Slashdot Mirror
McCain Picks Gov. Palin As Running Mate
Many readers have written to tell us about McCain's choice of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his VP choice. "Palin, 44, a self-described 'hockey mom,' is a conservative first-term governor of Alaska with strong anti-abortion views, a record of reform and fiscal conservatism and an outsider's perspective on Washington. [...] If elected, Palin would be the first woman US vice president, adding another historic element to a presidential race that has been filled with firsts. Obama, 47, is the first black nominee of a major US political party. The choice of a vice president rarely has a major impact on the presidential race. Palin will meet Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a debate in October."
I think this is a great pick. The Democrats seem to want to attack Palin on experience but, in the minds of many, every attack/criticism they make against Palin will be silently re-asked by viewers about the Democrats' presidential pick.
Democrats are in a catch-22. Great political move by McCain. And Palin's speech in Dayton was excellent and motivating and inspirational, far more than what I heard from Obama last night at the DNC convention.
...but will it actually attract the Hillary supporters that the McCain camp seeks? At least now when confronted with attacks that liken a McCain presidency to a 3rd Bush term, he can point to his female running mate as progress.
She's also quite photogenic and a decent speaker. Who wants to bet that Palin's VP debate performance will outshine McCain's debate performance?
"when they shamelessly pander to the stupid lobby?
--"
You mean like anybody that has pandered to the anti-nuclear lobby?
Guess what they all do.
And I have not problem with creationism being taught as long as it is taught as science. So every bad fact they have can be pointed out.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Just a little something I read about the government not being allowed to outlaw or advance any particular religion. And, yeah, any form of ID? Yup, that's a religious belief, not a scientific one.
And for strict biblical literalists, teaching a heliocentric model of the solar system is going against their religion. Are we supposed to teach geocentrism in public schools, as well?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Nah, it's a good political move ignoring completely Hillary supporters.
Which do you want? An experienced president who you hope doesn't die and leaves you with a relatively inexperienced vice-president? Or do you want an inexperienced president that you hope dies so you can get some experience in the presidency?
This was a great chess move by the Republicans. Checkmate, Obama is done.
Because evolution teaches what science has concluded with all of the current evidence that they have. Creationism is a one sides, faith based approach to explaining the universes origin. You have to throw logic out the window. You have to believe that there is a God. And not just any god. It has to be an all knowing, all powerful God who looks out for human beings because he is a good god.
So not only is it an attempt at religious brainwashing, they are targeting a very specific religious belief system too.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
In addition to that, she's also pretty rabidly pro-life. This is, among other things, a definite carrot toward the more religiously-oriented part of the conservative base - you know, the part that doesn't thing McCain is conservative enough (in the fundamentalist sense) for them...
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
What's sad is that when Democrats run women, it's looked at as somehow genuine but when Republicans run a woman it's looked at as pandering.
Because when people talk about presenting "both" sides of an issue, they usually don't mean the "informed" and "uninformed" sides.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
No, she doesn't. She believes it should be ALLOWED to be mentioned in class, and that students should be allowed to debate the relative merits of Intelligent Design and evolution.
However, since unlike the Democrats the Republicans do not believe that it is the government's place to dictate people's thoughts, she did nothing to force that through.
Unlike her thought-police opponents, who would have made mentioning Intelligent Design, at all, illegal.
It's kind of hard to disprove Intelligent Design if you're not even allowed to talk about it.
Jebus the Psgetti Monster and God of Nasal Messes. Just have faith and pray to him. If the mess isn't cleaned up, it just means you're not praying hard enough.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Hey, the stupid lobby isn't just giving to one side or the other. I'm just trying to point out that they are garnering more and more political clout every year and I for one am getting tired of it.
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
The very title of such a "Origins and Development of Life" class would imply that students would be taught on the origins and development of life - and not "Varying Views on the Origins and Development of Life"; thus creationism would still have no place in such a class.
There are already classes for creationism: theology classes. They may not be required material, but they do exist - and if you want that well-rounded education, you'll take it.
Unfortunately there are various problems with mandatory theology classes as generally proposed - not the least of which is that they mean Christian Theology classes; if other religions are mentioned at all, then they are generally mentioned in the bylines and quickly dismissed in favor of the Christian views. If you think that atheism is covered in such classes at all, you're horribly mistaken (well, other than the whole "non-believers go to hell, THEY GO TO HELL AND THEN THEY BURN AND THEY DIE!!!"-part, though they try to tone that down a little these days.)
Personally I don't think that religion has any place in public schools (what private schools do is entirely up to them), not even as an alternative view on things such as the origin of life, the universe, etc. No more than Time Cube would have a place as an alternative view on physics.
They all pander to the stupid lobby, it's their biggest constituency. So really, you should be asking "How can anyone take any candidate seriously?" The answer is, you can't unless you're stupid.
Look at Obama for instance. He couldn't even wait until he was nominated to betray his stated principles and vote for immunity for telecom's who illegally tapped phones. If you expect him, or any other candidate to remain true to his campaign promises, you're part of that stupid lobby.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That I wish she were the PRESIDENTIAL nominee. Sarah Palin has excellent credentials of taking on corruption (even in her own party). She said no thanks to Sen. Ted "Internet Tubes" Steven's 100 million dollar "bridge to nowhere", and called for his investigation in a corruption scandal. I hear crickets from the Dems with respect to Rep William Jefferson (of New Orleans) and the $100K found in his freezer, etc...
The best thing about this is that it sets her up to be the nominee next time out.
Corporatism != Free Market
Your Wired story provides an Anchorage Daily News link with the following:
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
At one time Clinton was "pro-life". He conveniently modified that position for the Federal stage and Palin will do likewise. Hysteria about her creationism will fail.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
I think you overestimate how much the people will care.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Are you saying she should have? I thought it was all about the "woman's right to choose" with the abortion crowd.
Uh, I doubt many Hillary supporters are going to vote for someone so strongly pro-life. Just a guess, but I think it's safe. There will be some loss, but not much.
Frankly I don't see this pick as shoring up the McCain ticket much except in terms of solidifying his base.
The enemies of Democracy are
Its on thing to discuss it.. its another to TEACH it as if it were true, in SCIENCE class. Let them teach their psudo science in religious classes, and church. Save the science classrooms for science. How about the children of parents who believe in the flying spaghetti monster? Shouldn't we teach that right beside creationism? Where does it end? If they want to teach religion do it at church. DONT use public funds to try to push YOUR religion on my children. And worse yet make attendance mandatory.
I don't think a little personnel dispute is even going to register as an important issue for most people. On the scale of corruption that we've seen in Washington of late, that is negligible. As long as she panders appropriately, no one is even going to notice.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm sure McCain learned more about these parts of life in the "ghetto" briefing.
Flog me for saying this, but for this reason only (knowing what it's like to be on bottom), I actually thought Oprah for president wasn't a bad idea.
Wait, now hear me out. How is big float-through-life-as-a-rich-kid-and-go-to-ivy-league-schools going to solve our problems, when they don't even understand our problems?
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Not for divorcing her sister, but for being a thug. When a politician knows that there's a bad cop on the public payroll, I'd say they have an obligation to get that person canned.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Somehow you're COMPLETELY overlooking the Hillary/Obama race, and I'm honestly shocked you don't see it.
Hillary/Obama race was often summed up as: First woman or First black man?
You don't remember that?? Because, at least in my neck of the woods, there are still many who wish it had gone the other way. Many who would rather give the woman thing a go first...
Now McCain gets to tap into that vibe, and probably shore up at least a few of those voters that would have preferred Hillary over Obama. They didn't really WANT to vote McCain before, but they would have just for the woman factor, and because they have some kind of irrational hatred for Obama. Now they've been handed a reason to want to vote for him, too.
In short, my grandmother who has voted Democrat for the last 50 or 60 years will now almost certainly vote Republican.
Genius, really.
The difference is that McCain doesn't need a VP to be president for him. Obama does.
Not to call into question the dietWhy are we talking about electing another candidate with absolutely no experience into the big office? (to say nothing of the Veep office). Cheney used Bush's inexperience to grab power. Biden will do the same. Both will make the exact same mistakes, and the American people are idiots for thinking that getting elected to the senate once is all the qualifications needed for the presidency.
Science is only concerned with verifiable facts. So to Science, the creation story of any culture is dismissed because it is un-verifiable. It's faith. Science is a rigorous logical structure which is impartial. I'm not saying that the scientists practicing it are always impartial, I'm saying the system itself with the big capital "S" is. To acheive that impartiality it cannot simply assume belief and faith as the same as verifiable fact.
So saying that Science is ignoring evidence is really a question of semantics. It's not so much that it's not evidence, it's just inadmissable.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Where's the justice in firing a police commander who protects a thug? Are you serious?
Far too many police departments protect bad cops. I say, kudos to Palin for cleaning house.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Gee, since social conservatives do support her and she isn't at home, guess you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
November will tell, of course but I think you are wrong; McCain just took the Presidency. People who were ambivalent, such as myself, and were going to stay home, will now be voting Republican. And as for experience, she has had over 5 years as a Governmental executive administrator and a year as State Governor. Light, but about 5 years better than Obama. (Four if you give him the Senate, which I do. I really wouldn't make experience an issue. She is only running for VP and has more experience than Obama.)
And the ethical scandal, which came out amazingly a couple of months ago - right after rumors of the possibility of a VP tap. When the opposition (some Democrats but also many Republicans who were burned by her corruption probes) suggested an independent review, she indicated this was a good idea to get everything out in the open.
The Democrats didn't pick a woman to run. A Democratic woman chose to run. Palin didn't choose to run -- she was picked by McCain to run. That is the difference. That is why it is seen as pandering. Obama was also pandering with his VP choice. When he selected Biden, he was pandering to people from northeast Pennsylvania.
The VP choice is almost always a way to get at some block of voters.
All that being said, I simply cannot understand what is going on inside the head of McCain supporters. The guy does nothing but support failed policies, and lie about Obama wanting to raise taxes on the middle class. Meanwhile Obama is inspiring millions of Americans to do their part to get us out of this crisis, and demonstrating the judgement required to lead in the complex world of the 21st century.
This is the type of shit that pisses me off. Very, very few of us "blacks" are 100% African anymore. Being black in America is not a position to which one ascends, it is a position to which we have been assigned due to not being white. If you removed all the blacks who have any Anglo heritage from the US you would be left with immigrants fresh from some African country. I can't even find the words to express how sad ignorant statements like these make me.
that's my word, holla...
You don't remember that?? Because, at least in my neck of the woods, there are still many who wish it had gone the other way. Many who would rather give the woman thing a go first...
Because they've outgrown misogyny but not racism?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
That's because it is? How concerned have you ever seen the Republican party over women's rights? Hell, they have a hard time caring about anything other than wealthy, property owner rights.
That is all.
The problem with your claim is that you are confusing oral history with evidence. Science makes a distinction between the two.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Any discussion on Creationism needs this David Brin quote:
I find it truly stunning how many people can shrug off stuff like this, preferring instead a tiny, cramped cosmos just 6,000 years old, scheduled to end any-time-now in a scripted stage show. An ancient and immense and ongoing cosmos is so vastly more dramatic and worthy of a majestic Creator. Our brains, capable of exploring His universe, picking up His tools and doing His work, seem destined for much more than cowering in a corner, praying that some of our neighbors will go to hell... - David Brin
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
Skin color and ethnicity should matter in an election
You say that as if it is a self-evident truth, but I'm afraid I must vehemently disagree with you. Why do you believe that? You would rather have an incompetent black woman than a competent white man? Or vice versa? That defies logic! We have all races and ethnicities here, and the President must represent us all, black; white; brown; green; whatever.
Your definition of "African-American" is illogical as well. I personally think that term is incredibly stupid. I worked with a TRUE African American - he was born in Nigeria, emmigrated to the US, took the test and became an American citizen. He's black, but if he were white he would still be an African-American.
Meanwhile you have a free black who immigrated from Britain before the US Revolution, but his American descendants are African American because... because nobody knows the man wasn't a slave?
Thankfully, for today's generation and the ones to follow, the cultural differences are becoming more about economic differences rather than differences in skin tone and whether your ancestors were property
Racism is a tool of the rich to keep the rest of us at each others' throats. If race has meaning to you, and you are not a rich man, you are a tool, fool.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahjlNLo_3TFE&refer=home
She did not fire that cop for the right reasons. She fired him for the wrong reasons. And you should not encourage that.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
do you think 2 years as the governor of a state is less than 4 years as a back bench Senator who didn't chair a subcommittee meeting? Her greatest accomplishment so far is running a state. Obama's greatest accomplishment so far is running a successful campaign. Alaska has a population of approximately 670,000 people and this is how many people she has been in charge of for 2 years. How many people has Obama been in charge of? regardless of where you personally stand on issues at least you can know where she stands with no flip-flopping, especially regarding free-market capitalism(the reagan kind), abortion(pro-life, had her child at age 44 even though she knew he would have down syndrome), and pro-choice as far as education. We dont know what Obama stands for except that he for the most socialist policy that i have ever read...coming just shy to that of marxism. She is also a member of NRA and supports the use of guns as she is an avid hunter too.(that must scare the far-left). She is blue-collar and doesn't have to prove it because she has lived it and lives it. Of course all the "sophisticated" people in the northeast will try to strike her down because she isn't part of the "club"(shes a hunter, from a small town, has 5 kids, didnt go to brown, yale or harvard). America needs someone outside of CEO corporate washington to represent us. whatever else i have said in this post i think most of you will agree with this. When the state construed a budget reserve she took that money and put it into an Alaskan state savings account, instead of spending it just to spend it like wildfire and of course certain legislative bodies didn't like that. She also wants to drill USA oil, not get oil from places where people want to wipe us off the face of the earth. She has tried but our friendly government has said no way. Hmm wonder why??
If teaching was done in the style of Socrates (a two-way conversation) then that would be awesome. Unfortunately that isn't generally possible for a number of reasons (costs -- would only work well with good teachers and small classes, time -- they are trying to cram a lot of information in a relatively short time nowadays, etc).
However, in a modern classroom there is little time or inclination for debate so even if they try to teach both there probably would not be sufficient time to discuss it well. Another problem with discussing this particular issue vs something like philosophy is that this really is science and there is an enormous amount of work that goes against creationism. It would take an inordinate amount of time to argue against all the claims of creationists for the nth time and some of the claims really need the knowledge of a scientist (not a student) to argue against. You can't expect students to learn university level microbiology when they are being taught basic biology for the first time.
I think he's senile now.
if you subscribe to the Bush doctrine on torture (as McCain now does), then McCain himself was never "tortured" at the Hanoi Hilton and the anti-American statements he made to his captors are, in fact, truthful and accurate intelligence.
from a comment on a story in the Wash Post.
I present the parent post as exhibit A. See what happens if you teach kids religion in science classes?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
The ethical scandal is that she then got the commissioner fired for not doing as she wished. *That* is the big problem... she is, just like the current executive, intolerant of people who are not yes-men.
I, for one, do not want another my-way-or-the-highway executive, because no person is infallible.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Errr, no, she was already vetted during the primary...how much more is needed. The only thing they'd want to know would who contributed to Bill's presidential library. Only the bloviating media ever thought she was in the running for VP.
Teaching creationism in schools != teaching creationism as science. Your argument is a red herring. It's not relevant because She has specifically stated that she believes ID/creationism should be taught alongside evolution as a viable alternative theory to explain the origin of species. This is not acceptable because ID is not science. We have been through this REPEATEDLY, and the public and our elected officials STILL don't get it, which is precisely what the ID proponents are banking on. They are relying on the public's ignorance of what it means to do science to blur the line of scientific legitimacy. By all means, go ahead and teach ID in its historical context. But it has absolutely NO place in the science classroom, except perhaps as a brief exercise in discussing what is, and is not, science.
>Both sides of the abortion debate are wrong.
One of the most sensible things ever said about the whole matter. (especially on /.) I said one of the other most sensible things about abortion, when talking to a pro-life friend:"
"Do you want to forbid abortion, or do you want to stop it?"
Abortion isn't a hobby, people don't do it for fun. I don't even think people do it lightly - I think most people feel that they are forced into it by circumstances. (Whether or not those feelings are "valid" or not is a different matter.)
But I think things can be done to address the underlying circumstances that cause people to feel that they need an abortion, and perhaps one of the foremost is to instill in girls the self-esteem that can help in postponing sexual activity. I once heard, "The most important give a father can give his daughter is to love her mother." Model a healthy relationship. We're talking *real* family values, not the fake tripe generally peddled by politicians.
My biggest fear about overturning Roe v Wade is that people will feel that the job is done, and even start dismantling the things that are in place now, like counseling, adoption assistance, etc. Oh boy, we've written a rule! That'll stop it! Then self-righteous heads will plop back down into the sand.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Distrust asside, when you do not come from a mystic background it is honestly baffling how anyone could confuse science and pseudoscience. It isn't even that creationism needs to be disproved, it is that it is seen as starting off with the burden of proof just like any other mythology. There doesn't have to be 'anything wrong' with it, but it has completely failed to put forward anything 'right'.
It is an interesting philosophical argument, but we end up confused why people want to teach mythology in biology classes.
Some people EARN the grief they get and it has squat to do
with whatever "oppressed monority group" they would like to
have themselves associated with.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Because they've outgrown misogyny but not racism?
Just about every white person has had to live with women.
The same cannot be said about brown/black/yellow/red people.
Just how many Americans do you feel would not sell out for far, far less?
I'm willing to bet I could buy votes for free beer...
Obama camp chooses an "attack dog" in Biden, and he in fact comes out all guns blazing. Should McCain camp also chose a hard-boiled "attack dog"?
No.
Choose a target that Biden simply can't attack. 44 years old middle class (certainly no millionaire) woman mother of 5. Went against republican and won, went against democrat and won. Sports fan. She's pro-life but it's hard to dismember her there, too, because she "puts her money where her mouth is" - she knew she had a baby with a down syndrome long before birth, and had the baby nonetheless.
Inexperience: she's a vicepresident candidate and has MORE government experience than Obama, the PRESIDENTIAL candidate! I find it hilarious when Obama camp supporters attack her lack of experience - forgetting that Obama has LESS!
So what the heck is Biden the attack dog going to attack? Suddenly, his blazing guns don't seem to be very effective.
And McCain is probably going to pick up at least a few female voters from the democratic camp, and at least a few catholic votes, too. He doesn't need much, as the race is close, and even a bit in favour of McCain.
I think this was a game-changer move. Maybe it's curtains for Obama.
Disclaimer: I equally dislike Obama and McCain. I liked Hillary Clinton and I must admit, I kinda like Palin, too.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Anyone who is willing to sell-out on their political beliefs just to vote for a gender lacks integrity, in my opinion.
I'd agree, but I'd add there's very little integrity in the political process. If people actually supported Hillary Clinton for her policies, her supporters would be evenly split between male and female. That's not the case, so there's at least some portion of Hillary Clinton supporters who voted for her only because of her gender. Probably a large portion.
Keep in mind that this isn't supposed to take away the hard core democrat supporters of Hillary. It's aimed at the swing voters. Swing voters are stupid. If they weren't stupid, they wouldn't have trouble deciding who to support. So you can expect this to be a very effective move by McCain. We're one Biden gaffe away from a McCain presidency.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
She didn't fire Wooten. She fired Monegan, an at-will appointee, who happened to be in a position to fire Wooten, but didn't. She doesn't NEED a reason to fire an at-will appointee.
The stepson asked to be tasered, to feel what it was like. The moose issue is just stupid, and obviously an attempt to pin something on the guy. The beer thing is not substantiated, and the alleged threat is only substantiated by Palin's friends and family. Come on, you can do better than that, can't you?
I'm relying on the state trooper's investigation, and if they found enough evidence to cite and suspend him for these offenses, I don't need anything "better than that".
My only question is if they were sufficiently convinced of the threat to cite him for it, why was he only suspended and not fired? There should be zero tolerance for that.
Yes, because prior to abortion, girls never had sex...
Oh wait, they did, it's just that prior to the Suffrage Movement, people had no problem marrying off their fourteen year old daughters when they got knocked up, and then just screwing with the math a bit so the product of all that teenage lust looked like it was popped out of the vagina a few months later than it really was.
That's what I so detest about Fundementalists, they live in this fantasy land that never was. Kids have been fucking for tens of thousands of years (even longer, if you extend "kid" to apply to our more ancient ancestral teenage pregnancy cases). They like to make believe that there was this mythical Christian population that existed prior to 1965 that was virginal and liked sock-hops with chaperones and always got home at 9pm after a real swell time at Pop's.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
She doesn't toe the party line firmly. She angers many members of the Republican party. She called them out for corruption, and is especially unpopular with GOP members like Stevens (series of tubes) in Alaska.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Your criticizing her for a 'rumor' that she tried to get an Alaska State Trooper fired.. A trooper who zapped his 11-year old with a tazer, threatened to kill people, was caught hunting without a license and numerous other issues... Even it the rumor was true (its not), how can you criticize that? Seriously?
congrats for totally smoking spud603. thanks for injecting some facts into this. he got told!!
That has nothing to do with her being a woman.
it has a lot to do with her being a general snob and/or jackass. :-)
To quote a blogger on National Review, if this person with all of her credentials and history had been a man, would she have gotten nominated? If you think that this pick didn't have anything to do with trying to pander to disgruntled Hillary Clinton voters, then I've got a bridge to nowhere in Alaska to sell you.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Palin: "Teach both. ..."
So, how's that supposed to work exactly? A biology class takes a few days out to read Genesis? And then follows up with some Norse mythology?
Scientifically, when it comes to creationism, there's nothing to teach. You've got some ancient creative story-telling and some pseudo-scientific hand-waving claiming to disprove evolution.
Palin: "... You know, don't be afraid of information."
Well, sure, with that attitude, let's spend a few weeks in biology class reading The National Enquirer. Why be afraid of information?
"But she also happens to be an ex-beauty queen with an ethical scandal in Alaska."
With more executive experience than anyone else on *either* ticket! yes she is not one to run on experience but you dont think the dems will dare call her on that do you? after all I look forward to a McCain commercial with Hillary talking about Obamas experience from the primaries.
"The social conservatives claim that women should be at home, not running for the Vice Presidency."
As a social conservative I have to ask you... what the hell are you talking about? I was 90% sure I was going to vote 3rd party *again* this year. If he had Picked Romney I would have voted 3rd, if he had Picked Lieberman I would have voted 3rd, Pawlenty might have gotten me to 50/50... but this pick is *solid* and Im now in the 75% voting McCain...
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
I am tired of this idea that conservatism means you hate anything that doesn't make old white guys rich. The Republican party turned away from true conservatism when the southern democrats fled their party over the schism with the liberal leanings coming from the northeast. There is no party for true conservatives. The Replublicans far too often aim to use the government to enforce 'moral standards' and the Democrats use it to replace personal responsibility. The closest thing to a true conservative party are the likes of Ron Paul, who with his rabid isolationist views (and the fact he is guano insano) scare off many before any hint of the 'small government' ideals come out.
And frankly, it doesn't matter who wins the presidency, or ultimately even who controls the congress. Any positive ideas or bills to come out of D.C. must first pass through the putrid filter of bureaucracy. Remember, an elephant is just a mouse designed by a commitee.
But don't listen to me. I'm just an evil conservative.
I believe it's called a "conflict of interest" even if no unethical act results from it.
You've missed the point that in no way was it her or her office's responsibility or duty to fire this guy. She strong-armed the guy's boss into firing him. It wasn't something she should have even been involved with.
She was the governor, right? Maybe I missed a timing issue, but I'm thinking the governor has purview over basically any part of the executive branch of the state. I'm not from Alaska, so perhaps I'm wrong, but if the governor things police officer 'Joe Schmoe' ought to be fired, I don't really think it is overstepping for their power to be used in this way. Think about it. This person was, presumably, on the state's payroll under the governor's watch. You could likewise fault her for not acting, could you not?
She overstepped her bounds and used her political office to gain revenge for a family member.
Unfortunately the point of 'overstepped' and the notion that revenge was the sole reason are both pretty weak, otherwise I'd agree with you.
I'm certain she enjoyed it, but that doesn't make it wrong in-and-of itself.
That's not misogyny....she IS a bitch. Big time. I know her from when she was first lady in Little Rock. She has become a better actor, but, don't kid yourself, when the klieg lights turn off, you would not want to be in the same room as her, she is a vicious, two-faced, say anything bitch. If you knew her well, you'd know that.
Obama can't choose his race, but, Hillary can sure choose her personality....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Obama didn't even have the courtesy to vet Hillary Clinton as a possible vice-president, ouch.
Under the express direction of Hillary Clinton. The instructions were to not vet her if she wouldn't be chosen. Basically, she didn't want to have to deal with the hassle of vetting if she wasn't going to get the spot. It's her prerogative, if she didn't want to be vetted, it's not something to hold against Obama.
Just kidding, I don't believe in the 2cd Amendment.
Funny, I must have missed that part. I remember the part where he said 'we must find a way to protect your guns while we keep AK-47's off of the streets' and 'gun control means significantly different things from (some rural location) to (some metropolitan location)'. Both of those are approximate paraphrases, not exact quotes.
I'm not a gun nut, and I'm not an anti-gun nut. I grew up with riffles, a shot gun, and a pair of pistols in the house. I field qual'ed sharp shooter and expert (twice) in my military service, and if I still lived out in the country I would likely still have a number of weapons on my property.
That said, there is an excess of gun crime in the country. Making more guns illegal will not reduce the number of gun crimes in the US. But more strongly enforcing the existing gun laws will. Taking resources off of the "War on Drugs" and putting them into a "War on illegal guns" would not only likely have an impact on illegal gun distribution, but also on population issues in prisons. Look at the number of people we have to support in prison for drug charges compared to gun related charges. We're just pissing tax money down the drain because some idiot got busted selling off joints to consenting adults... bah.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Story here, with links to background material: http://www.adn.com/politics/story/468174.html
I think you left out some details which affect the impression the summary gives.
Her husband, who isn't her but is pretty close, openly states that he targeted the trooper, while she was in office, and he did so on his subjective opinions of the troopers health.
As for the stun gun, he wasn't attacking the child (which is what it sounds like imo). Not that the reasoning behind it was sound, but there was reasoning behind it. And it should be noted that his penalty was reduced.
The story and its links contain good background material, and should be read before deciding whether an abuse of power took place.
Are you saying she should have? I thought it was all about the "woman's right to choose" with the abortion crowd.
Seriously. Choosing to have a child with Down's Syndrome is brave and not something any pro-choice advocate should have a problem with. They might suspect that she was pressured into it by her community/party/husband/church, but that'd be a concern, not a reason to condemn the decision.
No. The problem pro-choice women will have with Palin isn't that she chose not to abort a baby with Down's. The problem they will have is that she would like to deny them the opportunity to choose in the same situation.
The enemies of Democracy are
That's because the owner's identity is hidden, and the domain was registered with GoDaddy, which is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. Still, it's a little odd that it was registered just four weeks ago; I wonder if somebody knew something?
I suspect he'll lose more votes from his base than he'll gain from uncertains or democrats.
The Free Republic crowd loves her; possibly because they think she's more of a fundie than she really is, but still. They aren't as troglodytic in terms of keeping women barefoot and pregnant as many believe.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
"He just destroyed the "Obama doesn't have the experience to lead" meme. "
Oh? How? Who's going to say she's inexperienced? Barack Obama?
Just how does he attack her without the attack doing a boomerang right back on him? Her time has been spent as an executive. She's done budgets, personnel, and signed and vetoed legislation.
Obama has done, oh, none of that. This is why his campaign's statement about her being the mayor of a small rube town was so silly. It allows Palin to say "Well, by all means, lets hear of your impressive credentials as a community organizer".
The brilliance of this pick is that the Democrats can't harp on Palin's supposed Vice-Presidential inexperience without highlighting Barack Obama's Presidential inexpierience.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
A lot of people will fall in to the trap of believing in "science" when a their "priesthood" endorses. A great example is the anti-nuclear group.
Another group is the pro nuclear power group.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
There's no clear win for McCain with her. She takes the experience argument off the table. She accentuates McCain's age. She won't deliver any more states in the election. She'll raise focus on the Ted Stevens indictment. She has her own ethics problems. She won't bring in the Hillary delusionals when they find out she's pro-life. The only thing she does is excite the shriveling GOP base for a couple weeks.
Biden will wipe the floor with her at the VP debate.
She angered Big Oil in Alaska, maybe she was forced on McCain to get rid of her. If McCain is elected and doesn't complete his term, she might be very malleable to the hidden hands in Washington, which are much stronger than those in Alaska.
We already approached this question in Victorian times (Women were campaigning for suffrage since 1845).
And we all knew the result: Emancipation for the black man in 1863, while women didn't have the right to vote until 1920.
History repeats itself, wait and see.
She only said the "not part of the curriculum" and "no litmus test" stuff after there was a backlash against her mentioning it in the debates. During the debate, her exact wording was: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
Do you honestly think that we should be teaching creationism in science class?
Maybe, but I can barely make out what you're saying because your horse is too high.
Do you honestly think that we should be teaching creationism in science class?
No, but there are a lot of things that I think should or should not be done that you (or someone) would probably disagree with. It doesn't make me right or wrong. At least she does not seem to be suggesting that her way is the only way. That's really all I can realistically ask for, I think.
Would I prefer a candidate who thought creationism was BS? Yes, but I don't speak for everybody, and there are criteria I consider more important.
"This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
Being Councilmember and Mayor of a town of 8,500 people is not being "in the business".
A college president would have represented more people.
This is Elizabeth Hasselbeck with 18 months of real political experience - mind you, in one of the least populous states in the country.
go get it
The ethical scandal is that she then got the commissioner fired for not doing as she wished.
You mean the commissioner who was appointed by her for a role that is well-known to be an "at-will" employee? The nerve of her replacing someone she appointed. There out to be a law against that!
You know the one where he served along with Weather Underground Terrorist William Ayers?
Doing any sort of politics in Chicago requires dealing with a whole bunch of shady characters. It's just a messy, messy place.
its been Obama who has been arguing all along that his experience doesn't matter, but now he wants to change his mind
I haven't, as of this posting, heard a single word out of Obama or any of his direct campaign advisors on McCain's VP pick. So I don't know how you can (yet) claim a flip flop is involved. Random yokels, be they on the Internet or on a 24 news network, do not speak for the campaign.
That said . . .
The ONE flip flopped on a number of things he was for during the primary to get the nomination. Interesting wouldn't you say?
Not really. "Flip flopping" is something you can accuse every politician ever of doing. It's only something you'd bring up if you have absolutely nothing better to throw at them.
The tennent of democracy is that you don't trust people with power. If you could, you'd be better off giving them absolute dictitorial control--it'd be a whole lot more efficient, and because you trust them, you trust them not to abuse their power. That situation is obviously a pipe dream, so instead we let people have power who want power, but make the system inefficient and force them to fight each other. A "do nothing congress" is actually a design goal.
An important part of that is it's OK for politicians to switch positions on a whim to cater to different voters. They want power, and will say anything to get it. That's just fine, because the system is designed to handle it.
Not a typewriter
Children with Down's syndrome have a suite of physical defects, often including mental retardation and short lifespan, caused by an error in cellular combination at conception. Their parents know this.
Many mothers these days have amniocentisis during pregnancy, which can reliably indicate Down's syndrome and a number of worse problems if present, and at that point can make a decision to terminate the pregnancy. They must face the question: "is it more cruel to bring this child into the world than to refrain from doing so?".
If you believe that a soul is placed in that child by God at the moment of conception, you may make a very different decision from someone who does not believe in deities, spirits, or souls.
Whatever you believe, behave as your religion and philosophy demand. I do not believe that it's the right of the governor of Alaska, or you, or the pope, to impose your religious beliefs on me or any unborn child that I might have.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Women will vote for her just because she's a woman. Similarly, all African Americans are crazy about Clarence Thomas, just because he's black.
If D women vote for a pro-life, gonna-overturn-Roe V Wade R woman, then I guess they get what they deserve. Some will, no doubt. I can only hope that it isn't enough to swing the election. On the other hand, I'm wondering how many social conservatives will feel insulted and manipulated by the offer of Palin. Not all of course, but quite a few were offended at Harriet Miers's nomination to the SCOTUS.
Even embattled minority groups have the capacity to recognize someone's lack of qualifications, and realize that, purity aside, you can't just pin your vote to whoever happens to check the box.
Should they teach Astrology too? I mean, people should be able to make up their own minds. Or at least have the planets do it for them.
Evangelicals love her because she is so firmly pro-life, but she fights her with party all the time.
Someone care to explain why that comment in a political discussion constitutes a troll? She is firmly pro-life and conflicts with her party on corruption and fiscal responsibility. She'll appeal to the base but not the party leadership.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
That depends. How much of the scientific method was used on the creation experiments? How much was used on the ones in the textbook? In some cases, creationists do the scientific method better.
Really? I've never seen that. Can you present any paper (suitable for education or not) that presents creationism as a testable hypothesis, or better yet as a tested theory?
Personally, I don't care if the source is alien chasers or whoever. If they have a repeatable scientific experiment, regardless of whether it is damaging to some tenet of evolution or the big bang or whatever, I want it taught! Anything else is censorship of the truth, and holds back the progression of scientific understanding.
So here's the thing, not all theories are equally supported. Things like gravity and evolution have centuries of testing and support and huge amounts of known science are built upon them. They're staples of science and as such have earned a place in the basic curriculum. Even if someone comes up with a creation hypothesis and tests it with an experiment that is repeated, that doesn't bring it the level of credibility of the more tested theories.
Just last year there was a theory that there was an extrasolar planet similar in size to the earth because of a peculiar observed dimming of the star. They tested it with more observations and it seemed to hold up as a theory and was peer reviewed and repeated. Then a few months ago a counter theory appeared that it was not a planet causing the dimming and they predicted some other characteristics if it was more closely observed. Those predictions proved true and we have a new best theory to fit the data. This happens all the time. No one teaches these brand new theories in undergraduate education because they aren't the basic theories we know with great likelihood won't be outdated in another few years.
It isn't censorship to not teach either the theory about the planet I mentioned or creationism because they aren't well accepted and proven science. It is especially not censorship to not teach such unproven theories when they are championed by religious cults desperate to try to promote their religious beliefs in public schools in violation of the separation of church and state. For a creationism theory to earn a place in the basic curriculum it first needs to be proper, testable science, then it needs to build up a large supporting body of evidence such that it is not a theory of the month and we have a good and rational expectation that it is the best theory to understand the truth (or at least close to alternative theories in the amount of supporting evidence and testing).
Most pundits seem to be focused on Palin's being a woman, but I see her as a way for McCain to reach out to the libertarian crowd. One commentator described her as the "libertarian VP candidate," or at least the closest thing to a libertarian that we're likely to see on a major-party ticket:
I'm not seeing it. I'm not a libertarian, but I do agree with a good number of their ideals and have voted for their candidates in the past. I don't know a lot about Palin, but my quick research did not really shout "libertarian."
In short, I see her pretty well aligned with the mainstream Republicans. I think her lack of history and relative obscurity is going to be a big asset since it lets people speculate and engage in a lot of wishful thinking. The libertarians would like her to be aligned with their position, or at least more aligned than other candidates because it provides hope. In reality, she seems more like a VP who would have little power under the assertive McCain and who is no more aligned with the libertarians than and of the other presidential or vice-presidential nominees.
Look, with all due respect, how is that "insightful"... it's just ad hominem. You provide no evidence to suggest she might be a bitch, just insist that if we were in your shoes, we'd agree. I'm no Hillary supporter, but that's just a derogatory personal attack, and your post should be called out as such.
You see, you can argue about Creationism. You can make very good philosophical arguments for and against Creationism in all its forms -- Intelligent Design being one of them. And you can make very good philosophical and scientific arguments for and against Evolution.
What is clear, however, is that Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism isn't.
In other words: Right or wrong, Evolution is science. Creationism isn't. That's not an opinion, it's a fact -- by definition, "I think the Earth is six thousand years old because an old book told me so" is not science.
The only place Creationism has in a science classroom is as an object lesson of something that is not science.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
My concept is that a giant turtle named George barfed up the universe last Tuesday (including all your memories of stuff existing before that).
I demand my concept be discussed in elementary schools, so we can have a healthy debate and students can make up their own minds. You won't dare suggest I be censored, will you?
Creationism has zero evidence for it. It's not science and therefore not worth debating.
So you're saying that the number two spot doesn't matter? That she wasn't hired to actually do anything on the job. To say that it doesn't matter that Palin is less experienced is to say that the VP is a position with no meaning and no sway, so it doesn't matter if experience doesn't matter. It's an admission that Palin was put on the ticket for one reason - not because of her strengths, not because of what she brings to the White House, only because she's a woman. We don't expect her to actually do anything, so it's okay that she has no experience.
I repeat - if McCain, the older man with bouts with disease should fall ill to old age, then this woman becomes president. Not number two, but number one. McCain has come out and said that this woman with almost no experience is actually experienced enough to be understudy to the most powerful position in the land. McCain is either short-sighted of having delusion of immortality.
And that doesn't matter? That doesn't matter that the "Experience is Everything!" campaign just decided that experience doesn't mean squat for the NUMBER TWO POSITION in the country?! Can you imagine Palin inheriting the number one spot? Is that something that the experience-loving McCain fans would be able to handle?
Yes, we know. We know Obama is running for president. We know he's inexperienced. You keep saying that. You were saying it last month, last week, yesterday, you kept saying it. So why, why now, have you given us the least bit of ability to say it about McCain?! Why would you do that? We know what you think of Obama - why would you give us the chance to change what people think about McCain?!
This whole thing just absolutely boggles my mind! I do not for the slightest moment understand the least bit of logic behind it!
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
But in the end, creationism simply isn't science.
I'm not saying that it's wrong. I'm saying that it can't be disproven no matter what the facts are. No matter what you find, no matter what you prove, a creationist can always come back and say "well, God put it there that way".
An Earth which formed out of a dust cloud five billion years ago and evolved natural life on it in the intervening period is indistinguishable from an Earth which God created 6,000 years ago to give all of the appearance of having formed out of a dust cloud and evolved naturally.
And that, not the fact that it's wrong, is why creationism has no place in a science classroom. It is fantasy, pure and simple. A kinder man might call it "religion".
Now, a lot of creationists don't seem to grasp this and try to "prove" it, even though there's no need to prove it and no point in doing so. It can be educational to look at the individual claims and show how they falter. But creationism itself just isn't science.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Too bad these people can't see that they'd eliminate a lot more abortions by supporting sex education and contraception then by pushing for absolute prohibition.
"Now, how many of the voters in your state/local area support this barfing turtle thing?"
If a majority of voters in my town vote to make 2+2 equal 5, you would support changing the math textbooks? Do you think those voters would be right because they had the majority; or is it that having the majority makes it proper to intentionally misinform children?
The charity groups that are against war, the death penalty, abortion; and feed the hungry & provide shelter for the homeless... They get to use 'pro-life'.
Not just those who only want to protect the precious fetuses.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Now see, this is exactly what she was advocating--introduce both concepts and encourage healthy debate.
I disagree. She advocated teaching both "theories" which strongly implies them being placed on similar standing. A discussion of what constitutes a scientific theory does have a place in the classroom, but the topic of evolution versus creationism is probably one of the worst topics to use since their are so many religious people with a vested interest in skewing the facts and hence convincing children that the latter is the truth, and in the process undermining the lesson about what the scientific method is and how it works. A less controversial example, such as the theory of gravity versus the theory of directional falling would better illustrate the subject and be less likely to be undermined by religious "leaders".
Debate requires constant research, exploration, and effort. This strengthens the mind and carries us forward.
This assumes the people are interested in logical debate instead of emotional considerations and pushing their religious beliefs. I don't think that is a safe assumption with teachers today. Schools have a limited amount of time, so they should teach the scientific method using non controversial examples and preferably real, hands on experiments, and they should teach the fundamental and well supported theories like evolution, gravity, relativity, atomic models, etc. They should not bring in unsupported hypothesis which happen to be the subject of huge misinformation campaigns. Right now a significant portion of our populace doesn't even know what the theory of evolution is and it is a complex concept for children, yet you think we should be using it as an example for teaching the scientific method at the same time? I think we should concentrate on making sure kids know what the theory is and how it works and if they want to debate the topic later in life at least they won't do so from a completely uninformed perspective.
As a resident of the United States, I can say, without exception, that I do not trust a SINGLE American politician.
Fixed that for you.
Your point is ridiculous. Regardless of whether evolution is taught beside it, creationism does not belong in a fucking classroom.
You're dumb if you don't think this is pandering.
You seriously think she was picked because of her experience? (2 years of state-level office). You think she was picked because of her "morality"? Have you read ANYTHING about John McCain's history? This woman will be a tool, unless McCain drops dead, in which case she'd be a disaster.
Hillary Clinton made her own decision to run, managed the campaign, was the actual candidate. Palin is an accessory.
Maybe your unwavering allegiance is thought-out and rational, the alignment of your views with party doctrine based on independent analysis and merely coincidental rather than guided, and your self-identifying with one of the two biggest groups of windbags on the planet merely a convenient communication device.
Or maybe you're just another partisan sock-puppet. Hard to say.
For small values of "just about anything".I found out that the Rep-VP candidate is possibly anti-contraception. I found out that the Rep-VP candidate is possibly in favor of teaching Creationism or "Intelligent Design" in the science classroom. I'll admit I don't know much about her yet, but I fail to see how either of these items would push me away from Obama.
XML causes global warming.
Do you honestly think that we should be teaching creationism in science class?
I think that should be what we ask our local school board candidates, not our Vice Presidential Candidates.
The Gospel according to lolcat
Yeah, but if the choice is Biden's boot-to-the-head or singing "I'm going to let it shine..." then I'd take the damn song.
McCain's choice is almost surreal - it's totally calculated and I'm sure someone on both sides with a lot of statistics experience and Matlab was up late one night running numbers.
Hey Slashdot - how about getting an interview with one of THOSE guys - the ones running candidate probabilities on beowulf clusters??
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
You're absolutely right, it was her decision. The only problem is that if she thinks that what was *her* decision should be *law*.
I don't know the details and I could be wrong but most "regular pro-lifers" what to make abortion illegal and the real hardcore ones - like Palin is described - what to extend the ban to non-life threatening malformation and rape (well, they are at least coherent).
The problem here is that since Victorian times, the English-speaking world has tried to find some psychological rational for the belief that sex is somehow fundamentally dirty. This bizarre sexual perversion that's found through much of the white Anglo-saxon dominated world forces people to make up silly rationales like "teenage girls have sex because of poor self-esteem".
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that kids have sex, but let's face it, biologically, the prudish last century-and-a-half makes up only the very tiniest fraction of the time of our species on this planet, and in reality, for most of that time, fourteen or fifteen was pretty much the beginning of prime mating age. Just because modern standards of conduct have greatly extended behavioral adolescence doesn't meant that in any biological way it's been delayed.
So it would be more reasonable to expect that some sizable fraction of teenage girls are going to have sex no matter how much our very recent notions of when they should say, and thus make sensible policies, rather than fantasy land variants.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Debate is for Debate Class. Science is for Science Class.
Religion is for neither.
Like it or not "Separation of Church and State" is an easy idea to understand.
The funny thing is, pro-choice isn't really the opposition of pro-life. I'd like to see what all those pro-lifers will think when somebody suggests that everyone should be forced to abort every pregnacy. Bet they'll value their ability to choose a little more then.
I know we are largely in agreement here, and you're right that science isn't a matter of belief, but science and one of its discoveries, evolution, are not facts; it is a matter of evidence. Science is never wrong. Scientists are wrong sometimes. The consensus of scientists can be wrong sometimes. Science is never wrong.
Science is a philosophy of discovery, and that's the difference. Science is about discovery, making falsifiable predictions, performing tests, and finding more evidence.
Creationism is a philosophy of ignorance (God did it). With Creationism/Intelligent Design, curiosity stops. What has Creationism discovered lately? What predictions does it make? What evidence has it brought forth? What can we test with it? Nothing, nothing, and nothing.
Science is not about learning facts and figures and equations, though we must do so to become more proficient and knowledgeable. It is about seeking out those things we do not know, do not understand, and cannot grasp right away. It is a declaration that we will try to know more, to understand more, to grasp what was formerly too ethereal or esoteric.
Creationism on the other hand is asserting that we know how it all works (God did it), that we understand the workings of the world (God makes it go), and that we can know it all through detailed reading of a single book. It promotes relishing in the status quo, cataloging the gaps in our knowledge, but actively fighting against any examination of those gaps.
Simply put:
"Science is a philosophy of discovery; Creationism is a philosophy of ignorance." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
This is Elizabeth Hasselbeck with 18 months of real political experience - mind you, in one of the least populous states in the country.
Which is about 12 months more experience than Obama had when he started running for President. He had a whole 133 days in the US Senate under his belt. His State Senator days are hardly more significant than Palin's mayorial days, especially given the fact that he basically had the seat handed to him (same as his US Senate seat in fact).
I'm sorry, but you sir, are a moron.
Naaaa ... teach it. The only reason they have credibility is because they are made martyrs so they love the attention. get them to produce a text book and have be laughed as they try and teach kids creationism in a scientific context.
g
Hmm. Who is more like GWB
- Politician who has not sponsored a single bill on his own. Go here to read about Bills sponsored by Obama to the 109th and 110th United States Congress. He's sponsored 131 bills so far.
- Person who hired one of the most manipulative old hands in the senate. I'm not even sure who you're referring to right now..
- Person with only one election ever to a state wide office? Obama has been elected to the Illinois State senate 3 times, and the US senate 1 times -- that's a total of 4 elections to a state wide office or better.
- Person who voted for the bridge to nowhere? This is something you fabricated in another post as well. Obama did not vote for this.
or
- Person who has been a pain in the side of corrupt officials in both parties: This same person was absent from all key votes on the Bridge to Nowhere (link). So much for being a pain in the side of corrupt officials -- he even offered Ted Stevens advice when he was being investigated for corruption!
- Person who was literally tortured for his country: It's a commendable feat, but how is this a criteria for becoming president?
- Person who opposed Rumsfeld for years before he was kicked out by the administration: Then why is he running on the same party's ticket? Because his ideology is the same.
- Person who pushed for the strategy in Iraq that has resulted in the level of violence being lower then it was pre-war: Lower than it was pre-war? Where do you get this stuff from?? And remember -- he's still running on the ticket of the party that got us into this damn war in the first place. Never forget - we are invading a foreign country here - this war was of our making, and we were *wrong* to wage it. Iraq had no involvement in 9/11. Iraq had no links to Al Quaida until we invaded it. We sent more of our troops to their deaths than the number of people we lost in 9/11. We have killed well over 100,000 Iraqi civillians and displaced over 1 million of them to refugee camps. And we spent 1 Trillion dollars on this war, when our economy is extremely weak, all the time making noise about 'small government'. That's the result of the think-tank McCain belongs to.
You are incorrect. Being primarily a figurehead in a town of 8000 people is far different than being in the Senate of one of the largest states in the country.
There is a familiarity that is developed with crafting and moving legislation, building support, representing a constituency - all things that Palin would have only learned a short while ago.
I'm not offended if you're trying - hard- to justify the choice. But use arguments that make sense, not ones that expose your ignorance.
go get it
The point isn't that Obama will attack her experience. It's that McCain can no longer attack Obama's.
As Digby once said, "conservatives are people who are in good graces with other conservatives, until they're not - then they're liberal." So every time conservatism fails, people proclaim that the conservatives in charge weren't "real" conservatives after all.
And yes, conservatism has completely and utterly failed America. Deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy and slashing social services for the sake of deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and slashing social services has been a disaster.