Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Sarah Palin for VP!

Pam, I didn't mean that being pro-life made her not a woman at all. Sorry about that. You're both women, as well as any other pro-life woman out there. I meant to say that pro-life attitudes, to me, go against women's rights, so the fact that she's a woman isn't doing much good (IMO) for women's rights if that's what she's going to promote.

Don't think for a moment that I don't agree with that! I certainly didn't mean to imply that people who disagree with gay marriage and abortions are out for blood. I do, however, still think that those two movements are out to take away rights from people who, IMO, deserve them. (Not necessarily actively. I don't exactly go around handing out pamphlets myself.)

Pam, since you and most people who have posted on this thread are politically informed and involved, I didn't think I was going to change any minds. I haven't exactly said anything new. But thank you, too, for letting me present my opinion.

What I said, regarding this possible Republican ploy is actually not my own theory on the matter <g> but something I saw mentioned on LiveJournal. It's entirely possible that McCain thinks she's the best person for the job.

I've never seen such excitement over a running mate choice as there is now around Palin, and it seems to me that her gender is a large part of that. It's almost as if the race is really Obama vs. Palin.

Julie

Ah, okay. I thought, after I posted, that this was probably what you meant, but thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, well, if LiveJournal says so, who am I to argue?

Seriously, I can't think of anyone who would be a better pick for the position. All the men who'd been speculated about had various drawbacks, and Palin's got a "maverick" reputation/record that McCain would have to identify with.

And obviously she's wildly popular with the Republican base, so she's doing good so far.

Yeah, isn't it funny? I guess she's encroaching on his celebrity status.

And yeah, her gender is part of the excitement. I see her as a strong, self-made woman, and McCain is the guy who's not at all threatened by that, so that reflects well on him.

PJ

A few links of interest for some of you:

Obama is winning Hillary Supporters:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109957/Obama-Gains-Among-Former-Clinton-Supporters.aspx

Fact Checking that wonderful Palin Speech:
Short easy to read:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/politics/animal/main4414049.shtml
Longer:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php

Oh that speech... a Bush writer wrote it for her:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838808,00.html

How Sarah Palin has helped Obama:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Palin_raising_for_Obama_.html

Why you won't see Palin in anything but scripted speeches:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/no_questions_please_were.html

Although I do see she is going to do an ABC interview. I'd like to see how hard hitting the questions actually end up being or if they are a set that are handed to them to ask. My respect for her might raise a bit if we can get some real answers from her and not through a scripted speech by Bush's writers.

I could go on with the links but I won't... Somehow I don't get the view of her that everyone else does.

I was honestly totally fine with either Obama or McCain as president before he picked Palin. But the more I look into her the more I'm just seeing someone who looks a lot like Bush and that isn't who I want in there. Especially if McCain kicks the bucket.

I guess I should have explained, I'm referring to "human rights" as it is commonly understood in left circles. Same thing Julie mentioned. You're right perhaps, they're referring to human rights under another definition. Nevertheless, their usage of "human rights" next to "women's rights" in the context of what Hillary stood for and their decision is highly contradictory ("What Hillary has told us"--that's what they said; they appear to be using HC's definition which is problematic. This is why I question if they're really using her interpretation as they claim, because that's quite different from what HC spoke of say, at her UN 4th World Conference speech). That was my underlying point.

That's why I quoted the Steinem article, not to discuss the content per se (because yes, it is partisan, but that's the point), but to illustrate the disparity between these women's positions and that of someone who expressed much more clearly what the reasoning for voting for Clinton could be if you're a female democrat for the party's platform which is central for what Hillary was running for (especially considering these were primaries).

I said:
PJ replied:

Like I said, my argument was the fundamental inconsistency of these women's positions. They are for Hillary who embodies certain values as top order and those values are now being pushed aside (since you're reaching if you say that HC and Palin overlap in *anything* but sex) in favor of a punitive vote (a vote casted primarily to punish the party, given that otherwise these women would be dems).

Thus, this trivializes the _issues_ Hillary stood for, which should, ideally, be more important than her sex or even her political figure.

The Slate article actually did not say that they should shut up. Quite the opposite it called attention to an increased discussion of these grievances. But it does suggest that in voting punitively, those issues that originally _made_ these women "democrats" are pushed aside; that's what's mind-boggling to a lot of people. It's not just a vote *against* a party, it's a vote *for* a party that those women have not considered to be in their interests before in terms of _issues_. Those haven't changed all that much.

It seems that punishing the party for "Hillary's sake" is more significant than continuing her fight. The fact that they do it for Hillary's sake too, is particularly disturbing for how it reduces her work into something secondary to her personal appeal.

That's their decision to make obviously and beyond my point. However, there is an inconsistency in making this decision and stating to support Hillary as a candidate based on what she fought for. I certainly don't raise my eyebrows at Independents who chose McCain now that Hillary is gone. But Dems who still claim to be "Hillary supporters" and vote McCain? Their support is of a different order, which is why it's not common at least according to polls, etc (what happened with Ferraro where sex was not at the end central, IIRC).

As of Sept. 3, I believe, there was no significant increase in the percentage of democratic women voting for McCain based on Palin (based on Emily's List, if I'm not mistaken). These PUMAs do seem to be in the minority. Precedent also states women are largely issue-driven on the whole regardless of party. But that could mean nothing this election cycle, so we'll see.

For the moment, an article by the progressive mag In These Times by a Women's Studies prof was linked from RealClearPolitics. It lays out some history (note: I don't agree 100% with the conclusion) on the compromises/sacrifices some women's groups have made throughout history, even if these are unsettling.

alcyone

There are lots of reasons to vote against Obama, the least of which is a disturbing tendency to hang out with domestic terrorists like William Ayers. Any reason the press isn't the least bit curious about that yet they're crawling all over Alaska looking into Bristol Palin's sex life? Or that his stint as "community organizer" involved working for ACORN, an organization dedicated to registering voters four or five or fifty times under the names of dead people and devoted to intimidating the opposition? He was basically working for the Chicago political machine, and we all know that Chicago is corruption free, right? Contrast that with Palin bringing down the GOP's Alaska party chairman and other party members for corruption. Just imagine Chicago's political machine brought into the White House if Obama wins.

And the fact that Obama's chief accomplishment in life is to write his own memoirs twice without having done a single thing to merit a memoir except to be born. Ulysses S. Grant won the Civil War and had two terms as president, yet wrote only a single memoir AFTER being president while dying of throat cancer to support his penniless family. Grant was a really bad businessman who had been a bank teller before the war. Yet Obama has two memoirs. Huh? Cart, horse?

Obama's also an elitist who looks down on the "little people" calling them desperate people who cling to their guns and religion. I find that offensive even though I have neither guns nor religion. He reinforced the opinion that he believes himself to be the Messiah with his descent onto the stage at Invesco Field. He reminds me of Terrell Owens, a wide receiver for the Dallas Cowboys, who was quoted saying, "I'd love me some me."

He's also made enough gaffes to make Dan Quayle look highly qualified. Anyone visit all 57 states recently?

As for his voting "present," Obama's shown a disturbing tendency to duck the tough issues. He's known for sponsoring bills, only to disappear when the bill became controversial. The only thing he's known to stand hard on is to vote "no" on a bill that would have allowed medical treatment for infants who survived late-term abortions.

Do we want a president who will duck out on all the hard issues that he would face as president?

Palin is popular with the GOP for a number of reasons, and not all of them have to do with the fact that she wears skirts. If she had the ideology of Joe Lieberman (a good, honest liberal), she would have destroyed the party, not unified it, which is why McCain did not choose Lieberman to everyone's relief. People were also tired of the same old faces. Does anyone realize that this is the first election since 1972 that didn't have a Bush or Dole on the Republican ticket (Bush in 80, 84, 88, 92, 00, 04 and Dole in 76, 96)? She's a bright, young, up-and-comer who represents the next generation of leaders. Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana would have fit the bill as well and he doesn't wear skirts (I don't think he does). In many ways, Sarah Palin reminds Republicans of Ronald Reagan, who gave dynamite speeches in 1964 and 1976 making people wonder if they had the wrong person at the top of the ticket. Michael Reagan even wrote an article titled, "Welcome Back, Dad!" If anyone's an expert on Ronald Reagan, it would be him.

Republicans were depressed because they saw an empty bench for the future. Candidates like Rudy Guiliani, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney didn't excite anyone. Anyone remember Romney's morphing into Ted Kennedy during the Romney-Kennedy Senate race? I do and it still irritates me to the point where I will never vote for Romney. Sarah Palin made people open their eyes and see that the future wasn't completely bleak and filled with 90-year old candidates who hadn't seen the private sector in 40 years, if ever. Instead we got someone who was real and knew what it was like to manage a household budget and drive kids to hockey practice, and juggle a career and family while while taking turns with childcare with her husband. And she wasn't a stuffed-shirt lawyer who went to Harvard or Yale, but rather participated in a beauty pageant in order to win a scholarship to the University of Idaho because she couldn't afford to go to college. When was the last time the Democrats ran a non-lawyer? You'll have to go back to Jimmy Carter, the naval officer and peanut farmer, in 1980 for that. Every candidate, both president and VP, has been a lawyer since then, including Obama and Biden. McCain and Palin, thank goodness, are not lawyers.

Sarah Palin connected with people whereas the elitists couldn't. I think that's what mainly drives the excitement, even among non-Republicans. She's one of us, not one of the ruling elite.

Issues of character? *sigh*

On Obama's

Cheap tenous link . Kinda like all that equally asinine b.s. about Alaskan secessionism and Todd Palin. The Washington Post debunks it:

Maybe that's why the media won't dig.

As for the ACORN thing, I only found purely circumstantial musings in right wing websites. Michelle Malkin putting it forward? Yeah, that can damage believability somewhat.

Even the NRO article by Kurtz comes to this stunning oh-so-grounded conclusion:

Disturbing possibilities. All right. Just as disturbing as Palin's earmarks, I guess, which even Davis had a hard time defending today even on freakin\' Fox . But I give Palin the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure there's more to this. Maybe something about how government works and/or concessions. It can't be this straightfoward, never is.

Right. McCain has had no gaffes. None. That Sunni and Shiite Muslims confusion? Didn't happen.

I replied to this before. There's many ways of viewing things--your way or you can view this as someone who makes shrewd decisions and compromises and aims for the larger picture like all politicians do. Including McCain who flip flopped on Roe v. Wade and I'm sure more on the entirety of his long career. Or you can be in the center and shrug, etc.

Obama on infanticide . Factcheck looks at this and finds:

And he has supported laws to protect infants in these situations, so the misrepresentation is just that (though the situation is messy overall). And regardless, we all know he's pro-choice anyone who votes on pro-life tickets, won't really find a spot here.

In any case, if it's stupid circumstantial junk/misrepresentations like this from both sides, there is no end. Ever. Frankly, that this crap is so prevalent is an insult to anyone who's realistic enough to realize that there is always more to the lines that the campaigns feed us. BOTH of them. Obama with his banner of change has his six degrees of separation with anyone and everyone. McCain has his deer-in-headlights moments and embarrassing flubs. Biden with the plagerism. Palin, the reformer, has that troopergate foolishness. Dig around deeply enough and long enough and you'll find dirt on anyone. If it's not massive, I don't see the importance.

Character discussions are as seldom more than mudslinging. We should have a savier electorate than what the media would indicate IMO. "Judgement" is one (very subjective) thing and not to be confused with cheap and circumstantial smear tactics. The above IMO are all equally simplistic misrepresentations.

I'm actually surprised that things as trivial as whether Obama is "elitist" or why/when he wrote his memoirs are brought up. The economy is in the pits with the recent jobless report and the Freddie and Fannie mortgage buyers situation, what better moment to rip apart Obama's extremely ripable economic/health care/energy plan and talk about what makes McCain the 'duh' candidate? Not to paraphrase Obama, but it's true--the moment is perfect. I rather that than all the Bristol nonsense.

Don't the Obama's have a similar story? Doesn't Biden? The bootstraps thing is quite common this year. I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of McCain's story too.

Let's ignore that her party is the "ruling elite" for a second and all that comes with it, which makes lines like this incredibly ironic. Reminds me of that article on diversity (richest, whitest, manliest convention ) at the Republican Convention, which McCain very classily adressed in a recent interview and said that the party would work on. If only I wasn't a cocktail-sipping heathen...

Those observations aside, Slate had an interesting article on Palin as just another American recently:

To hold up a benchmark, the Pew Research Center said the median household income last year was $50,233.

I mean, maybe Palin's one of you, but she's certainly not like me--at least in the money and opportunities that are presented to her. It's not millions, but it's not chump change, that's for sure. I certainly wouldn't have the resources to manage a household like hers or the job flexibility she has had through her involvement in politics.

None of the candidates are "like me" or live in my world; I laugh when they pretend, thinking I can't see through them. That's why their personal stories, awesomely cool as they are (because yes, shooting moose is the bomb), are not my criteria when I vote. YMMV clearly.

Values and social class are not the same in my book. No class has a monopoly on values or anything else actually.

Real to you and that's great. Clearly, I inhabit another reality where Obama is not a lily-livered radical and Palin is not a valiant savior. Or vice versa. My reality is much, much more boring than that, even with all my wild biases.

alcyone

All of which makes the election so interesting. And/or exasperating.

Lots of stuff I could say, but I'll stick to one -- no, of course no one blames Obama for stuff someone else did when he was 8. However, in the past ten years or so, he's chosen to associate with the guy who has repeatedly stated he does *not* regret the bombings and wishes he'd done more. (Not to mention his wife who really admired the Manson family.)

And don't fall for the "passing acquaintance" thing -- Obama's political career was launched from Bill Ayers' house. (Or was that Tony Rezko? You know, the guy recently convicted of corruption. It's hard to keep track of the unsavory associates.) Ayers founded an organization and tapped Obama to run it. They worked together for years.

Me, I'd rather not hang out with an unrepentent terrorist. YMMV.

In general, yes, each side is trying to find stuff to attack the other side with. That's how politics work. It's a natural tendency to downplay anything your guy (or gal) is accused of, and magnify the faults of the other guy. And certainly people make the decision to support someone they don't 100% agree with. Still, there is sometimes truth buried in there.

PJ
ps, 125k is a pretty good salary for someone who started off without even enough money for college. Still not too remarkable at that level. Doesn't Michelle Obama make over 300k/year? I mean *after* the 170% raise she got after her employer rec'd a million dollars from an earmark requested by... the guy she's married to.

pps,
"presented to her"? Like she was just sitting around and someone just gave them to her, for no good reason? Sarah Palin's worked hard for every advancement she's made.

If you are going to start getting into this you should look at McCain. You know the guy who cheated on his disabled wife to find the rich heiress? You know the heiress who spends 300k on ONE outfit and then has her husband call Obama and his family Elitists?

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html

I think I'd rather have someone who makes 300k in a year than someone who wastes that much on a suit.

Just a thought.

Thanks Jojo for the link.

Factcheck.org on Tony Rezko. The website states:

More baseless junk. The six degrees thing. Just because the Republicans want to imply corruption through association doesn't mean that this is the case. I, at least, need more than that.

Huh? Did you read factcheck.org (which I like since its nonpartisan)? Or any non-right publication and cross check this? There are no hard facts. This sounds like an argument based on a lot hopeful thinking from the Republican side (the reality is of course somewhere in between in the pragmatic nature of politics). I've looked this up quite a bit in both right and left leaning publications. I try not to just read those things where their point of view is just like mine.

These are instances where I rather stick with facts than rumors, personally. And I don't mean with my candidate alone. I feel the same about both. If I list examples its to pick apart that these two campaigns are really not that different in the misrepresented views they send about each other. Not to claim that the side I am in is free of all blame or to demonize the other side. I might fail, but I do try.

But in any case, hopeful thinking from either side doesn't convince me. Neither side is squeaky clean (come on Palin is gov for 20 months and already there's a scandal?), that's some more hopeful thinking.

I used "presented" without much reflection. I was very tired by then. I don't mean to downplay Palin's accomplishments and the hard work it's taken. But the choices she has now are not the choices I have, was my point. And implicitly, linking up values with a class (note the Republicans raising up populism while cutting taxes "where they can"--see, my bias fully emerge) is a fantasy.

We're much more diverse a population than that in all forms. But acknowledging that would make things hard if you're running on "I'm like you."

But I do have to say McCain has again and again shown to be a classy guy in this race (because I don't base my judgment on his life, otherwise the wife thing might give me pause). I'm not too entrenched in my bias not to notice the neat things he's said/done (yay, on his "congratulations" ad on Obama's night) and give credit where its due. It's not possible to be entirely fair, but it's a good excercise to try.

alcyone

Perhaps part of the difficulty has been Obama's campaign slogan about doing politics differently and his use (abuse?) of the word "change" as well as how those slogans have been interpreted by his followers. As others in this thread have pointed out, it's not surprising when a politician does campaign on vague generalities, but it has been surprising how much of a pass most of the media has given Obama compared to his rivals with respect to his campaign slogans. They aren't giving Palin a pass though. Not sure why the difference.

Anyway, here's a solid article on Obama's early political career from the New Yorker. Warning, it's long.

web page Making It

c.

Running for political office is brutal. Anyone with anything to hide or a family to protect is crazy to put themselves into such a public position. And since that includes just about everyone, the most qualified people to run have no actual motivation to do so; in fact, quite the opposite.

I bring this point up every year when I teach the Constitution to my 8th graders. Last year, I told one of my GATE classes that "even I have something in my past that I wouldn't want everyone in America to know about." For the next week, kids were trying to guess what my secret was. One student was convinced that I was a hard-partying alcoholic in college. One student actually accused me in front of the whole class of having secretly had an abortion (the principal gave him on-campus suspension for that, quite deservedly so!). After I confirmed someone's suspicion that it had had "something to do with the police," the guesses went everywhere from shoplifting to drunk driving. When I told them that I am a rape survivor, they were completely shocked. We held a discussion about assuming the worst about people, the importance of an individual's privacy and about how running for office in today's society pretty much destroys it.

I don't approve of digging into Bristol's private life and the circumstances of her pregnancy. I've worked with teenagers long enough to know that kids from even the best of backgrounds sometimes make questionable choices. But I don't understand why Sarah, who was a journalism major, would put her family in a position where their privacy would be completely shattered. She must have known this would become national news; just look at any tabloid magazine's photos of suspicious "baby bumps" to know that hiding the pregnancy wasn't going to be an option.

The million dollar question: Is there a better way to select our elected officials? One that encourages public service while avoiding the obliteration of personal privacy?

Well, I'll bow out of the money comparison game; I'm a capitalist so I think it's good when people get rich, as long as they do it honestly.

The idea that "Sarah Palin is just like me" obviously does not encompass our current salary levels. It's more of a general "grew up in a small town & still seems like regular folks" way. Theoretically, there's no reason I couldn't have done the same; I just wouldn't want to go through all that. I've never even wanted to join the PTA She seems very down-to-earth.

Elitism, btw, is only tangentially related to money. It's primarily an attitude of "I'm better than those little people" whether the rationale for that is salary or smarts or supposed moral superiority. Or the fact that one grew up in a big city rather than the sticks, say, on a farm in Kansas for totally random instance

That cultural divide has been going on in America for centuries; this is only the latest skirmish. So far, I don't think anyone's winning. Which is probably good; America needs both groups.

Groobie, excellent object lesson. I admire you for taking an awful event and using it for good.

As for whether she should have expected to keep secrets or not... I think I've heard more about Bristol Palin in two weeks than I have about the Bush twins in eight years. The media has gone completely bonkers; hopefully the feeding frenzy will calm down soon.

PJ

Groobie said: You make some great points, Groobie. I think that some intrusion into privacy is valid and, in fact, necessary as we evaluate people's qualifications to be our leaders, because character pervades all aspects of our lives and certain aspects of character in private life will bleed over into public life. However, I also abhor the invasiveness that the media currently chooses, both with politicians and celebrities. Especially as it prevents some very qualified leaders, who would be amazing in these upper offices, from running because they choose to protect their family over their career. Where is the healthy middle ground? I have no idea.

As for Gov. Palin's choice to run, knowing what would come out about her family... I wouldn't have. But that's me - and I'd make the same choice even if I *didn't* have a pregnant teenager. It's her choice and I respect her for making it. Personally, I hope she discussed it with her daughter - with all her kids, actually, but especially Bristol - before making the final decision. But that's just my thoughts on parenting in general: I think parents should discuss large changes with children, with detail given and level of input received proportionate to age/maturity.

Bethy

But whether this is true or not is a matter of perception (like who these "regular folks" are--which seems to be what defines this race for some). It's hardly something _rationally_ sound on which to base judgement on someone's ability to govern. So the fact that I hear more about Obama's "elitism" more than his inexperience is...surprising to say the least.

I mean the most obvious logical fallacy there is the assumption in that "seems." Even in their gaffes (which are overplayed and taken out of context on boh sides) it's quite obvious that the images politicians project are carefully doctored. One side will present themselves overly positively--the other seeks to demonize. If the vote is for her pro-life, fiscal conservative-ness, then that's one thing. If it's because she's "cool" and "like me" and Obama is "elitist," it's entirely another. I feel the same about some Obamamaniacs, who live in a dream (albeit a more inclusive one, given that "values" sound to me like a hazy way of drawing the line between those who follow your lifestyle and those who don't (and should)--I still think money has lots to do with it).

alcyone

It seems the left is in a panic over Palin. Here's a FactCheck.org article called "Sliming Palin" about all the efforts to destroy her.

Sliming Palin

All of this underscores how this election has degraded into a mudslinging contest.

First it was Obama is a Muslim radical and now its Palin is a racist fundamentalist. The fanatics at both spectrums sound equally ignorant and offensive as each claims a higher moral ground without any self-awareness whatsoever. Which is btw, what made me laugh about Palin's comments on Hillary, given the campaign's stance and what makes me roll my eyes at the college freshmen on Kos.

It's amazing that these elements are the most visible common ground between the right and the left now. If that is not ironic, I don't know what is.

alcyone

Alcyone,

re: elitism
Very true; there's no scientific test for it or anything And it surely shouldn't be one's only criteria when deciding who to vote for. Nonetheless, in certain (largish) circles of American politics "elitism" is the kiss of death.

Perception of a public figure is formed by a mix of the person's public persona, policy positions, and who he/she chooses to spend time with, etc. And, anti-Obama types must be hoping, by repeated accusations thereof. It's actually more rational than it might seem, as certain traits cluster together, and this is a handy shortcut to describe them. Like calling President Bush a cowboy. One word, but with a rich group of connotations -- arrogant, cocky, foolishly agressive, loner, stupid, hick from the sticks, etc, etc. I'm sure you know what I mean.

It's the same sort of thing with the "seems down-to-earth" judgment of Sarah Palin. There are a number of facts and traits that come together to form that impression. We could list them, you could argue them, but in the end... it's a "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. but as I said above, there are a lot of factors going into that perception, underneath the surface.

PJ

Alcyone wrote:

That is a shame. But remember that ever since the election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, supporters of candidates have flung mud at their champion's opponents however and whenever they could. Adams was accused of trying to put the fledgling nation under the control of the Presbyterian Church. Jefferson was accused of being an atheist (a serious charge in those days). Adams was accused of being hard-hearted and caring only for the rich. Jefferson was accused of wanting to become king in fact if not in name.

And that was by no means all that was said.

We have to remember that people who are committed to a person or a cause sometimes step outside the truth to "help" their guy or gal. It might give someone a bump at the polls, but when the truth is revealed, it often backfires on them. Remember the "evidence" that George W. Bush never completed his National Guard service? An entire television news department flushed their credibility on that one, and a very prominent newscaster resigned in disgrace. In that same campaign, some desperate conservative circulated a "photograph" of John Kerry sitting on a bench behind Jane Fonda at an anti-American "peace rally" against the Vietnam War. The picture was a fake, and all it really did was discredit those who forwarded it to others on their mailing lists.

Personally, I support John McCain and Sarah Palin over Barak Obama and Joe Biden, but it's on the basis of the issues each stands for and not because of skin tone or gender or age or party affiliation or "Wow!" factor. I hope that those of you who are American voters support the candidates of your choice for the same reasons: namely, because of the issues.

We can discuss those issues - hopefully in a calm and reasonable manner - without lowering ourselves to character assassination. Now, if someone proves to me that either John McCain or Sarah Palin has something in their private lives (such as drug addiction, slave trading, second job as contract assassins, serial jaywalker, etc.) which would disqualify them from serving in such high office, I'll change my stance. I hope that we can all stay on track in this thread and remain civil to each other. If you disagree with me on the issues, that's perfectly fine. If you disagree with me on the basis of wild rumor or personality or party label, there's no basis for reasonable discourse. And that's what we all should be striving for.

Thanks for letting me get my three cents' worth in. (Inflation gets everything eventually.)

For the record, that one was debunked promptly by the right-wing HotAir site:

Some of us do want a civil discourse.

PJ

Speaking of issues, Obama has now taken his third stance on raising taxes, saying that because the economy isn't doing well, he may postpone the raising of taxes on the wealthy.

Previous to this, his plan was to eliminate all rate tax cuts enacted in 2001, raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 25% (later revised to 20%), raise the top income tax rate to 39.6%, and eliminate the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes.

He's finally seen the light that tax increases kill economies since it sucks all the capital out of the economy and eliminates jobs.

But what he's essentially saying is that he's going to wait for the recession to end before he wrecks the economy. (I'll credit that to James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal. I just thought that was too funny when I read it, and too true.)