Sarah Palin ~ Unbelievable!

Cita

What about science and technology funding? Are we to assume that, based on her very conservative ideology, she is against stem cell research? Of any kind, of new lines, or...?

totally against

Cita

So, want to talk issues?

Yes, lets!    I'd feel much more comfortable electing a US Senator or Representative because at least there is an unbiased record that can be reviewed.  State level issues are not necessarily going to give you an idea of how a given person will behave on a national level.  At least with members of Senate, those records are available here, unbiased and unspun:  http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_2.htm

 I do not care, my opinion is the federal government should stay out of the issue, it should be up to the states to determine the laws regarding abortion. And do you pro "choice" people really believe that all abortion rights will be removed? It is not going to happen, even if RvW was overturned the states would set their own laws and in most cases nothing would change except maybe I would no longer have to pay for your choice. And once again, in my opinion making this one issue the central issue for your vote is irresponsible. Also McCain is on the record for stopping judges from being able to legislate government from the bench. Even liberals should be for that, because as long as the judges are on your side it is all good, but when they are not they have the ability to make radical changes to our goverment that should not be allowed. Judges are to only interpet the law, they are not supposed to make the laws or change the laws. It is high time we get them out of the legislation buisness.

dgriego

And once again, in my opinion making this one issue the central issue for your vote is irresponsible

I agree with most of your post, particularly that judges should not be "legislating."

However, if making abortion a central issue for one's vote is "irresponsible," then why is it not equally "irresponsible" that Palin is making it a central issue of her campaign? I'd be happy to put her "pro-life" feelings on the back burner if she'd talk to us about foreign policy, flesh out her feelings on Iraq and the possibility of withdrawl, explain what directions she's hoping scientific research will take in the next 4 years...

If she (and her supporters) want her detractors to get off the "family values issues," they need to give us something else to talk about. 

I just have to say that I find this whole "Bridge to Nowhere" issue hilarious considering that John McCain is now using it as a selling point for his campaign.  They must seriously underestimate the world we live in.  News is available and even if you can change wikipedia entries, you can't change the truth.  McCain's own words considering the bridge and a more coherent timeline of events:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/ 

Just last month, presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said pet projects could have played a role in a Minnesota bridge collapse that killed 13 people earlier this year.

"Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country," McCain told a group of people in a town-hall style meeting in Ankeny, Iowa.

"Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."

The funding for the bridge had already been allocated before she took office, but this whole "thanks but no thanks" is a complete lie.  It's not like she returned the money and said "Oh no, we don't need it, thanks."  They kept the bulk of it and restrictions for its use were removed so it could be used on other projects, what really killed the project was a shortfall of money to complete it.   

just a reminder that politics are HOT so think before you post, no personal attacks please and use the forum to educate and learn not argue.

This is not directed at a specific individual just a general reminder to keep it civil

Thanks

Cita

then why is it not equally "irresponsible" that Palin is making it a central issue of her campaign? I'd be happy to put her "pro-life" feelings on the back burner if she'd talk to us about foreign policy,

Central? Sorry I do not think it is a central issue. I have heard several of her speeches and I cannot see how you can possibly get that this is a central issue?  If this is a central issue of the campaign we would be hearing them speak about it at every speech, their central issues are the economy, energy and national security.

BCMixs

I'd feel much more comfortable electing a US Senator or Representative because at least there is an unbiased record that can be reviewed.

You have to go all the way back to Gerald Ford to find the most recent president that was in Congress and not a state governor.  After him, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43....all state governors.  I doubt anyone would say any of these folks were not qualified to be president simply because they were governors and not Congressmen.  Being a governor gives you executive experience...and that's a pretty darn good qualification to be president (head of the executive branch).  That's not to say that being in Congress doesn't qualify someone, because of course it does, I'm simply stating that being a state governor is just as valid a qualification.  So for the Obama campaign to say she is not qualified because she is a governor (which they are!) is utterly ridiculous.  That is a pot and kettle moment if there ever was one.  She has 13 years of executive experience, and Obama has 10 years of congressional experience (including his term in his state senate), so those seem pretty equal to me, actually.

So excited....I just ordered my McCain-Palin bumper sticker!!

BCMixs

At least with members of Senate, those records are available here, unbiased and unspun:  http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_2.htm

"Barack Obama has missed 291 votes (45.5%) during the current Congress."

 http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/missed/

http://obama.senate.gov/votes/index.cfm?start=1

on abortion issues he has not cast a vote in 3 out of 4 votes....

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

edit: "John McCain missed 733 (18%) of 4099 votes since Feb 4, 1993."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071

aerial1313

BCMixs

I'd feel much more comfortable electing a US Senator or Representative because at least there is an unbiased record that can be reviewed.

You have to go all the way back to Gerald Ford to find the most recent president that was in Congress and not a state governor.  After him, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43....all state governors.  I doubt anyone would say any of these folks were not qualified to be president simply because they were governors and not Congressmen.  Being a governor gives you executive experience...and that's a pretty darn good qualification to be president (head of the executive branch).  That's not to say that being in Congress doesn't qualify someone, because of course it does, I'm simply stating that being a state governor is just as valid a qualification.  So for the Obama campaign to say she is not qualified because she is a governor (which they are!) is utterly ridiculous.  That is a pot and kettle moment if there ever was one.  She has 13 years of executive experience, and Obama has 10 years of congressional experience (including his term in his state senate), so those seem pretty equal to me, actually.

So excited....I just ordered my McCain-Palin bumper sticker!!

Never said it wasn't a qualification, simply stated what made *me* more comfortable in deciding who I want to vote for and shared a link so others could do the same.....  

cyclefiend2000

 

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

Woah, he sure did find the time to vote yes on all those appropriations bills!!!  BCMixes is right...his spending record certainly does speak for itself and is one more tick mark in my "Vote for McCain" column!

Yeah, WTF is it with missed votes?  That's their JOB!  Campaign on your own time people, you were elected to do a job, DO IT!  That stuff steams my artichokes!  If we didn't show up for work hundreds of times, we'd be fired!

FWIW, I felt Obama's trip to Europe was presumptuous and it left a real bad taste in my mouth.  I'm not blind to either camp's faux pas. 

BCMixs

Yeah, WTF is it with missed votes?  That's their JOB!

Even the ones who aren't campaigning miss votes all the time.  It is pretty infuriating.  "Steams my artichokes", ROTFL!  That's one I haven't heard before, and I might have to use it...too funny!

dgriego

Judges are to only interpet the law, they are not supposed to make the laws or change the laws. It is high time we get them out of the legislation buisness.

I am not sure they can interpret without legislating considering that their decisions have a direct effect on the laws. However, I do agree they should not abuse their powers and apply personal opinions to their decisions.

I have no issue with Palin being so conservative. I don't agree with her opinion on most issues, but I think she probably accurately represents her state. I think she's probably a good fit as their governor. I don't, however, feel she is a good fit for our entire nation.

Putting all "talking points" aside, I make my decisions based on what the President will likely have to do in office. For the next term, there will be the war in Iraq, dealing with our distressed international relationships (with our once-allies and nations like Russia, Iran and Afghanistan), a domestic economy in need of serious attention (jobs, health care, housing, education, etc.), a military that needs to be rebuilt, possible appointment of SC judges, and more I can't think of at the moment.

No matter how you slice it, our next President is going to have a lot on their plate, and is going to have to be better than the average President. We have very little "room for error," and are in need of leadership akin to what we had during the founding of our nation, the civil war, the depression and world wars and the civil rights movement. An extraordinary leader.

I don't think that is John McCain and/or Sarah Palin. I don't know that it is Barak Obama and Joe Biden -- but, I am willing to give them a shot, because I think we have a better chance with them than the Republican ticket.

cakana

I know she's got a very high approval rating, but 90% would surprise me. Who was polled?

They didn't say who was polled. They just made the announcement, it seems high to me. They said it was the highest approval rating for any candidate, ever.

Glamour magazine has an interesting piece in their current issue about the candidates. If Palin has her way Roe v. Wade will be reversed, whether it would ever happen or not is *not* worth the risk of allowing her to get voted into office. That ALONE gives me reason to not vote for them. Next it'll be our freedom of speech. As a woman in America, I do not want someone else deciding what I can and cannot do to/with MY body. Even if her daughter had wanted to have an abortion, there is no way her mother would allow it, not as the poster child for pregnant teenage girls in America today. It would go against everything Palin stands for and her political career would be over. I was once that pregnant girl and I am thankful that I had the right to choose.

P.S. This is not pettiness, it's reality. The future of our country hangs in the balance. I have a daughter in the military.....do you????????????????????????