From a hockey mom to Senator to the prospect of VP. Seems to me that Palin was only chosen to garner Hillary's votes for a female. ..I wonder how Palin would handle an international crisis situation should anything happen to McCain (given his age, it is plausible that she could end up as Pres due to unforeseen health issues). *poke*poke*
I don't understand that. "From a hockey mom to Senator"? Sarah Palin's the first-term Governor of the State of Alaska, that state's chief executive. That position doesn't compare badly with the position of first-term Senator from Illinois. Sarah Palin is a relatively untested figure who is running for Vice-President. She could conceivably succeed to the Presidency. It's true. Of course, voting for Barack Obama would place an equally untested figure directly into the White House.
Seriously? First, the governor of Alaska represents the population of a decent-sized city, like Little Rock. A senator from Illinois represents either (a) half the population of Illinois (about 12 times as many) or (b) 1/100 of the U.S. population (about 3 million). Either way, it's a whole lot bigger. Another way to look at it is the level of responsibility. The U.S. Senate has been called the most important legislative body on the planet. It has also been called the most exclusive club in the world. While it's true that small states also get their senators seated, it's still a very big deal. Govenors often go on to become senators. I'm not so sure the reverse is true as much. But he's about 10 times as smart. It's not all about experience, or we'd choose the most experienced senator or governor. It's also about judgment and intelligence. That's why Obama is about to become the President of the United States. And for that, I am grateful.
It's quite possible to do nothing as a US Senator; I've been watching John Kerry do it for the last 24 years. I've written to both my US Senators numerous times about different issues, and have never received so much as a generic reply. My US Representative and my governor (regardless of who it's been) have always replied to my correspondence. Regardless of who wins the election, it will be the first time since 1960 that a US Senator becomes President, which I think says a lot about the lack of preparation that office is. Because he gives a good speech from a teleprompter? SOME experience would be nice; I don't think 143 days as a US Senator cuts it myself. I disagree, but if you're right, I'll make you a gentleman's bet that you don't feel the same way in about 3 years.
Are you kidding me? There is no way to go but up from here. If Dr. Douglas doesn't take you up on that bet, this lady will.
You're obviously not old enough to remember that many people said that exact same thing back in 1976 as they cast their votes for Jimmy Carter. Guess what? It did get worse. A LOT worse. The United States went from being an economic mess to being an economic mess that was also a military laughingstock with a weak, ineffectual leader. Pretty much what I'm expecting from an Obama administration. You're on.
Obama Media Bias? No Way http://gooddebt.com/ObamaMedia.htm More on the election in songform. Download and pass it on....
It is plausible. If Mccain is elected, I hope that he finishes his term in good health, mentally and physically. Ronald Reagan was 69-70 years old when elected. With a capable staff at her side and the governments intellectual capital at her disposal, she should be able to handle an international crisis situation effectively.
The law of entropy suggests otherwise. It's a lot easier to break things than it was to originally construct them. If the United States withdraws prematurely from Iraq and that country subsequently implodes and falls under the domination of a nuclear-armed Iran, then the majority of the world's petroleum supplies in the Persian Gulf would be at grave risk. The Europeans can talk a good game (best in the world at talking) but they wouldn't fill the military vacuum the US left. And having been elected on an anti-war plaform, and busily redirecting funds from defense to redistributive social programs, a new politically-left US administration won't be going back into the Gulf or getting involved in any new military adventures any time soon. If petroleum supplies are ever disrupted, the globalized world economy would quickly collapse like a house of cards. (We've already seen that it's less stable than we thought it was.) That economic collapse would impact Iran certainly, since they depend on oil export revenues. But the larger historical opportunity to end 500 years of Western world domination might look awfully attractive to militant religious leaders who are already critical of the Muslim world's wealth, corruption and slide away from traditional Islamic practices. We may be nearing a world-historical tipping-point, one that would effectively undo many of the advantages that the age of Western colonialism and the industrial revolution gave the European-derived cultures. Values and visions very different from secular humanism and individual freedom could gain world ascendency as we move towards a new age that most of us probably won't like very much. I'm not saying that this scenario is absolutely certain. But I do think that it's a real and dangerous possibility. My point is that there are real world-historical implications to this election, an election that Americans, even the many-degreed Americans who post on DL discussion boards, seem to be treating as an occasion for insults, cheap-shots and flame-battles.
In the late 1970's, Iran's U.S.-backed regime (the Shah) fell, replaced by a radical theocracy. At the time, the old Soviet Union was in full force. I don't seem to recall anything that cataclysmic happening to the world's economy. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis. If we didn't want to destablize that area, we shouldn't have invaded. Staying only makes it worse.
In retrospect Jimmy Carter initiated several defence programs which proved important to the USA military; * Stars wars (it was classified under Carter and made public under Reagon) * F-117 stealth fighter * B-2 Bomber (Carter cancelled the B-1 because the B-2 was entering production (Reagon reversed the B-1 cancelation because of an early campaign promise - turned out to be a good decision). * Put Peacekeeper missile (formerly M-X) into production along with a whole bunch of nuclear warheads. I worked on two of these projects in Massachussetts. It was a good time to work in the defence business. I would not be surprised to hear about other important projects Carter might have initiated. Actually I did well financially under Carter - I earned a large salary working in aerospace and Shawmut (?) Bank in MA was paying me 15% interest on my money.
When I entered the military in the early 80's, we were still being issued WWII-era steel pot helmets, Vietnam-era C-rations (cigarettes in the accessory pack), using Korean-era M151 "Jeeps", and camouflage uniforms were just starting to enter the mainstream pipeline. The weapon I was initially issued in my unit had a barrel that was so worn-out, any shots beyond 75 yards were guesswork and luck. Fighters, bombers, and ICBM's are wonderful, but decimated military spending under Carter for equipment for the grunts on the ground took years of dramatically increased spending under Reagan to resolve. Reagan also pushed through a major pay raise for the military that helped recruitment as well as retention.....but they didn't retain me. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C6336483-7AA7-4BCB-8481-358F62FC3F92
