President Palin?
Re: President Palin?
I like her glasses. And that's about all.
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
-
Emotional Toothpaste
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:15 pm
Re: President Palin?
Great speech. Refreshing to see a REAL person in politics for a change. Her voice is a little grating, but other than that, I like her.
Couple of random observations that have nothing to do with anything:
- McCain's wife is scary. Is she 20 or is she 80? In a certain light, she looks 20, then at another camera angle she could easily be 80. I wouldn't let her hold any of my children.
- The poor dude that knocked up Palins daughter. Look what a night of frisky business got him. I'm 18, gotta get married now, yanked out of Alaska probably to move to DC (no more huntin or fishin), gotta take whatever good paying job they "arrange" for me, gotta keep a clean nose, and the media will be on my ass every step of the way, AND I've got the mother of all mother-in-laws.
- Did you see when the youngest daughter was holding the baby? She licked the palm of her hand and used it to wipe down the baby's hair. Damn near brought a tear to my eye, I'm serious, that melted me.
- the people in the audience, that attend these conventions (either side), where do they find them?
- Guiliani's "drill, baby, drill" did not resonate.
Couple of random observations that have nothing to do with anything:
- McCain's wife is scary. Is she 20 or is she 80? In a certain light, she looks 20, then at another camera angle she could easily be 80. I wouldn't let her hold any of my children.
- The poor dude that knocked up Palins daughter. Look what a night of frisky business got him. I'm 18, gotta get married now, yanked out of Alaska probably to move to DC (no more huntin or fishin), gotta take whatever good paying job they "arrange" for me, gotta keep a clean nose, and the media will be on my ass every step of the way, AND I've got the mother of all mother-in-laws.
- Did you see when the youngest daughter was holding the baby? She licked the palm of her hand and used it to wipe down the baby's hair. Damn near brought a tear to my eye, I'm serious, that melted me.
- the people in the audience, that attend these conventions (either side), where do they find them?
- Guiliani's "drill, baby, drill" did not resonate.
Re: President Palin?
I don't want a real person in politics. To be involved in politics at this level, you can't be real. You can only pretend to be. Therefore, a real person at this level is faking it. She's faking it. Plus, most 'average' Americans I know (myself included) are underachieving assholes. Give me egotistical, narcissistic power freaks any day. Bill Clinton is a good example. He's an egotistical, narcissistic power freak and while he was president we had an outstanding economy, relative peace, and reforms in many important areas such as welfare. Under 'regular joe' Bush (his Kennebunkport pedigree notwithstanding) we've had war, foreclosures, a dive-bombing stock market, high prices, and a loss of prestige and respect in the world. If that's what ordinary joes bring us, give me the elitists!
-
bambooneedle
- Posts: 4533
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:02 pm
- Location: a few thousand miles south east of Zanzibar
Re: President Palin?
She believes in creationism... say no more.
-
Who Shot Sam?
- Posts: 7097
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:05 pm
- Location: Somewhere in the distance
- Contact:
Re: President Palin?
Not only that, but she wants it taught in schools. Might as well make Defense of the Dark Arts part of the curriculum as well.bambooneedle wrote:She believes in creationism... say no more.
Mother, Moose-Hunter, Maverick
Re: President Palin?
On ET's "real" comment, I pretty much agre with Pophead's points.
I would add that in today's political climate it's harder to see "real" folks, and by that I mean candidates who come out of left field with credentials that are not all that different from those of ordinary folks, as worthy of Presidential standing. Granted that ordinary folks don't become Governors of Alaska, but the point is that to become Governor of Alaska does not require outstanding credentials or qualities. In Sarah's case, that's a given in my book. Ambition, ego and hutzpah are not enough to make you a national leader. Carter and Clinton were both also Governors of small states, but their resumes as Governors and prior were far superior to Palin's, not in the same league really.
You could argue that in the past a speical resume or standing was not needed. Harry Truman comes to mind. He was a small time Kansas City politican with no national standing and got elevated to VP and then thrust into the Presidency upon FDR's death. He's a polarizing figure, but all would agree that he ended up as being "qualified" to be President. I'm not saying Palin is Truman. It turned out that Truman had a lot of special qualities after all. Palin hasn't shown them, yet.
My point is that in Truman's time the political scene, even at the national level, was relatively sedate compared to today. The incredible attention that is paid today to every move these national leaders make, to their every utterance, past or present, private or public, creates pressures on leaders that just were not there in Truman's time. An everyday sort of person, pushed into the spotlight, even if more qualified, in the end, than her previous experience would have led you to believe, faces a much harder task. I'm not sure that someone like Truman, elevated to the Presidency today, would have been able to succeed as he did in the late 40s.
I dislike Biden intensely, as I've noted before, but for all of his sliminess, he has been in the national political arena for some time and knows how the game is played. Palin does not. It's not enough to say, today, that we need individuals who will not play the game, since the game is crooked. It is naive to think that politics can be changed by one individual. Carter, another small state Governor but one with great smarts, and who actually ran for President, made a big deal about working outside Washington, being real, and he was derailed pretty quickly.
If by "real" people one means everyday folks with everyday knowledge and biases, I certainly do not want "real" people at the helm. It's certainly not necessary that the President be a genius or extraordinarily knowledgeable. The two great American Presidents of the 20th century (in terms of impact on the nation): FDR and Reagan, were polar opposites ideologically, but eerily similar in terms of preparation, character, personality and leadership styles. You have to have something "special". They had it; real people don't have that.
Finally, i want to echo what someone else pointed out earlier about Obama. Fakes, or unqualified people who get by because of their personality or race, do not become heads of the Harvard Law Review. There is no favoritism showed in the process of selection. It's brutally competitive, and the competition takes place among students who have made it to that school by outperforming 99.9 percent of the most highly qualified of applicants. That takes smarts and hard work. As i've noted before those qualities don't guarantee you will be a great President, but they certainly are evidence that the candidate is "qualified" as far as smarts and capacity for hard work go.
The Palin thing has been amusing on one level. It's shown how much impact image and style have on our political consciousness due to the media's craving for it, and how much the endless liberal/conservative debate can be affected by style. When she was selected both sides in the debate jumped to their respective perches: the liberals blasted her as unqualified and unsophisticated; the conservatives hailed her "realness" and gutsy style. The assumption was that she was selected to get a minority on the ticket (women in our country still are viewed as minorities). The conservatives are on the defensive trying to justify her, since, even among true believers small town american resumes have a hard time competing against national credentials.
Then she speaks at the convention, and in one swoop the debate shifts, due to her spectacular delivery. All of a sudden the liberals are on the defensive. In that one speech, in the media's eyes (and that is all that counts these days) she eviscerates the notion that she's small time. Why? Because of a dramatically delivered speech. Because of her photogenic qualities. Because of her ability, on one night, to present her persona to the public in a controlled environment. Pretty, gutsy, family-oriented (oh what a family, you might say, but remember her kind of family, today, does well on Oprah), smart, obviously, but without all that fancy educational baggage (smart moms don't need all that elite education, and what the country needs are the smarts that allow hockey moms to navigate those hurdles that everyday life throws), and saaaasy. Yeah, baby. Who you calling me small time now?
The scary thing is that in a controlled presidential race, and given that, after all, she's just in the running for VP, that kind of image may be all that the public gets. If Biden weren't such a fool, the VP debate might turn the tide, but I suspect she will cream his unctuous ass off the stage, since she really is smarter than that phony. Pretty amazing.
I would add that in today's political climate it's harder to see "real" folks, and by that I mean candidates who come out of left field with credentials that are not all that different from those of ordinary folks, as worthy of Presidential standing. Granted that ordinary folks don't become Governors of Alaska, but the point is that to become Governor of Alaska does not require outstanding credentials or qualities. In Sarah's case, that's a given in my book. Ambition, ego and hutzpah are not enough to make you a national leader. Carter and Clinton were both also Governors of small states, but their resumes as Governors and prior were far superior to Palin's, not in the same league really.
You could argue that in the past a speical resume or standing was not needed. Harry Truman comes to mind. He was a small time Kansas City politican with no national standing and got elevated to VP and then thrust into the Presidency upon FDR's death. He's a polarizing figure, but all would agree that he ended up as being "qualified" to be President. I'm not saying Palin is Truman. It turned out that Truman had a lot of special qualities after all. Palin hasn't shown them, yet.
My point is that in Truman's time the political scene, even at the national level, was relatively sedate compared to today. The incredible attention that is paid today to every move these national leaders make, to their every utterance, past or present, private or public, creates pressures on leaders that just were not there in Truman's time. An everyday sort of person, pushed into the spotlight, even if more qualified, in the end, than her previous experience would have led you to believe, faces a much harder task. I'm not sure that someone like Truman, elevated to the Presidency today, would have been able to succeed as he did in the late 40s.
I dislike Biden intensely, as I've noted before, but for all of his sliminess, he has been in the national political arena for some time and knows how the game is played. Palin does not. It's not enough to say, today, that we need individuals who will not play the game, since the game is crooked. It is naive to think that politics can be changed by one individual. Carter, another small state Governor but one with great smarts, and who actually ran for President, made a big deal about working outside Washington, being real, and he was derailed pretty quickly.
If by "real" people one means everyday folks with everyday knowledge and biases, I certainly do not want "real" people at the helm. It's certainly not necessary that the President be a genius or extraordinarily knowledgeable. The two great American Presidents of the 20th century (in terms of impact on the nation): FDR and Reagan, were polar opposites ideologically, but eerily similar in terms of preparation, character, personality and leadership styles. You have to have something "special". They had it; real people don't have that.
Finally, i want to echo what someone else pointed out earlier about Obama. Fakes, or unqualified people who get by because of their personality or race, do not become heads of the Harvard Law Review. There is no favoritism showed in the process of selection. It's brutally competitive, and the competition takes place among students who have made it to that school by outperforming 99.9 percent of the most highly qualified of applicants. That takes smarts and hard work. As i've noted before those qualities don't guarantee you will be a great President, but they certainly are evidence that the candidate is "qualified" as far as smarts and capacity for hard work go.
The Palin thing has been amusing on one level. It's shown how much impact image and style have on our political consciousness due to the media's craving for it, and how much the endless liberal/conservative debate can be affected by style. When she was selected both sides in the debate jumped to their respective perches: the liberals blasted her as unqualified and unsophisticated; the conservatives hailed her "realness" and gutsy style. The assumption was that she was selected to get a minority on the ticket (women in our country still are viewed as minorities). The conservatives are on the defensive trying to justify her, since, even among true believers small town american resumes have a hard time competing against national credentials.
Then she speaks at the convention, and in one swoop the debate shifts, due to her spectacular delivery. All of a sudden the liberals are on the defensive. In that one speech, in the media's eyes (and that is all that counts these days) she eviscerates the notion that she's small time. Why? Because of a dramatically delivered speech. Because of her photogenic qualities. Because of her ability, on one night, to present her persona to the public in a controlled environment. Pretty, gutsy, family-oriented (oh what a family, you might say, but remember her kind of family, today, does well on Oprah), smart, obviously, but without all that fancy educational baggage (smart moms don't need all that elite education, and what the country needs are the smarts that allow hockey moms to navigate those hurdles that everyday life throws), and saaaasy. Yeah, baby. Who you calling me small time now?
The scary thing is that in a controlled presidential race, and given that, after all, she's just in the running for VP, that kind of image may be all that the public gets. If Biden weren't such a fool, the VP debate might turn the tide, but I suspect she will cream his unctuous ass off the stage, since she really is smarter than that phony. Pretty amazing.
-
Otis Westinghouse
- Posts: 8856
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:32 pm
- Location: The theatre of dreams
Re: President Palin?
How's this for a sickening indictment of how a 'pro-life' (the irony of the term!) creationist is out to destroy life forms and their habitat?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 20803.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 20803.html
There's more to life than books, you know, but not much more
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
Forever Brainwashed!
It never ceases to amaze me how much you guys are infected with the virus of phony corporate media conservative/liberal political dichotomy. Surely you've heard the phrase "divide and conquer"? A vote for either of these candidates will leave you basically where you are now...no real change, only phony change. I mentioned this before in an earlier post, but y'all just kept on debeating the merits of these fascist demagoges as if it really matters. It doesn't.
Sarah is a fundamentalist Chrisitian that thinks we are engaged in a holy war.
Sarah is a fundamentalist Chrisitian that thinks we are engaged in a holy war.
-
Who Shot Sam?
- Posts: 7097
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:05 pm
- Location: Somewhere in the distance
- Contact:
Re: President Palin?
Yeah we get it rope leash. You're the only one seeing clearly and we're all a bunch of brainwashed sheep. Change the record.
Mother, Moose-Hunter, Maverick
-
StrictTime
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 4:19 pm
- Location: Philadelphia
- Contact:
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
Who shot the sheep?
I may not be the only one here to see things clearly, WSS, but I'm the only one that speaks up.
You want me to change the record? How about you guys changing the record...every election it's the same shit...vote for whichever of the two evils you can live with, and argue about it like there's really a difference. Why? Yeah, it's because you are all brainwashed sheep, munching grass in the pasture of mainstream media.
Vote for McCain, and you vote for war. Vote for Obama, and you vote for war. How did this happen, when the polls show that most of the population doesn't want war? Now that this is the choice we have, everyone is just going to take it and vote again for something they don't want, because that's just the way it is. But, they don't have to...there are others on the ballot. We can vote for them. You want change, don't you? You want peace, right?
I started this thread to have a little fun. You guys turned it into a semi-serious debate about elements of what amounts to a giant mass deception. That's okay...but you knew I was here, so what did you expect?
Carry on, but don't think I'll ever accept it.
Falling for bullshit just ain't me, Mary Ann...
You want me to change the record? How about you guys changing the record...every election it's the same shit...vote for whichever of the two evils you can live with, and argue about it like there's really a difference. Why? Yeah, it's because you are all brainwashed sheep, munching grass in the pasture of mainstream media.
Vote for McCain, and you vote for war. Vote for Obama, and you vote for war. How did this happen, when the polls show that most of the population doesn't want war? Now that this is the choice we have, everyone is just going to take it and vote again for something they don't want, because that's just the way it is. But, they don't have to...there are others on the ballot. We can vote for them. You want change, don't you? You want peace, right?
I started this thread to have a little fun. You guys turned it into a semi-serious debate about elements of what amounts to a giant mass deception. That's okay...but you knew I was here, so what did you expect?
Carry on, but don't think I'll ever accept it.
- oneflew.jpg (43.18 KiB) Viewed 18882 times
-
Emotional Toothpaste
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:15 pm
Re: President Palin?
Rope Leash, I agree with you for the most part, except when you wander off into the police-state nonsense. A lot of your links that you offer as "evidence" are weak at best. The 2 party system is broken, I very much agree. I'd vote for Ron Paul if I could. I have no faith that either candidate or their VP is going to change much of anything, you are absolutely correct. But those black helicopters flying overhead, really aren't there. 
-
Who Shot Sam?
- Posts: 7097
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:05 pm
- Location: Somewhere in the distance
- Contact:
Re: Who shot the sheep?
How exactly is Obama pro-war? I just don't buy this argument that there's no difference between the two parties. Tell that to the family of a soldier killed in Iraq.A rope leash wrote:I may not be the only one here to see things clearly, WSS, but I'm the only one that speaks up.
You want me to change the record? How about you guys changing the record...every election it's the same shit...vote for whichever of the two evils you can live with, and argue about it like there's really a difference. Why? Yeah, it's because you are all brainwashed sheep, munching grass in the pasture of mainstream media.
Vote for McCain, and you vote for war. Vote for Obama, and you vote for war. How did this happen, when the polls show that most of the population doesn't want war? Now that this is the choice we have, everyone is just going to take it and vote again for something they don't want, because that's just the way it is. But, they don't have to...there are others on the ballot. We can vote for them. You want change, don't you? You want peace, right?
I started this thread to have a little fun. You guys turned it into a semi-serious debate about elements of what amounts to a giant mass deception. That's okay...but you knew I was here, so what did you expect?
I'd agree that there is not as much difference between the major political parties as there is in most other Western democracies, but there are real, life-changing consequences to the decisions our leaders make.
Mother, Moose-Hunter, Maverick
-
Otis Westinghouse
- Posts: 8856
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:32 pm
- Location: The theatre of dreams
Re: President Palin?
I think at this stage there are greater differences than between the two main parties in the UK. Thatcher took us to the right in a way that meant the traditional left's stomping ground was forever lost. Blair fashioned New Labour as a broadly centrist party that was non-threatening to the defected old Labour voters and appealing enough to non-diehard Conservatives. Cameron is now doing a Blair. It all converges to the centre in a way where Brown or Cameron both espouse things their parties would never have traditionally. I think the differences in the US are more obviously demarcated and if I were there, I know which way I would vote. Voting for a more radical alternative is better than not using your vote at all, but where it can only be effective a vote that gets McCain into office, I would take the pragmatic view that it's a wasted vote. At least in the UK there's a third party who have gained ground and who might conceivably offer an alternative option in the future, not that I've ever voted for them.
There's more to life than books, you know, but not much more
Re: President Palin?
See the article linked below which addresses lots of the issues I touched on in my prior post on Palin. Notice how the gesture that made a positive impression on ET and others throughout the country (the licking of the hair by the kid) got a very different reaction from the media types. And the writer also sort of addresses ET's "real people" in politics point by noting that Palin is presenting herself as "just like us, only better".
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/busin ... rr.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/busin ... rr.html?hp
-
Emotional Toothpaste
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:15 pm
Re: President Palin?
alexv wrote:See the article linked below which addresses lots of the issues I touched on in my prior post on Palin. Notice how the gesture that made a positive impression on ET and others throughout the country (the licking of the hair by the kid) got a very different reaction from the media types. And the writer also sort of addresses ET's "real people" in politics point by noting that Palin is presenting herself as "just like us, only better".
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/busin ... rr.html?hp
And your point is?
So how does Obama present himself? Are we supposed to appreciate his genuiness for not even bothering with the "just like us" part? Are we supposed to be impressed with his Harvard Law Review credentials? Here's a guy that doesn't even have to cling to religion OR guns, how brave!! He certainly didn't "cling" to his former pastor of 20+ years very long, did he?
Give me the moose-hunting bitch any day.
Re: President Palin?
ET, I posted the link to the article because it dovetailed with some of my points in the earlier post, about how politicians can use controlled media spin (assuming they are able to) to change the media-created perception of them in an eyelash. I also thought it fit in nicely with a different perspective on a couple of the points you had made: how the kid's actions affected you, and how she seemed "real". That's all. No points to make.
If you are asking about what points I was getting at in my post, then, yes certainly I am impressed by anyone who is Editor of the Harvard Law Review. As a former law student, I surely believe that anyone who gets that honor, at harvard,deserves the utmost respect. It's quite an achievement, and with all due respect to hockey moms and librarians everywhere beats the shit of their accomplishments. It's indicative of two things I value, and that all Americans should also value in a Presidential candidate (although as I said they are not a guarantee that a President will be successful): brains (big brains) and a work ethic (big work ethic).
I also don't want Obama to be "just like us", if by that you mean average folks. I don't want an average person as President. We've never had an average person as President, at least since being President became a prized job (you'd be surprised how easy it was way back when). Those who present themselves as that are just doing the demagogue thing. I don't bite at that. We've had crooks, sex addicts, actors, army men etc. None of them, not one, was an average American.
Just because Obama or anyone else is smart doesn't mean that if elected they won't care about the rest of "us". That's what the demagogues whisper in your ear so that you elect them and not those better qualified to lead. In any case, I don't appreciate any candidate wasting my time telling me he "cares about me". I'm too old for that. I assume they care about themselves, about the job they are about to undertake and about the country they will lead, which includes me and lots of other people who are very much unlike me.
I don't get your guns/religions point. I'm against religion in politics and for the right to bear arms (an unusual stance I admit). But in my presidential candidates I prefer the ones who lay off religion all together, and those who keep the gun talk at a minimum.
You better believe he dumped his pastor. The dude (the pastor) is a crazy, religious racist fool. If I thought Obama went to his church or whatever that thing is called because he believed the crap the pastor was putting out, assuming he was talking crazy all these years, I wouldn't vote for him. I am voting for him, so obviously I don't believe that for a second.
Sometimes folks go to services on Sundays for the music, or the hats or the companionship or because they have nothing better to do, or because they believe God wants them to, or because they are culturally programmed to, or becauuse their wives nag them to, or because as politicians, unfortunately in our country, it's literally required. Remember Bubba holding on to his bible during the Monica thingy. You would think that his example would do a lot to erase any notions that morality and religious ardour are somehow linked. That would have been yet another wonderful achievement of the Bubba years. But it never happenned, dammit.
Anyway, back to Obama. I think Obama went to sevices with the crazy pastor all those years for some or all of the reasons noted above. So it's ok to hang with your crazy fool pastor for all those years, but that has to stop when you get serious about becoming President. Obama did the right thing when he did it. I don't blame him for not doing it earlier. I understand.
You like moose hunting bitches? That's cool. Ultimately, what a Vp does with her time has very little impact on people like us.
If you are asking about what points I was getting at in my post, then, yes certainly I am impressed by anyone who is Editor of the Harvard Law Review. As a former law student, I surely believe that anyone who gets that honor, at harvard,deserves the utmost respect. It's quite an achievement, and with all due respect to hockey moms and librarians everywhere beats the shit of their accomplishments. It's indicative of two things I value, and that all Americans should also value in a Presidential candidate (although as I said they are not a guarantee that a President will be successful): brains (big brains) and a work ethic (big work ethic).
I also don't want Obama to be "just like us", if by that you mean average folks. I don't want an average person as President. We've never had an average person as President, at least since being President became a prized job (you'd be surprised how easy it was way back when). Those who present themselves as that are just doing the demagogue thing. I don't bite at that. We've had crooks, sex addicts, actors, army men etc. None of them, not one, was an average American.
Just because Obama or anyone else is smart doesn't mean that if elected they won't care about the rest of "us". That's what the demagogues whisper in your ear so that you elect them and not those better qualified to lead. In any case, I don't appreciate any candidate wasting my time telling me he "cares about me". I'm too old for that. I assume they care about themselves, about the job they are about to undertake and about the country they will lead, which includes me and lots of other people who are very much unlike me.
I don't get your guns/religions point. I'm against religion in politics and for the right to bear arms (an unusual stance I admit). But in my presidential candidates I prefer the ones who lay off religion all together, and those who keep the gun talk at a minimum.
You better believe he dumped his pastor. The dude (the pastor) is a crazy, religious racist fool. If I thought Obama went to his church or whatever that thing is called because he believed the crap the pastor was putting out, assuming he was talking crazy all these years, I wouldn't vote for him. I am voting for him, so obviously I don't believe that for a second.
Sometimes folks go to services on Sundays for the music, or the hats or the companionship or because they have nothing better to do, or because they believe God wants them to, or because they are culturally programmed to, or becauuse their wives nag them to, or because as politicians, unfortunately in our country, it's literally required. Remember Bubba holding on to his bible during the Monica thingy. You would think that his example would do a lot to erase any notions that morality and religious ardour are somehow linked. That would have been yet another wonderful achievement of the Bubba years. But it never happenned, dammit.
Anyway, back to Obama. I think Obama went to sevices with the crazy pastor all those years for some or all of the reasons noted above. So it's ok to hang with your crazy fool pastor for all those years, but that has to stop when you get serious about becoming President. Obama did the right thing when he did it. I don't blame him for not doing it earlier. I understand.
You like moose hunting bitches? That's cool. Ultimately, what a Vp does with her time has very little impact on people like us.
-
Who Shot Sam?
- Posts: 7097
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:05 pm
- Location: Somewhere in the distance
- Contact:
Re: President Palin?
I'd argue that that has not been the case with Cheney, who has clearly had far more influence than your average veep.alexv wrote:Ultimately, what a Vp does with her time has very little impact on people like us.
Mother, Moose-Hunter, Maverick
-
Emotional Toothpaste
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:15 pm
Re: President Palin?
Alexv - don't you recall Obama's comments at a San Francisco fundraiser this past spring where he made his infamous "thats why they cling to their religion and their guns" speech (referring to small mid-western towns)? Thats the point I was making about religion/guns.
With respect to a candidate being "real", this should not be confused with wanting a candidate to be "average". By real, I mean not transparent, not overly polished, not so academically aloof, not so career politiciany. Yes - it does mean "like us" to the extent that we know they put on their pants the same way as us, they have even held a normal job or two somewhere in their past. Someone who can appreciate the nightly struggle of getting their kids to brush their teeth vs. someone who probably has been at some kind of damn dinner or fundraising event for 360 out of 365 of the last nights. Those type of people aren't REAL, in fact, I think they're a little suspect.
I have been around plenty of professional ivory tower types all my life. Its a great hiding place from the rest of the REAL world. My whole family is full of them. Myself? just a B student with a lowly BS from a midwestern state U. Though I do have a lot of friends w/ masters degrees and several are pH'D's, some are even employed in the private sector! I completely respect their acheivements and the hardwork it must have taken to get there, as well as being blessed with the mental horsepower to pull it off. Some would make great leaders and some lack the sense to dress warmly when its cold, even though they could give you a brilliant dissertation on studies about cold and flu season. Conversely, I know several executives of good-sized corporations who never even finished high school. Fantastic leaders with incredible mental faculties.
Academic acheivement is but one bullet-point on resume, it doesn't automatically get you hired without an interview (except in the land of academia!)
So, getting back on topic. McCain/Palin is a nice balance. Experience and political wisdom upfront where it matters w/ McCain. Palin, a real person at VP? Yeah, okay. Theres no major red flags with her. I don't agree with all her views, but I think she has more than enough ability, character, and toughness to be VP or even P. Certainly, her resume, (with the exception of the Harvard Law Review) is just as impressive as Obama's, and she's not the front side of the ticket!
You and others want someone who is not at all average as our next president. Other than his well-above "average" speaking ability and a few well-presented talking points, where is it with Obama? As Senator, what did he accomplish? What will he really accomplish if elected? Or is it all just hutzpah, whatever that is.
I thought this was pretty funny as it relates to all the Obama-worship going on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8cNtH1mULo
With respect to a candidate being "real", this should not be confused with wanting a candidate to be "average". By real, I mean not transparent, not overly polished, not so academically aloof, not so career politiciany. Yes - it does mean "like us" to the extent that we know they put on their pants the same way as us, they have even held a normal job or two somewhere in their past. Someone who can appreciate the nightly struggle of getting their kids to brush their teeth vs. someone who probably has been at some kind of damn dinner or fundraising event for 360 out of 365 of the last nights. Those type of people aren't REAL, in fact, I think they're a little suspect.
I have been around plenty of professional ivory tower types all my life. Its a great hiding place from the rest of the REAL world.
My whole family is full of them. Myself? just a B student with a lowly BS from a midwestern state U. Though I do have a lot of friends w/ masters degrees and several are pH'D's, some are even employed in the private sector! I completely respect their acheivements and the hardwork it must have taken to get there, as well as being blessed with the mental horsepower to pull it off. Some would make great leaders and some lack the sense to dress warmly when its cold, even though they could give you a brilliant dissertation on studies about cold and flu season. Conversely, I know several executives of good-sized corporations who never even finished high school. Fantastic leaders with incredible mental faculties. Academic acheivement is but one bullet-point on resume, it doesn't automatically get you hired without an interview (except in the land of academia!)
So, getting back on topic. McCain/Palin is a nice balance. Experience and political wisdom upfront where it matters w/ McCain. Palin, a real person at VP? Yeah, okay. Theres no major red flags with her. I don't agree with all her views, but I think she has more than enough ability, character, and toughness to be VP or even P. Certainly, her resume, (with the exception of the Harvard Law Review) is just as impressive as Obama's, and she's not the front side of the ticket!
You and others want someone who is not at all average as our next president. Other than his well-above "average" speaking ability and a few well-presented talking points, where is it with Obama? As Senator, what did he accomplish? What will he really accomplish if elected? Or is it all just hutzpah, whatever that is.
I thought this was pretty funny as it relates to all the Obama-worship going on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8cNtH1mULo
Re: President Palin?
I prefer the sort of chutzpah that makes you want to make the world/country a better place, not the sort of chutzpah that involves overturning Roe v. Wade, teaching creationism in public schools and "rhetorically" asking the local librarian how to go about banning books.
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
-
Emotional Toothpaste
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:15 pm
Re: President Palin?
Yes, but isn't that all just a bunch of distractions to help DRIVE the chutzpah??
-
Who Shot Sam?
- Posts: 7097
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:05 pm
- Location: Somewhere in the distance
- Contact:
Re: President Palin?
Right you are WSS, some VP's are bigger than others (and some Vp's mothers are bigger than other Vp"s mothers...). Cheney is an exception though. Can't think of any other Vp in recent memory with that kind of power, although Vps are certainly more influential now than ever before.
Thanks, ET, I see what you were getting at with the guns/religion thing. You were referring to his SF speech. I totally missed that. Here's what he said, verbatim:
"Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).
But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. "
I don't see any evidence in that text of classism, or of an elitist attitude towards small-town America. In fact, the overrriding tone of these paragraphs is a sense of compassion for the conditions facing industrial belt small town; a desire to include them as part of his dialogue. He's saying that folks in those towns are embittered towards the political process because the they perceive that the things that politicians are focused on don't tackle their specific problems. He's saying that the challenge is to get these people to see that progress is being made even if their daily lives are not impacted by the issues that preoccupy the national parties (i.e. they talk about tax loopholes and still the jobs are gone etc.). Because that challenge has not been met, small town America remains alienated from the process, and that alienation leads them to the traditional hot-button issues: he mentions guns and religion, but he also includes anti-immigrant feeling, and the list could be expanded. They cling to the black and white issues out of frustation with the tone of the national debate.
He's not saying that small town folks are are walking around toting their bibles and guns in search of immigrants to convert and or shoot, or that they are too dumb to understand intricate political issues that the elite discuss. He's just saying that in his view, they are tired of that kind of big issue discussion which somehow never trickles down to their everyday lives. And, most importantly, he views their concerns as important enough that candidates like himself must face up to the challenge of reaching them, of convincing them that apparent hi-falutin policy discussions do resonate with everyday American lives.
It was ironic that Hillary (whom I would have preferred to Obama) attacked him by citing how, unlike the elitist Obama, she was of modest Midwest stock, your average small town gal .... who attended Yale and became partner in Arkansas' top law firm (ending up in Arkansas only because of Bubba). Small town, right.
On your real vs average point, we may have to agree to disagree, I do want my presidential candidates to be polished, even if overly polished. I don't see any evidence of academic aloofness in Obama. I see evidence of academic achievement of the highest kind, and I appreciate that in my candidate. If he had spent his life in an ivory tower worrying about the meaning of the Ring as it relates to nordic sagas I would worry. But he hasn't. I do want my politicians running for President to have experience in national politics, preferably. I certainly don't hold it against them if they do. I do not view our political process as somehow polluted. I think it works. I don't need my Presidential candidate to have had a normal job or two in his professional career, definitely. I don't think you have to have been a cashier in order to understand that part of your job as president is to do the best you can for cashiers. Cashiers are cashiers, generally, for a reason, and that reason says things about cashiers that prevent me from ever voting them into office as president (I'm not talking about cashiering during your summers off from school). I completely expect my Presidential candidate to have attended zillions of rubber chicken dinners during the course of his or her mad run for President. That kind of idiotic commitment goes hand in hand with the kind of huge ego and ambition one must have to commit to running for President. It's a prerequisite for the job these days. If you are going to brush your kid's teeth, you will fail.
As i said, brains and work ethics don't guarantee a successful presidency (FDR and Regan fail both tests), but they are assets nevertheless. I too know lots of smart people who don't get everyday life. I don't see them running for Pres. All I'm saying is that Obama passes the brains/work ethic test and i don't see any evidence that he's out of touch or doesnt' get everyday life etc. He's as far from an Ivory Tower as you can get. His brains/work ethic are an asset, but they are not the only reason to vote for him. I was addressing your point ("are we supposed to be impressed by his law review credentials?") and noting that yes we should be impressed.
Thanks, ET, I see what you were getting at with the guns/religion thing. You were referring to his SF speech. I totally missed that. Here's what he said, verbatim:
"Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).
But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. "
I don't see any evidence in that text of classism, or of an elitist attitude towards small-town America. In fact, the overrriding tone of these paragraphs is a sense of compassion for the conditions facing industrial belt small town; a desire to include them as part of his dialogue. He's saying that folks in those towns are embittered towards the political process because the they perceive that the things that politicians are focused on don't tackle their specific problems. He's saying that the challenge is to get these people to see that progress is being made even if their daily lives are not impacted by the issues that preoccupy the national parties (i.e. they talk about tax loopholes and still the jobs are gone etc.). Because that challenge has not been met, small town America remains alienated from the process, and that alienation leads them to the traditional hot-button issues: he mentions guns and religion, but he also includes anti-immigrant feeling, and the list could be expanded. They cling to the black and white issues out of frustation with the tone of the national debate.
He's not saying that small town folks are are walking around toting their bibles and guns in search of immigrants to convert and or shoot, or that they are too dumb to understand intricate political issues that the elite discuss. He's just saying that in his view, they are tired of that kind of big issue discussion which somehow never trickles down to their everyday lives. And, most importantly, he views their concerns as important enough that candidates like himself must face up to the challenge of reaching them, of convincing them that apparent hi-falutin policy discussions do resonate with everyday American lives.
It was ironic that Hillary (whom I would have preferred to Obama) attacked him by citing how, unlike the elitist Obama, she was of modest Midwest stock, your average small town gal .... who attended Yale and became partner in Arkansas' top law firm (ending up in Arkansas only because of Bubba). Small town, right.
On your real vs average point, we may have to agree to disagree, I do want my presidential candidates to be polished, even if overly polished. I don't see any evidence of academic aloofness in Obama. I see evidence of academic achievement of the highest kind, and I appreciate that in my candidate. If he had spent his life in an ivory tower worrying about the meaning of the Ring as it relates to nordic sagas I would worry. But he hasn't. I do want my politicians running for President to have experience in national politics, preferably. I certainly don't hold it against them if they do. I do not view our political process as somehow polluted. I think it works. I don't need my Presidential candidate to have had a normal job or two in his professional career, definitely. I don't think you have to have been a cashier in order to understand that part of your job as president is to do the best you can for cashiers. Cashiers are cashiers, generally, for a reason, and that reason says things about cashiers that prevent me from ever voting them into office as president (I'm not talking about cashiering during your summers off from school). I completely expect my Presidential candidate to have attended zillions of rubber chicken dinners during the course of his or her mad run for President. That kind of idiotic commitment goes hand in hand with the kind of huge ego and ambition one must have to commit to running for President. It's a prerequisite for the job these days. If you are going to brush your kid's teeth, you will fail.
As i said, brains and work ethics don't guarantee a successful presidency (FDR and Regan fail both tests), but they are assets nevertheless. I too know lots of smart people who don't get everyday life. I don't see them running for Pres. All I'm saying is that Obama passes the brains/work ethic test and i don't see any evidence that he's out of touch or doesnt' get everyday life etc. He's as far from an Ivory Tower as you can get. His brains/work ethic are an asset, but they are not the only reason to vote for him. I was addressing your point ("are we supposed to be impressed by his law review credentials?") and noting that yes we should be impressed.
-
always dancing
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:02 pm
- Location: Philadlephia
Re: President Palin?
By now most of you have seen this but in case you haven't
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/ ... en/656281/
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/ ... en/656281/
-
LessThanZero
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 10:26 pm
- Location: Kalamazoo
- Contact:
Re: President Palin?
Mr. Average, I disagree with you. Senator Obama is NOT a dumbass.
Loving this board since before When I Was Cruel.