Sarah Palin ~ Unbelievable!

ron2

The whole point of your statement was to devalue what I was trying to say about my co-worker's opinion and how strong a situation this is to break away from his regular voting habit. Because he or I dare to support Palin.

I don't want to devalue anyone's vote.  However, my diehard Republican friend voting for Obama is just as remarkable as your diehard Democratic friend voting for McCain. 

Neither your friend or mine is unique.  This election has a lot of people worked up.  Some are registering to vote for the first time.  Some are switching parties to their own ABSOLUTE astonishment - like your friend and like mine.  Some are sticking with their regular party. 

The thing that hasn't changed is that the winner will be the one who gets the most electorial votes. 

ron2

You had just finished saying that one cross-over vote is meaningless in predicting election results. That is still saying, imo, that his vote is meaningless.

IMO, "meaningless in predicting (i.e. guessing) voting results" is definitely NOT the same as "meaningless in forming (i.e. being part of the count) voting results".  Your equating the two mystifies me. 

Now if I met a person who had voted for the winner in each of the last 15 elections, I might consider that person's voting intent to be predictive.  Do you know anyone with that qualification?  I don't. 

Hmmmm.  I haven't been on the winning side for a few elections.  Maybe I ought to vote for McCain and insure an O'Bama victory....

glenmar

Hmmmm.  I haven't been on the winning side for a few elections.  Maybe I ought to vote for McCain and insure an O'Bama victory....

LOL...

Please don't.

:)

Well, geeze, I voted for the last two "loosers", and I didn't even like the the catsup king, Kerry, but I disliked him a lot less than I liked W.....Who else?? I think my track record of picking winners kinda sucks. But, no, I couldn't bring myself to cast my ballot for that particular combo. I mean, my gosh! Even I know what the Bush initative is and I'm not running for nuthin! And I'm sooooo non-political it ain't funny. And I'm sorry, but being CIC of the Alaska National Guard and a "neighbor" of Russia qualifies ANYONE to be POTUS? I'm living not ten feet from my neighbor, and all I know about her is her first name, that's shes obsessive about her lawn and yard, and that she rotates 3 boyfriends and that the one with the BIG truck drinks way to much and starts really loud fights that usually end with the sound of stuff being thrown and smashed. Heck, for all I know, she could be a closet member of the MI Militia. So being able to SEE Russia from "one of the islands" doesn't mean a heck of a lot.

Cita

So, contrary to what I originally thought, it's not like Palin was like, "Hey Congress, can I have some money for a bridge? Okay, thanks! Yeah, I'm not really going to build that bridge after all, but thanks for the money!"

 

 

True, according to factcheck.org she didn't say "no thanks" to congress because the bridge was already a dead deal by the time she took office. It was a moot point. And while she was campaigning, she WAS for the bridge and then flip flopped on the issue. But the whole point of her mentioning being opposed to the bridge to nowhere is that it's supposed to show that she's against earmarks. Except that she's not, she kept the money it and spent it, just not on the bridge.

Even though I could predict that in the future, if Palin ran for Pres, she would probably win, that's still a way off. VP does not get to run the world. But, like Gore, she can help influence public policy, write legislation, lend support when possible, and certainly fullfill diplomatic obligations. And, of course, be available in the line of succession if McCain should expire while in office.

And, if not elected, Obama will have another chance 4 years later, with more experience to boot, and questions resolved at this time that won't be an issue later.

Bush Jr's weakness is that, even though he was in the Texas Natl Guard, he didnt get the same experience as his father. But I had said before that if he was half the man his father is, he would make a decent president. And I have been proven right, imo. Not that serving in the military makes a good pres. Reagan didn't serve in combat and his work did help bring down the Berlin Wall. By that definition, Obama could have a chance. But Reagan was different. He was a kick butt and take names kind of guy.

Bush Jr has done things I don't like. Such as, when he wanted to extend operation contracts to the Sultan of Dubai for major US ports.

Anyway, see you at the polls.

 

You know, it's interesting about the crossover voters. I don't know of ANY Democrats that are going to vote for McCain. But I know of several people who are solid Republicans, who have never voted for a candidate who was NOT a Republican, that are voting for Obama. Maybe it depends on where you live, but here, it seems like people who are not voting along their usual party lines are crossing over to vote Democratic rather than the other way around.

 A few people mentioned the negative ads and mudslinging. If you're interested in knowing what's true, what's distorted, and what's completely fabricated, two good non-biased, non-partisan sites are www.factcheck.org and www.politifact.com.

 Factcheck's report on Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment:

McCain ad, “Lipstick”

[Title: Sarah Palin on: Sarah Palin]

Palin: Do you know they say, the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.

[Title: Barack Obama on: Sarah Palin]

Obama: But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

[Title: Katie Couric on: This election]

Couric: One of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life.

[Title: Ready to lead? No. Ready to smear? Yes.]

Let’s start with what the ad gets right. It does seem to be true that Republican v.p. candidate Sarah Palin wears lipstick. And it’s true that she mentioned this particular cosmetic choice at the convention, when she joked that lipstick is the only difference between a hockey mom and pit bull, as the ad shows before it goes completely off the rails. If this were a CoverGirl commercial, we’d be all set.

But it’s not; it’s a political ad. And it goes on to imply that Obama made a personal dig at Palin, calling her a “pig,” and that commentators decried his sexism for derailing the campaign. This is bunk. Let’s look at what Obama actually said at a campaign rally in Virginia:

Obama, Sept. 9: John McCain says he’s about change too. And so I guess his whole angle is, watch out, George Bush — except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics, we’re really going to shake things up in Washington. That’s not change. That’s just calling some, the same thing something different. You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

Here’s what the McCain campaign heard, according to ABC News’ Jake Tapper:

Tapper, Sept. 10: Asked why she was so confident Obama was “comparing” Palin to a pig, [former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift, on behalf of the McCain campaign,] said Palin was the only one of the four candidates on both parties’ tickets who wears lipstick.

“She is the only one of the four candidates for president or the only vice presidential candidate who wears lipstick,” Swift said. “I mean it seemed to me a very gendered comment.”

But, Swift added, if “as part of his apology Senator Obama wants to say no he was calling Senator McCain — who is a true hero in our country a pig — then I suppose we could wait en masse for an apology to that as well.”

For starters, Swift is ignoring the fact that “putting lipstick on a pig” is a hoary old expression of the same caliber as “building a better mousetrap” or “letting the cat out of the bag.” We did a quick Nexis search on uses of the expression before Tuesday, and found 2,290 instances dating back to 1985 (which is as far back as most Nexis news goes). Its meaning is precisely what Obama was talking about in his speech: calling the same thing something different. Context for the phrase in the last two decades ranged from health care to taxes to fashion to business to, uh, pig racing. It has tumbled from the lips of sports commissioners, librarians and company spokesmen, but it’s particularly popular with politicians. (Congressional newspaper The Hill even featured the phrase in its “Congress Speak” column.) It’s been spotted as far away as New Zealand. It’s even the title of a book by former McCain press aide Torie Clarke.

As several people (including Tapper, Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, Ben Smith at Politico, the Obama campaign and some of our readers) have pointed out, John McCain employed the phrase in 2007, in talking about Hillary Clinton’s health care plan: “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” Oh, and he also said it about Iraq war strategy – if it’s really a personal smear, it’s not clear who’s wearing the lipstick in that example. Obama has used the expression before, too (also in referring to Iraq strategy). But before either McCain or Obama speculated on porcine cosmetics, members of Congress from Rick Santorum to Ted Kennedy had been talking pig lips for years.

If the McCain campaign wants to get literal, ignoring the expression’s long political pedigree, they could go whole hog (as it were) and look at what Obama actually said. He is talking about John McCain’s policies, not about his running mate. “Barack Obama on Sarah Palin”? Not at all.

And “Katie Couric on this election”? Well, it depends on what your definition of “this” is. Couric was referring to the Hillary Clinton campaign, long before Palin was tapped for v.p. Hey, remember when McCain called Clinton’s health plan “lipstick on a pig”?

 

So, the camps heard each other. But Palin did not, as I can see, respond to the Obama comment. Nor did McCain, specifically. Could Obama have some something different that meant something similar?. "A rose, by any other name, would still smell as sweet..." "6 one way, half a dozen the other way..."

Down here, we have an expression for blind luck. "Even a blind hog finds an acorn, once in a while." If I use that expression toward either camp that wins, does that mean I am comparing them to hogs? No. Do members of each camp get a little carried away? I could imagine such.

As for the bit about not knowing any Dems that are voting republican. As you said, maybe it's just where you live. And it could be regional. I wasn't going to mention my other friend and former co-worker, David, also friends with both John and me, who is also a staunch Dem desiring to vote Republican. It's just as well. David, John, and I used to get into some interesting political debates, with me being the lone conservative. Though, many times, our values could cross, we just differed on who best to lead us to the things desired.

I did tell John how "meaningless" his one vote is in predicting election results, per a statement posted here. I'm not sure it's possible for him to care less. We were also quite busy, so it's not like we could spend an hour amusing ourselves over it. I think he thinks I'm a bit dog crazy for going to a dog forum to express my dog fancy. He may be right, once again.

 

Cassidys Mom

I don't know of ANY Democrats that are going to vote for McCain.

My boss is a Democrat and just mentioned this week that he thinks he's going to vote for McCain. His biggest concern is Obama's lack of experience. I was extremely surprised and he's certainly not indicative of a trend, but just thought I'd mention it.

 

cakana

My boss is a Democrat and just mentioned this week that he thinks he's going to vote for McCain. His biggest concern is Obama's lack of experience. I was extremely surprised and he's certainly not indicative of a trend, but just thought I'd mention it.

And it's worth mentioning, even if it turns out to not be a trend. Each person must vote because they believe their vote, cross-over or not, makes a difference. If people actually believed their votes were statistically insignificant, what would be the use of voting?

I will always vote, no matter how statistically insignificant I am. For one thing, I inherited stubbornness from my mother. We could give "stubborn" lessons to mules. And, many people close to me have fought for the freedoms of our country and I will value and uphold that legacy each and every time I vote.

 

It's funny, in my area I haven't been able to find anyone who is not afraid of the Republican ticket.  With the exception of my sis and her hubby but then they are staunch W supporters because "he's such a devout man".  Whatever.

Now, perhaps because I'm in Michigan...remember us?  We've BEEN in a recession for a number of years....maybe we're more ready than the rest of the nation for a drastic change.  While the national average for gas is $3.73 per gallon, here it is $4.19.  Surviving in MI is tough.  So many families have lost their homes, so many children are homeless and hungry and the wonderful, giving folks, organizations and Churches who try to help, are running on empty because they are all faced with rising prices of everything as well.

But, Sis aside, I've not talked to ANYONE who is thrilled with Sara as the VP pick or ready to vote republican this time around.

 

janet_rose

ron2

I don't think Palin has the pull or power to overturn Roe vs Wade, which survived may administrations since 1973. Including candidates vocally against it.

Palin as vice president, no.  McCain as president, yes.  The key is the judges on the Supreme Court.

The Republicans have already moved the Court away from full support of Roe vs Wade.  A couple of more judges and who knows?? 

The anti-choice movement is counting on the Supreme Court reversing itself.  They have been working toward that since 1973.

 

Bingo.  But, that is not the only issue, IMO.  The real deal is that such a court would also be very inclined to interpret other constitutional issues in a manner that slants toward the religious right's interpretation, rather than a truly objective legal one.  No offense to any members of the RR here, but your views should remain your views, and not be forced onto the rest of the country.  Let's see - who forces religious issues onto the public?  Taliban? Muslim extremists?  Do we want to emulate that conduct by legislating it or artificially tipping the court one way or another?  I'm for appointing good legal scholars who have no particular ax to grind.  But, given that Presidents usually choose justices aligned with their own causes, I vote for balance, not McCain/Palin.  With Obama, at least I know that the rights already guaranteed me under the Constitution are a bit safer just because the balance will shift again toward the middle.

Plus, I can't get Black Mesa or the wolves out of my head...

But she did take on big oil in Alaska and the "good ole boy" network up there. And I think she can and will do more, if possible. Neither McCain or Obama understand energy like she does. To be honest, I didn't have much faith in McCain until he brought her on board because I couldn't seen anything that showed he knew what to do about energy.

Trust me, if we don't get the fuel and energy costs down to a managable level, we will go bankrupt and will have significantly greater problems than whether or not she told fellow members of her church while she was in that church that she felt our soldiers were doing God's work by freeing people from a sadistic tyrant, as if that was a bad thing.

The recession in MI is due in large part to car manufacturers following Clinton's union-breaker, NAFTA. Did you know that Dodge Super Duty size pick-up trucks are made in Mexico? Labor is a 1/3 to cost of UAW labor. Being allowed to do that might save some car companies, and provide jobs elsewhere, even in Mexico, but it's at the cost of your state ecoomy. And I don't think the gov or the companies are going to undo that one. Which means, some people might have to seek better opportunities elsewhere.

She faces off to energy companies like a dog. Face forward, tail up, no retreat, no surrender.

The US has long been enforcing one religious view. Our money says "In God We Trust."

The superior courts that decide Roe v Wade is legit open with the prayer "God save this court and this land".

The inaugural oath of President, regardless of president's religion ends with "so help me God" with the president's hand on the Holy Bible.

I wonder how muslims view abortion.

Should we change the oath to "Salom Allah qum"? And swear on the Koran, even though we are infidels? How about the fed gov not allowing native americans their peyote ceremony?

ron2

The US has long been enforcing one religious view. Our money says "In God We Trust."

While this started appearing on coins during the Civil war (with interruptions on some denominations until 1938), it only appeared on bills in 1957.

ron2

The inaugural oath of President, regardless of president's religion ends with "so help me God" with the president's hand on the Holy Bible.

This wording is not required by the Constitution; adding it is a decision of the president taking the oath and has been commonly done by all presidents since FDR oath-taking (there seems to be some controversy and lack of evidence regarding its use by earlier presidents). Putting a hand on the Bible is not required either; Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible in 1901, neither did John Quincy Adam or Lyndon B. Johnson. Since the use of the phrase and or a Bible are personal choices, any president to come could decide to do without them.

ron2

I wonder how muslims view abortion.

 Do not wonder any more; see here or here . Islam having many variations, there are several positions on this . 

ron2

Should we change the oath to "Salom Allah qum"? 

I  wish they would use only the required Constitutional wording  ("I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.";)  which should be acceptable to all citizens regardless of their personal ideas on religious matters.

It seems to me that most of the add-ons referring to God have appeared in times of war, fear or uncertainty about the future. In God we Trust on all the the coins- 1938 and on all bills - 1957. Under God in the pledge - 1954.