Yeah, from what I've read her brother in law who was the troooper should've been fired. Drinking beer in his squad car, using a taser on an 11 year old. Drunk driving. He was not a good person.
However, it wasn't the trooper who was fired. The person who was fired was the guy who chose NOT to fire her brother in law. And he chose not to do so in spite of pressure from the Governor's office. And was then fired because he didn't carry out her wishes.
So the allegation is that he was fired because he didn't carry out her order to fire her brother in law from the force. That is a little more problematic I think.
Very interesting charts lamont. But who are you going to believe? A diverse group of people betting real money overwhelmingly on Obama, or Robroy who has staked all of his SeattleBubble credibility on a landslide McCain victory? He even offered to post "I told you so" if he was right!
To be fair, what I said was that if I turned out to be wrong, OTHERS could say to me, "I told you so".
I've got several bets on this one myself. And I don't bet (until now). This race is unprecedented in my lifetime.
I do remember Bush Sr., with a 90% approval rating, turning that into a defeat to Clinton. Two months is an eternity in politics and I have a very strong opinion how this one will go. I did before today and today only solidified it.
I'm not trying to convince anyone here. I'm just going on record, like I did on freerepublic in 2006 when I said we were going to see housing prices drop by 30% or more. At the time even I thought that was really going out on a limb. But they were livid. They thought that by making dire predictions I was somehow slamming their boy Bush. I wasn't. I didn't consider it his fault or responsibility. It had been running up for decades and got a little parabolic thanks to greenspan.
She has no record. She voted for the bridge to nowhere before she voted against it, then kept the money. So because of that she's a "reformer". That's the meatiest thing I see out there.
Please enlighten me as to all these meaty things she's done, as Mayor of east Bumblefuk.
She has no record. She voted for the bridge to nowhere before she voted against it, then kept the money. So because of that she's a "reformer". That's the meatiest thing I see out there.
Please enlighten me as to all these meaty things she's done, as Mayor of east Bumblefuk.
Apparently the "meat" is that she negotiated strongly with Big Oil and got her state into a risky (high risk/high reward) deal with TransCanada to build a pipeline rather than the sweetheart deal the previous governor made. Alaska is $500m on the hook for that pipeline regardless of whether it is ever finished. Oh, she also pushed through legislation to essentially double the Alaskan resource tax.
I guess it really depends on how important you think that list is. Too me, it's a nice list but not particularly impressive because - from what I've read - her campaign was a statement on the previous governor being too "in the pockets" of big oil. Most of what she negotiated would have happened regardless of who won, and you won't know for a few years whether or not the TransCanada deal was smart or foolish.
So, no she doesn't win an "experience" vote. Neither does Obama. To be honest, I don't really think that McCain does either; I like his across the aisle work, but he has an embarrassing history of completely missing the votes where Obama votes "present". But then our current president only had 6 years in office at Texas before he ran for president. Jimmy Carter was only governor of Georgia for 4 years before he became president. JFK had 8 years in the senate and a few more in the house with a mixed voting record before he won. Dwight D. Eisenhower had no political experience but a lot of military experience when he won. Further back, Lincoln had one term in the house before he became president, and Teddy Roosevelt was only govern of NY for 2 years before he became VP/president.
My point is, experience is amorphous, it doesn't really mean much, and it seems to have little bearing on who should lead or who will win an election. If this election were decided on experience, then Dick Cheney would probably be the overwhelming choice. The right people are the right people because of what they will do tomorrow, not what they did yesterday.
She has no record. She voted for the bridge to nowhere before she voted against it, then kept the money. So because of that she's a "reformer". That's the meatiest thing I see out there.
Since it's only been a day I will allow you that reason for not seeing much yet.
Please enlighten me as to all these meaty things she's done, as Mayor of east Bumblefuk.
Ok. Before I get into this I should mention that a large part of the country lives in their own "Bumblefuk" and the attitude projected by you with that remark, and Obama through his "church and guns" remark is one (of many) reasons Obama's "Happy days" are behind him in the context of this election.
But back to the question.
Two things. First, when discussing a "record of accomplishment" of someone in political office, the discussion takes place within the context of the record of accomplisments of their opponent. Her record does not match up very well to Ronald Reagan, but she is not on a ticket against him.
I like that it says she "conveniently" doesn't have a voting record. That is because her experience is executive, as opposed to the other three horses in this race. And Obama supporters really don't want most people to know that he mostly voted "present".
Unfortunately, almost all information on her now is opinion, as opposed to fact. I am really looking forward to how this trooper thing plays out. It aint Travelgate, but it's interesting.
The Trooper thing is interesting in that it was ongoing well before McCain chose her. This means either they have vetted it to their satisfaction, or they are complete morons. Based on the way this was handled and presented to the public, I'm betting on the former. But we'll see.
You have no idea how serious I am when I say this is the most fun and interesting election cycle of my life, and I have been following them since 1963.
She has more qualifications than the opposing Presidential candidate.
That is the 800 lb gorilla in the room!
This is by far the most ridiculous argument. She was a mayor of a town of 9000 people for 6 years where her biggest job was being an official face of the town. And a governor for 16 months of a state again, with a population less than that of the city of seattle.
That compared to someone who spent 8 years in the state legislature of Illinois and 2 years as a senator. How can you possibly say that the former has more experience than the latter?
That's like saying that someone who managed a Mcdonald's franchise would be better as a CEO of the corporation than someone who served on the board of directors as an executive for several years. It's simply a weak argument.
She has more qualifications than the opposing Presidential candidate.
That is the 800 lb gorilla in the room!
This is by far the most ridiculous argument. She was a mayor of a town of 9000 people for 6 years where her biggest job was being an official face of the town. And a governor for 16 months of a state again, with a population less than that of the city of seattle.
That compared to someone who spent 8 years in the state legislature of Illinois and 2 years as a senator. How can you possibly say that the former has more experience than the latter?
That's like saying that someone who managed a Mcdonald's franchise would be better as a CEO of the corporation than someone who served on the board of directors as an executive for several years. It's simply a weak argument.
Like I've been saying, this is gonna be a fun two months!
To be fair, I have gone on record as saying McCain will win decisively in November, and that was BEFORE he chose Palin. That choice confirms it in spades for me.
How about five. I did some of the searching for you. It takes a second to click. :roll:
Or you can just watch Connie Chung. Is she still on?
The East Bumblefuk comment wasn't intended to suggest she's a hick, it was meant to deride the size, or lack thereof, of her constituency.
Yeah, I know what you meant. I'm talking about how people take it.
I have learned that there are two sides to every story. Why do you think we have the arab/jew thing, the nazi/jew thing, and even God in the flesh was hung on a cross.
But as with the three above examples, once one examines all the evidence, there is really only one side. Enough will over the next two months. This election is gonna be a rout.
Agreed. YouTube links are great for entertainment, but worthless for real information. None of what Robroy posted had real information, it was just republicans rubbing each others backs. Just as worthless as if someone else had posted 50 links of democrats doing the same.
I have learned that there are two sides to every story. Why do you think we have the arab/jew thing, the nazi/jew thing, and even God in the flesh was hung on a cross.
But as with the three above examples, once one examines all the evidence, there is really only one side. Enough will over the next two months. This election is gonna be a rout.
This argument doesn't make any sense. Every legitimate conflict with only two sides is solved quickly. You can hardly even call them conflicts outside of a history class as they have no current context. Those that remain have many more players. Consider the only true conflict you listed: Jew/Arab by which I assume you mean the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
If Israel were an island in the middle of the pacific, this problem would almost certainly have been resolved; they would have split the island into two nations. But it's not an island. In addition to the two prime parties, you have the Arab nations around them. These nations are divided into Sunni and Shia, which are in their own conflicts, and their part in the drama is split between religious, political, and economic motivations. Additionally, you have a contingent of religious people in America who believe the nation of Israel is a key part of end-time prophecy in the mix. And don't forget that there is oil in the area so USA, Europe, and Asia are all politically/financially motivated to be involved. No, there are not two sides. There aren't even just 20 sides. That's why we can't solve the problem.
Regarding the Indian God Krishna's crucifixion, I don't see how that had two sides, and it sure seems like the Nazi thing was about as one sided as a "conflict" could be. (BTW, I think the Krishna link is rubish, but I wanted a humorous way to post that your religious reference was essentially unrelated to your argument)
Agreed. YouTube links are great for entertainment, but worthless for real information. None of what Robroy posted had real information, it was just republicans rubbing each others backs. Just as worthless as if someone else had posted 50 links of democrats doing the same.
The information relativism thing doesn't wash. I gave you video AND text links. Something for everyone. I also gave links with TONS of information that clearly spelled out the Troopergate issue. I even gave an unofficial Hillary supporter link where the posters were overwhelmingly looking at Palin as their second best choice behind hillary.
I have learned that there are two sides to every story. Why do you think we have the arab/jew thing, the nazi/jew thing, and even God in the flesh was hung on a cross.
But as with the three above examples, once one examines all the evidence, there is really only one side. Enough will over the next two months. This election is gonna be a rout.
This argument doesn't make any sense. Every legitimate conflict with only two sides is solved quickly.
That is something that makes no sense. Dan Rather's forged documents were exposed as OBVIOUS fakes within 48 hours yet a large part of our population STILL wonders if, or firmly believes, they are genuine.
So few people really follow the facts, or are so convinced that there is moral parity between two sides of most issues that even obvious stuff gets argued ad-nausium.
In this case though, we only have two months. We'll see soon enough.
BTW, at this point in 1980, Carter had a 20 point lead over Reagan. And Dukakas had a 17 point lead in his bid.
The information relativism thing doesn't wash. I gave you video AND text links. Something for everyone. I also gave links with TONS of information that clearly spelled out the Troopergate issue. I even gave an unofficial Hillary supporter link where the posters were overwhelmingly looking at Palin as their second best choice behind hillary.
You're right, you did provide several other links, but somehow they must have blended in when I was checking them out, because all the links I clicked happened to take me to dull and barely informative YouTube videos. I will say, the one where she explains "troopergate" was less convincing to me than it was to you. From what I've heard, her actions sound reasonable, but her presentation on the video didn't really touch me one way or the other.
That is something that makes no sense. Dan Rather's forged documents were exposed as OBVIOUS fakes within 48 hours yet a large part of our population STILL wonders if, or firmly believes, they are genuine.
So few people really follow the facts, or are so convinced that there is moral parity between two sides of most issues that even obvious stuff gets argued ad-nausium.
This feels a little like arguing with Bill Clinton, since we obviously don't agree on what a "conflict" is. The Killian documents are at worst fictionalized news and forgeries, and at best unverifiable. This might be a "scandal" or even a "controversy", but a "conflict"? Regarding the documents themselves, I would wager that A) most people frankly don't care that much and it's not nearly so obvious that they are fakes as you seem to think.
That's not to say, that they are legitimate, it's hardly convincing that the source faxed and then destroyed them. But rather than be amazed that many people are able to without final verdicts on issues that are not resolved, we should find it encouraging.
You actually can't compare previous elections to pending ones. Even if the candidates are identical (Rossi/Gregoire) you have to wait for the results.
You also can't apply social "effects" in that way either. This isn't Newtonian physics. The Bradley Effect merely suggests that poll numbers are less trust-worthy when an ethnic candidate is involved. But by how much? Is it 20% or 0.2%? The wiki page you linked even talks about a potential reverse Bradley Effect playing a role in Obama's campaign. The same article even elaborates on a perceived lessening of the effect. Remember, the electorate is different than it was in 1982.
This election has to be the most exciting election for young people, an election that actually means something. There are way too many young people voting, and history has never seen this before.
I am still confused by the choice of Palin, but I am on vacation. I guess I'll figure this out when I am back in office...
Anyhow, victory is still too early to predict. But one thing for sure, "change" is on everyone's mind, and Obama is leading in that arena.
Oh I do want to add one comment about Palin. I have never seen a nobody that went to a no-name school (and didn't even have the right major) and without an advance degree being on a huge political ticket. It does make me feel better about her though, I guess GOP is responding to Democrat's "anybody can be somebody".
The information relativism thing doesn't wash. I gave you video AND text links. Something for everyone. I also gave links with TONS of information that clearly spelled out the Troopergate issue. I even gave an unofficial Hillary supporter link where the posters were overwhelmingly looking at Palin as their second best choice behind hillary.
You're right, you did provide several other links, but somehow they must have blended in when I was checking them out, because all the links I clicked happened to take me to dull and barely informative YouTube videos. I will say, the one where she explains "troopergate" was less convincing to me than it was to you. From what I've heard, her actions sound reasonable, but her presentation on the video didn't really touch me one way or the other.
RCC. I dumped television in 1997, partly because the nightly news was so frustrating. I'm with you on the videos. They are interesting on their own, and should stimulate curiosity, but nobody should make their mind up based on them. You just can't put that much detail in them. That is one reason "The book is always better than the movie". The GW deniers (of which I am one) use this argument against Algores Inconvenient truth and, as the content of that movie has been vetted, they have been proven right. People need to READ the information from BOTH sides and then make up their mind.
Regarding her video, I see her as just another politician in front of a camera. The best site I can find (so far) regarding troopergate is here: http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/29/ ... the-truth/
Yeah, the guy is biased, but who isn't. I assume it with all the articles I read.
Everything else is pretty much low information op ed stuff from both sides.
Speaking of videos, I did really enjoy Penn & teller's video on Recycling though.
I must admit I appreciate your perspective on issues here. I've told friends that some people that agree with me actually embarrass me with their line of thinking and style, while I respect some who strongly disagree with me because they can back up their opinions and actually admit when they may have made a mistake, which we all do. I, personally, have actually changed my opinion on some of these boards when given evidence from one of my "adversaries" that, when I followed up on it, discovered they were right.
She has no record. She voted for the bridge to nowhere before she voted against it, then kept the money. So because of that she's a "reformer". That's the meatiest thing I see out there.
Since it's only been a day I will allow you that reason for not seeing much yet.
Please enlighten me as to all these meaty things she's done, as Mayor of east Bumblefuk.
Ok. Before I get into this I should mention that a large part of the country lives in their own "Bumblefuk" and the attitude projected by you with that remark, and Obama through his "church and guns" remark is one (of many) reasons Obama's "Happy days" are behind him in the context of this election.
I worked for the Kodiak Island Borough back when I was in high school, and it was about 1/10th of the size of the company that I currently work at. Being mayor of Wasila impresses me less than the CEO of a company with 250 people, and there's a million companies of that size out there.
So I grew up in Bumblefuk, I worked for the Bumlefuk government, I'm not voting for someone to lead the country who has mayor of Bumblefuk as a major item on their resume.
This feels a little like arguing with Bill Clinton, since we obviously don't agree on what a "conflict" is. The Killian documents are at worst fictionalized news and forgeries, and at best unverifiable. This might be a "scandal" or even a "controversy", but a "conflict"? Regarding the documents themselves, I would wager that A) most people frankly don't care that much and it's not nearly so obvious that they are fakes as you seem to think.
I need to address this one. I take that particular event very personally, and I'll tell you why. I was one of the guys on Freerepublic when the first post on Freerepulbic broke that they seemed to be made in MS Word. And it was said in a post by Buckhead 59 minutes after the broadcast. We experimented with the image of the documents and discussed the various brands of Typewriter and other text producing products of the day and realized, after exhaustive research and experimentation that those documents were, without a SHADOW of a doubt, created by WORD. I even remember in one early post mentioning that the superscript (not the most damning evidence, btw) on my computer was not as "high" as it was in the forgeries. One of the other posters said, it's not has high on your screen but it is in the printout. I printed it out, and he was right.
Have you ever been a party to an event that actually made it onto the nightly news? It has become a universal truth: the story on the news has very little resemblance to what actually happened. I feel a little that way with the forgeries. I vetted it myself. I looked at every single excuse used by the apologists for the authenticity of the documents and not a single one survived and every claim by the "credible" proponents that it was a forgery proved true.
And yet two days after the original 60 minutes broadcast, Dan rather came on the 6:00 news and argued, with an image shown for just a few seconds, that it was possible to get a superscript type back in the day the documents were alleged to have been created. This image was screen captured and proven to a) be a completely different font than the document in question and produced by professional texting equipment used by magazines, etc. back in the day.
It was ludicrous on the face of it and easily proven to be so. Yet 10 years earlier he would have gotten away with it. And ten years ago I suspected (believed, frankly) that the networks were getting away with tons of this stuff, which is why my life is much happier since I left TV - and it is amplified by the free vetting of claims and ideas the internet offers, from both sides of issues. And there is truth on both sides.
This thing with Palin is great. Everyone reporting on it has a strong opinion and many of the sites (on both sides) have good information. And the more you read, the more obvious the posers become - on both sides.
This election has to be the most exciting election for young people, an election that actually means something. There are way too many young people voting, and history has never seen this before.
I am still confused by the choice of Palin, but I am on vacation. I guess I'll figure this out when I am back in office...
Anyhow, victory is still too early to predict. But one thing for sure, "change" is on everyone's mind, and Obama is leading in that arena.
Oh I do want to add one comment about Palin. I have never seen a nobody that went to a no-name school (and didn't even have the right major) and without an advance degree being on a huge political ticket. It does make me feel better about her though, I guess GOP is responding to Democrat's "anybody can be somebody".
I tell kids (under 30) that once you are over 30, people who make hiring decisions are not really all that interested in what education you have. They are interested in what you did with it.
Of education, knowledge and wisdom, the least of these is education and the greatest is wisdom.
Most of the men I respect have little or no college. Heck, I just went to the motivational seminar last Monday (Key arena) and one of the speakers gave us a rundown of the formal education of some of the most respected men in business and you would be shocked. I can also tell you, from personal experience that I have worked with many people with Masters degrees that were complete idiots. They had no business ever leaving a college campus other than to get more beer.
She has no record. She voted for the bridge to nowhere before she voted against it, then kept the money. So because of that she's a "reformer". That's the meatiest thing I see out there.
Since it's only been a day I will allow you that reason for not seeing much yet.
Please enlighten me as to all these meaty things she's done, as Mayor of east Bumblefuk.
Ok. Before I get into this I should mention that a large part of the country lives in their own "Bumblefuk" and the attitude projected by you with that remark, and Obama through his "church and guns" remark is one (of many) reasons Obama's "Happy days" are behind him in the context of this election.
I worked for the Kodiak Island Borough back when I was in high school, and it was about 1/10th of the size of the company that I currently work at. Being mayor of Wasila impresses me less than the CEO of a company with 250 people, and there's a million companies of that size out there.
So I grew up in Bumblefuk, I worked for the Bumlefuk government, I'm not voting for someone to lead the country who has mayor of Bumblefuk as a major item on their resume.
Follow the links and there is this great quote (bold mine):
As far as experience goes, die-hard liberals have no basis for understanding Sarah Palin.
After all, look at Barack Obama -- he was raised by a free-spirited agnostic mom, he went to Harvard, he studied community organizing, he studied civil rights law, he read John Dewey and Saul Alinsky and James Cone and Ghandi, he was mentored by some of the left's leading radicals, his potential as a leader was spotted by his mentors in the leftist academic establishment, he was given "guardian angels" by the Democratic party and fast-tracked through the Chicago and Illinois political machines -- he was groomed by the liberal establishment to be President. This is not a flattering metaphor but it is an accurate one: Obama is the top stud from the progressive leadership stud farm, and all his adult life he has been bred to sire the new Democratic Socialist States of America.
If you are a member of the far left, particularly a member of the academic elite, then Obama's resume contains all the relevant experience necessary to be a good leader. Things like accomplishments are mere trivialities compared to the proper schooling and mentoring.
But what does Sarah Palin have? Who has mentored her? Has she studied Alinsky? Cone? Gustavo Gutierrez? Pauol Freire? Chomsky? Cornel West? No Ivy Leage degree? No community organizing skills? No experience in civil rights advocacy? Her "accomplishments" as mayor and Energy Commission chairwoman and governor mean nothing next to the vast void of her obviously inferior intellect.
Unfortunately for liberal eggheads, Palin is the closest thing to a real person to ever grace a major party Presidential ticket, at least in my lifetime. Most of the rest of us real people will find that to be a very compelling quality.
Sheesh, she's beginning to look a lot like a modern Abraham Lincoln, in a skirt.
Unfortunately for liberal eggheads, Palin is the closest thing to a real person to ever grace a major party Presidential ticket, at least in my lifetime. Most of the rest of us real people will find that to be a very compelling quality.
We tried voting for the guy we'd be more likely to have a beer with and it didn't turn out so well. And she is an ex-beauty queen, which may not be viewed by a lot of "real people" out there as being a "real person".
And all of Obama's background make me want to vote for him much more than Palin, nothing you said there seems negative to me, even though rhetorically you tried to make it sound negative.
That's the inverse of you reading MSM articles being critical of Palin and liking her better. She's an evangelical, pro-life, pro-business, conservative republican. Sounds great to you.
And that just backs up my point that it all doesn't matter. Critical arguments on either side just sound good to the other side. So, we fall back on the fact that the country is going democratic, with the MSM waiting to politically assassinate anyone who stumbles.
And the comparison to lincoln just means that you're completely high.
Robroy, interesting story on the Rather documents. The issue you really run into, at least from the viewpoint of "getting" Rather, is that it's impossible to prove or disprove that he was complicit to the forgery. Proving 100% that they were forgeries, only proves that the guy who made them did so intentionally. In such cases, one treads the fine line between character assassination if he's innocent or letting him get away with wrong doing if he's not.
It's just like when someone is caught plagiarizing. They always say "the quote was unintentional, but I must have related so strongly to that passage that I accidentally typed it in" or "I just forgot to cite that source, it'll be fixed in the next revision". At that point, what do you believe? I will agree the documents in question appear to be forged, but I was just pointing out that there still appears to be some disagreement over even that part of the case, let alone how much blame is attributable to whom. Exciting to actually be involved in something like that though.
Robroy, interesting story on the Rather documents. The issue you really run into, at least from the viewpoint of "getting" Rather, is that it's impossible to prove or disprove that he was complicit to the forgery. Proving 100% that they were forgeries, only proves that the guy who made them did so intentionally. In such cases, one treads the fine line between character assassination if he's innocent or letting him get away with wrong doing if he's not.
It's just like when someone is caught plagiarizing. They always say "the quote was unintentional, but I must have related so strongly to that passage that I accidentally typed it in" or "I just forgot to cite that source, it'll be fixed in the next revision". At that point, what do you believe? I will agree the documents in question appear to be forged, but I was just pointing out that there still appears to be some disagreement over even that part of the case, let alone how much blame is attributable to whom. Exciting to actually be involved in something like that though.
I actually understand this. I didn't hold Rather responsible until he did that embarrassing "Gee, they COULD be real" report two days later. By that time a bunch of pajamahadine like me had thoroughly debunked their authenticity and yet he, with a paid investigative staff, was still trying to pass them off to "joe sixpack" as possibly/probably authentic.
He no longer had the right to plead ignorance to me at that point. He was going for the "plausible denial" thing. In the age of the internet, that option is no longer on the table.
Comments
I've got several bets on this one myself. And I don't bet (until now). This race is unprecedented in my lifetime.
I do remember Bush Sr., with a 90% approval rating, turning that into a defeat to Clinton. Two months is an eternity in politics and I have a very strong opinion how this one will go. I did before today and today only solidified it.
With that I agree. It is not a surface thing. If it was, my prediction would not be so "unusual".
Give it a couple of weeks.
But the point is, we'll see.
She has no record. She voted for the bridge to nowhere before she voted against it, then kept the money. So because of that she's a "reformer". That's the meatiest thing I see out there.
Please enlighten me as to all these meaty things she's done, as Mayor of east Bumblefuk.
Apparently the "meat" is that she negotiated strongly with Big Oil and got her state into a risky (high risk/high reward) deal with TransCanada to build a pipeline rather than the sweetheart deal the previous governor made. Alaska is $500m on the hook for that pipeline regardless of whether it is ever finished. Oh, she also pushed through legislation to essentially double the Alaskan resource tax.
I guess it really depends on how important you think that list is. Too me, it's a nice list but not particularly impressive because - from what I've read - her campaign was a statement on the previous governor being too "in the pockets" of big oil. Most of what she negotiated would have happened regardless of who won, and you won't know for a few years whether or not the TransCanada deal was smart or foolish.
So, no she doesn't win an "experience" vote. Neither does Obama. To be honest, I don't really think that McCain does either; I like his across the aisle work, but he has an embarrassing history of completely missing the votes where Obama votes "present". But then our current president only had 6 years in office at Texas before he ran for president. Jimmy Carter was only governor of Georgia for 4 years before he became president. JFK had 8 years in the senate and a few more in the house with a mixed voting record before he won. Dwight D. Eisenhower had no political experience but a lot of military experience when he won. Further back, Lincoln had one term in the house before he became president, and Teddy Roosevelt was only govern of NY for 2 years before he became VP/president.
My point is, experience is amorphous, it doesn't really mean much, and it seems to have little bearing on who should lead or who will win an election. If this election were decided on experience, then Dick Cheney would probably be the overwhelming choice. The right people are the right people because of what they will do tomorrow, not what they did yesterday.
But back to the question.
Two things. First, when discussing a "record of accomplishment" of someone in political office, the discussion takes place within the context of the record of accomplisments of their opponent. Her record does not match up very well to Ronald Reagan, but she is not on a ticket against him.
Second, here is her record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
This is pretty fun BTW: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=94118849
Gotta love NPR.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 1orcjq.asp
For fun, compare her approval rating to that of obama here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm
Watch this. She handles "tough" questions better than obama. Notice there is no teleprompter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pak-rH0dCeA&NR=1
I like this really short one: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Sarah ... ing_record
I like that it says she "conveniently" doesn't have a voting record. That is because her experience is executive, as opposed to the other three horses in this race. And Obama supporters really don't want most people to know that he mostly voted "present".
Unfortunately, almost all information on her now is opinion, as opposed to fact. I am really looking forward to how this trooper thing plays out. It aint Travelgate, but it's interesting.
What's a bit funny is that some of the opinion pieces that slam her with concrete reasons, give the exact reasons why I LIKE her. This is a prime example: http://www.greendaily.com/2008/08/29/sa ... d-alaskan/
Also, there is a lot of misinformation, like this:http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=976682&boardname=off&boardid=2
But compare it to this:http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/palin-on-gay-ri.html
The Trooper thing is interesting in that it was ongoing well before McCain chose her. This means either they have vetted it to their satisfaction, or they are complete morons. Based on the way this was handled and presented to the public, I'm betting on the former. But we'll see.
You have no idea how serious I am when I say this is the most fun and interesting election cycle of my life, and I have been following them since 1963.
Dead serious.
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6988/5uoxbemzabea7.jpg
http://rachellucas.com/wp-content/uploa ... y-girl.jpg
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/29/ ... the-truth/
FWIW
It does give one reason to understand why McCain would choose her even with this "scandal" hanging over her.
This is by far the most ridiculous argument. She was a mayor of a town of 9000 people for 6 years where her biggest job was being an official face of the town. And a governor for 16 months of a state again, with a population less than that of the city of seattle.
That compared to someone who spent 8 years in the state legislature of Illinois and 2 years as a senator. How can you possibly say that the former has more experience than the latter?
That's like saying that someone who managed a Mcdonald's franchise would be better as a CEO of the corporation than someone who served on the board of directors as an executive for several years. It's simply a weak argument.
And how much time did Obama spend as an executive?
And what decisions did Obama make in those positions?
And what was his voting record again?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08302008/ne ... htm?page=0
Like I've been saying, this is gonna be a fun two months!
To be fair, I have gone on record as saying McCain will win decisively in November, and that was BEFORE he chose Palin. That choice confirms it in spades for me.
But let's watch and see...
We'll see lots of this sort of stuff on all candidates: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/ ... 9157.shtml
BTW, this is kinda funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKsSYE4gfck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcGFPR6H6aE&NR=1
What meaty stuff has she done?
The East Bumblefuk comment wasn't intended to suggest she's a hick, it was meant to deride the size, or lack thereof, of her constituency.
Or you can just watch Connie Chung. Is she still on?
Yeah, I know what you meant. I'm talking about how people take it.
I have learned that there are two sides to every story. Why do you think we have the arab/jew thing, the nazi/jew thing, and even God in the flesh was hung on a cross.
But as with the three above examples, once one examines all the evidence, there is really only one side. Enough will over the next two months. This election is gonna be a rout.
Agreed. YouTube links are great for entertainment, but worthless for real information. None of what Robroy posted had real information, it was just republicans rubbing each others backs. Just as worthless as if someone else had posted 50 links of democrats doing the same.
This argument doesn't make any sense. Every legitimate conflict with only two sides is solved quickly. You can hardly even call them conflicts outside of a history class as they have no current context. Those that remain have many more players. Consider the only true conflict you listed: Jew/Arab by which I assume you mean the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
If Israel were an island in the middle of the pacific, this problem would almost certainly have been resolved; they would have split the island into two nations. But it's not an island. In addition to the two prime parties, you have the Arab nations around them. These nations are divided into Sunni and Shia, which are in their own conflicts, and their part in the drama is split between religious, political, and economic motivations. Additionally, you have a contingent of religious people in America who believe the nation of Israel is a key part of end-time prophecy in the mix. And don't forget that there is oil in the area so USA, Europe, and Asia are all politically/financially motivated to be involved. No, there are not two sides. There aren't even just 20 sides. That's why we can't solve the problem.
Regarding the Indian God Krishna's crucifixion, I don't see how that had two sides, and it sure seems like the Nazi thing was about as one sided as a "conflict" could be. (BTW, I think the Krishna link is rubish, but I wanted a humorous way to post that your religious reference was essentially unrelated to your argument)
You can lead a horse to water...
That is something that makes no sense. Dan Rather's forged documents were exposed as OBVIOUS fakes within 48 hours yet a large part of our population STILL wonders if, or firmly believes, they are genuine.
So few people really follow the facts, or are so convinced that there is moral parity between two sides of most issues that even obvious stuff gets argued ad-nausium.
In this case though, we only have two months. We'll see soon enough.
BTW, at this point in 1980, Carter had a 20 point lead over Reagan. And Dukakas had a 17 point lead in his bid.
According to Zogby, McCain is now ahead. According to the bradley effect, this also means he will win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
This race is finished...
IMO of course.
You're right, you did provide several other links, but somehow they must have blended in when I was checking them out, because all the links I clicked happened to take me to dull and barely informative YouTube videos. I will say, the one where she explains "troopergate" was less convincing to me than it was to you. From what I've heard, her actions sound reasonable, but her presentation on the video didn't really touch me one way or the other.
This feels a little like arguing with Bill Clinton, since we obviously don't agree on what a "conflict" is. The Killian documents are at worst fictionalized news and forgeries, and at best unverifiable. This might be a "scandal" or even a "controversy", but a "conflict"? Regarding the documents themselves, I would wager that A) most people frankly don't care that much and
That's not to say, that they are legitimate, it's hardly convincing that the source faxed and then destroyed them. But rather than be amazed that many people are able to without final verdicts on issues that are not resolved, we should find it encouraging.
You actually can't compare previous elections to pending ones. Even if the candidates are identical (Rossi/Gregoire) you have to wait for the results.
You also can't apply social "effects" in that way either. This isn't Newtonian physics. The Bradley Effect merely suggests that poll numbers are less trust-worthy when an ethnic candidate is involved. But by how much? Is it 20% or 0.2%? The wiki page you linked even talks about a potential reverse Bradley Effect playing a role in Obama's campaign. The same article even elaborates on a perceived lessening of the effect. Remember, the electorate is different than it was in 1982.
I am still confused by the choice of Palin, but I am on vacation. I guess I'll figure this out when I am back in office...
Anyhow, victory is still too early to predict. But one thing for sure, "change" is on everyone's mind, and Obama is leading in that arena.
Oh I do want to add one comment about Palin. I have never seen a nobody that went to a no-name school (and didn't even have the right major) and without an advance degree being on a huge political ticket. It does make me feel better about her though, I guess GOP is responding to Democrat's "anybody can be somebody".
Regarding her video, I see her as just another politician in front of a camera. The best site I can find (so far) regarding troopergate is here: http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/29/ ... the-truth/
Yeah, the guy is biased, but who isn't. I assume it with all the articles I read.
Everything else is pretty much low information op ed stuff from both sides.
Speaking of videos, I did really enjoy Penn & teller's video on Recycling though.
I must admit I appreciate your perspective on issues here. I've told friends that some people that agree with me actually embarrass me with their line of thinking and style, while I respect some who strongly disagree with me because they can back up their opinions and actually admit when they may have made a mistake, which we all do. I, personally, have actually changed my opinion on some of these boards when given evidence from one of my "adversaries" that, when I followed up on it, discovered they were right.
I worked for the Kodiak Island Borough back when I was in high school, and it was about 1/10th of the size of the company that I currently work at. Being mayor of Wasila impresses me less than the CEO of a company with 250 people, and there's a million companies of that size out there.
So I grew up in Bumblefuk, I worked for the Bumlefuk government, I'm not voting for someone to lead the country who has mayor of Bumblefuk as a major item on their resume.
Have you ever been a party to an event that actually made it onto the nightly news? It has become a universal truth: the story on the news has very little resemblance to what actually happened. I feel a little that way with the forgeries. I vetted it myself. I looked at every single excuse used by the apologists for the authenticity of the documents and not a single one survived and every claim by the "credible" proponents that it was a forgery proved true.
And yet two days after the original 60 minutes broadcast, Dan rather came on the 6:00 news and argued, with an image shown for just a few seconds, that it was possible to get a superscript type back in the day the documents were alleged to have been created. This image was screen captured and proven to a) be a completely different font than the document in question and
It was ludicrous on the face of it and easily proven to be so. Yet 10 years earlier he would have gotten away with it. And ten years ago I suspected (believed, frankly) that the networks were getting away with tons of this stuff, which is why my life is much happier since I left TV - and it is amplified by the free vetting of claims and ideas the internet offers, from both sides of issues. And there is truth on both sides.
This thing with Palin is great. Everyone reporting on it has a strong opinion and many of the sites (on both sides) have good information. And the more you read, the more obvious the posers become - on both sides.
Of education, knowledge and wisdom, the least of these is education and the greatest is wisdom.
Most of the men I respect have little or no college. Heck, I just went to the motivational seminar last Monday (Key arena) and one of the speakers gave us a rundown of the formal education of some of the most respected men in business and you would be shocked. I can also tell you, from personal experience that I have worked with many people with Masters degrees that were complete idiots. They had no business ever leaving a college campus other than to get more beer.
I want to know what someone did with the responsibility they were given. This looks pretty good: http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/30/ ... #more-7569
Follow the links and there is this great quote (bold mine):
As far as experience goes, die-hard liberals have no basis for understanding Sarah Palin.
After all, look at Barack Obama -- he was raised by a free-spirited agnostic mom, he went to Harvard, he studied community organizing, he studied civil rights law, he read John Dewey and Saul Alinsky and James Cone and Ghandi, he was mentored by some of the left's leading radicals, his potential as a leader was spotted by his mentors in the leftist academic establishment, he was given "guardian angels" by the Democratic party and fast-tracked through the Chicago and Illinois political machines -- he was groomed by the liberal establishment to be President. This is not a flattering metaphor but it is an accurate one: Obama is the top stud from the progressive leadership stud farm, and all his adult life he has been bred to sire the new Democratic Socialist States of America.
If you are a member of the far left, particularly a member of the academic elite, then Obama's resume contains all the relevant experience necessary to be a good leader. Things like accomplishments are mere trivialities compared to the proper schooling and mentoring.
But what does Sarah Palin have? Who has mentored her? Has she studied Alinsky? Cone? Gustavo Gutierrez? Pauol Freire? Chomsky? Cornel West? No Ivy Leage degree? No community organizing skills? No experience in civil rights advocacy? Her "accomplishments" as mayor and Energy Commission chairwoman and governor mean nothing next to the vast void of her obviously inferior intellect.
Unfortunately for liberal eggheads, Palin is the closest thing to a real person to ever grace a major party Presidential ticket, at least in my lifetime. Most of the rest of us real people will find that to be a very compelling quality.
Sheesh, she's beginning to look a lot like a modern Abraham Lincoln, in a skirt.
We tried voting for the guy we'd be more likely to have a beer with and it didn't turn out so well. And she is an ex-beauty queen, which may not be viewed by a lot of "real people" out there as being a "real person".
And all of Obama's background make me want to vote for him much more than Palin, nothing you said there seems negative to me, even though rhetorically you tried to make it sound negative.
That's the inverse of you reading MSM articles being critical of Palin and liking her better. She's an evangelical, pro-life, pro-business, conservative republican. Sounds great to you.
And that just backs up my point that it all doesn't matter. Critical arguments on either side just sound good to the other side. So, we fall back on the fact that the country is going democratic, with the MSM waiting to politically assassinate anyone who stumbles.
And the comparison to lincoln just means that you're completely high.
It's just like when someone is caught plagiarizing. They always say "the quote was unintentional, but I must have related so strongly to that passage that I accidentally typed it in" or "I just forgot to cite that source, it'll be fixed in the next revision". At that point, what do you believe? I will agree the documents in question appear to be forged, but I was just pointing out that there still appears to be some disagreement over even that part of the case, let alone how much blame is attributable to whom. Exciting to actually be involved in something like that though.
He no longer had the right to plead ignorance to me at that point. He was going for the "plausible denial" thing. In the age of the internet, that option is no longer on the table.
Thank God.
Which reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Ned5TQoW4
That just gave me the creeps. And yet he can say he was completely legal in what he allegedly did. But sometimes even when you win, you lose.