Next President of the United States

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Years ago I enjoyed a really talented hooker too...

That's one to write down in the book.

I nominate that as the response of the day

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

No substance necessary right now, yourself and Peto have hit it. Issues will come later, maybe.

That's scary T. It would be really poor timing to find out just how these people REALLY react to issues, say, sudden nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, AFTER the fact. As I watched the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, I couldnt' help but think about the ancient Roman Empire and it's "Bread and Circuses".

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Yeah, the "Brittany Spears" of politics... SHE SAID NOTHING... folks.

I disagree. Granted, she is the VP candidate and as such will not be setting policy, but she made it very clear she supports an aggresive stance toward terrorism, strong national defence, lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. That's what I support.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I disagree. Granted, she is the VP candidate and as such will not be setting policy, but she made it very clear she supports an aggresive stance toward terrorism, strong national defence, lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. That's what I support.

But Neal how can she be in support of lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending when she ran her mayoral and governor positions by enticing more and more federal funding to be given to her city/state? She was a taker of federal earmarks. This is not in line with lower taxes/smaller government/lower spending rhetoric.

She was able to "lower" taxes in Alaska by increasing what the rest of us tax payers had to pay Alaska. Alaska ranks number one in absolute federal funding and number one in relative federal funding per capita.

This is why I am not buying the "she is for lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending" line. Her own history betrays her hypocrisy.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Alaska ranks number one in absolute federal funding and number one in relative federal funding per capita. .

References, please? <skulks off to attempt to verify claims>



Edit : BTW who passes the legislation containing the earmarks, the Governor of the state? I don't think so. I think that would be Congress, wouldn't it?

[Peto]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

References, please? <skulks off to attempt to verify claims>



Edit : BTW who passes the legislation containing the earmarks, the Governor of the state? I don't think so. I think that would be Congress, wouldn't it?

Platupus' statement is correct regarding the per capita pork-barrel receipts. I blieve it amounts to $90 per person in Alaska (Illinois was $23 per capita). I'll have to verify that later when I can look it up but I think it's on factcheck (not positive). She worked very closely Sen Ted Stevens.

I agree though. Sources are always a good thing and I don't have them at my finger-tips right now. It's good to be suspicious of claims without sources...

@ DT: Yep. Congress passes earmarks. Probably the only way to get rid of those is by introducing line item veto power. Unless politicians can all agree to stop abusing the system. I don't see either side of the aisle doing that without being forced to though.

This election cycle would be a lot more fun if it wasn't so critical...

[Digital_Trucker]

Thanks, Peto. I read a bit about the rankings of the states in per capita federal earmarks. I also happened to notice that Arizona gets the least per capita earmarks. Since McCain would be in a position to influence that figure, I think it's a little more telling that his home state is the lowest than using the fact that Alaska is the highest to question Palin's views, since she isn't a member of Congress.

[mookiemookie]

I just found it funny that she brought up PTA experience in her speech. Just like I personally wouldn't put my college job as a banquet waiter on my resume for my professional career, I wouldn't go bringing that up if I were Palin.

Saying PTA experience qualifies you for the VP spot is like saying that you're a chef de cuisine because you made Jello once.

[Digital_Trucker]

Maybe we listened to different speeches, but when did she say that PTA experience prepared her for VP? It was more of an introductory speech in many ways. Speeches are just that, speeches. I can't wait for her and the "honorable" Joe Biden to actually debate. Same for McCain and Obama. That is, if they are real debates (no teleprompters, no script, etc.) instead of photo and sound bite opportunities.

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I disagree. Granted, she is the VP candidate and as such will not be setting policy, but she made it very clear she supports an aggresive stance toward terrorism, strong national defence, lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. That's what I support.

And all laudable goals I agree...

However, I consider it just typical Republican rhetoric and precisely what McCain has been espousing throughout his campaign. Politically, Palin is just McCain in drag...

Sure, everyone wants to see terrorism stamped out (or at least kept off US soil) and it follows that to be "secure" we need a strong national defense. But let's face it. Bush's War on Terrorism has exacted a huge price on this country, both in human lives and $$$. McCain and Co. will simply continue the war. I guess you could call that "an aggressive stance"...

As well, the "pipe dream" of a "smaller government" is totally not going to happen... When was the last time in our history that we "downsized" instead of "super-sized" our government? Never has happened AFAIK.

How can we have a smaller government with all the other issues we have not resolved? Health care, Social Security, trade deficits, immigration reform, foreign policy, foreign aid, ad nauseum... If anything, I expect the size of the FED to grow to handle all these issues.

No, Obama will sell us "change" that he's too inexperienced to construct and manage and McCain is just a mirror image of George Bush and his policies...

The biggest ray of hope I have is that if Obama/Biden get elected, 'ol Joe will be able to repair at least part of the foreign policy damage created by the Bush Administration.

Cheers!

[Peto]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Thanks, Peto. I read a bit about the rankings of the states in per capita federal earmarks. I also happened to notice that Arizona gets the least per capita earmarks. Since McCain would be in a position to influence that figure, I think it's a little more telling that his home state is the lowest than using the fact that Alaska is the highest to question Palin's views, since she isn't a member of Congress.

That kind of thinking certainly does make some sense :hmm:.

I'm still reading and poking around for more info (I'm nosy) about her dealings with Sen Stevens though. While many were impressed with Palin's performance, (IMO) most that were, wanted to be impressed. Looking at it from the middle ground--actually with an initial negative and suspicious attitude of anyone who runs for higher office (they must be nuts) I wasn't impressed by her at all. Except for the fact that she has skill as a public speaker--something I have done and hate doing personally. She started strong but about 2/3's of the way through her speech--about when she just touched on any real issues--she began to falter somewhat. Considering what she was doing though (speaking to millions) I'm willing to cut her some slack on that point. I'll make up my mind when she debates with Biden.

The thing I least like about McCain Palin right now is that they are too much alike in basic attitudes of right and wrong. I fear if anyone crosses them in any way, they'll start out with confrontation and completely dismiss the Clarification and Discussion option. That ain't gonna work with many countries anymore and could actually be one of the causes of a new cold war. Strong negotiation skills will be very important to me when it comes time to make my vote. I lean a little more toward Obama/Biden because they would be more prone to act as a check and balance than I think McCain/Palin would.

The economy sucks right now. Again--tossing out my opinion--the economy will take MUCH longer to fix if we continue an isolationist posture. the world is much smaller than it was even 10 years ago. The Industrial Revolution is over and we're beginning a new period which may likely be called the Communication or Information Age. That's because of the internet and expanding technology. I'm not sure how many people really grasp the significance of what this change means. I'm not sure I do... But I'll bet history books will reveal that countries who understood it best and leveraged the new tools provided most effectively were the ones who gained the most. Countries who resist this change will become Islands. Glamorous to dream about being on a Desert Isle but the reality is quite different.

:hmm: How's that for digressing ?

Anyhoo: Being an Independant this year kind of sucks. It's the 1st time I really do feel caught in the middle. Not to mention getting a double dose of political calls and mailers .

Cheers!

Peto

[dean_acheson]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Actually a better analogy would be that Palin did wonderful in batting practice. This was a prepared speech to a friendly audience.

I like that. I don't suppose you have seen clips with the O and his fans fainting have you? Maybe you missed O refusing to do town halls with McCain.

[dean_acheson]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._back_dad.html

red meat alert!!!

[DeepIron]

As governor of Alaska, Palin has won praise for backing tough ethical standards for politicians. During the first legislative session after her election, her administration passed a state ethics law overhaul.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...ion/index.html

Looks "Sarah Barracuda" better get her own people in line *before* she starts in on the rest of the politicos...

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I disagree. Granted, she is the VP candidate and as such will not be setting policy, but she made it very clear she supports an aggresive stance toward terrorism, strong national defence, lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. That's what I support.

I disagree.

The bigger question is can she and McCain accomplish these goals that they have set? All these politicians make these grand claims, yet they hardly ever accomplish them (and Obama is no exception; yet after viewing his voting record in Congress, he has TRIED). Given the stances McCain has taken in the past and present, no. I could not vote for the man. I fear that the failed tactics of Bush would continue under the McCain/Palin administration, and the country would only run further into the ground.

However, I don't think he'll win once the chips are down. He's selected a woman for a VP who has no experience whatsoever in the workings of government, beyond being a governor at the most (and he just met her about two weeks before he selected her as his running mate), her daughter is pregnant at 17, and a lot of McCain's supporters (about 38 million to be exact) have drawn the conclusion that he just selected her to have Clinton's supporters rally around him (which did not work).

However you look at it, something's up. Why would he select Palin? There are/were better choices that he was offered, yet he chose her...:hmm:

I sense a plot involving offshore drilling.

With that said, the election is just two months away. Unless McCain can pull some amazing stunt, it's really not looking too good for him right now.

One last thing, though... how aggressive would he be with terrorism?