You just don’t get it do you? At the moment, ANY critical comments about Palin must be met with crys of "SEXISM!!!OMG. This will change shortly into “Let’s move on past this nonsense”, and by next week, it will be “this is all old news, let’s move along”.
Right, because of those skeeeeery “beliefs [of] his wife and other associates”. You know, you blew your claim of non-partisanship the minute you posted that not-so-veiled innuendo based on the ugly and hate-filled partisan email smear campaign.
OT: I now have a girl crush on SmartAleq.
Oh, and for the record, I referred to Palin as Governor Princess Palin, including both the acknowledgment that she’s risen to the ranks of Governor, but inserting the Princess as a reference to her beauty-queen-tiara-wearing start. That hardly means I think she hasn’t worked hard to get to where she has. It also doesn’t mean I think the work she’s done to date in any way whatsoever qualifies her to lead this nation either in the highest or second-highest position in our government.
Another reason was that, at the time of his selection to speak, he was embroiled in a tough senatorial election to win an open seat. That Jack Ryan’s campaign would implode, allowing Obama to cruise to victory, was not anticipated. Had it been, someone else who needed the exposure might’ve been selected.
Sexist pig! (there - see how that works?)
Certainly. I didn’t intend to equate the degree Barak’s race played in his choice with the degree gender played in Palin’s, nor suggest that both were egregious and insulting.
I think Sarah Palin, to be honest, can be fairly compared to Obama '04, before the keynote address.
Except for some of us junkies who noticed him in regards to the Jack Ryan videotaping mess, nobody ever heard of him. (I only did as 'A clean politican in Chicago? Beating Jeri Ryan’s husband who wanted to take her to wifeswapping clubs? Man, I love politics.)
The differences are, A: Obama killed on the keynote, B: Palin isn’t showing up clean, and C: most importantly, we had four years to watch him develop.
As of '04, he was a rising young star. Maybe the first black president someday. But nobody expected him to pull it off so soon. If he’d been pulled up for veep, he would have been blamed for Kerry losing. (Maybe Kerry woulda won. Who knows?)
But yeah, if they picked Obama in '04 for VP, we’d have the same kind of situation we have with Palin. I think.
A: Tonight’s her chance. I really hope she rises above the initial impression I have of her.
B: Not quite clean, but not quite unclean enough (so far) to suggest her being asked to step down by those who have invested quite a lot of face in bolstering support for her. I asked upthread what it would mean if Troopergate allegations were true. Not that CanvaShoes speaks for all of conservativism, but it doesn’t seem like its outcome will have an impact on her polling.
C: Sure, there’s just a couple months 'till the election, but maybe we’ll have four years to watch her develop. :eek:
You think? No, absolutely. And I’d be on the sidelines trying to come up with reasons why he was a good pick. I don’t envy those Republicans who are only in it for lower taxes and less government because Palin is an odd, even a very bad, choice.
And Ron Paul hauled in 10,000 people to his counter-convention.
The chances of her actually writing her own speech seem pretty low:
It’s hard to shine when you’re told what to say.
OK, I have this wild and byzantine theory (this is fun! - stay with me):
John McCain wanted either Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge as his VP. But he was told he’d get a major floor fight if he picked either of them.
So his people did vet Sarah Palin. They knew that all this stuff would come out about her in the first week or two, and that in the meantime, she would really energize the base and raise some money for the campaign.
So sometime after the convention, Palin will tearfully resign from the ticket, claiming that Democrats (and maybe a little the press, but mostly the Democrats) made her family the issue rather than her self, and she’s resigning to protect her family.
John McCain then chooses Tom Ridge as his VP. THe RNC is so relieved that he didn’t pick Joe Lieberman that they let it go - after all, in every other area, Ridge is a solid conservative.
Sarah Palin is Bush in disguise:
For the record, I called her “Governor Cupcake” because the name fits. A cupcake may look pretty and fairly substantial from a distance and at first glance, but once you bite into it you realize it’s just cloying sweetness with no actual substance and you just know when you get done with it you’re gonna want something real to eat.
I could have gone with “Governor Terrorist,” for her involvement with the Alaskan Independence Party–there’s a frightening bunch for ya. Didja hear that the founder of the party, who disappeared a year and a half ago was just discovered dead and buried, wrapped in tarp and duct tape? Apparently he was murdered in a "plastic explosives deal gone wrong. Huh, one wonders what would have happened in a deal gone right? Of course, Obama’s connection with Ayres is much, much worse–why, that university professor’s a known unidicted terriss!! OMG!! ONOZ!! Of course, now she’s trying to claim she [never had anything to do with them, in spite of her hubby being a member of the party up until 2002, per voter registration records. So, hey, “Governor Pants-on-fire” would work too.
Heck, that last one would work too–Sarah Palin’s first child was conceived out of wedlock, by probably seven weeks or so. So maybe we could also go with “Governor Hypocrite,” for her stance on abstinence only sex education–for everyone else except her and her family, of course. Of course the 20% reduction in funding for a home for teen mothersshe lined out in the '08 budget just underlines that particular name for her. So, no funding for the pregnant girls whose mother’s don’t pull down a governor’s six figure salary, yeah, just fuck them Governor Hypocrite. Or would “Governor Heartless Bitch” work better?
Fiscally conservative small government, anti pork? Riiiiiight… McCain himself had “Mayor Porkbarrel” on his infamous list for several of her pet projects in Wasilla. Man, she’s even shitty at that–she got 27 million in earmarks for her itty bitty town of 5500 residents (annual budget of 5 million) but left it over 20 million in debt. The town didn’t (still doesn’t) have a sewage system or decent roads, but thanks to “Mayor McDebt” it has a spiffy hockey rink! Oh look, she raised taxes too! On fucking FOOD, no less! While encouraging the town to borrow money! Yes, this is JUST the person I want in charge of the federal budget! Gosh, is it terribly sexist of me to point out that “Governor Spendipants” sure knows how to waste other people’s money?
How about “Governor Bookburner?”
How about “Governor God-Warrior?”
Huh, here’s a new one–how about "Governor Milkmaid?" Sounds a little better than “Governor Cronyism Costs Taxpayers Shitloads of Money for Nothing.” Rolls off the tongue a little better. Article written by an Alaskan homeboy, no less. I’m sure that means he knows MUCH less about the situation and the real Governor than the experts here on the SDMB.
As for the belief that she was hired because she has a vagina–that IS a little inaccurate. Olympia Snowe and Kay Bailey Hutchingson also have vaginas, but the GOP wanted a vagina that was guaranteed to squirt out a sprog whenever a dick got near it–they needed a fanatically anti-abortion vagina, and Snowe and KBT don’t qualify, even though in EVERY OTHER WAY they more than qualify as good, solid, believable VP candidates. As a matter of fact, as a woman and a feminist, I am outraged and disgusted that these women were passed over in favor of that ill informed, ignorant, backwards, regressive, know-nothing, talentless hack of an excuse for a politician, the aforementioned Governor Cupcake.
And for anyone who is STILL trying to make the case for this fluffball I ask one simple question–do you, as an American citizen, feel completely confident that this woman is fully qualified to be President should the unthinkable happen and McCain gets elected, then croaks in office? Because personally I think that if there’s anyone here who’s willing to say that, then I also think we have a date in the Pit so I can tell you my opinion of your answer. While we’re there I’d be more than happy to debate my feminist credentials and any allegations of my “sexism.”
Sorry to take so long to answer, when I got on earlier, I could only read, whenever I tried to reply I got a big blank page. Not even a 404 error! 
I’m not sure where you got “…you believe in trickle-down…” merely from me describing how the rich pile onto those below. I am certainly not a believer that the opposite (that is, that they also pass on good money times as well) is necessarily automatically true. Though Ben and Jerry’s are(is?) certainly one exception I can name.
As to the “shit rolls downhill” sentiment that’s just plain ole’ human nature, there isn’t anything “policy” about it.
Regardless of how much the rich have, or do not have their spending (I’m quite sure they won’t allow more taxes to determine whether they upgrade to a bigger yacht or not), affected, their income will still be affected, and I’d bet dollars to donuts, that loopholes or no, they’ll pass that right on down the hill regarding their companies, the wages they pay, who gets axed and who doesn’t, etc.
Based upon Obama’s ideas (obtained thanks to the doper who provided me with his website) and what I’ve heard him say several times throughout this campaign, his plans are to tax the holy hell out of everyone making so much as a crumb above minimum wage.
I think your link got eaten or something, because there was only one sentence with a short definition, but no explanation of the trickle up theory in this article. Do you have a better link to the rest of it? Or perhaps better eyes, (I looked for a link to a second page, or a “for the rest click here” but didn’t see it). But thanks for posting the link! I did read it.
Shayna, your post skates awfully close to calling someone a liar. Your links to one of my posts state how much Alaskans hate the good ole boy network of Republican business as usual, I’m not sure how that is supposed to “prove” my non non-partisanship. The post is regarding why Sarah is so popular here, because she ousted an actual high and mighty, in the pocket of special interests Republican. I don’t remember what she beat him by, but it wasn’t pretty. My support of her over a dyed in the wool pubbie is hardly “proof” I’m not non-partisan.
As for the other, Michelle Obama, the pastor, and others have made many very bitter, angry hateful statements. I am basing this upon their own words, not the media’s. How is calling them to task on their poor statements and attitude “hate-filled”? Their attitude and words are wrong. Period. I don’t hate them for being wrong, but it is a serious concern if they really feel the way they say they do, and even more of a concern if Obama also believes the same way. As to hate-filled, if a 20 year advisor and pastor stated such sentiments about others as his preacher did, I’d instantly say "seeya, sorry I’m not going to associate with someone who believes and acts the way you do.
When did it become “hate-filled” to call to task those who are proponents of hate?
To both you and Shayna. There is no reason to be childish and rude. This isn’t the pit. Nor is there any reason to be illogical, of course I do not think that I’ll be out in the street, and no one would WANT my clothes (well except maybe for the Pink Panther lounge pants, I’d definitely fight the red army for those!). But at the rate of tax increase Obama is planning, again, based upon all of the programs he wants to put into place (from his own website), particularly in his two most recent speeches, the one in Germany and the acceptance speech), it may very well be enough of a financial detriment to cause many of us to be forced to move to cheaper housing, drastically cut back and so on.
I’m single (and wrinkled, ancient, fat, and hideous to boot:D, so likely won’t attract a hubby to help me in the future either!), so I’m already in one of the hardest hit tax groups (the single one, not the ancient hideous one), add in the taxes Obama has planned and life will likely go from finally Okay to markedly unpleasant in no time.
And no, I do not believe that the same applies to McCain re: taxes. And I also don’t think this is so because Obama is a democrat, I voted for Clinton, and was doing alright under his administration. Conversely I did terribly financially speaking under George Sr’s, and didn’t vote for him. I don’t believe this is a dem vs. pub thing regarding the tax aspect, I believe, based upon his own words that it’s an Obama thing. And that is the largest part of what has me fearful of him as potential president.
Interestingly, I work in an industry that generally does very well under dem rule, the environmental industry (no, not the bunny hugging, diesel powered boat driving morons of green peace, the real ones the ones who actually go sample the contaminated sites and do the cleanup, plant trees where old landfills once existed etc), dems tend to dump tons of money into government programs to spank the evil bad military and oil companies, programs for which we Enviro Sci/tech type companies get contracts. But even with the fact that our industry tends to thrive under dem rule, I am STILL that frightened of Obama as president.
Nah, it’s just Obama vetted as squeaky damn clean for a Chicago politician. Remember, Jack Ryan had him followed 24/7 by the kid with the camera?
But does anyone disagree with my assessment of her as the equivalent of Obama '04? Positioningwise?
Yeah they have, they’ve learned they cannot get elected without them.
I don’t know. If she continues to make a pattern out of looking a little worse today than she looked yesterday she won’t be in fine fettle four years hence.
After pledging to welcome any inquiry into “Troopergate”, she’s now suddenly refusing to cooperate with the legislative investigation. And her claim that no pressure was personally brought to bear upon Monegan doesn’t seem to pan out in light of reports of emails from Palin’s yahoo account. In her defence, if her ex-BIL is as much an asshole as Palin claims in new documents presented, then IMO Wooten shouldn’t be working in law enforcement.
Who knows… maybe she can shake all this off and be the shining star in 2012, but this isn’t the best business plan for such an endeavor.
As a non-American, the stuff that worries me most isn’t the everyday fundie touchstones like abortion and sex education. That’s the domestic stuff only you 'Mericans have to worry about.
What worries me is that speech of hers about Iraq being some sort of nebulous religious war. One of the big picture problems in international relations as I see it is the potential for polarisation of the world into two major religious groups fighting each other with their respective gods at their side. There is too much potential for a never ending war fuelled by religiously motivated minions controlled through an irrational basis and who will consequently put aside any rational basis for stopping. It’s bad enough that there is violent fundamentalism on one side. The last thing we need is a religious reaction to that, spiralling into self-reinforcing dehumanisation of opposing sides.
I’m not saying wars about oil or land are good (far from it) but at least they have defined boundaries. It’s the ideological and cultural ones that turn into total irrational neverending bloodbaths.
canvas please provide a link to that Obama website that shows how “his plans are to tax the holy hell out of everyone making so much as a crumb above minimum wage.” It is simply not true. Here I will resort to the real factcheck.org who point out that the various claims out there about how Obama is going to raise taxes on the Middle Class are just wrong - “false and misleading”,
My link btw works when I click it. It’s no economic treatise, just a one page blurb and not a new concept. Not a hard concept either. Currently the vast majority of the gains from increased worker productivity have gone the wealthiest 1% of the country and they are the least likely to actually use it ways that grow the economy for the rest of us (despite the claims of trickle-down). Wages are not rising as productivity increases. And wages would not decrease as taxes on the wealthiest go up. Wages will always be instead based on what the market will bear for that worker. Wages will go up if unemployment is down far enough that employers need to compete for the workers or if workers with a particular skill set are in larger demand than the current supply. In short the same amount of shit will be pushed downhill no matter if the marginal tax rate on the richest few is raised or lower by an incremental amount. Its amount is limited only by how much shit those below are in position to have to accept. You want wages to go up you do not get there by letting the richest keep more and the middle and below keep less - you get there by growing the economy as a whole and increasing the demand for skilled workers that cannot be reasonably outsourced - jobs like yours for example. Your company needs ten of you to meet demand and a competitor needs ten of you and there are only ten of you out there? Let the bidding begin. Letting the middle and below keep a bit more of their income turns out to be a more effective way to grow the economy and hence increase employment demand than letting increasingly greater shares concentrate at the very top. The so-called green collar economy also creates jobs that cannot be reasonably outsourced.
Make sense?
Sorry for the hijack, but your repeating that false claim about Obama’s economic plan needed refuting.
And back to the op: who is Sarah Palin? A VP nominee who has the skills to make a formidable attack dog with a smile. Someone who the Obama campaign will need to get out there defining on policy issues and truth-telling issues pretty damn quickly.
She is a right wing extremist who is against choice under any circumstance, who believes that bible stories should be taught along side science in public school science classes, who tries to ban books with objectionable language from public libraries. She is a politician who successfully lobbied for pork and who misrepresents her record as otherwise. She has a record of abusing her power. She is proof that McCain is no middle of the road maverick who will be able to work across the aisle but someone who has swung far over to the extreme right, to the very side that the old McCain once was dismissive of, and whose election would represent further polarization of our partisan divide.
But now, after a well delivered speech, I can only conclude, she is someone who may actually have a shot at doing that.
Here’s what some conservatives think of her when they think the mic is off.