a woman is the first and most important reason he picked her…I don’t think there’s any evidence for that.
But my problem isn’t primarily with the theory that she was selected because she’s a woman. It’s the use of female-oriented perjoratives, such as calling her “Barbie” and “Princess” that I object to. It’s demeaning to women in general, and it’s insulting to her to assume that her accomplishments were solely acheived because of her looks. I don’t think there’s anything “Princess-y” about this woman. She’s had an amazing career, and she seems smart and tough.
She was mayor of a city the approx. size of Ishpeming ,Mi. I do not drive through Ishpeming and think the mayor is being groomed for president.
Alaska is the 47 th largest state. The whole state population is 2/3 rd the city of Detroit. There are practically no blacks or hispanics. How is she getting a handle on National problems after 20 months in office. Her political experience is irrelevant. It does not translate to president of the US. That is the standard by which she must be judged. She fails miserably.
She’s never had any other qualifications for anything she’s ever run for, so yes, I think it’s easy for an attractive woman to get elected to podunk public offices, and I think she’s basically skated by on her looks and by pandering to a right wing religious demographic. She wasn’t even opposed when she ran for Mayor, by the way.
Now, do you think she’s the most qualified woman McCain could have chosen? If he wanted a qualified social conservative, are there no Republican males with better qualifications than Palin?
I think this is the standard she is being judged on by the media and the left. This is what infuriates those true McCain supporters - that the left and the media see the blunder in McCain’s choice. If the GOP wants McCain to be a masthead, they have a weird way of picking a town cryer.
How does she seem to be this at all? Hasn’t she sought massive amounts of federal dollars for pork projects (including the Access Road to the Bridge to Nowhere)? Didn’t she do so using an affiliate of Jack Abramoff?
Didn’t she impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies?
Hasn’t she used the power of the government to impose her will in a personal matter as governor?
Didn’t she attempt to have books banned at her town library as mayor, threatening to fire the librarian when she balked?
If George W. Bush is an old style conservative, then Palin is an old style conservative. For the most part, her policies appear to line up perfectly with his.
Damn gonzomax, the only thing that could improve your last two posts would be if you opened a new Window, and typed “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!!!” Nicely put.
Sarahfeena, I think I get your point. But give me a second here… If you accept for a moment the honest belief in her underqualification and the general feeling of gross insult and pandering that some of us feel are inherent to her selection–repugnance far above and beyond a general disagreement for someone’s different political opinion–you’ll understand the very human tendency to distill that notion into a communicative, and negative, epithet. That is, it’s not a misogynistic-inspired ad hominem, but an encapsulation of a sincere impression of her selection.
This is why posters have raised the notion that other female candidates (see that lost list) would be referred to in the same disparaging manner—irrespective of shared beliefs (e.g., pro-life).
But I get your point. It’s certainly fair to suggest that Barak’s race was a strong influence over his selection as keynote speaker. But if someone said “he was chosen because he’s a … “, irrespective of the merit of their claim the sentiment would be repulsive—in fact, it would do their underlying point a strong disservice.
Being black is a problem that Obama had to overcome. He had to convince millions of voters he would be president of all the people. He has spent endless debates and speeches showing who he is.
Palin did not have to convince anyone but McCain that she is qualified. Her sex is a positive as with her ultra conservative beliefs. She pleases the radical righty church people. She ,they believe ,will get women to vote for her. It was a terrible decision. She is not qualified.