Mccain/Palin?

Perhaps more appropriate for a separate thread, but now comes word that Palin's 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant. This puts the pro choice/pro life debate in sharp focus. Palin has 5 kids, the youngest with Down's syndrome. Surely as governor of Alaska, and perhaps as Vice President, she has the resources available to effectively handle these hardships.

However, those with no resources also have kids with Down's and also have to deal with teen pregnancies. The right-to-lifers want to force women to continue their pregnancies to full term, but at the same time most of these same people are against increasing government resources to help families handle such hardships (richer welfare benefits, for example) - because, you know, this is big government, and everyone on welfare is a fraud etc.

Again, Palin has the resources, many do not. Most right-to-lifers say you have to have the child, but after that, that's the end of it. You're on your own. The baby's human rights start at conception, but seemingly end at birth. Such is the hypocrisy of the pro-life crowd.

 

You can get free condoms on practically any street corner; even if you have to buy them, it's not exactly a budget buster. It's very simple; don't have children until you can afford them. I managed to avoid getting a woman pregnant until I was in my 30's (she's my wife) and I didn't exactly lead the life of a monk in my early years. Besides running the risk of unwanted preganancy, unsafe sex is like playing Russian Roulette with your health and possibly your life.

And truth be told Tom, welfare is mostly a fraud because I see it on a daily basis. If you're bored some day, go down to the local Social Security office and see the layabouts applying for "disability benefits" (the same people who haven't paid a dime into the system). I sometimes work the detail there, and the excuses these people have are enough to make me vomit.

 

I agree. I am a little distressed to know she knew the last child would have downs syndrome, and she still had it. Some will say this is noble. I am not so sure. I suppose my question will enrage some. Sorry folks.

I also get a kick of the fact they tout Palin's hubby is union member. What is this supposed to prove? He votes for a party that promotes union busting? Not so smart in my humble opinion.

The questions will abound. This unknown character just came in to the limeight folks. On Tuesday after the holiday, it will be open season on her, just like everyone else. Wasn't she for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it?

Anyway, let's try to keep things civil folks. What's going to happen is going to happen. I personally believe the Republicans have had their fun in the sun, and the people will vote for a change in November.

Have a good day!

Abner

 

Maybe Rich was ranting at me. I still think that McCain's choosing Sarah Palin was politically smart, for several reasons:

There's the female-factor. That might attract some of the voters who really wanted to see a woman on the ballot this year. It might also create a sympathy factor for Palin with women voters if the press/Dems make the mistake of savaging her too enthusiastically.

There's the youth-factor. It injects some energy into McCain's campaign and makes it more exciting, helping to counter Obama's advantage in that category.

Palin comes from a middle-class and even blue-collar background that most voters can relate to very easily. It's about as distant as you can get from the traditional Republican privileged greedy fat-cat stereotype. (Disdainfully comparing the University of Idaho with "Harvard Law" probably helps her more than it hurts her.)

There's also a related middle-America factor (with a hint of wilderness exoticism) that contrasts with Obama's more alien cultural background and his distasteful radical associations.

There's the rebel-against-the-establishment factor that made her so popular in Alaska. McCain obviously sees the simularities to his own "straight talk" ideal and his willingness to sometimes take unpopular positions. Palin was willing to take political risks and shook things up in Alaska. She's not vulnerable the "Bush's third term" sneers that choosing an established politician from inside the beltway would have drawn.

And finally, there may be a deeper philosophical harmony between McCain and Palin. She seems to favor a kind of Teddy Roosevelt-style Republican populism that McCain relates to himself.

I think that's true. Sarah Palin kind of came at the Democrats unexpectedly from out of left field. They didn't see her coming and they can see all the political factors that I just mentioned. The Democrats aren't sure how to deal with her yet. (I'm sure that they have crews of political operatives/PIs combing through her garbage as we speak.) So far, the knee-jerk has been to attack her rather-thin experience. That's certainly a legitimate issue, but pushing it only reminds voters of Obama's own very similar vulnerabilities and of McCain's abundant experience. That doesn't really help them a whole lot, hence the frustration and the occasional anger.

 

The anger comes from the fact that we all have a stake in this. McCain takes a flyer on someone he met once! He could win the presidency, and considering he would be the oldest elected president in history, and has faced down cancer 4 times, it is not absurd to think he might not survive his term. Thus we all could have Palin as president. She may make a fine president, and I'm sure she would invest everything into the task, but McCain was irresponsible to put so little thought into something so important.

 

Bruce: "Well Rich, if you think I'm not going to speak my mind simply because I have the ability to lock threads and flush trolls, you also have another thing coming. If you can point to one instance, just one, of me using my admin powers to my personal benefit then it's fair game. If not, leave that out of the debate. "

Okay, here it is. You're mistaken for abusing your position as a moderator. You don't understand one iota the responsibility that comes with that position. Assuming you have the ability to ban posters for their posts, you absolutely must moderate your own. Otherwise, you lord over others and their posts.

Don't you realize the limiting nature of your role? "With great power comes great responsibility." Unless....

 

Yeah, except the right-to-life crowd is against distribution of birth control. And why didn't Palin's daughter avail herself of this simple resource that you tout as the easy solution? Of course, you ignore the fact that Palin's daughter is already pregnant. Do you support higher taxes to support women, like Palin's daughter, who might be forced to have their children?

Your view is short-sighted. First, don't get pregnant (ignoring the fact that this is unrealistic, as evidenced by Palin's daughter who got pregnant despite the fact that she has every support system avalable to her). Second, if you are pregnant, we (as a society and government) want to force you to have the baby. Third, everyone who is on welfare is a fraud, so after we force you to have your baby, we don't want to spend a dime to support the families who don't have the resources to do it on their own.

You're fine with Palin's daughter because her family can essentially self-insure her pregnancy. She will have the money and other resources to keep it off the public's books. As for the rest of them, throw them into the welfare fraud group so you can justifiably ignore them, except when you go down to the SS office and have to suppress your gag reflex. Nice philosophy.

 

And this one is just too delicious to let go. Let's see if I get the implication in the right direction. Because you see "it" on a daily basis, welfare is mostly a fraud.

Are you claiming that whatever sample of the welfare group you're exposed to on a daily basis as a police officer is actually representative of the entire population? I think there may be just a tad of selection bias here? I feel pretty certain you wouldn't make such a ridiculous assertion were you taking part in a public debate on the topic (Bruce as a prospective presidential candidate for example).

 

I think we all know the answer to that question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18TLHhhHZCA

 

McCain totally negated the "Messiah's" speech with his choice of Palin. This campaign can't be about experience otherwise Obama wouldn't have made it this far. Palin as a "newcomer" has more experience than him. I work with a tremendous amount of Democrats and they are acting uglier than I would have ever thought imaginable. It boils down to one thing: fear. They thought that after "the charismatic one" came down from the mountain top and delivered the "word" that no one would be able to touch him/them. McCain found a way to do it.

Conservatives are energized now and I think that was the point of the pick. Criticism from the Democrats is hilarious. Experience didn't matter to them when they pushed Obama to the top of the ticket but now they are concerned with the pick of the opposition. Some say he is a great speaker...I say, they were probably better off with Hillary.

Are Democrats genuinely angry about McCain's pick?! <--That makes no sense.

 

I don't know, I am guessing McCain wished Palin had been vetted more closely. Troop Gate takes away from Palin's "newcomer excitement", and puts a damper on the RNC. The alleged existence of phone and email evidence doesn't help. We will have to wait and see.


Abner

 

"I don't know, I am guessing McCain wished Palin had been vetted more closely. Troop Gate takes away from Palin's "newcomer excitement", and puts a damper on the RNC. The alleged existence of phone and email evidence doesn't help. We will have to wait and see."


Good point, Abner. If the Dems are willing to look over Ayers, Rev. Wright, and Rezco to get their guy in office, then surely the GOP will give it a pass. Wouldn't it be considered a "rookie mistake"?

 

The combination of these three are what give me the greatest concern. I'm less worried about a VP candidate getting busted for a fishing violation than taking over $250K of campaign contributions from someone who is more than slightly shady (albeit Obama has now returned them). The "he's not the man I knew" excuse won't cut it any more.

What is even more disturbing given Obama's background as a community organizer is that of Rezko's 30 or so low rent apartments buildings that he "renovated", 11 of them were in Obama's district. These apartment buildings were often without heat in the winter, had shoddy work done and ultimately many were condemned. Yet there is no record of Obama raising ANY concern in the legislature, or in any other means.

My guess with Troopergate is that Sarah had nothing directly to do it, but her husband and other close associates did. While it seems to be such a huge issue, you could also bring up Joe Biden's son being paid by MBNA during the years that the senator supported legislation promoted by the credit card companies.

 

A mom par excellence?

Isn't she a very good mom too?

 

The problem with Palin is she is brand new to non Alaskans, and the media is already having a field day. Not a good way to start off your introduction to the public. Obama and Biden have already been vetted by their parties and the public. The public doesn't know Palin. Of course the GOP is going to give her a pass, what else are they going to do? Admit she was not thoroughly vetted? This weekend I saw scandal tinged news story after story on Palin. Are the allegations true? Time will tell. The point is it takes away the from some of positive media regarding Palin.


In the end, whatever happens happens. This will all be over soon enough.

Abner

 

Defending McCain's poor choice and judgment is a full-time job. Lord knows he was desperate for some attention so at least he accomplished that. I'm not complaining though, I couldn't be happier - unless he wins, of course.

 

There's little that can be done about that, short of conceding the election and disbanding the Republican party.

The fact that a great deal of the US national media tilts left is definitely a tremendous advantage for the Democrats. It helps them to define the issues and set the national agenda.

It's kind of subtle yet entirely obvious. The networks will try to look balanced with Palin. They will say good things about her and they will say bad things about her. Both sides. The desired result will be to create the impression that Palin is the center of controversy, redefining her into a problematic figure. Then the coverage will call in all the appointed pundits and talking-heads and will be examining the controversy and its impact from every angle for as long as they possibly can. The media no doubt will loudly insist that by doing those things they are just performing professionally and responsibly as journalists.

We all saw similar things happen to Hillary Clinton. The media gave her campaign equal time with Obama's I guess, in terms of on-air minutes and column inches. But somehow Hillary's coverage was all about how she was taking the low road, how she was desperate, how her husband was screwing everything up, and about how her supporters were less-educated and less-stylish than Obama's. Hillary's own message couldn't get out, she was put on the defensive fighting the controversies, and she ended up redefined as damaged goods.

Of course Obama's entirely different. The media did have a short-lived feeding frenzy with Rev. Wright. But Obama's radical associations have somehow been subsequently redefined as a non-issue and swept deeply under the rug. That despite the fact that Obama is himself something of a cypher, a mystery, and his choice of friends does tell us important things about where his heart really is and about what shape his presidency would likely take.

Instead, Obama's coverage is like watching Jesus proceed through Galilee. His triumphal speech in Berlin! His glorious coronation in Denver! His face on the cover of every magazine! There's no time for controversy there, no way. It's so wonderful that he could even be nominated! His election will bring on a new day and transform both America and the planet!

Hence the not-so-subtle messianism, the clear hint of Obama as savior.

It's not exactly a secret that after eight years of a deeply-flawed Bush, a majority of big-city media-figures and opinion-leaders want very very badly for Obama to win and for America to assume a leftward course.

 

I don't know if I see the media as being especially hard on Palin. They keep reporting the story about her daughter and asking when McCain knew etc., but largely they don't seem to be digging too deeply.

One legitimate issue/question that I haven't seen asked is this: Palin is a strident right-to-lifer. That group is fond of saying that there should be no sex-ed, no distribution of condoms etc. For them, abstinence is the only way. For years, liberals have been nearly apoplectic over that as completely unrealistic. How do conservatives, then, defend abstinence as an effective policy when Palin couldn't even make that effective within her own family?

Story after story and picture after picture saying and showing the same thing about Palin's daughter is certainly media frenzy, and boring to boot. However, the above question is a legitimate policy question that the conservatives should be prepared to answer.

 

I think Obama as Messiah is a bit of a stretch. The media gravitates to excitement, and there is real excitement around Obama. He gives a lot of voters hope for something different. McCain as a maverick is a joke. There's nothing new there. We will continue to spend $10 billion a month on the Iraq War, and let the Republicans ransack the economy with rampant borrowing. It's hilarious to hear the conservatives sneering about how Obama will pay for his programs and claiming we will return to the days of big government. He's been clear - he funds his programs,first, by not paying $10 billion a month for a war. And second, by taxing the super wealthy citizens and corporations. You don't get any bigger government than by funding wars. Reagan/Bush #1 proved that, and Bush #2 is driving it home in case no one noticed it the first time.

 

The problem is that a family making $250k isn't "super wealthy", or "rich". Better off than most, sure. However, depending on where you live, the average house in an area may cost $400-600k+, with at least $1-2k per month in property taxes, plus 5%+ in state income tax, AMT, etc. These numbers mean that if one is to be responsible with their mortgage choices (i.e. no pie-in-the-sky liar mortgage but a 30-year fixed with 20% down) you need a good income in order to afford a decent house (say 2000-2500 sq ft) in a decent school district. The fact that new mortgages (until the end of the year) around here are considered "conforming" if they're under $700k says something about the market.

Net-net - $250K in Kansas goes a LOT further than $250K on Long Island.

I wish a mainstream candidate would propose a flat tax. That way everyone pays their fair share without worrying about redistribution issues. If I made more money, I knew ahead of time what I'd be taxed. If I made less, I knew what I'd be taxed. No deductions, no complicated returns, no accountants, just a flat percentage.