McCain or Obama?

[Cairan]

Never to my face, of course, always over the internet. Gets my hackles up.

The joys of the Internet.:huh: This marvelous invention that can actually transform featherweights of discourse into heavyweight champions of universal truth. Just sitting behind their keyboards, screens and mice increase their mass by orders of magnitude and feel as if they can bully others just by the press of a button.

 

[replicant]

Palin is a thus far successful side show distracting people from the fact that the Republicans have no ideas other than "let's continue to take care of our friends." This distraction may work, and we may end up with a few more years of a Bush equivalent, followed by President Palin and the CTP (Christian Taliban Party). Who knows?

My Biggest fear, Bush +

since it is the nature of politics to characterize anyone who doesn't support your man as somewhat less informed or less intelligent. Explaining why you support your guy is one thing, but I could do without the insinuations, thank you.

Sorry, but now you know how I felt in another thread.

That kind of self-identification with people from countries that are supposedly smarter than us (aren't they all?) is one of the things that leads people to say Obama panders to elitists.

Yes, and it galvanizes supporters as well. I agree with the remark about political judo. What is needed is to go after Palin's "Strengths" and topple her there. She is nowhere near "conservative", and not even close to a "reformer". Go after McCain's "strengths" as well...he is NOT anything different. Just Bush with a brain. Well, maybe a LITTLE different.

I think this whole intelligent vs patriotic thing is way over the top. Quite frankly, I don't think far-leaning Democrats would be referring to Republican-leaning persons as "uneducated", "less intelligent", "misinformed" if the other party had not hijacked the national symbols of the United States and referred to absolutely everyone not too thrilled about going in Irak (for Weapons of Mass Destruction, which have yet to be found 5 years later...) as "unpatriotic", "coward" or "friend of the enemy and enemy of the United States".

Very true. I know I have come across as bitter many times, and this is the reason why. I love my country, I and my family have served it. I don't appreciate pundits and rednecks telling me I am anti-Jesus and anti-American and I hate the troops just because I don't support an illegal war.

I think it was Sinclair Lewis who said :
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"

I get tired of being told I don't love my country when I speak like that. I love it very much, far too much to be "nice" and let it slip gently into that dark night.

Anyway, last time I checked, there are people with PhDs supporting the GOP

No doubt. Those in here are very intelligent, and make very good arguements. However, they work against the bitterness factor in their attempts to convince. Just as I am certain that the reverse is true.

I can also sympathize with the fears of our other friends in the world. If the United states goes off the deep end as a theocratic war machine, they will also pay the price.
I would hate to see that, since the entire world is full of interesting people. One of the very cool things about my job is that you get to see that. Boise, ID is not Memphis TN. San Francisco is not Salt Lake City. Dallas is not Berlin. Any attempts to try to make them all the same is wrong, delusional, and destructive.


-----Posted Added-----

I think its pretty clear who the american people want to become president. Hint Hint(Barack Obama)

You are forgetting that people of other nations skew this vote

 

[FlyingSinger]

So I guess I'm one of those uninformed, reptilian-brained Americans you must have been referring to in your first paragraph.

Everyone has a reptilian brain along with the other parts. That's where we get our fight-or-flight response and other basic instincts. I was not intending to say McCain supporters are stupid, only that the comments I hear from many people here and elsewhere suggest that they have not learned very much about either candidate before forming their opinions. I almost said "many people vote with their gut" - Democrats and Republicans. I think you have to like a candidate at some basic level before you can consider voting for him or her, but I think you need to look beyond that to make an informed decision. There certainly are many intelligent and well informed supporters of both candidates.

"Elite" is a interesting criticism. John McCain is the son and grandson of Navy admirals, a naval aviator, member of Congress for 26 years, married to a wealthy woman, and owns more homes than he can remember. Not exactly common folk. Obama has two Ivy League degrees and other things that make him non-ordinary. Both have overcome major challenges in their lives and are admirable, sincere, patriotic people who want to do the right thing for their country, though they interpret "right thing" in very different ways. But people who run for president ARE elites, and that's good. It's a demanding and important job, and I for one want someone with brains, good judgment, and the ability to build a great team (among other talents) to be in that job. I care too much about this country and this planet and this species to want anything less (sorry, not only about this species - let's be inclusive and say "life on Earth" ).

I think we can and need to do much better than Bush, and for what it's worth, McCain is at least better than Bush. Obama may not be the best we can do either - but in my opinion, he's the best who is running in this election, and I think he understands the issues better and will do a good job for us.

 

[GregBurch]

"Elite" is a interesting criticism. John McCain is the son and grandson of Navy admirals, a naval aviator, member of Congress for 26 years, married to a wealthy woman, and owns more homes than he can remember. Not exactly common folk. Obama has two Ivy League degrees and other things that make him non-ordinary. Both have overcome major challenges in their lives and are admirable, sincere, patriotic people who want to do the right thing for their country, though they interpret "right thing" in very different ways. But people who run for president ARE elites, and that's good. It's a demanding and important job, and I for one want someone with brains, good judgment, and the ability to build a great team (among other talents) to be in that job. I care too much about this country and this planet and this species to want anything less (sorry, not only about this species - let's be inclusive and say "life on Earth" ).

I certainly agree with this. I grit my teeth when I encounter discussions on both sides about "elitism" and "anti-elitism." What -- are we supposed to want not the best, but something else? My well-known ambivalence about "democracy" as a fundamental political value (as opposed to a secondary and instrumental value) comes into play here: Unfortunately, the way our political culture has evolved, it becomes essential on a symbolic and sound-byte level for a candidate or a party to not signal that 1) they are "better" than voters and, even more important, 2) that they don't think they're better than voters.

With all respect to reasonable people on the other side of this thing such as yourself, one of Obama's major problems as a candidate is the ease with which he can be put into a position of forcing himself into an extremely inauthentic "folksiness." When he tries to do this, he by and large fails. And I think if you look at one of the major elements of Obama's "narrative" (oh, how I'm coming to despise that term!), his own personal search for a cultural identity has been one of the primary tonal themes that he, himself has created and pushed. I've read his books and, at a literary and thematic level, that's what they're about.

There's no doubt it's an interesting story. The question, from a purely tactical political point of view is whether it has sufficient appeal to a sufficient number of people to get him elected.

 

[Eagle]

I almost said "many people vote with their gut" - Democrats and Republicans. I think you have to like a candidate at some basic level before you can consider voting for him or her, but I think you need to look beyond that to make an informed decision.

I would say that is true for most of the supporters of both candidates. One of the reasons I've supported McCain is that I trust the man to do the right thing. Sure I've grounded my feelings in what I've learned, but it is still a gut feeling.

Some people may formulate their decision on less or more than I have. But if anyone is completely non-emotional about this (doesn't mean you have to feel emotions ), you are the minority.

On a side note, I think the different cultures of the Left and Right is a source of this political polarization. One side thinks the other is bat**** crazy for their stances where the 'correct' decision is obvious. And the other feels exactly the same. Communication is not easy when someone doesn't even think the same way as you do.

EDIT:Oh there is a 4 letter word obfuscater, I didn't notice that before. Interesting.

 

[Urwumpe]

I like elites, when they are the result of a meritocratic process. If you are good, you should be rewarded for using your skills to the optimum.

But I dislike elites, when they are constructed. Nobody is part of a true elite, because he comes from a special school for elites. Except you also allow social elites - which I consider deadly for democracies.

Just as people are born, live a time, and die by diseases or old age, in the same way republics are formed, flower a few centuries, and perish finally by the audacity of a citizen, or by the weapons of their enemies. All has their period; all empires, and largest monarchies even, have only so much time: the republics feel continually that this time will arrive, and they look at any too-powerful family as the carriers of a disease which will give them the blow of death.

 

[Eagle]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/old_grizzled_third_party

 

[NukeET]

Palin has made some disturbing decisions, such as book banning...

rly:

Check your sources on this one...she never banned a single book.

 

[GregBurch]

rly:

Check your sources on this one...she never banned a single book.

No -- it's OK. I've decided that the longer and more vocally this kind of thing goes on, the better we'll do. PLEASE keep pushing the "Palin's a dangerous, religious lunatic, trailer trash ignoramus." I strongly encourage it now wherever I encounter it.

 

[Urwumpe]

rly:

Check your sources on this one...she never banned a single book.

Checking sources, she did really never ban a single book. But she tried to, without success. As far as my sources go, she fired a lot of people because they did not suit her politics as Mayor ("I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment..."), including the Liberian, after this woman did not support banning books at all in two meetings with Palin.

I think the most important economical aspect, you can expect from this woman are her mayor years: Even though her predecessor raised the taxes which got her a lot of extra money, the debts of Wasilla grew in her six years from zero to 22 million USD - remember, a town of 7000 citizens. 15 million of these for a new sports complex.

 

[replicant]

I certainly agree with this. I grit my teeth when I encounter discussions on both sides about "elitism" and "anti-elitism." What -- are we supposed to want not the best, but something else?

Couldn't agree more. I have quite a few beer drinking buddies, but I don't want them in our highest offices.

one of Obama's major problems as a candidate is the ease with which he can be put into a position of forcing himself into an extremely inauthentic "folksiness." When he tries to do this, he by and large fails.

Yes he does, and he should stop it. He should find a way to carry himself as what he is, intelligent, motivated, and concerned for the direction of his country. This can be done without appearing "elitist" if it is done correctly. I myself and I am sure many others couldn't care less if the President is "folksy". In fact, it actually disturbs me, as I don't think the POTUS should be the least bit "folksy"

I would say that is true for most of the supporters of both candidates. One of the reasons I've supported McCain is that I trust the man to do the right thing. Sure I've grounded my feelings in what I've learned, but it is still a gut feeling.

Some people may formulate their decision on less or more than I have. But if anyone is completely non-emotional about this (doesn't mean you have to feel emotions ), you are the minority.

Very true, for most people that comes into play. My gut tells me that John McCain is a rich man whose concerns are that of the rich man. It also tells me that Palin is a theocrat who will not only be scary, but even more ineffective at "reaching across the aisle" than Bush or Cheney. Just look at how much she has polarized in two weeks. (No, the irony has not escaped me that I am a part of that polarization)

I like elites, when they are the result of a meritocratic process. If you are good, you should be rewarded for using your skills to the optimum.

Indeed.

But I dislike elites, when they are constructed.

George W. Bush. An individual whom by all indications must have been a complete failure at everything. The ironic part was Karl Rove's ability to sell as our beer drinking buddy one of the worst elitist constructs I've ever seen. In reality, this guy wouldn't take the time of day to urinate on you. I doubt he could even tell me what the word elitist means.

Checking sources, she did really never ban a single book. But she tried to, without success.

Even the attempt is bad enough. Especially for something as vague as "inappropriate language" Once the precedent is set, when does it stop? Does "inappropriate language" then become words against her royal higness? I thought her party was the the champion of "Daddy" government. Deciding for me what I should read for "language" sounds even beyond "mommy"

I think the most important economical aspect, you can expect from this woman are her mayor years: Even though her predecessor raised the taxes which got her a lot of extra money, the debts of Wasilla grew in her six years from zero to 22 million USD - remember, a town of 7000 citizens. 15 million of these for a new sports complex.

Yeah, if it weren't scary, it would be funny to see how far in debt she might put a national budget as president, which could be sooner than anyone thinks.
If I vote for Obama, who is nowhere near as far out of his depth as Palin is, at least I choose to put a relative newcomer in office, I don't have it thrust upon me.

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have said how much farther in debt.


-----Posted Added-----


One more thought, I wonder what Greg's take on this is, as he seems to know a lot about the GOP. I have often wondered if the people of the GOP love their country so much, why didn't they stop Dubya eight years ago and put up McCain? I have no doubt that is McCain had been in the office the last eight years, we would not even be close to being in this bad of a state. Did McCain not get it because he didn't court enough of the fanatical religious right? If that is true, so much for the firebreak theory. It would seem the GOP's lack of a firebreak for it's zealot friends cost us eight long years.

I know I can't be the only one who wants to punish the GOP for that.

 

[Urwumpe]

Even the attempt is bad enough. Especially for something as vague as "inappropriate language" Once the precedent is set, when does it stop? Does "inappropriate language" then become words against her royal higness? I thought her party was the the champion of "Daddy" government. Deciding for me what I should read for "language" sounds even beyond "mommy"

Yeah, but do you remember Tipper Gore and the Filthy Fifteen?

Just a pretty quote which explains all about it IMHO:

"Tipper Gore is the only woman I ever directly called a ***** on any of my records, and I meant that in the most negative sense of the word" - Ice-T

Really... Oppression comes always hiding under the mask of protecting people. There is only a very fragile balance between protecting not enough and oppression.

 

[GregBurch]

One more thought, I wonder what Greg's take on this is, as he seems to know a lot about the GOP. I have often wondered if the people of the GOP love their country so much, why didn't they stop Dubya eight years ago and put up McCain? I have no doubt that is McCain had been in the office the last eight years, we would not even be close to being in this bad of a state. Did McCain not get it because he didn't court enough of the fanatical religious right? If that is true, so much for the firebreak theory. It would seem the GOP's lack of a firebreak for it's zealot friends cost us eight long years.

I know I can't be the only one who wants to punish the GOP for that.

The short (but not very informative) answer is that W ran rings around McCain in 2000 in tactics and fund raising. Again, on a non-substantive level, McCain learned a lot from that experience, and it's showing now.

You're right that one major factor in this was that McCain wasn't even close to having support from the religious right. He also didn't have any kind of strong support from them this time till the Palin pick, but still managed to defeat the candidates who were more strongly supported by the RR (including Huckabee and Thompson).

On a purely tactical level, the power of the RR was much greater within the GOP in 2000 and 2004 than it is this year, because the GOP had control of Congress. With that, the MARGINAL (in the economic sense of incremental) power of RR electoral support was much more important -- in other words, getting more than they already had required a "boost", which the RR gave them in those years. Having lost Congress, and fighting from a weaker position, a candidate had to come along who tapped into the "pre-RR" part of the GOP -- that was McCain.

You're reference to the "missing firebreak" is apt, and one I've been expecting. A close reading of my posts on that subject will disclose the one caveat about right-oriented ideology I've been including in my statements on the political spectrum -- that there HAS been a missing firebreak on the right opened up by the religious right since what I called in that other thread "the devil's bargain" the GOP made with them to regain power.

People with short memories will forget that the GOP was NOT a religious party prior to that time -- in fact, if you were looking for that "old time religion," you'd have found it more in the Democratic Party than in the GOP (but in any case, only a pale shadow of the influence the religious right has had on the GOP since the late 1970s).

The whole mess really has to be understood in terms of the post-68 kulturkampf that got under way in the 1970s and beyond. The "evangelicals" would never have been the political power in the US they became if the left hadn't pushed so hard on a small number of cultural issues. While Roe v. Wade made some increase in their power inevitable (something, as a thorough secularist and abortion rights supporter, I didn't really understand until the last few years), other elements of the left's cultural agenda and influence on culture became such irritants to such a wide swath of US society that it opened the door to the religious nutballs.

At any rate, and in my usual long-winded way, I readily acknowledge the "tattered firebreak" regarding religion on the right side of the US ideological spectrum -- and it is one of the things I write about a great deal on my blog and, as I've indicated before, write checks to try to remedy.

Finally, though, the emotional premise of your point, that the last eight years has been some kind of unmitigated disaster for the United States, is one I don't share. I honestly think you've got at least mild case of BDS going there ... but it's been a pretty widespread epidemic.

UPDATE: Whatever side you're on, this is pretty damned funny:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/obama_suddenly_panicked?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

 

[Eagle]

Very true, for most people that comes into play. My gut tells me that John McCain is a rich man whose concerns are that of the rich man. It also tells me that Palin is a theocrat who will not only be scary, but even more ineffective at "reaching across the aisle" than Bush or Cheney. Just look at how much she has polarized in two weeks. (No, the irony has not escaped me that I am a part of that polarization)

I've been thinking about the reason for the polarization the last few years. I *think* polarization has actually reduced this last year, but it may have only been me.

I don't know what the source is. But one of the biggest results is two separate world views. The Right winger sees America as an awesome place minus a few fixable problems (not perfect, but pretty good) and views the left as hating America, promoting decadence and undermining foreign policy. People are responsible for their own actions. Having been in that mindset I feel I understand it more or less. I wish I could explain cross-culturally the mindset and feeling better, but I don't have that skill.

From what I've gleaned from other minds I present the (American) Left mindset. The Left winger loves America, but the emotion is a given (you know I love you, even though I don't say it). Inequities are a major problem and thousands of Americans are cheated out of a good life. For that reason people need help because they can't help themselves. People should be unrestricted in every way, but never allowed to harm each other.

Condensing each mindset into one sentence:
Right: Let us live and learn to stand on our own feet.
Left: I am not free while inequity enslaves my brother.


-----Posted Added-----


I would like to state that the above post is very likely, almost exactly unlike how anyone else thinks. Tea anyone?

 

[replicant]

No -- it's OK. I've decided that the longer and more vocally this kind of thing goes on, the better we'll do. PLEASE keep pushing the "Palin's a dangerous, religious lunatic, trailer trash ignoramus." I strongly encourage it now wherever I encounter it.

Sigh. I'll bet you do, and I'll bet I know why. It is Karl Rove style, and it goes something like this:

Let's say that you are Karl Rove, or better yet, his evil Demoncrat counterpart, Daryl Rose. As Daryl, you understand like Karl a little bit about the human mind. One thing you know for certain is that is takes ten "atta boys" to erase one "you suck". "So", Daryl thinks to himself, "It is much more efficient to get out a negative message than try to run a positive campaign, since I have to work ten times as hard.

"But, and this is a huge but", Daryl muses, "There are three basic problems with just coming out directly and smearing your opponent." They are:

1. It will be challenged if it comes from the opposition
2. You risk sounding like a fanatic yourself if not done right(even if some of your calling THEM fanatics is true.)
3. You risk alienating your most important targets, the fence sitters. Lets face it, you don't waste your time with the bases. The biggest risk here is angering people like Andy44 who don't like republicrats and don't appreciate being obliquely insulted when you suggest that because they consider the other side, they must be lumped in with the "backwoods cornpones". The result could be that they will reject you for now having insulted them for considering the other side.(The whole reptillian brain thing) Whether that was meant or not is irrelevant, perception is reality.

"This is certainly a dilly of a pickle", Karl's evil twin Daryl ponders,"How do I get the smear out, but not have it reflect badly on us?" After much brain wracking and gnashing of teeth, Darly suddenly exclaims "I've got it! I'll do it like Karl does."

So Daryl goes out and rounds up some people, and starts a smear campaign on his own guy. He gets some women for a rally. He has them dress up in long ugly dresses, looking pregnant and barefoot, and paints some black circles around their eyes, with signs that say "Palin is real American woman." He has people dressed in t-shirts that say, "We love Sarah P" be as rude as they can, not tip waitresses, jump up in people's faces and yell, "Vote for Palin or you are a traiterous coward". They even have signs that say "Traitors for Obama". Some racial slurs on the signs probably wouldn't hurt either.

Daryl makes phony pictures and starts rumors so horrendous (like Obama is doing things with his kids)that any reasonable person must assume that these attacks are coming from the other side and rejects them in disgust. Daryl is now gleefully on a roll with all sorts of fun stuff like that.

Daryl has learned from his brother Karl well. He knows that it is one thing to insult a group you are leaning toward and therefore risk insulting you by potential association, but it is quite a different thing to SHOW you a group you want nothing to do with, and let you THINK you have decided for yourself.

I know that the people in the Orbiter community are probably too smart to be fooled by such tactics, but the people here are not the common public.

I have no doubt the down's baby rumor being the daughter's kid comes from our buddy Karl.

Even with the bad stuff about Palin that is true, Karl Knows that bitter people like me will shout it out and appear scary as well. And to think I have been playing right into Karl's trap.

Daryl, where are you when we need you? :lol:

Condensing each mindset into one sentence:
Right: Let us live and learn to stand on our own feet.
Left: I am not free while inequity enslaves my brother.

This is truly a paradox, especially from a faith based point of view. It illustrates Greg's point about the faithful often having been more aligned with the left. The Major premise of the faith is that Jesus says it is impossible to make it alone. That we are all connected, that none of us succeeds without the help of others. Which is true, not a single person can claim they "made it all on their own". Every single one of us got help from someone whether or not we are even aware of it.

Jesus truly does task you with the idea that you are not free while your brother is enslaved, and that every single person on Earth is your brother, or sister. I can guarantee that Christ is not a venture capitalist that supports laissez faire and the idea that the best hustler gets the most stuff.

Greg's explanation is certainly correct, the left foolishly let itself get hijacked by people who go too far with their outrageous cultural demands that everyday Betty and Bob were not ready to handle. Thus they alienated them and they were forced to look for someone that supported their "traditional" values. The sad part being that many of those values were rooted in old American culture or the old testament. The GOP let itself get hijacked by the RR, and as I understand it, there is even a splinter group in the GOP called "It's Our Party Too", I have a feeling Greg probably belongs to it.

I have a sneaking hunch that Greg and I probably represent the older models he is referring to, The right or Republican that is more Athiest centered, and the left or Democrat that is more Christ centered. It's almost funny, and really illustrates the point made earlier about the Democrats need to play judo and be deft with the younger evangelicals who are starting to swing back to the left.

If they can fracture the evangelical vote, I daresay the Republicans are in trouble.

 

[Cairan]

Please go read this if you haven't seen the interview.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/11/raw-data-palins-interview-with-abc-news/

Don't be put off by the "foxnews" hosting, it's the ABC interview transcript...

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?​

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?​

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?​

PALIN: His world view?​

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.​

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.​

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?​

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.​

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan, from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?​

PALIN: As for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world, where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be and military strike a last option.​

GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do we have the right, in your mind, to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?​

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target.​

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes, that you think we have the right to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government? To go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?​

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America, and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.​

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)​

And here's the part about NATO and Russia at the start:

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia. Let’s start with Russia and Georgia. The administration has said, we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?​

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak the other day and giving my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we have to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have asserted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable. And we have to keep …​

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked?​

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked. And we have to keep our eyes on Russia. Under the leadership there.​

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple weeks does the proximity of the state give you?​

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.​

GIBSON: You favor putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?​

PALIN: Ukraine definitely yes. Yes. And Georgia. Putin thinks otherwise, obviously he thinks otherwise.​

GIBSON: Under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?​

PALIN: Perhaps so. That is the agreement. When you are a NATO ally, is, if another country is attacked, you are going to be expected to be called upon and help.​

Actually I wouldn't be that preoccupied by McCain getting elected as president if Palin wasn't, as Democrats put it, "one heartbeat away" from having to take the Oval Office...

Someone who wants to take the VP slot who a few weeks ago had no clue of the duties and responsibilities associated if elected to office on the #2 ticket spot, thinks that Article V of the NATO charter is optional and can't clearly state what is the current course given by the current Commander-in-chief is... ill-prepared to possibly be called upon being president if the need arises.:blink:

Then there's also another part, not quoted here, where she says Russia should be punished in various ways, yet still does not want to trigger another Cold War. :huh:

I don't want to open a debate about Obama's grasp on national security and foreign policy, but this stuff makes me very worried.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think it was personally even worse that her party pushed the media to publish the interview on 9/11, even though Obama and McCain both spoke at the same event that day and both did not even dare to abuse the day for open election campaigning - both even spoke so good about each other, that it became scary.

I mean honestly, what does the media expect from Palin? The interview is for me, personally right on the mark, what I expected her to be from her past actions. No surprises. She is only a religious right pin-up girl, and without religious fanatics supporting her, she would have been likely lost in Wasilla.

Also the real highlight of why she has foreign politics qualifications in her own words:

"You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska".


And what's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama? One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy. The other kills her own food.

 

[GregBurch]

... just woke up, getting my first jolt of java and politics, and my eyes, still blurry, fix on this:

I have no doubt the down's baby rumor being the daughter's kid comes from our buddy Karl.

"No doubt"? None?

 

[n0mad23]

I have no doubt the down's baby rumor being the daughter's kid comes from our buddy Karl.

"No doubt"? None?

Let's not forget Dubya's pet-name for this manipulator. It does seem like a typical MO for the turd-flower.

See for example: http://www.madison.com/post/blogs/dailybriefing/206182

 

[GregBurch]

Let's not forget Dubya's pet-name for this manipulator. It does seem like a typical MO for the turd-flower.

See for example: http://www.madison.com/post/blogs/dailybriefing/206182

If it makes you feel better to blame this all on Karl Rove, by all means, do. If McCain wins, it will make it much easier to deal with the loss.