• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * - 6 votes

The Palin Phactor


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 26 October 2008 - 02:14 PM


Look, whether you love her or hate her there is no question that the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate can be seen as controversial at best or simply disastrous at worst. There has been no single less divisive decision for Republicans in many years and she is cited as the main reason many more socially liberal and educated Republicans from Maine to California are running away from this years party candidate. My fellow Republicans can whine all they want that that this is just not so (Joe) but denial won't change the fact.

So how about we examine a few of the reasons she was chosen and what the realistic result of that choice might be.

In fact for those of you brave enough to go on record here we can have a little fun by making predictions and then after the election reexamining them with an eye to resolving the issues further. I do know that Jon Stewart is on record as calling her nomination a "Gift from God" but he is obviously referring to her impact on his and other comedic viewer ratings, which have been another Palin Phenom Phactor of worthy note.

Her choice is now precipitating a divisive battle within both the Republican campaign and also within the party as a whole. Membership in the Republican party is dropping fast. The membership is abandoning it in droves in many states as voters redefine themselves as alternatives from Libertarian to Independent and even Democrat. In some northeast states the size of the rolls of registered Republicans is actually approaching those of third parties. Many, many, many cite the Palin factor so what is that?

Why did McCain choose Palin?

Here is an article on the infighting BTW.

Palin allies report rising campaign tension

Before going into the more obvious issues there is one question I want to highlight: Why Palin and not Rice?

A long time ago I went on record suggesting that if McCain wanted to win this election he should pick Condie. Like her or hate her, there is no denying her competence and experience. She has emerged somewhat unscathed as one of the best of a bad administration. So why not Condie?

The first reason is logical, McCain wanted to distance himself from Bush and Bush policy so he couldn't bring her on board despite her ability to legitimately attract women and black voters.

The second reason is also a fact but in the world of politics should be taken with more than a grain of salt, she is on record saying she did not want to be nominated.

The third reason is more subtle and the subject more of rumor than discernible fact but it highlights a flawed decision making process that fits the picture even if false but disastrous if at all true.

Supposedly there is an ugly rumor among religious conservatives that Condie Rice is a lesbian. If so, so what but apparently she isn't, so why not let the left make this issue and demonstrate its irrelevance on both counts? If not true then she deserves to be supported by the extreme right wing, if true then she deserves to be supported by the larger middle of the party and nation as a whole, more importantly McCain then earns his credentials as a moderate.

Well it seems the former POW is lacking the political courage to buck the trends within his party. The vociferous religious far right has dominated party thinking for decades since they coalesced into being under Reagan, rejected daddy Bush and then marched into DC with the *son*. Ironically they only comprise at best a quarter of the party and probably closer to 15% but they do get out the vote, they do work the community and they do contribute so they are a voice to recon with even if they are pretty far away from the Party of Lincoln in principle.

You see if she was denied the nomination based on nothing but rumor and innuendo then this says a lot about why the McCain campaign is falling apart and why pandering to the right is a failed political strategy whose time has come and gone. Just another dead horse of history that should be pitied not kicked, but at the very least, pulled from the road of progress. It is past time Republicans pulled their heads out of the dark place that the religious right took them.

Now to give McCain his due, his willingness to pander to the extreme right wing of the party is not without reason since it was they that hurt him in 2000 and 2004 but it also demonstrates again how he is out of touch with the times because that side of the party has lost favor both within and without of the party. It is time to remind Republicans of their origins and the principles upon which the party was founded before it became a refuge for racist Yellow Dog Democrats running from desegregation.

This was the party of Lincoln that guided this nation though a Civil War to preserve the Union, end slavery, and uphold the right of every citizen to vote.

This was the party of Teddy Roosevelt that brought us AntiTrust legislation to end monopoly strangulation on the markets and regulate abuses by the banking industry of its day, not to mention make official the responsibility of government for the conservation of the environment, internationalism and even the imposition of income taxes to guess what, distribute the wealth by asking those that profited most from our system to give back in the form of social responsibility.

Yes, once upon a time being Republican stood for the defense of freedom for all, the right to vote, stewardship over the environment, internationalism, and social responsibility but that is a history that can only be reclaimed by a return to the middle from the extremes to which the party has wandered; religious intolerance, isolationism, racial, and ethnic bigotry. To be fair isolationism is inherited from the pre-WWI, Henry Cabot Lodge Republicans that drove Teddy from the party and moved it to isolationism, and elitist corporatism. However it was not so long ago that it was the party of Eisenhower, who ushered in the modern post WWII era of international markets, drew the battle lines for the Cold War that others would come to claim victory for, and warned the nation of the risks of unchecked abuse of power by the military industrial complex and the threat to democracy that they and such wealthy secretive lobbying interests represented.

OK back to Palin, she is more than a liability to my mind and those that blame her for what is about to happen at the polls are right, she is frightening many in the middle and they are turning away from the party to the point they are willing to vote for a third party option in many local elections, even as many *official* Republican candidates are distancing themselves as far from the Presidential nominee and his running mate as they can.

BTW I am a Republican and I did not desert the party even when I had to bury my head in shame and vote against it many times of late. I stay because I remember that some of my greatest political heroes are Republicans, like the ones I have mentioned and more, the Federalists of Adams and Madison who formed the foundation of the party. The Republicans came from the northern Whigs, who evolved from the Federalists. It is no small irony then how out of touch with their own history the current party leaders are because they should really go create a different party if they believe much of what they say but the usurpation of the core party principles that began during the reconstruction period and was consolidated in the pre and post WWI period may finally be coming to an end.

So again why Palin?

She highlights all that is wrong with this picture of a party today and her very presence near the top of the ticket has made it necessary for the entire party to reexamine its core principles. I sincerely hope it reawakens a sense of history and a recognition for how far from core values of it stands. The Republican party has deviated significantly in its unbridled and unprincipled quest for power and wealth similarly to how Greenspan laments that he thought rational self interest would prevent the abuse of markets that lead to our current fiscal debacle.

Once upon a time in history the northern Whigs recast themselves as Republicans, but first many southern ones joined with Democrats that had abandoned their party over fear of immigration and they called themselves the *Know Nothing Party*. No small irony there ehh?

Know nothing Party Platform:

The platform of the American Party called for, among other things:

* Severe limits on immigration, especially from Catholic countries
* Restricting political office to native-born Americans
* Mandating a wait of 21 years before an immigrant could gain citizenship
* Restricting public school teachers to Protestants
* Mandating daily Bible readings in public schools
* Restricting the sale of liquor


When Kristol, and Buckley, and Powell, and even many newspapers that traditionally endorsed Republicans have abandon the Republican Party ticket perhaps it is time for a bit of introspection and review of what Kristol wrote when he said modern Republicans risk turning themselves into a modern version of the Know Nothings. The choice of Palin, more than any other single thing, highlights that trend. Many of these papers have cited Palin as a significant factor for endorsing Obama. And before some of you start in with the "liberal press bias" I suggest you review the history.

Newspaper Endorsements for President Since 1940 Show Wide GOP Edge

#2 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 26 October 2008 - 03:47 PM

When Kristol, and Buckley, and Powell, and even many newspapers that traditionally endorsed Republicans have abandon the Republican Party ticket perhaps it is time for a bit of introspection and review of what Kristol wrote when he said modern Republicans risk turning themselves into a modern version of the Know Nothings. The choice of Palin, more than any other single thing, highlights that trend. Many of these papers have cited Palin as a significant factor for endorsing Obama. And before some of you start in with the "liberal press bias" I suggest you review the history.

Newspaper Endorsements for President Since 1940 Show Wide GOP Edge

You mentioned Kristol, Buckley, and Powell. Actually Kristol is the odd man out, he is a completely different beast from the others and doesn't fit your
narrative of what a true conservative aught to be. Kristol would like to see McCain win by any means and only regrets that his team didn't
go dirty enough. Kristol knows that McCain team is loaded with neocons like himself and will push McCain in that direction. It doesn't seem
that Kristol is bothered in the least by Palin being in the ticket.

The US and the World situation now is being compared to the great depression. We know how FDR was up to the job of confronting that
perilous situation. The Democrat FDR's idol was his mainly Republican cousin Teddy. I would think that if they were elected today either one
would try to solve the crisis in a similar way. So in time of crisis the label Democrat or Republican becomes secondary. The most important
thing is the right approach.
Both Teddy and FDR had the flexibility, temperament, intellect and courage to do the right thing.
Of the people running today the only one who hopefully could fit that bill is Obama.

As far as Palin, the day we learned she was chosen I posted that McCain handed the electorate the ultimate IQ test. A few days later I touched
upon the difference between the Biden and Palin nominations. At his age I don't think that Biden will run in 2016. Biden wasn't chosen as
a future leader of the party. He'll be there to give advice in foreign and other affairs, meet with foreign rulers, go to funerals, etc.
Being 44 and the darling of a segment of the party, Palin was nominated not only as a VP candidate, but also as the future leader of the party.
If Palin does become the leader of the party then the extreme right and the fundamental Christians wont just be influential. They'll be
completely controlling the party. Another case of the tail wagging the
dog.

#3 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 26 October 2008 - 04:16 PM

Actually Kristol wrote an admonition to Republicans back in 2006 that warns of becoming the know nothings due to its anti-immigration policy and *populism* based on religious fanaticism. That was the prime reason for my inclusion of him but you are correct he lacks the political courage and consistency to pursue that logic to its conclusion.

http://www.dailykos....6/66/710/622713

http://www.citizenor...of-the-day.html

So please remove him from the confusing inclusion and cite The Anchorage Daily News or the Miami Herald.

http://blogs.wsj.com...endorses-obama/

http://online.wsj.co...2010466443.html

the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, William Weld

and the present Republican Governor of Minnesota, Arne Carlson

http://www.digitaljo.../article/261577

Democrats can only hope Palin becomes the head of the GOP because if that happens they will most certainly go the way of the Whigs.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 26 October 2008 - 05:10 PM

It seems Newsweek agrees with you Inawe about the Palin rise to power and the party move to the right.

The Palin Problem

But I still think that will be disastrous for the party as a whole. It might however be the way to finally build a three party system though I don't feel the party heads would be dumb enough to fall into this trap. However like H.L Menken and P.T Barnum said: "You will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the public."

#5 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 26 October 2008 - 05:25 PM

Also by the time this is all over it may be that the only she stays out of jail is to pull a Cheney.

Bidding process for Palin's pipeline was flawed

You know one of the reasons that impeachment was a good idea is that there was no possible Presidential Pardon from impeachment. However if successful criminal charges are brought against various members of this administration after they leave office then their pleas for sympathy from a hostile administration and electorate might just fall on deaf ears anyway. Palin won't even be able to hide behind Executive Privilege unless elected first.

#6 Iam Empathy

  • Guest
  • 429 posts
  • 1

Posted 26 October 2008 - 05:46 PM

Sarah Palin's hometown paper endorses Barack Obama
Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2008

http://www.mcclatchy...tory/54781.html

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.



#7 Iam Empathy

  • Guest
  • 429 posts
  • 1

Posted 26 October 2008 - 05:48 PM

It only gets more bizarre...

RNC paid $900 for a spray-on tan for Sarah Palin, too.
October 24th, 2008

http://www.eisenstad...arah-palin-too/

Thorp was paid $900 plus expenses to come into town for the job. How did Tracy get the job? My guess is that she’s pals with Angela Lew, Palin’s hair stylist who lives in Thousand Oaks, California, and works at a salon called The Hair Grove in Westlake Village - all just a few miles or so from where Tracy lives (and literally walking distance from Westlake High School, where according to her MySpace page, Tracy graduated). The Times reports that Cindy McCain gets her hair done at the Hair Grove, too, so maybe Tracy was there to do a touchup on Cindy, too?

In any case, I’ll take dibs on the inevitable puns: Sarah was “Palin’ comparison” before she had the tan.



#8 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 26 October 2008 - 08:52 PM

It only gets more bizarre...

RNC paid $900 for a spray-on tan for Sarah Palin, too.
October 24th, 2008

http://www.eisenstad...arah-palin-too/

Thorp was paid $900 plus expenses to come into town for the job. How did Tracy get the job? My guess is that she’s pals with Angela Lew, Palin’s hair stylist who lives in Thousand Oaks, California, and works at a salon called The Hair Grove in Westlake Village - all just a few miles or so from where Tracy lives (and literally walking distance from Westlake High School, where according to her MySpace page, Tracy graduated). The Times reports that Cindy McCain gets her hair done at the Hair Grove, too, so maybe Tracy was there to do a touchup on Cindy, too?

In any case, I’ll take dibs on the inevitable puns: Sarah was “Palin’ comparison” before she had the tan.



Talk about not focusing on the issues. Can one really put much credit into a $900 spray-on tan than into the world economic crisis we are facing right now? Wasn't it the Obama campaign criticizing the McCain Campaign because they were making attacks on Obama and Biden instead of focusing on the issues WHICH ACTUALLY MATTERED?

Give me a break people. This gossip is outlandish, especially since Palin's so-called $900 tan has nothing to do for John and Martha being able to pay their mortgage. I wonder how much it cost the Obama campaign for Obama's new Presidential Seal??? LOL

#9 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 27 October 2008 - 03:35 AM

Talk about not focusing on the issues. Can one really put much credit into a $900 spray-on tan than into the world economic crisis we are facing right now? Wasn't it the Obama campaign criticizing the McCain Campaign because they were making attacks on Obama and Biden instead of focusing on the issues WHICH ACTUALLY MATTERED?

Give me a break people. This gossip is outlandish, especially since Palin's so-called $900 tan has nothing to do for John and Martha being able to pay their mortgage. I wonder how much it cost the Obama campaign for Obama's new Presidential Seal??? LOL

Clinton's Haircut
John Edwards' Haircut
Obama's Lapel Pin

IOKIYR (It's OK if You're Republican)

#10 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 27 October 2008 - 03:37 PM

Obama's Lapel Pin



I can't believe you put that one in there. Wow!

#11 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 27 October 2008 - 05:55 PM

there is no question that the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate can be seen as controversial at best or simply disastrous at worst

This is completely absurd.

Let's talk about Barack Obama being "disastrous" at best...

#12 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 27 October 2008 - 08:46 PM

Another interesting analysis on the subject.

http://www.nytimes.c...amp;oref=slogin

On the Campaign
Second-Guessing the Vice-Presidential Pick

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: October 27, 2008

Last week, Tom Ridge, the former Pennsylvania governor, said that Senator John McCain might now be on the verge of winning Pennsylvania — the mainly Democratic state where Mr. McCain is investing considerable time and energy in these final days of his presidential campaign — had he chosen Mr. Ridge as his running mate.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the senator from South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest friends and advisers, has in recent days been quite direct in saying that he counseled Mr. McCain to choose Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut for the second spot. Mr. Lieberman, he said, would have been a breakthrough choice, winning Mr. McCain plaudits and support from independent voters who are weary of partisanship.

Mr. McCain may still win the election. Still, anticipating that he will fall short, the pre-postmortems have already begun, both inside and outside his campaign headquarters. And without question, the biggest one is whether he would have been in a better position today had he not chosen Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running-mate.

The answer, in the view of many Republicans and Democrats, is almost certainly yes.

In choosing Ms. Palin, Mr. McCain and his advisers set aside the traditional criteria for picking a running-mate — such as choosing someone who could deliver a battleground state — in favor of selecting someone who could upend the story line of the campaign. The idea was that Mr. McCain could benefit on several fronts:

¶Ms. Palin’s reformer credentials would buttress his own, and strengthen his ability to run against Washington, which potentially would appeal to moderate and independent voters.

¶Her views on social issues would help mend Mr. McCain’s strained relations with conservatives.

¶And as a woman, she would give Mr. McCain a chance to compete for women voters who had supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and were upset at how she was treated by Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Now, a week before the election, it seems that only one of those predictions has come true, that Ms. Palin would help Mr. McCain with conservatives.

Fergus Cullen, the Republican chairman of New Hampshire, said he considered her a good pick, all things considered, arguing that she “energizes new and different people.” She still draws huge enthusiastic crowds as she campaigns in Republican areas.

But polls, most recently one conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News, underline the extent to which her standing in the public eye has declined during the campaign — particularly among women and independent voters, the very groups Mr. McCain hoped she would help him with. More than that, there has been a steady increase in the number of people who say she is unqualified to be president, and even some conservative commentators now criticize Mr. McCain’s judgment in choosing her.

Meanwhile, the initial hesitation voiced by the small group who were skeptical — who thought that Ms. Palin was an unknown quantity, largely unvetted, who had the decided disadvantage of never having gone through anything like a national campaign before — has been borne out in this campaign, most recently over the disclosure that the Republican National Committee had spent $150,000 on clothes and accessories for Ms. Palin and her family. There is clearly tension between the McCain and Palin camps over how she has handled herself, and how the McCain campaign has handled her.

What Mr. Ridge said about how Mr. McCain would have fared in Pennsylvania with him on the ticket might have been impolitic or self-serving; but it is hardly a revolutionary view, and it is shared by, among others, some of Mr. Obama’s top advisers. The race would be very different today if Mr. McCain had Pennsylvania in his column and not the Democrats’.

The argument against selecting Mr. Ridge was that, because he supports abortion rights, he would have further damaged Mr. McCain’s standing with conservatives. But given the stark differences between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama and the looming prospect of a Democratic sweep in Washington, some Republicans wonder whether conservatives really would have sat out the election just because Mr. McCain’s running mate was a moderate on social issues. Mr. McCain might have been able to portray such a choice as a sign of political independence, and Mr. Ridge’s views on abortion might have won Mr. McCain the hearing from Clinton supporters that the Palin pick once promised.

Mr. McCain also passed over Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts who has strong family ties to Michigan, where his father was a long-serving governor. Republicans in Michigan believe that Mr. McCain would not have had to concede Michigan, another Democratic state he once hoped to carry, had the ticket been McCain-Romney.

“I think Romney would have helped in Michigan, Nevada and Colorado, maybe even New Hampshire,” said Saul Anuzis, the Republican state chairman in Michigan.

Mr. Anuzis said that he liked Ms. Palin as a selection, but Mr. Romney would have been better for his state and a few others.

Beyond that, Mr. Romney’s associates argue that his business background would have given Mr. McCain’s ticket some economic ballast that would have been helpful when the financial crisis and its economic aftershocks reshaped the race. Mr. McCain might well be in a stronger position today in Minnesota — yet another state Republicans once hoped to take back from the Democratic ticket — had he chosen its governor, Tim Pawlenty, as his running mate. And associates of Charlie Crist, the governor of Florida, argue that Mr. McCain would not be worrying about that flank had he put Mr. Crist on the ticket.

All of this, of course, is second-guessing, which Mr. McCain and his party can do at leisure after Nov. 4 if indeed he loses the race.

“There may be plenty of time for dissection later, and there are too many R’s doing that now,” said Mr. Cullen, the New Hampshire party chairman.

He put himself in the camp, not of questioning Ms. Palin’s selection, but “of those who question how the McCain team handled Palin after the convention, allowing her public image to get defined by others in a way that may prove permanent, possibly destroying a promising national political figure in vitro.”

Still, if nothing else, Ms. Palin does seem poised to do one thing for Mr. McCain: Deliver him the very Republican state of Alaska, and all three of its Electoral College votes.



#13 Iam Empathy

  • Guest
  • 429 posts
  • 1

Posted 29 October 2008 - 05:11 AM

The Insiders: How John McCain came to pick Sarah Palin. (She courted courting conservative pundits on cruise vacations)

http://www.newyorker...currentPage=all

by Jane Mayer
October 27, 2008

Here’s a little news flash,” Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska and the Republican candidate for Vice-President, announced in September, during her début at the Party’s Convention, in St. Paul. “I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly these past few days that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington élite then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.” But, she added, “I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion.”

In subsequent speeches, Palin has cast herself as an antidote to the élitist culture inside the Beltway. “I’m certainly a Washington outsider, and I’m proud of that, because I think that that is what we need,” she recently told Fox News. During her first interview as John McCain’s running mate, with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, Palin was asked about her lack of experience in foreign policy. She replied, “We’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual, and somebody’s big fat résumé, maybe, that shows decades and decades in the Washington establishment . . . Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing, and kind of that closed-door, good-ol’-boy network that has been the Washington élite.”

Palin’s sudden rise to prominence, however, owes more to members of the Washington élite than her rhetoric has suggested. Paulette Simpson, the head of the Alaska Federation of Republican Women, who has known Palin since 2002, said, “From the beginning, she’s been underestimated. She’s very smart. She’s ambitious.” John Bitney, a top policy adviser on Palin’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign, said, “Sarah’s very conscientious about crafting the story of Sarah. She’s all about the hockey mom and Mrs. Palin Goes to Washington—the anti-politician politician.” Bitney is from Wasilla, Palin’s home town, and has known her since junior high school, where they both played in the band. He considers Palin a friend, even though after becoming governor, in December, 2006, she dismissed him. He is now the chief of staff to the speaker of the Alaska House.

Upon being elected governor, Palin began developing relationships with Washington insiders, who later championed the idea of putting her on the 2008 ticket. “There’s some political opportunism on her part,” Bitney said. For years, “she’s had D.C. in mind.” He added, “She’s not interested in being on the junior-varsity team.”

During her gubernatorial campaign, Bitney said, he began predicting to Palin that she would make the short list of Republican Vice-Presidential prospects. “She had the biography, I told her, to be a contender,” he recalled. At first, Palin only laughed. But within a few months of being sworn in she and others in her circle noticed that a blogger named Adam Brickley had started a movement to draft her as Vice-President. Palin also learned that a number of prominent conservative pundits would soon be passing through Juneau, on cruises sponsored by right-leaning political magazines. She invited these insiders to the governor’s mansion, and even led some of them on a helicopter tour.

Throughout the campaign, Palin has mocked what she calls “the mainstream media.” Yet her administration made a concerted effort to attract the attention of East Coast publications. In late 2007, the state hired a public-relations firm with strong East Coast connections, which began promoting Palin and a natural-gas pipeline that she was backing in Alaska. The contract was for thirty-seven thousand dollars. The publicist on the project, Marcia Brier, the head of MCB Communications, in Needham, Massachusetts, was asked to approach media outlets in Washington and New York, according to the Washington Post. “I believe Alaska has a very small press organization,” Brier told me. “They hired an outside consultant in order to get that East Coast press.” Brier crafted a campaign depicting Palin as bravely taking on powerful oil interests by choosing a Canadian firm, TransCanada, rather than an American conglomerate such as ExxonMobil, to build the pipeline. (“Big Oil Under Siege” was the title of a typical press release.) Brier pitched Palin to publications such as the Times, the Washington Post, and Fortune.

From the start of her political career, Palin has positioned herself as an insurgent intent on dislodging entrenched interests. In 1996, a campaign pamphlet for her first mayoral run—recently obtained by The New Republic—strikes the same note of populist resentment that Palin did at the Convention: “I’m tired of ‘business as usual’ in this town, and of the ‘Good Ol’ Boys’ network that runs the show here.” Yet Palin has routinely turned to members of Washington’s Old Guard for help. After she became the mayor of Wasilla, Palin oversaw the hiring of a law firm to represent the town’s interests in Washington, D.C. The Wasilla account was handled by Steven Silver, a Washington-area lobbyist who had been the chief of staff to Alaska’s long-serving Republican senator Ted Stevens, who was indicted in July on charges of accepting illegal gifts and is now standing trial. (Silver declined to discuss his ties to Palin.) As the Washington Post reported, Silver’s efforts in the capital helped Wasilla, a town of sixty-seven hundred residents, secure twenty-seven million dollars in federal earmarks. During this election season, however, Palin has presented herself as more abstemious, saying, “I’ve championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.”

In February, 2007, Adam Brickley gave himself a mission: he began searching for a running mate for McCain who could halt the momentum of the Democrats. Brickley, a self-described “obsessive” political junkie who recently graduated from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, told me that he began by “randomly searching Wikipedia and election sites for Republican women.” Though he generally opposes affirmative action, gender drove his choice. “People were talking about Hillary at the time,” he recalled. Brickley said that he “puzzled over every Republican female politician I knew.” Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, “waffled on social issues”; Senator Olympia Snowe, of Maine, was too moderate. He was running out of options, he recalled, when he said to himself, “What about that lady who just got elected in Alaska?” Online research revealed that she had a strong grassroots following; as Brickley put it, “I hate to use the words ‘cult of personality,’ but she reminded me of Obama.”

Brickley registered a Web site—palinforvp.blogspot.com—which began getting attention in the conservative blogosphere. In the month before Palin was picked by McCain, Brickley said, his Web site was receiving about three thousand hits a day. Support for Palin had spread from one right-of-center Internet site to the next. First, the popular conservative blogger InstaPundit mentioned Brickley’s campaign. Then a site called the American Scene said that Palin was “very appealing”; another, Stop the A.C.L.U., described her as “a great choice.” The traditional conservative media soon got in on the act: The American Spectator embraced Palin, and Rush Limbaugh, the radio host, praised her as “a babe.”

Brickley’s family, once evangelical Christians, now practice what he calls “Messianic Judaism.” They believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but they also observe the Jewish holidays and attend synagogue; as Brickley puts it, “Jesus was Jewish, so to be like Him you need to be Jewish, too.” Brickley said that “the hand of God” played a role in choosing Palin: “The longer I worked on it the less I felt I was driving it. Something else was at work.”

Brickley is an authentic heartland voice, but he is also the product of an effort by wealthy conservative organizations in Washington to train activists. He has attended several workshops sponsored by the Leadership Institute, a group based in the Washington area and founded in 1979 by the Christian conservative activist Morton Blackwell. “I’m building a movement,” Blackwell told me. Brickley also participated in a leadership summit held by Young America’s Foundation (motto: “The Conservative Movement Starts Here”) and was an intern at the Heritage Foundation. He currently lives in a dormitory, on Capitol Hill, run by the Heritage Foundation, and is an intern with townhall.com, a top conservative Web site.

While Brickley and others were spreading the word about Palin on the Internet, Palin was wooing a number of well-connected Washington conservative thinkers. In a stroke of luck, Palin did not have to go to the capital to meet these members of “the permanent political establishment”; they came to Alaska. Shortly after taking office, Palin received two memos from Paulette Simpson, the Alaska Federation of Republican Women leader, noting that two prominent conservative magazines—The Weekly Standard, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, and National Review, founded by William F. Buckley, Jr.—were planning luxury cruises to Alaska in the summer of 2007, which would make stops in Juneau. Writers and editors from these publications had been enlisted to deliver lectures to politically minded vacationers. “The Governor was more than happy to meet these guys,” Joe Balash, a special staff assistant to Palin, recalled.

On June 18, 2007, the first group disembarked in Juneau from the Holland America Line’s M.S. Oosterdam, and went to the governor’s mansion, a white wooden Colonial house with six two-story columns, for lunch. The contingent featured three of The Weekly Standard ’s top writers: William Kristol, the magazine’s Washington-based editor, who is also an Op-Ed columnist for the Times and a regular commentator on “Fox News Sunday”; Fred Barnes, the magazine’s executive editor and the co-host of “The Beltway Boys,” a political talk show on Fox News; and Michael Gerson, the former chief speechwriter for President Bush and a Washington Post columnist.

By all accounts, the luncheon was a high-spirited, informal occasion. Kristol brought his wife and daughter; Gerson brought his wife and two children. Barnes, who brought his sister and his wife, sat on one side of Governor Palin, who presided at the head of the long table in the mansion’s formal dining room; the Kristols sat on the other. Gerson was at the opposite end, as was Palin’s chief of staff at the time, Mike Tibbles, who is now working for Senator Stevens’s reëlection campaign. The menu featured halibut cheeks—the choicest part of the fish. Before the meal, Palin delivered a lengthy grace. Simpson, who was at the luncheon, said, “I told a girlfriend afterwards, ‘That was some grace!’ It really set the tone.” Joe Balash, Palin’s assistant, who was also present, said, “There are not many politicians who will say grace with the conviction of faith she has. It’s a daily part of her life.”

Palin was joined by her lieutenant governor and by Alaska’s attorney general. Also present was a local woman involved in upholding the Juneau school system’s right to suspend a student who had displayed a satirical banner—“Bong Hits 4 Jesus”—across the street from his school. The student had sued the school district, on First Amendment grounds, and, at the time of the lunch, the case was before the Supreme Court. (The school district won.)

During the lunch, everyone was charmed when the Governor’s small daughter Piper popped in to inquire about dessert. Fred Barnes recalled being “struck by how smart Palin was, and how unusually confident. Maybe because she had been a beauty queen, and a star athlete, and succeeded at almost everything she had done.” It didn’t escape his notice, too, that she was “exceptionally pretty.”

According to a former Alaska official who attended the lunch, the visitors wanted to do something “touristy,” so a “flight-seeing” trip was arranged. Their destination was a gold mine in Berners Bay, some forty-five miles north of Juneau. For Palin and several staff members, the state leased two helicopters from a private company, Coastal, for two and a half hours, at a cost of four thousand dollars. (The pundits paid for their own aircraft.) Palin explained that environmentalists had invoked the Clean Water Act to oppose a plan by a mining company, Coeur Alaska, to dump waste from the extraction of gold into a pristine lake in the Tongass National Forest. Palin rejected the environmentalists’ claims. (The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Coeur Alaska, and the dispute is now before the Supreme Court.) Barnes was dazzled by Palin’s handling of the hundred or so mineworkers who gathered to meet the group. “She clearly was not intimidated by crowds—or men!” he said. “She’s got real star quality.”

By the time the Weekly Standard pundits returned to the cruise ship, Paulette Simpson said, “they were very enamored of her.” In July, 2007, Barnes wrote the first major national article spotlighting Palin, titled “The Most Popular Governor,” for The Weekly Standard. Simpson said, “That first article was the result of having lunch.” Bitney agreed: “I don’t think she realized the significance until after it was all over. It got the ball rolling.”

The other journalists who met Palin offered similarly effusive praise: Michael Gerson called her “a mix between Annie Oakley and Joan of Arc.” The most ardent promoter, however, was Kristol, and his enthusiasm became the talk of Alaska’s political circles. According to Simpson, Senator Stevens told her that “Kristol was really pushing Palin” in Washington before McCain picked her. Indeed, as early as June 29th, two months before McCain chose her, Kristol predicted on “Fox News Sunday” that “McCain’s going to put Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, on the ticket.” He described her as “fantastic,” saying that she could go one-on-one against Obama in basketball, and possibly siphon off Hillary Clinton’s supporters. He pointed out that she was a “mother of five” and a reformer. “Go for the gold here with Sarah Palin,” he said. The moderator, Chris Wallace, finally had to ask Kristol, “Can we please get off Sarah Palin?”

The next day, however, Kristol was still talking about Palin on Fox. “She could be both an effective Vice-Presidential candidate and an effective President,” he said. “She’s young, energetic.” On a subsequent “Fox News Sunday,” Kristol again pushed Palin when asked whom McCain should pick: “Sarah Palin, whom I’ve only met once but I was awfully impressed by—a genuine reformer, defeated the establishment up there. It would be pretty wild to pick a young female Alaska governor, and I think, you know, McCain might as well go for it.” On July 22nd, again on Fox, Kristol referred to Palin as “my heartthrob.” He declared, “I don’t know if I can make it through the next three months without her on the ticket.” Reached last week, Kristol pointed out that just before McCain picked Palin he had ratcheted back his campaign a little; though he continued to tout her, he also wrote a Times column promoting Senator Joe Lieberman, of Connecticut.

On October 6th, in another Times column, Kristol cryptically acknowledged having been entertained by the Governor. He mentioned meeting Palin “in far more relaxed circumstances, in Alaska over a year ago.” The column featured one of the few interviews that Palin has granted to the national media since becoming McCain’s running mate. Kristol quoted Palin saying that the debate had been a “liberating” experience, then wrote, “Shouldn’t the public get the benefit of another Biden-Palin debate, or even two? If there’s difficulty finding a moderator, I’ll be glad to volunteer.”

On August 1, 2007, a few weeks after the Weekly Standard cruise departed from Juneau, Palin hosted a second boatload of pundits, this time from a cruise featuring associates of National Review. Her guests, arriving on the M.S. Noordam, included Rich Lowry, the magazine’s editor and a syndicated columnist; Robert Bork, the conservative legal scholar and former federal judge; John Bolton, who served as the Bush Administration’s Ambassador to the United Nations from 2004 to 2006; Victor Davis Hanson, a conservative historian who is reportedly a favorite of Vice-President Dick Cheney; and Dick Morris, the ideologically ambidextrous political consultant, who writes a column for The Hill and appears regularly on Fox News.

As Jack Fowler, National Review’s publisher, recalled it, when the guest speakers were invited to come to a special reception at the governor’s mansion, “We said, ‘Sure!’ There’s only so much you can do in Juneau.” The mansion itself, he said, was modest—“not exactly Newport.” But the food was great, and included an impressive spread of salmon. Palin, who circulated nimbly through the room, and spoke admiringly of National Review, made a good impression. Fowler said, “This lady is something special. She connects. She’s genuine. She doesn’t look like what you’d expect. My thought was, Too bad she’s way up there in Alaska, because she has potential, but to make things happen you have to know people.”

Hanson, the historian, recalled Palin in high heels, “walking around this big Victorian house with rough Alaska floors, saying, ‘Hi, I’m Sarah.’ ” She was “striking,” he said. “She has that aura that Clinton, Reagan, and Jack Kennedy had—magnetism that comes through much more strongly when you’re in the same room.” He was delighted that Palin described herself as a fan of history, and as a reader of National Review’s Web site, for which he writes regularly. She spoke about the need to drill for oil in Alaska’s protected wilderness areas, arguing that her husband had worked in nearby oil fields and knew firsthand that it wasn’t environmentally hazardous. Hanson, a farm owner, found it appealing that she was married to an oil worker, rather than to an executive. Bolton, for his part, was pleased that Palin, a hunting enthusiast, was familiar with his efforts to stave off international controls on the global flow of small weapons. She spoke knowledgeably about missile defense, too, he said, and discussed his role, in 2001, in guiding the Bush Administration’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Jay Nordlinger, a senior editor at National Review, had a more elemental response. In an online column, he described Palin as “a former beauty-pageant contestant, and a real honey, too. Am I allowed to say that? Probably not, but too bad.”

According to several accounts, however, no connection made that day was more meaningful than the one struck between Palin and Dick Morris. “He had this very long conversation with her,” Fowler recalled. Lowry laughed in remembering it: “The joke going around was that he was going to take credit for making her.” (Nordlinger’s column went on to say, “Her political career will probably take her beyond Alaska. Dick Morris is only one who thinks so.”)

In fact, in an admiring column published in the Washington Post two days after Palin was chosen, Morris wrote, “I will always remember taking her aside and telling her that she might one day be tapped to be Vice-President, given her record and the shortage of female political talent in the Republican Party. She will make one hell of a candidate, and hats off to McCain for picking her.”

Morris offered Palin some advice during their encounter in Juneau, several of those present recollected, which he shared with the rest of the gathering in a short speech. As Lowry recalled it, Morris had warned her that a reformer, in order to be successful, needed to maintain her “outsider cred.” In a similar vein, Simpson recalled that Morris “gave a little speech” in which he warned that “what happens to most people is that they campaign as outsiders, but when they get into power they turn into insiders. If you want to be successful, you have to stay an outsider.”

Clearly, Palin has taken this advice to heart. Still, when the moment came for Morris and other guests to depart, Palin was sad to see the Washington insiders go. Hanson recalled, “She said, ‘Hey—does anyone want to stay for dinner? We’re going to eat right now.’ She also invited everyone to come back the next day. ‘If any of you are in the area, all you have to do is knock. Yell upstairs, I’ll be right down.’ ”

By the end of February, 2008, the chorus of conservative pundits for Palin was loud enough for the mainstream media to take note. Chris Cillizza, reporting for the Web site of the Washington Post, interviewed Palin and asked her if she’d accept an offer to be McCain’s running mate. Though she dismissed the notion as a virtual “impossibility this go-round,” Palin, who had been in office for only fourteen months, said, “Is it generally something that I would want to consider? Yes.”

By the spring, the McCain campaign had reportedly sent scouts to Alaska to start vetting Palin as a possible running mate. A week or so before McCain named her, however, sources close to the campaign say, McCain was intent on naming his fellow-senator Joe Lieberman, an independent, who left the Democratic Party in 2006. David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, who is close to a number of McCain’s top aides, told me that “McCain and Lindsey Graham”—the South Carolina senator, who has been McCain’s closest campaign companion—“really wanted Joe.” But Keene believed that “McCain was scared off” in the final days, after warnings from his advisers that choosing Lieberman would ignite a contentious floor fight at the Convention, as social conservatives revolted against Lieberman for being, among other things, pro-choice.

“They took it away from him,” a longtime friend of McCain—who asked not to be identified, since the campaign has declined to discuss its selection process—said of the advisers. “He was furious. He was pissed. It wasn’t what he wanted.” Another friend disputed this, characterizing McCain’s mood as one of “understanding resignation.”

With just days to go before the Convention, the choices were slim. Karl Rove favored McCain’s former rival Mitt Romney, but enough animus lingered from the primaries that McCain rejected the pairing. “I told Romney not to wait by the phone, because ‘he doesn’t like you,’ ” Keene, who favored the choice, said. “With John McCain, all politics is personal.” Other possible choices—such as former Representative Rob Portman, of Ohio, or Governor Tim Pawlenty, of Minnesota—seemed too conventional. They did not transmit McCain’s core message that he was a “maverick.” Finally, McCain’s top aides, including Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis, converged on Palin. Ed Rogers, the chairman of B.G.R., a well-connected, largely Republican lobbying firm, said, “Her criteria kept popping out. She was a governor—that’s good. The shorter the Washington résumé the better. A female is better still. And then there was her story.” He admitted, “There was concern that she was a novice.” In addition to Schmidt and Davis, Charles R. Black, Jr., the lobbyist and political operative who is McCain’s chief campaign adviser, reportedly favored Palin. Keene said, “I’m told that Charlie Black told McCain, ‘If you pick anyone else, you’re going to lose. But if you pick Palin you may win.’ ” (Black did not return calls for comment.) Meanwhile, McCain’s longtime friend said, “Kristol was out there shaking the pom-poms.”

McCain had met Palin once, but their conversation—at a reception during a meeting of the National Governors Association, six months earlier—had lasted only fifteen minutes. “It wasn’t a real conversation,” said the longtime friend, who called the choice of Palin “the fucking most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” Aides arranged a phone call between McCain and Palin, and scrutinized her answers to some seventy items on a questionnaire that she had filled out. But McCain didn’t talk with Palin in person again until the morning of Thursday, August 28th. Palin was flown down to his retreat in Sedona, Arizona, and they spoke for an hour or two. By the time he announced her as his choice, the next day, he had spent less than three hours in her company.

“It certainly was a risk—a risk a lot of people wouldn’t take,” Dan Coats, a former Indiana senator and now a volunteer with the McCain campaign, said. “But that’s what I like about John. There’s a boldness there.”

The thoroughness of the campaign’s vetting process, overseen by the Washington lawyer and former White House counsel Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr., remains in dispute. The campaign insists that Palin’s record and personal history were carefully examined. (Culvahouse declined to comment for this story.) The Los Angeles Times, however, reported that the campaign never contacted several obvious sources of information on Palin, including Lyda Green—a Republican state senator in Alaska, and a former ally turned opponent. Also in dispute is whether Palin disclosed to the campaign, as she and officials have said, that her unwed teen-age daughter was pregnant. “I am a hundred per cent sure they didn’t know,” McCain’s longtime friend said. Another campaign source, however, insisted that McCain’s team knew about the pregnancy.

The selection of Palin thrilled the Republican base, and the pundits who met with her in Juneau have remained unflagging in their support. But a surprising number of conservative thinkers have declared her unfit for the Vice-Presidency. Peggy Noonan, the Wall Street Journal columnist, recently wrote, “The Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It’s no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain.” David Brooks, the Times columnist, has called Palin “a fatal cancer to the Republican Party.” Christopher Buckley, the son of National Review’s late founder, defected to the Obama camp two weeks ago, in part because of his dismay over Palin. Matthew Dowd, the former Bush campaign strategist turned critic of the President, said recently that McCain “knows in his gut” that Palin isn’t qualified for the job, “and when this race is over, that is something he will have to live with. . . . He put the country at risk.”

Palin initially provided the McCain campaign with a boost, but polls now suggest that she has become a liability. A top Republican close to the campaign said that McCain’s aides have largely kept faith with Palin. They have been impressed by her work ethic, and by what a quick study she is. According to the Republican close to the campaign, she has sometimes discomfited advisers by travelling with a big family entourage. “It kind of changes the dynamic of a meeting to have them all in the room,” he told me. John McCain’s comfort level with Palin is harder to gauge. In the view of the longtime McCain friend, “John’s personal comfort level is low with everyone right now. He’s angry. But it was his choice.”

Posted Image



#14 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 29 October 2008 - 04:51 PM

Iam -Thanks for this most enlightening article.

Laz, I have one question for you
who was the last republican you voted for?

Edited by missminni, 29 October 2008 - 04:58 PM.


#15 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 29 October 2008 - 11:02 PM

Does it bother any of you that Palin is more qualified to be President than all the candidates put together? She is the only one out of the pitiful bunch whom actually has EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE needed for the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...



P.S. She has the highest approval rating of any Governor, which is the Commander-and-Chief of a state in case any of you didn't know, in the United States. That means she must do pretty well with her EXECUTIVE POWER. She has been tested. She doesn't need on the job training like Biden, Obama, or McCain.

#16 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 29 October 2008 - 11:38 PM

Does it bother any of you that Palin is more qualified to be President than all the candidates put together? She is the only one out of the pitiful bunch whom actually has EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE needed for the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...



P.S. She has the highest approval rating of any Governor, which is the Commander-and-Chief of a state in case any of you didn't know, in the United States. That means she must do pretty well with her EXECUTIVE POWER. She has been tested. She doesn't need on the job training like Biden, Obama, or McCain.


Are you applying for a job at FOX?

#17 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 30 October 2008 - 12:16 AM

Are you applying for a job at FOX?



Instead of the ad-hominem attacks missminni, why not bring arguments against what I said? Just pitiful. Is it not the truth?

#18 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 30 October 2008 - 12:24 AM

Missminni I never voted Clinton or Gore. I did vote for daddy Bush but never the son.

I do not believe in the 2 party system I look for either the best candidate or the one most likely to provide a real check and balance. I have voted Republican in local election is but this NY and I bet even you have voted for Bloomie. I never did vote for Guilianni but I did vote for Pataki once. I did like Spitzer and I voted for him though and look where it got me.

Why I am a Republican is complicated but it basically stems from my desire to remind my fellow Republicans of our real traditions and not the mythology most of them believe today. I feel those arguments are better made from within than from across the isle and that fight is coming. I defend the right of people to be spiritual for example even though I am not religious, and I certainly defend freedom of religion for all including those persecuted by mainstream Christianity in this country including those that seek freedom FROM religion and call themselves atheists.

It was a really big mistake for the GOP to align withthe Christian Right and the result may well be the destruction of the eparty. But hell I think we need at LEAST 3 parties anyway and if some want to be the religious right so be it so long as fiscally conservative, educated, social liberals get to move the party as a whole back to the rational middle.

Anyway back on topic. If Palin is the darling of the far right that schism may be in the works.

Palin's future causes Republican rift

http://www.cnn.com/2...=rss_topstories

By Alexander Mooney CNN

(CNN) -- Election Day is still days away, but Republicans are already caught up in a heated debate about Sarah Palin's future role in the party should the GOP ticket fail to win the White House.

In one corner are some conservatives who believe the Alaska governor has been a detriment to John McCain's presidential bid and threatens to lead the party astray for the foreseeable future.

Another faction says Palin's core-conservative beliefs, demonstrated political acumen, and compelling frontier biography position her to reshape the face of a party now viewed by many voters as out of touch.

It's a debate, somewhat ugly at times, that is beginning to play out in public view as Republicans brace themselves for the possibility of losing the White House and a significant number of seats in Congress come Election Day. And that may leave the party in shambles with drastically reduced influence in Washington.

Should that happen, political observers say, the party will face its biggest identity crisis in more than a generation, and Palin may well be caught squarely in the middle of it.

"A civil war that is simmering will break out into the open if McCain loses, and the party will have to decide what they want to be in the post-Reagan world," said Gloria Borger, a senior political analyst for CNN. (excerpt)



#19 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 30 October 2008 - 12:29 AM

Instead of the ad-hominem attacks missminni, why not bring arguments against what I said? Just pitiful. Is it not the truth?


Just as a point of reference luv it is not an ad hominem to question the fact that you do present yourself as a lockstep outlet for the Fox network spin. Though I do agree that she did not actually address any of your points. She did not insult you however, unless you do not approve of Fox news?

So here if Palin is your idea of who should lead I suggest that you prepare for the worst infight in GOP history and one that may irrevocably split the party. I do not want religious fanatics in the Whitehouse and she is more of a fanatic than Obama despite all the misinformation that you purport to believe. All you have done by demonstrating that Obama talks to various opposing points of view is demonstrate that he is rationally pragmatic, not a Manchurian candidate.

#20 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 30 October 2008 - 02:02 AM

Missminni I never voted Clinton or Gore. I did vote for daddy Bush but never the son.

I do not believe in the 2 party system I look for either the best candidate or the one most likely to provide a real check and balance. I have voted Republican in local election is but this NY and I bet even you have voted for Bloomie. I never did vote for Guilianni but I did vote for Pataki once. I did like Spitzer and I voted for him though and look where it got me.

Why I am a Republican is complicated but it basically stems from my desire to remind my fellow Republicans of our real traditions and not the mythology most of them believe today. I feel those arguments are better made from within than from across the isle and that fight is coming. I defend the right of people to be spiritual for example even though I am not religious, and I certainly defend freedom of religion for all including those persecuted by mainstream Christianity in this country including those that seek freedom FROM religion and call themselves atheists.

It was a really big mistake for the GOP to align withthe Christian Right and the result may well be the destruction of the eparty. But hell I think we need at LEAST 3 parties anyway and if some want to be the religious right so be it so long as fiscally conservative, educated, social liberals get to move the party as a whole back to the rational middle.

Hi Laz,
Thanks for the explanation. Very sensible and reasonable.
I too see the religious right becoming a third party under Palin. At least it would allow the Republican party to re-invent itself as a valid intelligent choice instead of an ignorant, hate mongering, fear generating tool of the religious right. I heard a Republican pundit on TV saying just that, and that Mitt Romney would be the man they would look to head up the party.
Having said that,
I do think Obama is a transcendent figure for our country and the fact that he has the support of so many amazing Republican figures from
Goldwater's daughter to Buckley's son and too many more to name - (and obviously Colin Powell) - is a testament to that fact.
We have been so depleted, demoralized and exploited by this "have and have more" administration, it is time for the pendulum to swing the other way.
I think we have the potential to be a truly Great Society and lead the world to peace and prosperity.
Obama is the leader who can take us there. It's the right time. The right place. The right man.
God willing, it will happen.


#21 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 31 October 2008 - 12:25 AM

Obama is the leader who can take us there. It's the right time. The right place. The right man.



Geezz. That is like saying little Johnny, the soon to be college freshman in Computer Sciences is going to be the greatest computer programmer who has ever lived. You are trying to be psychic when you say that because Obama has never done anything whatsoever to make anyone believe he can do what he says he plans on doing. In fact, his record shows quite the contrary. When you say what you say, you are illogically going against the facts laid out on the table about Obama. He never proved anything. He doesn't have any ideas that will change America. There is nothing unique about Obama except for his excellent way of speaking. He has never went against the Democratic party so how can he act in a bi-partisan fashion that will allow our country to move forward? He has painted an inaccurate picture of the United States. He has never said anything positive about our country since he began campaigning except that we have hard workers. The man has an aunt living in the slums in Boston that uses a metal pipe as a cane to help her walk. He has a brother in Africa so poor he lives in a hut. His father abandoned him as a child, yet he devoted an entire book to him praising him without ever mentioning his mother's name 1 single time. He never mentioned his mother at all in either of his books.. His grandmother or none of his family has ever supported Obama throughout his campaign except for his wife and children. Do you not think there is a reason for any of this?

He sealed his Columbia and Harvard records so no one can see what he did there. When you go into a job, the employer wants to see your transcript. Obama has not allowed the American people (Obama's employer just in case you didn't know) to see his transcripts. Obama has not let out his medical records. Obama is a liar. This guy is scary. He has been caught in so many lies. People, wake up. He has never done anything or experienced anything that would make anyone to believe he would be a great President. Face it people; he has no resume. He has no experience.

Nuff said.

#22 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 31 October 2008 - 12:52 AM

Obama is the leader who can take us there. It's the right time. The right place. The right man.



Geezz. That is like saying little Johnny, the soon to be college freshman in Computer Sciences is going to be the greatest computer programmer who has ever lived. You are trying to be psychic when you say that because Obama has never done anything whatsoever to make anyone believe he can do what he says he plans on doing. In fact, his record shows quite the contrary. When you say what you say, you are illogically going against the facts laid out on the table about Obama. He never proved anything. He doesn't have any ideas that will change America. There is nothing unique about Obama except for his excellent way of speaking. He has never went against the Democratic party so how can he act in a bi-partisan fashion that will allow our country to move forward? He has painted an inaccurate picture of the United States. He has never said anything positive about our country since he began campaigning except that we have hard workers. The man has an aunt living in the slums in Boston that uses a metal pipe as a cane to help her walk. He has a brother in Africa so poor he lives in a hut. His father abandoned him as a child, yet he devoted an entire book to him praising him without ever mentioning his mother's name 1 single time. He never mentioned his mother at all in either of his books.. His grandmother or none of his family has ever supported Obama throughout his campaign except for his wife and children. Do you not think there is a reason for any of this?

He sealed his Columbia and Harvard records so no one can see what he did there. When you go into a job, the employer wants to see your transcript. Obama has not allowed the American people (Obama's employer just in case you didn't know) to see his transcripts. Obama has not let out his medical records. Obama is a liar. This guy is scary. He has been caught in so many lies. People, wake up. He has never done anything or experienced anything that would make anyone to believe he would be a great President. Face it people; he has no resume. He has no experience.

Nuff said.

Obviously, Nuff said is more than ironic coming from you.
But I'll go along with it.
You know what I would like to know and I've asked this before but you never responded.
The extent of your education. I'm just curious. What school? what degree? what major?


#23 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 31 October 2008 - 06:50 AM

I can't wait to see her going against Hillary. That'll be the election battle between the Beauty and the Beast.

#24 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 31 October 2008 - 07:22 AM

I can't wait to see her going against Hillary. That'll be the election battle between the Beauty and the Beast.

correction:
That would be a battle between looks and brains.
You're a male chauvinist ---
P.S.
and after seeing pictures of you, if I were you I would be more mindful of making fun of somebody's appearance.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Edited by missminni, 31 October 2008 - 11:45 PM.


#25 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 31 October 2008 - 01:49 PM

Obama is the leader who can take us there. It's the right time. The right place. The right man.



Geezz. That is like saying little Johnny, the soon to be college freshman in Computer Sciences is going to be the greatest computer programmer who has ever lived. You are trying to be psychic when you say that because Obama has never done anything whatsoever to make anyone believe he can do what he says he plans on doing. In fact, his record shows quite the contrary. When you say what you say, you are illogically going against the facts laid out on the table about Obama. He never proved anything. He doesn't have any ideas that will change America. There is nothing unique about Obama except for his excellent way of speaking. He has never went against the Democratic party so how can he act in a bi-partisan fashion that will allow our country to move forward? He has painted an inaccurate picture of the United States. He has never said anything positive about our country since he began campaigning except that we have hard workers. The man has an aunt living in the slums in Boston that uses a metal pipe as a cane to help her walk. He has a brother in Africa so poor he lives in a hut. His father abandoned him as a child, yet he devoted an entire book to him praising him without ever mentioning his mother's name 1 single time. He never mentioned his mother at all in either of his books.. His grandmother or none of his family has ever supported Obama throughout his campaign except for his wife and children. Do you not think there is a reason for any of this?

He sealed his Columbia and Harvard records so no one can see what he did there. When you go into a job, the employer wants to see your transcript. Obama has not allowed the American people (Obama's employer just in case you didn't know) to see his transcripts. Obama has not let out his medical records. Obama is a liar. This guy is scary. He has been caught in so many lies. People, wake up. He has never done anything or experienced anything that would make anyone to believe he would be a great President. Face it people; he has no resume. He has no experience.

Nuff said.

Obviously, Nuff said is more than ironic coming from you.
But I'll go along with it.
You know what I would like to know and I've asked this before but you never responded.
The extent of your education. I'm just curious. What school? what degree? what major?



Out of all that said, you couldn't pinpoint one false thing I said??? Instead, you try and insult my superior intelligence? I should be asking you this question since you hide from the facts. Does not any of this bother you missminni? Are you so convicted that your initial decision about who you thought was best will stand no matter what you hear which should logically sway you from that initial decision. Do you not know how to show humility and say to yourself, "I may have been wrong about this guy"? Why not pick something that I said out of those two large paragraphs and go against it. You are not doing Obama a service by questioning my education. You should be trying to tell me why what Obama has done is in the right. You know what though, this shows me that you cannot. You realize that you picked the wrong guy. You know deep down within that you make an erroneous decision all because of your hatred of Palin most likely. You let your hatred cloud your judgment. You let your hatred of an individual trump the well-being of our country. You let the eye-candy fool you. You had been bought by the inaccurate image so eloquently portrayed by the man Barack Obama over the last 20 months. How does this make you feel missminni?

#26 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:04 PM

More evidence that Palin is a problem, and one that will linger even after the election.

Growing Doubts on Palin Take a Toll, Poll Finds

EDITORIAL; Ms. Palin’s Same Old, Same Old

Win or Lose, Republicans Will Revisit the Party’s Image

#27 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:07 PM

More evidence that Palin is a problem, and one that will linger even after the election.

Growing Doubts on Palin Take a Toll, Poll Finds

EDITORIAL; Ms. Palin’s Same Old, Same Old

Win or Lose, Republicans Will Revisit the Party’s Image




New York Times, one of the leading Democratic editorials in the United States, is your source of this great information? Great source of un-biased information there Lazarus, I must say. I still can't believe they haven't stated that Palin has done more good AND has more relevant experience than all the candidates put together.

Edited by luv2increase, 31 October 2008 - 02:07 PM.


#28 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:41 PM

Do you read more than the title and source luv?

The poll was conducted by the NY Times and CBS but they do post their methods. How the poll was conducted.

The sample of land-line telephone exchanges called was randomly selected by a computer from a complete list of more than 42,000 active residential exchanges across the country. The exchanges were chosen so as to ensure that each region of the country was represented in proportion to its population.

Within each exchange, random digits were added to form a complete telephone number, thus permitting access to listed and unlisted numbers alike. Within each household, one adult was designated by a random procedure to be the respondent for the survey


The editorial is certainly from the editorial staff of the NY Times but did you bother to read the text?

It happens to be accurate and dead on topic.

And as for the Kirkpatrick opinion piece, his beat is to cover and comment on conservatives generally from the conservative point of view.

Ultimately why don't you actually try and follow your own advice and specifically address the points raised in the articles rather than attempt to blithely dismiss them by criticizing the source in a clear example of fallacious argument?

#29 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 02 November 2008 - 03:55 PM

(luv2increase)
I still can't believe they haven't stated that Palin has done more good AND has more relevant experience than all the candidates put together.


Because she hasn't done a lot of good and certainly doesn't have more experience. You credit her far more than she deserves. It is your opinion but it is just that your opinion, and the opinion of many others is that you are wrong.

Wasilla doesn't even have public school system to manage and her experience as governor of Alaska has not demonstrated anything particular noteworthy to date and in fact may be unraveling as more signs of systemic corruption keep emerging.

Also your previous comments about her role as Commander of the State's Air Guard forces demonstrate a lack of understanding about the role of the Governor with respect to such force allocation. Have you ever heard about the *Federalizing* of National Guard Forces?

How do you think so many guard forces ended up in Iraq?

No governor commands a nuclear defense force, they do not have their hand on the button anywhere. The Federal government reserves authority over all such units. The governor of a state can *call up* forces exclusively for internal state issues such as social unrest and natural catastrophe but not in a military command role for any purpose beyond the state's borders though they can assign forces under another governor to assist in another states difficulties during a time of crisis, like wildfires, hurricane aftermath etc.

I served in just such a unit that was for the defense of the US interests in South Korea and we oversaw a portion of the ground defense of the DMZ as a surface to air missile battery. At no time did we accept the authority of our governor as a commander for our international command even when we were routinely called up for natural disasters and local riots.

I served in the 80's and 90's and was a part of the unit through thick and thin and I resent your routine implications of being unpatriotic when many like me that disagree with you have volunteered for service to this country and we do not have to stand for such ignorant hate speech and fear mongering as you seem to be prone to.

#30 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 02 November 2008 - 04:07 PM

More important to this thread is the topic of what Palin has done to the McCain candidacy. If he loses it is clearly the case that she has had a detrimental effect. She is anti-intellectual and anti science. Her social agenda is unacceptable to the majority of Americans and represents the radical religious extreme of the party.

If McCain wins the result will be a rise in power for the more fundamentalist extremists in the party and a further repression of individual and intellectual freedom in this country. It will also mean her rise to power in the party a party that will not be able to continue to cohabit the same tent.

Ironically if McCain loses her presence on the ticket may have the same divisive result. If the extreme right loses this election then their isolation from the mainstream may become even more pronounced and many that support Palin may move to sever their relationship with the center right Republican party. If that happens they will likely make themselves a powerless fringe so they also may wake up in time to not go WACO.

However if they do it will allow the Republicans to move back to a more centrist and rational position with respect to general politics and perhaps regain a foothold as a counter balance to Democrat extremism. What ever happens her selection heralds the worst in fight for the party in modern times.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users