PBS is running a poll that asks viewers whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be VP.
When I voted this morning, the count was 52% yes and 46% no.
Seriously?! The woman is a train wreck in lipstick, and that little bit of dread I’ve been carrying at the prospect of yet another Republican win this year has cranked up to full-blown fear.
Go. Vote. Then make sure you vote when it really counts.
Images from the Alaska Woman Reject Palin rally.
I voted! It was great practice for the real thing.
I warned you in a post over at Kizz’s that McCain has a better shot than you think, didn’t I?
And no, I’m not baiting, I’m just saying…
Falcon, you DID warn us about this, and I have to admit that I STILL DON’T GET IT. How is it that SO many people can see (hindsight being 20/20) how much worse off we are now than we were eight years ago and STILL THINK that voting Republican is a GOOD IDEA?! The Repubs think that the “we broke it, now vote us back in so we can fix it” approach is going to work?! And I’m insulted and offended that many of them honestly think that my opinion of them may be swayed by the fact that they put a woman on the ticket. I don’t vote with my vagina; just because she’s a woman and I’m a woman doesn’t mean we agree on anything…
UGH!
Some people – and I’m one of them – don’t vote based on the party, they vote based on the person. Am I a (at least) a bit regretful that I voted for G.W. in ‘00 and ‘04? Sure I am (thought I still shudder to think what would have happened if Al Gore had been President on 9/11…). Does that mean I think all Republicans are idiots and the entire Republican platform is FUBAR? No, it does not.
Bottom line this time around is that I agree with McCain more than I agree with Obama, not that I agree with the Republican party line more than I agree the Democrat party line.
(as proof that I vote more on the individual than the party, I would remind anyone who reads this that I voted for Clinton in ‘92)
I love her. I was sitting this one out until McCain selected her, and a few days later I’d decided I’d better hold my nose and vote for him.
(I suspect there are millions of me. Be very afraid! Mwahahahahahahahahahaha!)
All I can say is wow. I am scared. Very scared. But I am from the south and knew that the republicans had a good chance of reelection. Still not ready to face it though.
Too scared to not vote. It’s still 52-46%. Oy.
She, potentially a hearbeat away from the highest office if sworn in, must be STOPPED!
I’m really scared…perhaps I should move a bit further away like mars….
Yeah, I am living in full-blown fear that the Republicans are going to somehow snatch a victory from the jaws of defeat. I for sure would have thought that after the economic collapse last week the Republicans would have been a thing of the past, but I guess not.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voting public.
52% said yes? Has our country lost it’s mother fracking mind? Are people listening to her as she struggles to answer questions. You are telling me that 52% of those voters are OK with her being our president? I continue to be in shock.
I generally find myself left of the Republican party and probably a little farther right of the Democratic party. I don’t vote straight party line. Hell, I voted for Perot on his first presidential bid because I figured it was the closest I could get to voting “none of the above”! This time around, my ideal pick did not get the Republican nomination (a closeted Libertarian). Between Hilliary and Obama… well, I dislike Hillary so much I wouldn’t cross the street to pee down her throat if her stomach was on fire… so, Obama had a way bigger chance of getting my vote then she did.
I have two real choices and neither one can really be my ideal President. So, I have to make a judgement call. I listen to issues that are important… to me. I try to see who is actually voting closer to what’s important… to me. This time around, it’s McCain.
Now, you may not AGREE with me but don’t call me stupid or imply that I’m using my vagina to make my decision. It’s not true. It’s not nice. Furthermore, berating someone’s intelligence because they don’t agree with you really isn’t going to win over the people that are on the fence.
Whoa, Lea! Forgive me if I made you feel that I was questioning YOUR intelligence. I wasn’t.
What I WAS saying was that I feel that the decision to put Palin in the VP spot was a blatant and ill-informed attempt to get the “women” voters (and, if we’re to believe the things we’re hearing, this decision was NOT made by McCain but by the party operatives). I haven’t heard a single thing about this woman that makes me think that she’d make a good executive; she’s ill-prepared, under-experienced and has a penchant for abuse of power – and let’s not even talk about her attempt to remove books from her town library. I don’t trust her, and I am offended by the party’s implication that, because she’s a woman, she’ll be more appealing to women voters.
I’m with Chili on this one, she’s the devil in the details.
However, to be honest, I don’t think there is a ticket worth voting for in this election, and I plan on staying home that day. I was gonna vote for some third string bozo, but the only likely choice is Nader, and…meh.
McCain is a war-mongerer, Palin is a bad mother. Obama is a liar, and Biden is exactly the opposite of the Obama campaign model. What is there left to vote for?
Mike: Yeah, that’s it. Tens of millions of the “American voting public” are just stupid. Damn, I can’t believe I’ve been fumbling about all this time thinking there were legitimate differences of opinion, each defensible by intelligent people, when the answer was just staring me in the face the whole time: I’m stupid! Thanks for clearing that up. That’s another couple of brain cells freed up that I can dedicate to my ongoing effort to getting the knot out of my shoelaces.
Chili: Demographics are demographics. McCain is a stodgy white guy. His prospects would only be enhanced by selecting someone who is not a stodgy white guy. Obama is not a stodgy white guy. His prospects would only be enhanced by selecting a stodgy white guy.
(That’s why Hillary never had a chance at the VP slot.)
Though Palin may not be someone with whom you strongly identify (and hence not the voter they’re after!), I find it largely uncontroversial to suggest that some substantial number of people, mostly women, would be more likely to vote for McCain with a woman on the ticket. That it may be distasteful on some level makes it no less a political reality.
Derek: Ron Paul was my candidate. Earlier this year on my blog, I jokingly endorsed Cynthia McKinney (the Green Party candidate), after rejecting Bob Barr (the Libertarian candidate) as too recent an iron-fisted Republican, and Chuck Baldwin (the Constitution Party candidate) as mostly okay until you get to the part where he wants to trot the loons who think 9/11 was a covert U.S. government operation in for hearings.
Lea: We are so totally putting the boys to bed early tonight.
Dude, your mailbox is hosed.
I keep replying to your comments on my site, but it always bounces with a:
Remote host said: 550 Mailbox unavailable or access denied -
I honestly don’t believe for a minute that McCain is trying to get the disaffected pro-hillary “women” voters. I think he is going after the conservative women who have been very apathetic about their own party. If they stay home and do not vote, he doesn’t have a prayer. He must mobilize them and garner interest.
I am so awash in my possible comments that I had best not post any response to any of them. I know where I stand. Palin=EVIL, and she’s a heartbeat away from being in charge. Please, everybody, vote with your brain, not with your heart.
It’s hard not to let emotion take over when something raises so much passion. I’m sorry, though, Chili that you won’t write about politics anymore because you seem to have bridged the minor upsets here pretty well. Of course I don’t know what your e-mail inbox looked like so perhaps there was more fallout than I know.
I’d also like to know from the McCain supporters which of his positions are selling them. From what I’ve been reading about McCain folk’s reasons I had thought that the decision was largely financial, yet in light of the recent bailout and what has and will trickle down from it that doesn’t make sense to me either, so I’m still really curious.
I am a single middle income person with one earning foot in the financial world and my whole heart in the arts. From what I know about McCain’s plans specifically and the Republican plans historically my very real fear is becoming one of the working poor even before Bush leaves office. My monthly health insurance premium has been raised annually by $200 per month for the last 3 years. I may soon have to cancel it. At $1204 per month it is my single largest bill above my co-op maintenance and my mortgage, nearly topping the two of those combined. That is just one small piece of the pie that I don’t see the McCain-Palin ticket working to fix. The deregulation that led to this bailout was a Republican lobby as well. That worries me no end. I fear the next one.
I don’t know that Obama-Biden have surefire answers to all of these things but they appear to be looking for the answers and looking out for people like me and that’s why they’re going to get my vote. Why will McCain-Palin get your vote you guys? I’m interested.
And I’m damn sure fucking going to vote because not voting at all is giving up your voice and giving up your voice is the worst kind of letting yourself down…in my opinion.
Kizz: As I mentioned in an earlier post, my candidate was Ron Paul, and I am not happy with either of my choices. Nevertheless, I am voting for McCain because:
I believe Obama to be dangerously unserious about national security. Despite the numerous mistakes in execution made since September 11, it remains that no further attack on U.S. soil has occurred. That’s seven years. I’d have laughed in your face had you suggested such in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Do you think that if al-Qaeda and associated groups could hit us, they would? I find lack of such an attack significant, and I suspect historians will as well. I fear Obama will handle this grave national security threat (that is, radical Islamic fundamentalists wishing Americans dead) as a law enforcement and/or otherwise civil issue, with deference to so-called “world courts” and what-not, when it is a military problem.
Obama will raise taxes and grow the budget. Period. No tax increases ever for anything will get my vote. Diligent, substantial, and immediate reduction of the federal budget is the only fiscal reform I support. The “rich” are already paying a staggering amount of tax, and treasury revenues are far more than adequate for any legitimate (read: constitutional) function of the federal government. I am wanly hopeful that McCain’s reputation and experience as a pork watchdog, as well as Palin’s similar actions with Alaska’s budget, will mean arrest and decline of out-of-control federal spending.
Granted, the Republicans have been spending money like smack-addicted pit fiends, and I consider this the single greatest failing of the Bush presidency. (Bush is many things, but a fiscal conservative he is not.) I have some hope that a McCain presidency will restore sanity to the budget, but as I said above, it’s wan. On this it seems politicians are politicians, and it doesn’t much matter whether there’s a D or an R after their names. Still, I like the chances of the budget shrinking under McCain a little more than I do under Obama.
Finally, I don’t much like McCain, but I don’t much like Obama more. I don’t care for his nakedly self-important, and at times even messianic, rhetoric, i.e. “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” and so forth. His message all too often depends on an excessively gloomy outlook for the country, with himself set up as the one to save us from it all. I don’t want a president who a) envisions that sort of power for the executive branch at all; or b) has the gall to claim he’s The One to make it happen. Our country was built on a premise of limited government, with individuals free to pursue their respective self-interests. In my view, and I believe in the framers’ views, the federal government shouldn’t do much at all beyond defending the country and mitigating disputes between its citizens (you know, like it says in, oh, the U.S. Constitution). It often seems that Obama marvels that anyone can ever do anything without the government.
All of that said, I was still staying home, but Palin got me off the couch and clinched it for me. I admire her individual spirit, and marvel at her career/family success. I love that she is not a Washington insider. I believe she will be an involved and meaningful VP, perhaps leading on energy policy. Finally, I think she presents an opportunity for McCain to defensibly change his position on drilling in ANWR, which I expect any day now. They’ve already laid the rhetorical groundwork for it.
Kizz – I’m going to honor Mrschili request for a cease and desist on further political discussion but I did want to tell you that I appreciate your response. You have obviously made a decision that you are comfortable with after careful consideration of issues that are important to you. Yet, you are still open to discussing a different point of view. Good for you!
Chili, did you mean we were all supposed to stop this topic? I didn’t understand it that way, sorry if I waded in where I wasn’t supposed to.
Oh, no, no, NO! I said that *I* was going to gently back away; I’m certainly happy to keep the topic open here, so long as it stays polite.
After all that I said about how hard it is to write emotionally and how flattering Lea was about my question I find that I have such a HUGE emotional response to Bo’s thoughts on post-9/11 national security that I am unable to respond in depth and in a respectful way. All I can seem to manage is to say that I REALLY disagree and that I wish I had a larger font with which to do so. So much even that I’m unable to address his other points which I have far less emotional responses to.
It seems I extended the conversation only to find my own dead end. Perhaps with distance I’ll be able to formulate something appropriate. Thanks to both of you for chiming in, though, and thanks Chili for keeping the conversation open.
I think that the idea that we are safer now, after 9/11, is an illusion. The fact that no other attacks have occurred since then does not definitively prove that we’re safer. It took years and years for them to plan and execute that one attack so it’s not surprising that nothing has happened since then. I think the only thing that’s changed since 9/11 is that more and more of our liberties and our privacy have been taken from us and lots and lots of people have died in vain. BUT, I think this is a difficult topic to be very informed about because I don’t believe our government ever tells us the whole story. I don’t for a second believe that we started this war to keep us safe from terrorists.
As for Palin, I understand why some people are enamored with her: she’s attractive, she is a good speaker, and she knows how to present herself. What I question is how many Palin supporters actually support her views. I’m pro choice, against the mingling of church and state, I think it’s unnecessary to drill for oil in the ANWR (there are plenty of untapped oil resources in other areas of the US), and I don’t find her to be very honest. She keeps talking about how she stopped the “bridge to nowhere” but the fact is that she used that project to help her get elected then dropped it when she found out Alaska would have to pay for some of it. However, Alaska kept the money they were given for the bridge. She also hired a lobbyist to go to Washington and bring in as much money to Alaska as possible. But now she’s claiming to be a champion for cutting the pork in government. It just doesn’t add up to me.
If people support Palin because they agree with her stand on these topics, then that makes sense for them. But I wonder how many people are jumping on the Palin bandwagon regardless of her opinions and politics.
For the record, I’m not all that jazzed about the Obama/Biden ticket, but my views are more represented by them than by McCain/Palin. I respect it when people take the time to learn the facts and decide to vote for the people who most closely match their own points of view. What scares me are the people who pick out one issue and decide based on that, or who aren’t informed at all. NOTE: I’m talking in generalities, not about anyone who has commented here.
Jules, thanks for saying some of the things I couldn’t get out. I loved your use of the word “illusion.” I’ve lived in NYC for over 20 years, through both attacks on the WTC, so my reaction to the argument that the changes since 9/11 are keeping us safer and that a military response to a country not involved is part of the feeling of safety hits me right in the gut and I have trouble composing sentences. I think you got me back on the rational discussion track. Thank you.
Bo, I have looked at the charts that compare the tax plans for each ticket and they contribute in large part to my feeling that the McCain-Palin ticket is going to make me working poor in short order. The fact that the country cries poor regarding health care but bails out banks who made irresponsible decisions when not regulated seems unconscionable to me. I work for super rich people and while the bailout and the tax changes do take a bite from them it is, in terms of how they live their lives, a much less difficult thing for them to take. I know because I process the bills and make the travel arrangements. I’m not so worried about them and how much they are paying.
I’ve read what Jules has read about the actualities of Palin’s spending and procurement of government funds so I’m not as inclined to believe that she’ll be helpful with trimming excess. I’m also concerned because I’ve seen hide nor hair of McCain since she was added to the ticket. He might be planning to cut spending but it feels as though he’s been almost entirely removed from the equation right now which seems wrong.
I liked hearing about what Obama’s message sounded like through your ears. I can totally see how it might come across that way and it helps me to understand other people who say they feel threatened by him. (I recognize that’s not what you said you felt.) I don’t find his level of confidence any more aggressive than other politicians or even other sales people. Using “I will” statements is a marketing tool. He might. McCain might. Palin might. Probably Biden will give it a shot but they’re all bound to say that they will by the marketing principle. So that doesn’t rub me the wrong way since it looks sprinkled with many grains of salt to me.
When you bring up sticking to the constitution I feel compelled to mention the Patriot Act and other erosions of the document. I suspect you think of some of those things as coming under the category of necessary military actions which would mean we already know we disagree on that.
I know that a lot of people are super jazzed about Obama and I have to admit that I have spent this whole campaign feeling kind of envious of them. I wish I had a supreme amount of confidence in either side. For now I just feel that it is vitally important to break the cycle of this particular Republican dynasty. I imagine that a lot of the same movers and shakers of the Bush administration will continue on if there’s a McCain administration and I think they’re running us into the ground.
Some questions for Bo:
1. Why is the military the solution to our problems at the expense of all other solutions? How exactly is Obama, or anybody else, “unserious” about national security if they raise this question? How could the military have prevented 9/11? And on whose watch did it happen? Should the military been in our airports and on our planes? Should the military begin invading houses here in America to keep us safe? And will you feel safe if they do?
2. Do you think that putting a “Period.” at the end of a sentence means that no one else can dispute it? Have you looked at the candidates’ tax plans? Did you know that your statement on Obama raising taxes is completely wrong? Did you know that the military is far and away our largest discretionary budget item (which doesn’t even include add-ons like the current occupations)? How do you square your desire for tax cuts with your desire to have the military be our sole problem-solver? How should we pay for this?
3. Which of these sentences do you consider “messianic”: a) “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for?, or b) “I am the one you’ve been waiting for?” (I choose “b”. I think you’re hearing what you want to hear if you choose “a”.) Considering that McCain intends to continue virtually all of Bush’s policies, including the illegal wiretapping of American citizens and the right to detain anyone at any time with no judicial or congressional (or media) oversight in clear violation of our Constitution, why do you think he will be an exemplar of “limited government”?
Okay, I said I was going to back gently away from this issue, but I think I meant that I wasn’t going to write anymore POSTS. I can still comment here, right?
Jules, I agree wholeheartedly with what you said. I was reflecting, on September 11th, that I DON’T feel any safer now than I did before that date in ‘01, and I have to admit that a lot of that “not feeling safe” feeling comes not from the perceived threat from the outside, but rather the feeling that the government is something I should be concerned with (the erosion of rights; unreasonable search and seizure, the suspension of habeas corpus, warrentless wiretapping, torture, etc. I’m feeling a bit of the slippery slope underneath us, and Cheney’s antics over the last few weeks aren’t helping much).
I’m a big fan of the Constitution, and I’m also more than a little concerned that the guy that we hired to “protect and defend” it seems uninterested in what it says when what it says conflicts with what he thinks is best (and, honestly, I think that the guy the first guy’s party is putting up for the job will be just like him. Didn’t he vote for 95% of the president’s policies?). I’m uncomfortable with the reputation the US has earned (reinforced?) around the world over the past decade (I saw a bumper sticker a while back that summed up my feelings on this perfectly: We’re making enemies faster than we can kill them). I am ashamed that our government sees fit to bail out unethical and irresponsible banking and insurance institutions (whose top executives make more money than I – and all my friends – will make in our lives) but doesn’t see fit to see to the viability of Social Security or to address some of the issues that affect the people on Main Street that we’re hearing so much about on the news lately.
I’m NOT saying that I think the government should solve all of our problems. What I AM saying is that it shouldn’t be a major CAUSE of them.
I’m putting two more cents in – I have to say that, while I’m not a groupie by any STRETCH of the imagination, I will admit to being inspired by Obama’s rhetoric. “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” is inspiring to me; I WANT to be involved and I WANT to be empowered to do good (it’s kind of how I live my life), and I want someone to tell me that I CAN be those things – and that what I do can matter. I don’t think he’s promoting himself as a messiah; I do think that he’s using his significant skill with the language to energize people like me; people who feel disenfranchised, disengaged, under-appreciated, and under-utilized.
Mrschili – Just as n FYI regarding the voting reccords, I read the following recently on the subject. I’m not negating your point but statistics can be sneaky…
“Barack Obama says John McCain represents a third Bush term and that he has voted with the president 90 percent of the time.
But senior research scientist John Lott at the University of Maryland writes in The Philadelphia Inquirer “the 90 percent figure from Congressional Quarterly is nonsensical” and says most of those votes were just procedural. He adds, “Obama might want to be a little careful with these attacks, as the same measure has him voting with Democrats 97 percent of the time.”
He cites research from the right-leaning American Conservative Union, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and the non-partisan National Journal. It indicates that from 2001 to 2007, McCain voted to the left of most Republican senators and to the right of most of his Democratic colleagues. Americans for Democratic Action even says McCain voted liberally 24 percent of the time — twice as much as the average Republican.”
Whew. Many assumptions not in evidence.
Perhaps I should have explained up front that I draw no necessary equivocation between “a military problem” and “the way the Bush administration has done things.” For that I apologize. Please allow me to clarify.
Jules: You’re right—the 9/11 attacks required a lot of planning, and were not easy to carry out. However, I’m not worried about another suicide attack with a hijacked jetliner. In fact, I dare say that almost certainly won’t ever happen again. We (a collective, American “we”) were (finally) quick studies on that point, as the heroic passengers on United 93 demonstrated. Nobody’s trying that again, because the necessary component of an easily cowed passenger compartment no longer exists.
Why hasn’t anything else happened? I, for one, am shocked we have not seen suicide bombers. Truck bombs? Dirty bombs? Infrastructure attacks (water systems, power grids)? None of these things would require anywhere near the logistical planning of 9/11.
I hope their absence means that we are choking out an environment in which anti-American terrorism can survive both a) on the battlefield; and b) at the sources of the money. In fact, you mention that it’s tough to know exactly what all is going on, and I agree. I hope there’s a whole lot of drying-up-the-money sorts of activities going on that we’re not hearing about.
I agree wholeheartedly with you concerning civil liberties. The PATRIOT Act was horrible law from the start and should be repealed immediately. If al-Qaeda can truly be said to have gotten to us on any real level, that’s it. We’ve compromised founding principles, and far too many people are cheering it.
On Palin: I am also pro-choice and against the commingling of church and state (and pro-gay marriage to boot!). However, I don’t consider a president’s (or vice-president’s) social positions particularly relevant. When does it matter? Bush is as pro-life as you can get; did he stack the Court and get Roe v. Wade overturned? Why not? Well, there’s that little sticking point called Senate confirmation, and no matter how that chamber is structured on party makeup, a nominee who is a legitimate threat to overturn Roe v. Wade (and somehow survives to the confirmation vote) will never garner a majority of those pinheads’ Yes votes. Roe v. Wade stands for the foreseeable future.
And as I’ve said in another context, I don’t anticipate any leadership on gay issues from the federal government anytime soon. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will touch a pro-gay marriage position substantively, and the fact that mainstream Democrats are 10% more nicey-nice about their refusal to support gay marriage than are mainstream Republicans matters not one whit to me.
As for the rest of it, bridge to nowhere, etc.: I haven’t read anything about her that I find any more compelling than any of the other nonsense that floats about all the time on both sides. One side sees something that can be manipulated and dutifully does so. Millions think said party is the antichrist; millions more think s/he’s innocent of anything and this is just more “politics as usual.” Almost always, there’s a grain of truth in the allegation wrapped up in skillful rhetorical presentation, and check your insight and context at the door. Yawn.
Kizz: Iraq is complicated. I’ll say out loud that I supported the 2003 invasion, and I’ll also say out loud that I had plenty of company, all over the political spectrum. It’s easy to look back now and call it a mistake. Was it? All of the intelligence indicated Saddam Hussein had active WMD programs.
“Why didn’t we connect the dots?” so many bellowed after 9/11. “We should have been able to prevent this!” Perhaps.
Do you see any similarity between Saddam Hussein in 2003 and Adolf Hitler in 1938?
I read an interesting speculation not long ago that Saddam’s minions were feeding him false information about Iraq’s capabilities, so that it became the reality as the world knew it, and that this was in Iraqi interests to avoid an Iranian invasion.
Who knows? I don’t. I doubt any of us ever will.
Whether going in was a mistake or not, I do heartily concur that we’ve been there too long. It’s time to come home and let them stand on their own two, if they can. If they make it, great.
If they don’t, and another belligerent anti-American regime rises (which would be a shame), we’ll need to keep a careful eye on them. I remain supportive of a quick-strike capability on military infrastructure.
I do not, however, believe it is in American interests to attempt to install Western-style democracies wherever we think it would be a good idea, particularly in the Middle East. It sounds great on paper, but it’s too expensive—in blood and treasure—for too little demonstrable gain.
I share your concerns on the cost of doing daily business, i.e. health insurance. All I can say to you is that I believe we need much less government, not more.
I think we need substantial tort reform—”loser pays” for civil litigation sounds like a dandy idea to me—and massive streamlining of health care availability. One of my favorite pet proposals is making patient liability health care waivers available. For example, imagine a clinic in your neighborhood, perhaps staffed by RNs, to which you could go for an antibiotic for a sinus infection, or to have an uncomplicated laceration stitched. Or imagine availability of drugs that have undergone private industry testing. Imagine these businesses competing in a free market. Why can’t we do these things? Legal risk is the biggest factor that I see. “Loser pays,” capping damages for simple procedures and prescriptions—I think it gets better in a hurry.
I’m confident that demanding that the multi-trillion dollar monster that is the U.S. government get even larger to attempt to address these needs is not the answer. Get ‘em out.
Incidentally, I deeply oppose the federal bailout currently under discussion.
As I mentioned earlier, I am with you 100% on the erosion of civil liberties that has occurred since 9/11. I believe we are safer, but I don’t believe the feds in the library have had anything to do with it. Repeal the PATRIOT Act now. May we never again see its like. (I was also appalled to see the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, whose charter carries no responsibility that did not fall under existing organizations.)
For the record, I might agree with you that we need a Democrat this time and break the “dynasty,” if it weren’t for the fact that there’s no chance the Democrats won’t keep the House. (I just almost don’t care anymore as long as the same party doesn’t have both.)
mabnyc: When I say it’s a military problem, what I mean is that when someone stands up and says “yay for 9/11! I did it! I will do it again!”, then I want the U.S. military to make that person and anyone allied with him dead. I don’t care what his motivations are. Planning and executing the flight of a passenger airliner into an office building should carry a death sentence.
On whose watch did it happen? I believe that these small, yet alarmingly effective, sects of radical Islam first openly declared war on us in 1979 in Iran. Attacks on U.S. citizens and interests continued steadily from that point, including one substantial attack on U.S. soil, and I remain heartbroken that it took 9/11 to get our sustained attention. I therefore believe the failure is Carter’s, Reagan’s, Bush 41’s, Clinton’s, and Bush 43’s, with perhaps an extra dollop of blame for the last three, as they were post-Cold War presidents. The military alone could not have prevented 9/11; the intelligence community could and should have. I believe the problem was institutional, and not partisan.
I trust I have explained my position sufficiently earlier in this comment to assure you that I am deeply opposed to the martial law you describe.
Obama will raise taxes—substantially. This is the first article with a quick breakdown that I found (snopes.com, with data from the Tax Policy Center:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp
I believe that Obama will grow the government because I rarely hear a proposal of his that does not involve a new program or expansion of an existing program. To be sure, McCain has his own laundry list, but I find Obama’s to be the longer.
Perhaps this fails to meet your threshold of certainty. It meets mine, and I am satisfied that I am correct when I say that Obama will raise taxes and grow the government. It’s difficult for me to understand how you can say I’m “completely wrong” on this.
For the record, it’s likely that I’m in favor of a much, much smaller government than you are, hence it’s easy for me to see how the government can find revenue for the military, which is a legitimate and constitutional function. Just happen to have a recent “platform” statement here:
http://wmwmsblog.com/?p=810
Re: wiretapping, etc.: again, I trust you see that we are in agreement on erosion of civil liberties.
On Obama’s rhetoric:
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
“At some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you’ll say, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’”
I think all of this sounds ridiculous, and yes, messianic. YMMV, and I suspect does.
Mrs. Chili: A high-school classmate of mine is still fond of reminding me that during a government class 20 years ago, he asked me “well, what do you want from the federal government?” And I replied “Interstates and missiles!” Heh.
You’re right: the government shouldn’t cause problems. The founders were smart people fleeing tyranny. They wrote a great document limiting their new government’s reach.
I wish my current government would read it once in a while.
I have the same impression as Chili about how much McCain voted with Bush and it all started when I saw MCCAIN talking (before he threw his hat in the ring) about how much he supported the president – even more than almost all of the other republicans. Apparently, at the time of that interview, it was important for him to let people know he wholeheartedly supported the president. Now he’s trying to get as far away from Bush as possible on most issues.
This kind of thing is rampant in politics (on both sides) and it just makes it more difficult to sort through the rhetoric and statistics. Politicians can’t have it both ways (well, actually, we usually let them get away with it but we shouldn’t!) and looking at McCain’s stand on most issues, I believe him when he said back then that he supported Bush on most things.
Lea, the last I read, Bush’s approval rating was 29%. My best guess is that Obama wants the entire country to know that McCain has been voting with a president that only a small percentage of people actually approve of. Obama makes it pretty clear that if you want the problems to continue, then vote for McCain.
Regardless of whether or not McCain voted liberally 24% of the time, Obama’s statement sends a strong message to the voters who can’t, or who are unwilling to, think for themselves. Or those who are unwilling to do the work to get the facts correct.
Having said that, I can think for myself and I do the work to get to the truth. I am voting for Obama.
Auntie, I’m sure that as thinking, reasonable people, we’re in full agreement that many people, no doubt just as convicted as you are, also maintain that they think for themselves and do the work to get to the truth, and choose not to vote for Obama.
Bo,
Thanks very much for your rational and clear-headed responses to the many points raised by many of us. It’s good to hear that there are some things that we agree on whole-heartedly. Our Constitution is what defines us as Americans and we ignore/defile/wipe-our-butts with it at the cost of our collective soul.
However, there are still one or two points that I’m unclear on. First and foremost, you never did state exactly what was not “serious” about Obama’s foreign policy ideas. Is it that he doesn’t seem willing to use military strength? Only one candidate has pledged to follow bin Laden into Pakistan, if necessary. Guess who? Is this not “serious” enough? If not, please clarify what you meant by that.
I was not clear enough myself when I said you were “completely wrong” about Obama’s tax plan. My apologies. I was trying to keep to short questions and found myself being a bit too clever (or not enough, perhaps). But the tax “increases” that you note are not really increases. Obama wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on schedule. Anyone who doesn’t, of course, calls this an increase. This is not true. These cuts were sold to us along with the 10-year budget projections that assumed they would sunset and revenue would return to normal. They were sold as temporary stimulus. It’s the only way they got passed. Now, eh, not so much.
The truth is, if you make less than $250K per annum, you will not see your taxes increase and in most cases will see them fall. I do not have a problem with making the most fortunate among us pay a few bucks more, particularly with a trillion-dollar war still unpaid for and a $700B bailout of these same fortunate people looming.
Regarding the Obama quote that you helpfully transcribed for us, I have no problem with a single word of it, except maybe “epiphany”. You call it messianic, I call it inspiring. Tomayto, tomahto. It may be a bit loftier than the cranky old man spiel that McCain has going for him, but I’ll take it any day of the week.
Cheers!
Bo, that is what is great about our country! Choice! Even if we are not particularly thrilled with the choices. Sigh.
Honestly what scares the crap out of me are those who don’t think for themselves or who take a sound bite as God’s honest truth.
I have enjoyed reading your perspective and it has made me think. Thanks for that.
This will be a mish-mash of comments. Please excuse the jumping around, and the fact that my comments aren’t very well written. I’m functioning on very little sleep!
Palin was mainly chosen to get the evangelical Christians behind McCain. It worked.
Bush has stacked the courts with people who are for eroding Roe v. Wade as much as possible, if not overturning it outright. The right case just hasn’t come before the court for it to happen. I could write a lot about the damage being done by the current courts, but that’s for another day.
All of the intelligence on Iraq was not pointing to the fact that they had an active WMD program.
People did predict that 9/11 was possible. So much so that the previous year an international gathering of world leaders in Europe was canceled because it was feared that someone would fly a plane into the building the event was taking place in. I wish I had the article (from BEFORE 9/11) that I read about that, but I know I read a couple of articles about it in the World Press Review, which is now just a website, but at the time was a magazine, that printed multiple articles from multiple viewpoints about ALL the major, and some not so major, issues going on in the world at the time. These were articles from around the world – small and big papers alike. I wish I had the time to read the website more often…
I, too, have lived in NYC for over 20 years, and, hence, am more likely than most of the country to be hit by another terrorist attack. Also, being here for the last WTC attack, I do not want anyone else to have to go through what NYC went through. That includes people in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. I want a president that does not take killing lightly.
I’ve listened to many of Obama’s speeches, and each is, in part, about inspiring others to make this country a better place. He makes it very clear that he can’t do anything alone. The epiphany statement that Bo mentioned is incredibly tongue in cheek. This country is incredibly divided. Among his other qualifications, I believe Obama to someone who will ultimately unite this country more than McCain ever could. But that’s just my opinion.
mabnyc: I think it was the way Obama initially discussed Ahmadinejad that concerned/concerns me. I don’t think the list of prerequisites for a head of state to have a sit-down meeting with the POTUS is particularly long. However, I do think you have to not be a raving maniac openly pining for the end of the United States, and also heading a country furiously pursuing nuclear weapons.
(And also not caring whether you and/or millions of your countrymen and women die in the great war, for as it is written, blah blah blah.)
I was disappointed that Obama was not considerably less ambiguous on acceptable approaches for such a person.
Now should push come to shove, I’d love to see Ahmadinejad and any members of his trash-talking Republican Guard get their wishes. But I want it to be a U.S. soldier that punches their tickets, as opposed to an explosion and fire that gets them, but also the shank of a shopping center or a bus.
Incidentally, I don’t believe that Obama would go into Pakistan, a quasi-ally with nukes, after bin Laden. If he wins, I’d love to be proven wrong, and should I be and we’re ever within 50 miles or so of each other, I’ll even buy you a beer.
Thank you for your taxes clarification. No matter the precise structure (expiring cuts or whatever), it doesn’t matter to me (philosophically) that I’m in a classification that would see a slight tax cut. I want HUGE chunks of government lopped off, not more money going in. “I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution.” – Harry Browne
You know, I do feel a bit traitorous. This was going to be the first presidential election in which I cast a third-party vote. I see soooo little difference between Democrats and Republicans anymore. They’re all Big Government’s bitches, and part of me feels like holding my nose and voting for McCain is like jumping out of the 40th floor instead of the 50th floor. Unfortunately, I just can’t vote for the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates this time around. A former iron-fisted Republican and a 9/11 moonbat? Some choice.
Auntie: Thank you very much, and likewise. For me, this is the way it’s supposed to be done, and it’s what is sadly lacking in way too much political “discourse”: civility and mutual respect. It is all about making each other think for me. I never enter these discussions with the expectation of changing anyone’s mind. I do hope for a mutual exchange of new perspectives, with a thinker or two.
Miflohny: The pre-invasion intelligence on Iraq was compelling enough to convince most of Congress; the United Nations through the draft, discussion, and passage of multiple resolutions; and an international military coalition. (It’s also the sheer quantity and breadth of the convinced that makes me discount any intelligence-related conspiracy theories.) It was a WIDELY uncontroversial assertion in early 2003 that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. That we can look back now and point to this screw-up or that isn’t particularly interesting to me in terms of the specific Iraq problem (but may hold lessons for future intelligence efforts).
You know what they say about hindsight.
It greatly saddens me that someone would be happy that anyone would use a nuclear weapon on anyone.
Bo –
I will admit that I had to take some time away from your comments (and several deep breaths) until I felt I could come back and “play nice.” It wasn’t the fact that we disagree on most things that upset me, it was how they were expressed. I felt belittled and as though my intelligence was questioned. But, I know how easy it is to assume the worst when reading the written word so it could have all been in my head. In any case, I hope that my comments don’t come across the same way to you – please read them with the best possible inflection and intention.
What is it about Palin that you like so well (as it relates to wanting her to be VP and possibly president)? You discount the facts about her political record as manipulated rhetoric (I do my homework, too, and researched all the negative allegations about her and found more than one reputable source that confirmed many of them – any I couldn’t find good information on I didn’t mention, like the book burning thing) and you state that a person’s social convictions are unimportant when choosing a politician. This makes me wonder what it is about her that you support for VP. I’m asking this out of genuine interest, not to be argumentative.
I DO think the social positions are important in our elected officials. Washington is all about favors – do this for me I’ll do that for you. I think it’s naive to think that congress acts and votes independently from outside influences like pressure from lobbyists, big business, and other politicians. There are all kinds of wheeling and dealing that occur and that’s what scares me about government in general.
I think the whole question of whether starting the war has done anything to combat terrorism can be little more than a discussion of opinions and differing conclusions. We can’t really know, for sure, what has or hasn’t helped.
Personally, regardless of who is elected, I’m feeling particularly pessimistic about the future. We’re going to be going through a tough time as a country and I hope we can pull together as private citizens because I see little reason to believe the government will suddenly do something that is in our best interest. Sigh. I used to be more hopeful and excited about the election but I’m afraid my attitude has taken a turn for the worse.
Jules: I absolutely never intended to belittle you or question your intelligence, nor do I read that in your comments.
You say you’re scared of government in general. Oh, wow, me too. Smaller. NOW.
I love my country. My government terrifies me.
Note that I was careful to say “a president’s (or vice-president’s) social positions,” whereas you broadened it to “elected officials.” I’m not much bothered by the former, primarily because of the check of Congress. If a president or vice-president’s position on a social issue is controversial, and s/he pushes legislation on it, it generally (and reliably) dies there. Anything that ever would get through would be challenged in court immediately.
What ever happens with it? What significant social stamp has any president in the past 25 years left on the country?
That I differ with Sarah Palin on several issues doesn’t mean that I don’t have common ground with her on several others. She’s pro-gun, and I want everyone armed to the teeth. She’s for capital punishment. She supports free market competition in health care. She and I generally line up well on foreign policy and energy policy.
I suppose what I like about her most is that she is genuine. The “hockey mom” who manages family and career is someone I know and respect. To me she is credible on middle America, because she is middle America.
Moreover, I was absolutely delighted when McCain made the announcement, and everyone said “WHO?” She’s the “outsidest” of Washington outsiders who could ever have a realistic chance, and as poorly as most things have gone there in my lifetime, that can’t be a bad thing.
And though it’s not a major factor in my decision, I suppose I’d like to be able to say I voted for the first woman on a Republican ticket, and/or the first female VPOTUS. We’ve got a first no matter which ticket wins, and yeah, that’s pretty cool.
Miflohny: You lost me.
Jules, I’m writing this personally to you – and will post this on the blog site, too, because I want EVERYONE to know that I’m PERSONALLY vouching for Bo. He DOES NOT… let me repeat that; DOES NOT… demean, belittle, or bully. One of the big shortcomings of this blogging thing is that we CAN’T hear one another’s voices or see one another’s faces, and that’s a shame, because I’ve rarely met anyone as kind, thoughtful, or gentlemanly as Bo, and I say that without ANY hesitation or reservation whatsoever. If you EVER feel that he’s not playing fair, please reconsider; he just doesn’t roll that way.
Much love to all,
Chili
Bo asks: “What significant social stamp has any president in the past 25 years left on the country?”
The first thing that jumps to mind is Clinton’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. Stupidity as a half-assed way of addressing a problem that he (read either party) was too afraid to do what’s right at the time, so he just punted with a lesser evil.
The second is less of a policy “stamp” and more of a national phenomenon: the rise of the evangelicals. I tell you, nothing was more scary to me than the fervor that surrounded the US in the immediate post-9-11 years when one felt like they would be drawn and quartered if they dared question, didn’t believe, or even remotely hint that they disagreed with the religious right. As a freshly out of the closet gay with a serious non-believing religious bent, I honestly felt threatened by my country and my government. To this day, Republicans still feel like a very personal threat to my being.
Pretty irrational? Maybe. But with all the emotions and such swirling around in major elections, the only thing I can trust is my gut reaction. I feel hate from the majority of Republicans seeking office and from their supporters.
I don’t like Obama, don’t trust him, but I really don’t trust McCain and I *fear* the Ms Evangelical Palin.
Wxchick, I felt the same sort of creeping dread in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. There was (and, to some extent, still IS in some corners of the country) a sort of mindless fervor around the notion of what’s “patriotic,” and it seems as if the idea of genuine questioning and dissent is grounds for background checks and detainment or, at the very least, a sort of suspicious mistrust.
I am very involved in queer issues, and I can tell you that my experience, at least here in (what I’ll grant you is pretty damned liberal) New England, is that there’s a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” mentality among those who are not outwardly supportive of queer concerns. No one’s standing on the street corner with “God hates fags” signs, but neither is there a groundswell of support for same-sex marriage or other concerns. I COMPLETELY understand your fear of evangelicals (I’m a straight, married white chick, and I’M afraid of them, too), but my experience out in my corner of the world has shown me that the opposition is more of an uninterested apathy than an openly declared war.
Stay safe.
Much love,
Chili
Bo, I’m glad to hear that I lost you. I went back and re-read your statement and realized I had read “Incidentally, I don’t believe that Obama would go into Pakistan, a quasi-ally with nukes, after bin Laden. If he wins, I’d love to be proven wrong…” as “Incidentally, I don’t believe that Obama would go into Pakistan, a quasi-ally, with nukes, after bin Laden. If he wins, I’d love to be proven wrong…” In other words, I thought there was a comma after quasi-ally and thought you were hoping Obama would go into Pakistan with nukes. Sorry! Glad to realize I was wrong!!!
Mrs. Chili: Thank you for your kind words. I’m not worthy.
I’m certainly not incapable of nastiness (is anyone?), but if I ever drift toward that mode I do try to make damned sure that it’s return fire.
wxchick: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was the only thing I could come up with when I considered the question. It’s a non-answer if it’s anything, isn’t it?
Miflohny: AH! Gotcha. No problem. Thanks for the explanation.
All: I have enjoyed our discussion very much. Thanks to each of you for the perspectives you bring and your willingness to discuss them.
I feel compelled to go back, oh, twenty-odd replies or so back and make a comment.
Bo states the fact that there has not been another attack on U.S. soil since 9/11/01. He states his belief is because of the things the Bush administration has done since that tragic day.
Others (Jules and mabnyc) point out that the last seven years prove nothing in and of themselves because it takes years to plan out these attacks. Then they point out that the attacks took place on Bush’s watch.
The attacks took place on September 11th, 2001. Bush took office on January 20th, 2001. So, he had been in office less than nine months when the attacks took place.
So, if these attacks take years to plan and such, exactly who was responsible for not discovering and preventing them? My math places the blame squarely on the Clinton administration, NOT the Bush administration.
I don’t think anyone’s placing blame, exactly. I think they’re saying that it was more of an INSTITUTIONAL failing than a PARTY problem. The entire SYSTEM failed, not one part of it.
Of course, *I* didn’t make the original comments, so please correct me if I’m misinterpreting what (any of) you said…
Mrschili and Wxchick – I was raised in the Assemblies of God denomination. It’s not currently my denomination of choice and I haven’t attended a service of that denomination for a really long time. Why did I leave? My church became too conservative for my taste after a change in pastors. I don’t think it’s particularly scary, though. It’s like any other organization – there are smart, rational, caring, sincere people (in this case, seeking to worship the way they choose) and, yes, there are a people with some extreme or narrow views. Seriously, though, the ratio of good people to potential nut cases really didn’t seem any different then what I encountered at the places I’ve worked. That is NOT to say that there aren’t intolerant people out there who use their religion to justify their actions! I do NOT agree with that. I just hate to see everyone that chooses to worship a certain way get lumped into a political category that they might not espouse because of a few loud-mouth narrow minded religious leaders. (On a personal note, Wxchick, you have had an amazing and tough journey. I wish you continued success with the changes yet to come!)
Auntie – Sorry that I was slow to respond back to you. I threw the article out there but didn’t really explain myself. My point about the statistics is that a smart campaign manager will figure out how to use just about any statistic to their advantage. McCain probably did vote with his party a lot of the time… as would a lot of other Republicans. So, yes, to me it stands to reason that if you vote party line a substantial number of times, you probably are going to be supporting a lot of the same issues that a Republican president is proposing. I’d be shocked if you didn’t find that most Democrats vote their party line a majority of the time, too. So, if you extend the original logic to the Democratic Party you could say Obama voted with Mr. XXXXX (insert Democrat of your choice here) 97% of the time, so therefore he is just like Mr. XXXXX. Let’s say that Mr. XXXXX authored some addendum to a bill that recently has turned into a scandal because it netted Mr. XXXXX a bunch of money illegally. So, now for this sound bite you can say that Obama approved of this illegal activity because he voted for the bill. Obama can’t deny that he voted for the bill but does it really mean that he has the same moral fiber of Mr. XXXXX? Of course it doesn’t! I’m not saying whether or not McCain is or is not like Bush. I’m saying that THIS statistic doesn’t really prove that point for me any more then it would if it were coming from the other camp.
I agree with Jules that it is difficult to sort through the rhetoric and statistics. The PR people in both camps seem to be extremely savvy and the media pummels you with opinions from all directions. I really don’t like politics and trying to digest all the information makes me feel like I’m cramming for a final exam in a subject I hate. Thanks for the open discussion, though.
[...] 20, 2008 by nhfalcon A while back Mrs. Chili had a post about that favorite argument-inspiring topic – politics. Specifically, the post was about a poll [...]