Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by nikki1920

VP or not, I don't know if I could leave my 4 month old child to campaign. I'd have to discuss that with my family and do what's best for them.

A 4-month old special needs child (Down's Syndrome)...

[SummerChild]

I think that we have to come to terms with the fact that just b/c she's a woman and she bore the child, that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be able to just drop the baby and go off campaigning around the country. Sad as this is, really if we are saying that women are equal to men, they why should the age of the baby have anything to do with whether she can accept a nomination. If it was a man accepting a nomination, we wouldn't even *know* if he had a 4 month old child.

Now, besides the choice to accept the offer as candidate, her politics are just way too different from HRC's to get women - unless they were simply voting for HRC b/c she was a woman...politics aside. I mean come on, HRC is pro-choice. SP (sorry, I don't even know her middle name LOL) is so far to the right that she doesn't even believe in abortion in cases of rape or incest. My aunt, a woman who just retired from nursing after over 40 years, says that she remember women coming into the hospitals bleeding from trying to cause an abortion with foreign objects, with acid burns from sticking acid pills in their uterus, etc. back before roe v. wade. Ok, so SP thinks that this is not going to happen again if abortion is outlawed? Oh wait, the people trying to give themselves an abortion are sinners anyway in her mind probably so to h-ll with them anyway. (shrug)

Anyway, I digress. SP also thinks that the Iraq war and the pipeline in Alaska are both ordained by G-D. While I believe in G-D, it is scary to me to hear someone who is invoking G-D with regard to the Iraq war and the freaking pipeline in Alaska. The scary part is that it is impossible to reason with someone who thinks that the Iraq war is called upon by the Higher Authority. I believe that this is why we haven't been able to convince Bush of this...he also believes that it's ordained by G-D. You can't successfully argue with someone about that. You have no authority. I digress...again.

Again, she is so far to the right that the only HRC voters who will be swayed to her are those who only voted for HRC b/c she was a woman and cared NOTHING about her politics.

Further, women who are THAT feminist are going to be the same women that don't want some crazy super anti-abortion woman in the VP (and possibly the POTUS) seat. He just doesn't understand women or the demographic that he's trying to appeal to. The two just don't go together. Tsk tsk. Clearly, McCain's logic and deduction skills need sharpening.

HRC is not down with the NRA, while SP is a life member of the NRA. Total opposites almost, it seems to me. Has anyone taken HRC's temperature on this?

Again, SP really doesn't buy McCain much. Not a very bright decision. Not surprising however, as his aides apparently did not know that he was considering her. They could have helped him figure out that she wasn't going to grab any huge portion of the HRC demographic. She's way too far to the right.

In fact, SP is so far to the right that her politics don't even align with the way that McCain *wants* us to believe that he is. Forget the fact that he voted with Bush most of the time, if we go for the dupe like he wants us to and believe that he is so different from Bush, well, the fact of the matter is that SP may be more to the right than Bush! Ok, so who is McCain, really?

And SP is so christian-like, huh? That's why she was ripping Obama the way that she was, right? That's why she secured $27 million from a lobbyist that she paid to get funding for her 9,000 person town, right?

And SP is for special needs kids, huh? Is that now that she has one as of 4 months ago? B/c prior to that she cut funding for special needs kids. Hmm. So christianlike, so wonderful. Sounds just like someone who has authority to speak about what G-D has ordained. (sigh)

The whole debacle is hilarious to me. I can't wait for the next few weeks to unfold. I am sure that we will find out the real reason that she was picked. It can't be what we're being told. Come on. None of this makes sense. One thing we do know - John McCain has a thing for young dittys (sp)...even while he's married. lol. we've seen that one before from him with his first wife and cindy.

SC

[QUOTE=nikki1920;1708711]

VP or not, I don't know if I could leave my 4 month old child to campaign. I'd have to discuss that with my family and do what's best for them.
[QUOTE]

[nikki1920]

^^^That fact alone has me a bit concerned. I plan on researching her background, but I have a problem with that, as a mother. My child, thankfully, was born healthy, but if she had some serious issues, then I'd be hard pressed to do something as intensive and time consuming as being the Repub. VP candidate.

And I can't get over the fact that he seems to have selected her ONLY because she is a conservative, Republican woman as a way to lure HRC voters to his party. That's a slap in the face to them, IMO.

[OneTimeSBX]

Originally Posted by nikki1920

^^^That fact alone has me a bit concerned. I plan on researching her background, but I have a problem with that, as a mother. My child, thankfully, was born healthy, but if she had some serious issues, then I'd be hard pressed to do something as intensive and time consuming as being the Repub. VP candidate.

And I can't get over the fact that he seems to have selected her ONLY because she is a conservative, Republican woman as a way to lure HRC voters to his party. That's a slap in the face to them, IMO.

thats those good old-fashioned "family values" they've been pushing ! slap the kids with a nanny. only the rich think thats okay...

and ive mentioned this in a few other threads, but the "obama is a celeb" tactic has lost a lot of credibility...she was a runner-up Miss Alaska, and posed not too long ago for the cover of Vogue magazine!!! uh, celeb?

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by nikki1920

And I can't get over the fact that he seems to have selected her ONLY because she is a conservative, Republican woman as a way to lure HRC voters to his party. That's a slap in the face to them, IMO.

Funny thing is that she has mentioned Hillary twice in speeches and was booed both times. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...llary-clinton/) Such a welcoming atmosphere for the Hillbots who can't bring themselves to vote for the Black guy!

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Funny thing is that she has mentioned Hillary twice in speeches and was booed both times. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...llary-clinton/) Such a welcoming atmosphere for the Hillbots who can't bring themselves to vote for the Black guy!

(Sorry for the board crash - I like following the politics discussions...)

You realize there may be reasons why they don't vote for Obama, beyond the color of his skin, right? That there may be reasonable minds within the Democratic party who have an issue with Obama's policies, etc?

I don't think she was the right choice for VP candidate, but I'm concerned that people are making assumptions on her personal life. I tend to think that the personal lives of the candidates should beyond the scope of scrutiny, unless they are engaged in something that compromises their ability to be an effective leader (i.e., are a drug user, criminal, etc.).

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

(Sorry for the board crash - I like following the politics discussions...)

You realize there may be reasons why they don't vote for Obama, beyond the color of his skin, right? That there may be reasonable minds within the Democratic party who have an issue with Obama's policies, etc?

Yeah, reasons like he is a Muslim (false), he is unpatriotic (huh?), oh yeah, and he was sexist toward Hillary (prove it!). ALL FALSE! All through the primaries, the pundits, pollsters and even the candidates themselves highlighted the fact that there is little daylight between them on the issues and matters of policy.

So what else is there, oh yeah, experience....He has about the same amount of elected political experience (10 yrs) as Clinton (15), Bush Sr (12) and Reagan (8) and more than Carter(7), FRD(6) and Bush Jr (5) (source:
http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/).

Is it because he was not a POW? Uh, the last President that had real military experience was Eisenhower, I believe. So that doesn't pass muster either.


PLEASE tell me why Democrats, esp those who supported Hillary, are not voting for Obama. I really want to know.




FYI, I am not a Democrat, I am a Registered Independent.


ETA: One of the last die hard Hillbots converts! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...083101620.html

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Yeah, reasons like he is a Muslim (false), he is unpatriotic (huh?), oh yeah, and he was sexist toward Hillary (prove it!). ALL FALSE! All through the primaries, the pundits, pollsters and even the candidates themselves highlighted the fact that there is little daylight between them on the issues and matters of policy.

So what else is there, oh yeah, experience....He has about the same amount of elected political experience (10 yrs) as Clinton (15), Bush Sr (12) and Reagan (8) and more than Carter(7), FRD(6) and Bush Jr (5) (source:
http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/).

Is it because he was not a POW? Uh, the last President that had real military experience was Eisenhower, I believe. So that doesn't pass muster either.


PLEASE tell me why Democrats, esp those who supported Hillary, are not voting for Obama. I really want to know.




FYI, I am not a Democrat, I am a Registered Independent.


ETA: One of the last die hard Hillbots converts! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...083101620.html

Bush Sr. also had significant military experience. As to the other points, I understand what you're saying

[SummerChild]

No, I don't think that her personal life should be off limits. Obama's personal life (including his church choice and his wife's comments) was not off limits. Michelle Obama was critiqued for her comments and Palin should also be critiqued based on what she has publicly disclosed.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. As a woman, I can say that she does not need her hand held nor does she need protection. She is not a delicate flower like people like to think of her, just b/c she is a woman. We are tough. We can take it. She should be critiqued and vetted just like everyone else that has ever run for office. Do you think for a minute that John Edwards would have not been critiqued if his out of wedlock child would have come out during his run for president? Not for a minute do I believe that it would not be.

Everybody's personal life is fair game in any election.

*Besides, answer me this. Why is it ok for us to talk about two of her kids (the one in the service and the baby with down syndrome) but not the other one (the unmarried pregnant one)? SHE - yes, SP herself, is the one who keeps invoking her family but only when it gets her chips. SHE - yes, SP herself is the one who has made public statements about her 17 year old daughter.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Obama and his family can be critique, so can Palin and her family. She.is.not.a.delicate.flower. We need to stop treating women as if we are some sort of delicate toy that will break at the first harsh or critical comment.

SC




At every instance

Originally Posted by KSigkid

(Sorry for the board crash - I like following the politics discussions...)

You realize there may be reasons why they don't vote for Obama, beyond the color of his skin, right? That there may be reasonable minds within the Democratic party who have an issue with Obama's policies, etc?

I don't think she was the right choice for VP candidate, but I'm concerned that people are making assumptions on her personal life. I tend to think that the personal lives of the candidates should beyond the scope of scrutiny, unless they are engaged in something that compromises their ability to be an effective leader (i.e., are a drug user, criminal, etc.).

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

No, I don't think that her personal life should be off limits. Obama's personal life (including his church choice and his wife's comments) was not off limits. Michelle Obama was critiqued for her comments and Palin should also be critiqued based on what she has publicly disclosed.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. As a woman, I can say that she does not need her hand held nor does she need protection. She is not a delicate flower like people like to think of her, just b/c she is a woman. We are tough. We can take it. She should be critiqued and vetted just like everyone else that has ever run for office. Do you think for a minute that John Edwards would have not been critiqued if his out of wedlock child would have come out during his run for president? Not for a minute do I believe that it would not be.

Everybody's personal life is fair game in any election.

*Besides, answer me this. Why is it ok for us to talk about two of her kids (the one in the service and the baby with down syndrome) but not the other one (the unmarried pregnant one)? SHE - yes, SP herself, is the one who keeps invoking her family but only when it gets her chips. SHE - yes, SP herself is the one who has made public statements about her 17 year old daughter.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Obama and his family can be critique, so can Palin and her family. She.is.not.a.delicate.flower. We need to stop treating women as if we are some sort of delicate toy that will break at the first harsh or critical comment.

SC




At every instance

Agreed again. Sorry, SP and McSame, you can't have it both ways!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13143.html

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Now that both conventions are over, what do you score them?

I score the Dems an A-. The speeches were good, the delegates were enthused and the program was sound. It was as good as it gets. The policy and platform details were kind of skimpy until the last night.

I score the Repugs a C+. They picked up the pieces after the schedule disruption and did the best they could. However, EVERYTHING seemed just so scripted and pointedly partisan and personal. Did anyone notice the green-screen-of-death again? *snicker*

B/B- for both - each had a couple of good speeches, but overall, the speeches were weak and it was your usual, run-of-the-mill convention talk.

Originally Posted by SummerChild

No, I don't think that her personal life should be off limits. Obama's personal life (including his church choice and his wife's comments) was not off limits. Michelle Obama was critiqued for her comments and Palin should also be critiqued based on what she has publicly disclosed.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. As a woman, I can say that she does not need her hand held nor does she need protection. She is not a delicate flower like people like to think of her, just b/c she is a woman. We are tough. We can take it. She should be critiqued and vetted just like everyone else that has ever run for office. Do you think for a minute that John Edwards would have not been critiqued if his out of wedlock child would have come out during his run for president? Not for a minute do I believe that it would not be.

Everybody's personal life is fair game in any election.

*Besides, answer me this. Why is it ok for us to talk about two of her kids (the one in the service and the baby with down syndrome) but not the other one (the unmarried pregnant one)? SHE - yes, SP herself, is the one who keeps invoking her family but only when it gets her chips. SHE - yes, SP herself is the one who has made public statements about her 17 year old daughter.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Obama and his family can be critique, so can Palin and her family. She.is.not.a.delicate.flower. We need to stop treating women as if we are some sort of delicate toy that will break at the first harsh or critical comment.

SC




At every instance

I personally don't think any of it (Obama's church choice, Palin's children, etc.) has anything to do with the process. But, that's just me.

[nikki1920]

What does her hubby do? Is he going to stay at home with the kids?

[darling1]

i read recently he works for BP/Amoco

sidebar - can you email me please - divinediva72@comcast.net

end sidebar.

Originally Posted by nikki1920

What does her hubby do? Is he going to stay at home with the kids?

[nikki1920]

Originally Posted by darling1

i read recently he works for BP/Amoco

sidebar - can you email me please - divinediva72@comcast.net

end sidebar.

I did..

end sidebar.

[jitterbug13]

Yesterday, I was watching Face The Nation (missed Meet The Press) and I saw Bob Sheiffer (sp) talking to former NY Mayor Gulianni (sp). Gulianni was trying to defend McCain's choice of VP. He said that Palian is a good choice because she has had municipal experience and experience running state government. She may be a governor (there are more people in some major cities than Alaska) but running a city of less than 10,000 is different than running a city with millions of people.

I was watching NBC Nightly News last night and Brian Williams was interviewing McCain. He brought up on why he made his decision. He listed some of the things that Gulianni said, but also added that she has PTA leadership. Yes, PTA.

PTA was brought up again by Gov. Sanford (the governor of SC, where I live). He said that it was good seeing a PTA and soccer mom make this historic rise. Sanford was on the long list of VP canidates and he has been governor here six years, on top of the six years he was on in the US House.

PTA does not equal foreign policy experience. Is that the best explanation the Republicans got?