Sarah Palin: McCain’s pick for vice president
http://constitutionclub.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mccainpalinbutton.jpg
The braying begins…
So the Democrats have decided to “pounce” on McCain’s VP pick, Sarah Palin. What’s hilarious is that every one of the yapping Democratic attack dogs complaints about Palin apply directly to Obama. Even with this pick, McCains vice presidential selection is more experienced and more qualified for the presidency than the Democratic nominee himself. That should tell you something and that is the line that should be used every time the dimwits start saying a word about “inexperience”. They’ve basically got a “I vote present” Illinois state senator running for the highest office in the land and they are complaining about a governor and, might I add, the only one on both tickets with actual governing experience. She also stands in stark contrast to an Obama who has abundantly more baggage and a disturbingly problematic past. There also seems to be firm evidence that her birth certificate is genuine.
I say burn the naysayers and doomsayers at the stake, it was a bold and fine pick Mr. McCain. Palin is fiercely independent, strong minded, witty and has created her own success in life. Let the bully boys and the pit bulls circle and growl, but Palin should do you proud.
http://constitutionclub.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/palin.jpg
With this one pick, McCain has snapped the conservative base back into place (she is loved by pro-lifers, evangelicals, gun rights advocates etc.) and also managed to reach out to every middle class, working soccer mom type that may have considered Hillary at one time or another. It softens the appearance of the ticket, helps eliminate the “novelty” factor of an Obama candidacy, and also guarantees that history will also be made on November 4th with a McCain victory. The low blow name-calling that is already being bantered about by Democratic talking heads is already borderline sexist and certainly joins the ‘ageism’ so evident in their attacks on John McCain. The “party of tolerance” is in fact a very intolerant group of hypocrites and conservatives like myself never tire in pointing that out, and that is just one of the many, many reasons why I do not subscribe to the intellectually barren “progressive” ideology.
A preview of the rest of the campaign:
http://constitutionclub.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mcainpalin.png
What you don’t know about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin:
In high school Palin was known as “Sarah Barracuda” by her classmates due to her fierce competitiveness on the basketball court. Her oldest son is in the army and was being deployed to Iraq (that may not happen now due to security concerns by the US army) . She was the 2nd runner up for the Miss Alaska title. She is known as a political outsider and maverick, loves mooseburgers,
I was going to vote for McCain but with the announcement of Palin as his VP pick I am now EXCITED to vote for the GOP in November!
Black Coffee & Bourbon
29 Aug 08 at 8:59 pm
I am dissapointed, but no longer surprised, by Andre’s and Wes’s immediate attacks on Sarah Palin. I love the pick, but then again, I basically predicted it and called for it, at a time when even those who follow politics closely had never heard of her. So perhaps I have what the experts call “a rooting interest.”
The pick now clarifies the McCain campaign’s message to a two-pronged assault. This is now a ticket that is all about reform and change and taking on special interests on the one hand, while explicitly seeking women voters on the other. The Democrats will attack Palin at their peril; but then, this group destroyed one vastly superior woman already, they may well be up to trashing another chick just as easily. But McCain was clever to force them to twice tarnish the dreams of many American women.
DFV the Scribe
29 Aug 08 at 10:42 pm
Conclub is always ahead of the curve. The headlines scream about how ’surprised’ political pundits and activists were at the pick. We weren’t overly surprised here. I guess I was surprised that McCain had the courage to actually follow through with it, but as soon as Obama picked some has-been Washington insider as his running mate I knew there was an opportunity here. As McCain you have to take some risks and gambles in this election to have a shot at winning. This is one of them and it may or may not work, but elections are won in such fashions and I think in the end it will help more than hurt. Biden didn’t do anything for Obama and he actually fell two points in the next two days because of it. Now where can I get myself a McCain/Palin bumper sticker?
Seize the day!
Dave - the Infidel Sage
29 Aug 08 at 10:51 pm
Most laughable, is the faux-serious intonations tht Palin is not ready to be Preident. Wes was particularly perturbed. The reality is that it is highly unlikley that Palin will become President soon, and the oft-mentioned criteria that she must be ready to step in tomorrow, is silly.
She isn’t running to be President, but Vice President, and in that role, she is quite qualified. It is is uber-rich to assail her because she doesn’t possess a resume to be Commander-in-Chief right away, when the likelihood of that is tiny, while their own candidate for the top spot has a pedigree that is arguably less prepared than McCain’s second.
DFV the Scribe
29 Aug 08 at 11:07 pm
Quick question, what’s your opinion of Palin’s windfall profit tax on oil companies? What do you think of her position on Iran?
Wes
30 Aug 08 at 1:06 am
She’s “tough” on Iran (which is a good thing) and actually has been a big ol’ pain in the rear to the oil companies in Alasks, refusing to give them big tax breaks etc. You’ll have to do a bit of research but it is out there.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
30 Aug 08 at 6:45 am
Actually, the Iran question was a bit of a trick. There IS no documented opinion on Iran unless it took place in the last day or so. There’s no documented opinion about nearly anything except energy, and even then, it doesn’t include any concept of renewable energy, hybrids, nuclear, anything.
I thought that tax breaks for companies were good? When did you become all for tax breaks here? Was this at the last ConClave?
Wes
30 Aug 08 at 10:52 am
There is a difference between tax breaks and socialism Wes. A little primer for you: Tax breaks are sometimes a good thing - socialism is always bad.
The energy angle is quite cute Wes. All the American people need to know about her is that she wants to drill. When 75% of ‘DA PEOPLE’ want to drill we better drill. Because ‘DA PEOPLE’ is always right, right? The will of the people should always prevail, shouldn’t it? If Obama becomes president he should allow drilling even if he truly believes it is wrong, shouldn’t he?
How do you feel about the will of the people?
pg - your humble messenger
30 Aug 08 at 11:23 am
No, she is for tax INCREASES. She ran what amounted to a windfall profits tax on oil companies that paid for many state services and gave the residents a needed boost. How is she going to answer for being against the same thing here?
Yeah, I know about drilling, it’s the entire reason she was picked, and clearly something that was done on paper. This entire pick happened on paper, because she only met McCain once this whole time before Thursday. I also know that she was a governor, and the increased oil drilling would benefit one state and one state only in the immediate sense. Governors promote what is best for their state. She’s a great governor, but few of the policies that are good for Alaska are good for the rest of the country.
Wes
30 Aug 08 at 11:36 am
The argument against drilling in ANWR is that it harms Alaska. Liberals have never minded telling Alaskans that they are too stupid to know what’s good for them, since most Alaskans of both parties favor drilling.
Also, a state with one major industry may choose to tax that industry to pay for services in their state. That won’t have much effect on the industry globally. But for a nation to levy a tax on an industry to “punish” them for their efforts is bad policy. The two issues are very different.
DFV the Scribe
30 Aug 08 at 8:13 pm
Wes, I am dead solid serious to hear your justification as to why politicians should not allow drilling everywhere as over 70% of the public wants to do it. Would you please answer me?
pg - your humble messenger
31 Aug 08 at 12:04 pm
Because I’m not sure the public DOES want drilling everywhere. It opens a door that cannot be closed. And because there’s a good chance I’m going to be moving to the Tampa area in a couple of years. I suppose cheaper land in St. Pete might be worthwhile, but I don’t think it’s worthwhile overall. Alaska’s tourist trade wouldn’t be swayed by oil wells. Florida’s would.
Wes
31 Aug 08 at 12:19 pm
I don’t much comment or contribute to these sorts of things. I just love reading and learning. But I have to say that I am so amused and entertained by the intellectual and rhetorical gymnastics being exercised by Obama supporters in response to the Palin pick.
As much as I enjoy reading this blog, I would like it better if there were some real “liberal” or ” progessive” writers here. Somebody to make me think, question, ponder. The writers here who claim the “liberal” and “progressive” titles are really just big old leftist pussies. I know that’s crude, but it’s accurate.
I consider myself to be liberal and progessive. I’m not old enough to remember when the wheels fell off of the democrat’s’ wagon, but it most obviously did.
I’m a big time history geek, and as a supporter of liberalism and progressiveness, how can I not vote for Mcain/Palin?
What would JFK do?
TZ
31 Aug 08 at 7:53 pm
By all means, enlighten us.
Wes
31 Aug 08 at 8:49 pm
TZ brings up an interesting point when he says: “As much as I enjoy reading this blog, I would like it better if there were some real “liberal” or ” progessive” writers here. Somebody to make me think, question, ponder. The writers here who claim the “liberal” and “progressive” titles are really just big old leftist pussies. I know that’s crude, but it’s accurate. “
TZ, you present an interesting dilemma in that there really are few people that you desire that exist today in America. You would do well to read a priceless post from Damien written in April 2007. Enjoy.
The Story of Joe Liebermann, Neoconservatism and the left wing netroots
E the Wise
31 Aug 08 at 8:51 pm
[...] Recent Comments The Story of Joe Lie… on The Story of Joe Lieberman, Ne…DFV the Scribe on “Most Laughable” Q…E the Wise on Sarah Palin: McCain’s pi…Wes on Sarah Palin: McCain’s pi…TZ on Sarah Palin: McCain’s pi… [...]
The Story of Joe Lieberman, neoconservatism and the left wing netroots; redux « Constitution Club
31 Aug 08 at 9:18 pm
You don’t care to be enlightened, Wes. Today, you’d dismiss JFK as a wingnut. He would not be welcome in the party of Obama. Unfortunately, we’ll never know if he would have even become a great president, but he had potential. He was no 21st century leftist.
The people who endorsed John Edwards as a VP candidate 4 years ago, and who endorse Obama as a presidential candidate today are being comic in their sudden concern for experience. It’s especially fun to put Obama and Palin resumes side by side on the same table and compare what they’ve actually accomplished over the past 2 decades. I haven’t put the Palin/Edwards resumes side by side yet, because who cares, but I’m sure that’ll be be fun also.
That the republicans and Clintons have been critical of Obama’s experience is true. He’s not the VP nominee, he’s going for the top job right away. With less accomplished and less relevant experience than the opposing VP candidate has.
If I’m going to vote for liberal platitudes, sure, Obama’s the guy. But I need results. Dems don’t deliver those so much. Look at the current congress. And I’m thinking many, if not most real liberals aren’t even in the dem party any more. In America, anyway, liberal didn’t used to mean leftist pussy. That’s a European thing.
Yeah, I know, I’m being crude again.
TZ
1 Sep 08 at 7:01 am
Thanks for that link, E the Wise. Far greater minds than mine have been over this territory before, and I’m very fortunate to live in a time where their words are so easily accessible
The link reminded me that I’m pissed that men like Lieberman and Hagel don’t seem to have much clout these days.
TZ
1 Sep 08 at 7:20 am
Call me a pussy, I don’t care. I’m used to getting slammed. I just find it funny that you guys are so eager to champion for the second-highest office in the nation someone who didn’t even know what the surge was and as late as two weeks ago, had no clue what John McCain’s plans for Iraq were. Experience doesn’t count for much when it is on entirely unrelated issues. Why not elect Jesse Ventura? He had high approval ratings, and at least he served a full term.
And TZ, do you have any opinions beyond foreign policy? Because it seems like the type of liberalism you might be thinking of splintered into neoconservativism a long time ago.
Wes
1 Sep 08 at 7:55 am
I didn’t even refer to foreign policy in my comments. Not even a little jot or tittle.
I’ve also never discounted Obama because of his lack of experience. I don’t believe it disqualifies him from holding any elected office. I think the whole “experience” thing is a bunch of crap. I don’t approve of the republicans making an issue of it. The USA has a long, proud history of electing “rubes” who get the job done and are recorded as great leaders. Obama’s experience is not an issue with me. I don’t approve of it being held against him. And, until recently, the dems did not approve of it being an issue either. But now they do. So be it. I’ll put Palin’s resume against Obama’s resume any day. And that’s not even fair, because Palin isn’t running for president.
I find it refreshing to have non-ivy league folks running for office. And non-lawyers. Hell, here’s a talking point I haven’t heard yet: vote for the lawyers, or for the fighter pilot and the hockey mom.
“Experience doesn’t count for much when it is on entirely unrelated issues.” So you say. OK then. Obama’s right out of the running for you, eh? He’s done what on the “related issues?” I won’t vote against him based upon that. I’m not even sure I’ll vote against him, though I’m leaning pretty hard that way. He owes too much of his support to the weird leftist wing of the dems for me to feel comfortable with him.
TZ
1 Sep 08 at 8:45 am
PS.
The whole “leftist pussy” thing. It’s crude, rude, and I won’t use that language anymore. Or at least I’ll try really hard not to. My first adult career was amongst those famous for colorful language and it’s hard to shake off.
I have close (actually, my closestfriends to whom I would apply that language, but
TZ
1 Sep 08 at 9:05 am
PS.
The whole “leftist pussy” thing. It’s crude, rude, and I won’t use that language anymore. Or at least I’ll try really hard not to. My first adult career was amongst those famous for colorful language and it’s hard to shake off.
I have close (actually, my closest) friends to whom I would apply that language, but what it really means is that we deeply disagree, thank God you’re not in charge, and thanks for the beer, I have the next round.
Very sorry for any offense from my intemperate language. I’m not very polished.
TZ
1 Sep 08 at 9:08 am
Sorry about the double post also. I don’t know what the hell happened there.
TZ
1 Sep 08 at 9:13 am
Experience might be overrated, but not knowledge or judgment. Not in a time of war. But I was mostly wondering what you thought of domestic policies.
As for Joe Lieberman, I don’t care how he votes, he campaigns for Republicans and if you didn’t know better, you’d assume that he was one. if he didn’t do so much to get Republicans elected, I wouldn’t mind him so much. But he does, and I do.
Wes
1 Sep 08 at 9:21 am
On domestic policies? I’m very small government and the religious right would hate me. Many of my views are reincubating as I become an old fart.
On Lieberman, he votes his conscience and I disagree with him a lot but I respect him more than most politicians because he’s not afraid to be himself.
On foreign policy, I pretty much agree with the neocons. I just thing it hasn’t been particularly competently applied as of late.
TZ
1 Sep 08 at 9:46 am
Hey Wes! How many times do I have to tell you that I do not care about Obama’s experience? I do not want him elected because he is a socialist. I do not care if he is an experienced socialist or not.
Seems like you guys had an active evening and morning? I am going to follow up on the question I posed to Wes yesterday in a future comment, if I may?
You getting rained on yet Wes?
pg - your humble messenger
1 Sep 08 at 11:55 am
Since drilling was really not my point in asking that question, intellectual honesty was, I will be commenting again on this as soon as I can. I just wanted to put some facts out.
If you doubt the source here is another and one more.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Please don’t bother to quote views like Speaker Pelosi’s. She presented them in a disingenuous way. The people still overwhelmingly want to drill offshore. Besides, like I said that is not my point.
pg - your humble messenger
1 Sep 08 at 12:01 pm
I would like to humbly submit to you Wes that your position on the ‘will of da people’ is an intellectually dishonest one. I am not doing it not as an “I told you so!” I am doing it to point out how this type of thinking can lead you astray.
As I am sure recall I advocated that GWB was not only within the letter of the law regarding his powers under the constitution in perusing what he believed to be right regarding the Iraq War, in spite of the vast majority (something over 70%) of the public feeling differently, but that he was within the spirit of it.
You vehemently disagreed with me, if I can characterize it that way. You argued along the lines that Bush had an obligation to do what the people wanted, regardless of how he felt. To do otherwise was wrong, plain and simple. Now I did not go back and pull quotes of you taking this position as I felt that would be petty. I can though if you like?
I countered your argument by saying we lived in a representative republic and not a democracy. I further argued that said republic was designed to prevent the impassioned rule of the mob. I gave examples of this in the past. You stuck to your guns and said that did not matter.
I also tried to tell you that the majority could not even find Iraq on a map. That the majority believed we are visited by aliens. I tried to show that the public is almost always not the best informed. That their view was also not easy to gauge as it usually was nonspecifically and negatively expressed.
Finally I told you that there will come times when you view things differently than the majority, that this ‘will of da people’ will not suit you. Well that time has come and I would offer it is time to make a choice.
You can either admit to yourself that it not proper or logical to engage in this type rationalization or not.
pg - your humble messenger
1 Sep 08 at 12:37 pm
Did the Democrats not move on drilling? Did Obama not move? Compromising was not what Bush’s flaw was, it was refusing to shift one inch or actually moving more in the opposite direction seemingly out of spite. There is a compromise to be found on drilling. If it really does help the way you say it will, then I’m certain that the Dems will move further and allow drilling everywhere. But if the risks are greater than the reward, why take them?
Wes
1 Sep 08 at 6:00 pm
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT I SAID MY POINT WAS ABOUT INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY? THE ISSUE IS NOT BUSH. THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT DRILLING. THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT COMPROMISE. THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.
Sorry Wes but come on. You still want to have things both ways. It’s dishonest.
But if my point is not clear by now I guess it never will be. I will leave it alone.
pg - your humble messenger
1 Sep 08 at 7:05 pm