Northpoint - McCain is still at the top of the ticket, and the religious right dislikes him for a reason. The VP has no power per the constitution aside from breaking tie votes in Congress, so she can make the hardcore conservatives happy with her presence and bring them to the polls (you do have to win to govern), but she can't exercise any executive authority he doesnt delegate. In addition I highly doubt she's quite the religious nutbag the DNC wishes to paint her, it'd be inconsistent with a few other traits she has. A move to a smaller government would be a move to the economic right, not center. McCain is a (relative to the GOP) social liberal / economic conservative. Having less of government in our face on social issues (screw the right on that one) AND less in our pocket on financial issues would be a nice change. PREFERENCES I don't want a government that is my nanny, my religious conscience, or my social conscience. I'd like career welfare recipients that CAN work to pull their pants up, turn their hat around, get a job. I dont feel the responsible for supporting them... they werent with me when I earned the check. LIMITED social programs doesnt mean I'm heartless... it means I think I know how to spend my check better than Washingtom does and half as fast. Militarily I want someone that hates war but is capable and prepared to fight one if needed. I do not want anyone that might be an apologist or timid, I want someone that will exercise restraint and care where our troops lives are concerned but will pull the trigger if threatened. I also dont want someone that is so afraid of my guns that they think they will do harm just by existing and decides it is their job to take them away. I've never taken a life with them, but I have saved two. The guy that went to jail no doubt is now a vocal proponent of gun control. McCain is the closest one of the 4 on the slate to believing as I do.
As a non-US citizen I see the choice as worrying on two grounds. One, it appears to be a merely political call - one made on a whim. Second, I worry about the prospect of her becoming president if the worst should happen and the US loses an international relations veteran.
OK, fair enough - but you said this, respecting Palin: And, if we're talking social policy, I just don't see how. Palin was "bought" to appease the religious right, who threatened a serious schism should McCain have picked his first choices (esp. Lieberman), and to "peel" Clinton women supporters (it didn't work, from what numbers are coming in). If we're talking fiscal policy, again, I see where the perception may come from, but the actions speak differently to me. Selling an airplane on e-bay, firing the gubernatorial chef, are much like Jerry Brown's driving to work in a beat up used car, while California Guv; symbolic, but not much more. Moreover, as mentioned, she is anything but anti-earmark, as her record (as opposed to her rhetoric) shows. I don't see John McCain as a small government libertarian, in a word, any more than I considered President Reagan one. You can't say you speak for limited government, when you simply slash taxes, but balloon spending - in the case of both Ronald Reagan and John McCain, I'd say, spending on what matters to the ideological right, but spending nonetheless. Bottom line, I don't see his "balanced budget" promise to be worth the paper it's written on (any more than Obama's anymore actually), so long as he maintains the defense spending goals he's outlined for Iraq and Afghanistan. When you add in Palin, who quite conceivably may step in in the illness or death of John McCain, well - as I've pointed out numerous times, there is a fundamental disconnect between her "anti-earmark" public pronouncements and her practice as mayor ($26 million for a town of 6500) or governor, to the tune of $100's of millions yearly in continued earmarks - the highest per capita in the nation. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin have committed to overturning Roe v. Wade. Palin opposes abortion in every instance - even for a woman who was raped, and the implication is clear: a woman raped would be forced to carry the child to term, whatever the woman's wishes would be. She believes it is the state's business to declare a marriage to be between a man and a woman, only. She opposed benefits for same-sex couples, until instructed at the point of a judicial gun to abide by the high court's legal ruling. These two, to me, alone speak to her extremist positions.
nevertheless these are the choices and i do not see how mccain can put together a good administration or find enough smart people to have a trustable administration.on top of that is the fact that he relies on his gut feeling. i need to believe that the president follows a deliberate and logical path in reaching his decisions.
Obama is not a political choice in my opinion. He has been chosen as he is the best candidate in the eyes of his party. Plus I don't have a problem with Biden as Pres.
McCain & Palin economic policy is far greater than Obama's. Palin gas pipeline has created more jobs than Obama has for his state. Palin gas pipeline will spur the economy for the entire Untied States. Obama has created no job for his state much less the whole country. Obama is not qualified to be President, Vice,President or be re-elected to his own state. I guess a 2-year degree can get more accomplished than a Harvard degree. Palin is the real deal not just a public speaker. I guess the issues do not matter. You guys go ahead and cast a vote as you will. God help us all. Mr Obama Biden - "Obama Has No Experience" Clinton: McCain and I Have Experience, Obama Does Not The best speech thus far.
Thought I would update you. Crawl out of your hole and turn on a T.V. Sarah Palin and her unmarried, pregnant teen daughter is the subject of every news story from CNN, Hollywood Insider, Headline News, The View, and she will be on the cover of every women's magazine next week from US Weekly, People, Look (U.K.), Better Homes and more. (Who is the celebrity now ?} So I expect you to call each and every one of them and "red rep" them. It IS an issue. It is news. It is of concern to the whole country. Palin dragged her family in front of the national media, not me, and she is soaking up the limelight because of it. You don't decide which issues we can be concerned with and what we can't. So I thank you for red repping me when it is now news in every publication, and on every T.V. show in the country. I guess none of our mothers raised us right By the way, my stats are way up, so I guess the rest of the country is concerned as well. You stand alone.
family values it is a slap in the face of every family that have raised their children successfully and she represents a roadblock to others that need help in teaching their children about pitfalls of life. she symbolizes all the agreements for sex ed in classrooms and availability of free condoms and many other things that can help teenagers avoid unwanted pregnancy. It has to be talked about. red rep in a debate represents defeat in the debate. i got one too and i am proud of it
Obama has none. Lets look at what was accomplished by Obama-nothing. Palin created more jobs with her pipeline than Obama has created jobs in his state. Palin's Pipeline will help the economic crisis we are in. Obama has done nothing to help it. Palin is a person of action and Obama is a person of talk. I guess that shows you she has done more with her 2 year degree than Obama has with the Harvard one.
Just once I would like to see a McCain/Palin supporter give a straight answer without spewing venom over at Barack Obama. I asked a straight question, specifically about your candidate, and the first words out of your mouth were, "OBAMA...". Why can't you people just answer the question. I did not ask for a comparison of policies or your opinion. I asked what the plan was. I gave you the whole stage, yet you could not resist the back biting. Why is that? I noticed it during the convention as well. Even if you go around the internet , ABC News, CNN, and even blogs like mine. Every time there is a question about Sarah Palin, and there are many, you guys cannot answer it straight and keep the attention on yourself. Deep Down are you so nervous about your candidates that you have to continually be on the defensive ?
NP. I think you are very special. -- Northpointe - The bulk of your concerns appear to be focused on the perceived control of the GOP by the religious right. I dont share your confidence that they control the party. Neither do I suspect some of the loonies that warrant camera time really represent the views of the religious right. I'm pretty sure you wouldnt find a majority ever really wanted to pick a fight with Tinky Winkie... but maybe I only know the sensible members, who knows. Just as the Reps have been accused of trying to influence votes by fearmongering... you know..."If we dont grant a subsidy to MegaCable havent the terrorists already won?... I think the far left tries to convince everyone the GOP wants to make being a Southern Baptist mandatory. That's not addressed as an accusation towards you, just an observation from the sidelines.
As of July, 2008, Alaska unemployment at 6.9% ranks 43rd worst out of 50 states and D.C. http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm); It has increased from its 1999 low of 5.9%. (http://www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm). Beyond this, the country is not a commodities-pool, awash in oil profits for danegeld to be handed down to all. The country is in a zero-sum economic game.
It isn't the religious right, per se, that concerns me, but what they portend in terms of actual policy, that bothers me. It would be the same kind of concern I likely would have had (if I could somehow excise myself from the horrors of the Great War) had I lived under Wilson's world, something I've called here on the forum his "Messianism," a belief that rests in "mission," dogma and obstinence, against all reason and hard-earned political reality. It bodes a dangerous future, to me. In terms of whether the religious right exerts a profound effect on the party, I actually think it is pretty substantial - sorry to reprint it, if I said it in this thread, but I think Goldwater's concerns were justified - the party has been radically re-aligned, from all that I can tell, and it really has hampered whatever goals of classical conservatism the party may have once wished to achieve. Again, Goldwater: I've got a great article (not mine) on the rise of the religious right and its effect on neo-conservatism and the GOP. A scholarly, data-based approach that obviously has a viewpoint, but argues cogently. Hate doing this - talking about it, but unable to promise I can find it - but can't remember where it is buried among the mountains of my papers. I will try to dig it up and then point anyone interested to where it exists on the web. The easiest thing to look to is the choice of Palin herself. McCain wanted Lieberman, but the right threatened a convention spat, that could have turned serious, from the reports I've read. The manner in which he co-opted her in, what seems like an incredibly frenzied rush to judgement, suggests to me, anyway, he did so at the point of a gun, in effect. I wouldn't be surprised that years from now, once the dust has settled, we will learn just how strongly a pressure was exerted on him at the final hour. PS: Thanks for your post opener. My dogs think I'm O.K. too.
McCain has proposed the increase in green energy, clean coal plants, nuclear and hydro plants. This will create jobs and lower energy cost. You know that and no center stage is needed.
Wanted to add, some of what I was talking about regarding my sense of the "messianism" endemic to the religious right and its political objective, has been expressed quite well by Governor Palin herself, speaking to a class of "commission students" at her erstwhile church, the Assembly of God in Wasilla: On the pipeline built in her state, If the former pastor of Obama's church was a problem, I'd also consider this to be an unhealthy mix of religious zeal and political exhortation, delivered from the minister of this former church of Palin's: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html These are just examples. I do not want our nation's leaders to consider anything but from a cold, clear-headed appraisal of national interest, and believe the marriage of religion and politics that has attended the ascendancy of the religious right has been a bad thing, both for the GOP and for the nation.
If you dont like her two quotes you'd be dumbfounded by a lotta the content of the congressional record during the last 200 years. I dont have access to that anymore, (lotta stuff still in storage after a move) but if you get an opportunity peruse them sometime it'll be an eye opener. To someone not raised around it and reading every word literally some things in your post look wilder than they are. Kalnins quote is largely metaphor, he isnt inciting anyone to physically die for the cause. To anyone from an unrelated background it's like trying to read Beowolf in old english. I'd highly recommend almost any source but the Huffpost unless you are just looking to see what the most unashamedly skewed political reporting look like. Adriana doesnt even make a pretension about serious journalism. If you looked at my blog link up there you'll see an article I suspect she'd print if she thought she could get away with it and didnt know it was a joke. Huffpost is a half step off being the KOS blog. Shame, they have a few folks that did some nice work on the Olympics. Added: Your post basically indicates that for your personal vote you have established a religious litmus test. If we were to codify your feelings it'd be just as wrong as saying no Muslim may run for office, no Jew may serve in the military, etc. We cant construe our constitution to bar believers in the Christian faith from government service. If you are uncomfortable with the way they talk it is your vote to make, but the topic treads into a gray area where freedom of speech meets freedom of religion. If a politician said it he'd be accused of making atheism the religion of the state.