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

Sorry, I had responded to this in my previous post, but somehow when I was editing myself I managed to lose what I'd written.

I just wanted to comment on the use of italics to emphasis that Stanley Kurtz is conservative, followed by a quote by the NYT, with no corresponding liberal to identify it.

I have listened to Mr. Kurtz, and he does not resort to insinuations. He presents the facts, as he found them documented in the papers, notes, board meeting minutes, etc. of the CAC. Frankly, I have a great deal more confidence in this documented evidence than I do in the words of the "people in a position to know" - who also happen to be people who have a vested interest in presenting a sanitized rendition of the story.

Which, actually, brings up another point. Until just a few years ago, I would have described myself as a died-in-the-wool Democrat. I was raised by liberal parents, grew up in liberal NY, went to a liberal college, read all the liberal newspapers, and, like all my liberal friends laughed at the audacity of "Faux News" when they reported obvious "conservative propoganda" as if it were news! (which is to say, the conservative side of the story, which to us was, of course "propoganda" - the liberal side of the story was the "truth".)

My paradigm shift came as a result of my realization that I can actually trust conservative sources more than I can liberal. I find them much more likely to be intellectually honest, and less likely to resort to bias as a means of distorting the truth. (I have a theory that this is related to the conflicting views of "relative truth" vs. "absolute truth".)

On this boards NYT's liberalism has been discussed quite a bit (especially with respect to politics-didn't Ann bring it up recently?), whereas I don't know how many people know who Kurtz is. I know I didn't before I took an interest in politics, which is why I thought it important to bring up.

I read the Kurtz articles myself some time ago and came, not surprisingly, to the opposite conclusion. My interpretation was that Kurtz's framing of the activities of CAC leads to insinuations of wrongdoing (I mean the title of his Sept. 23 WSJ article was: "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism on Schools").

But the most compelling evidence to me is actually, not what CAC founders have said, but the fact that so many different people where involved in the project, including Republicans, Democrats, venture capitalists and educators. Even if Ayers was part part of an advisory group, the projects that were approved, were approved by a board, not him alone. And he was not the sole advisor either. Because of this, I'm not sure that Ayer's more radical personal beliefs and links to the Bolivarian Revolution philosophies, etc. carry that much importance when thinking about CAC and by extension Obama himself and what he would implement as president.

Further, if we're following that logic to raise questions about Obama, it's only fair that the same logic would be used when evaluating the people McCain had similarly tenous associations with. And ultimately, there is so much nebulousness and open-endedness with these statements (usually people fall along partisan lines), that I personally don't consider them productive. A person's milleage obviously varies.

I had a completely opposite paradigm shift, I should say. But in any case, I don't think the liberal or conservative side of any story is "truth," which is why I try to get both sides, crosscheck, etc. I subscribe to a theory of degree not absolutes. Subjective judgements always creep in when assigning value to one thing or another; there's no escaping that ever, but the attempt to use the same standard when judging is a good exercise.

alcyone

If Obama's participation in Ayers's CAC project is not convincing enough, I submit the following:

Plumber to Obama: “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more. Isn’t it?”

Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Hallelujah!

Ann

I'm a little curious about something related to tax cuts. I'm speaking directly to Roger, since he has been the most vocal about the benefits of tax cuts, but certainly anyone is more than welcome to weigh in here. Roger, if I have understood your previous posts correctly, you support tax cuts because these rich people - who own businesses both big and small - will take the money from the cuts and put it back into the economy, creating jobs/new companies/etc.

I saw part of Obama on the trail today, and I believe he stated that big businesses are currently receiving tax credits for outsourcing. Have I misunderstood, or do you think Obama's mistaken? I know that tax credits and tax rate cuts are two different things, but both serve the same bottom line: to lower the amount of tax an individual/business pays in a given year. There is undeniably lots of outsourcing going on - presumably just an issue with big businesses. And we know that all this outsourcing is occurring because labor costs are considerably cheaper in other countries.

Big business is looking to their bottom line by outsourcing, because it cuts their costs. If they are actually being rewarded by the US government for this, that saves them even more money, but presumably this money is NOT being returned to the economy, since in the US jobs are being lost - not created - by outsourcing.

I'm not looking for a complicated explanation; mostly just a simple yes or no - and why - if you feel that I have misunderstood this issue.

Kathy

Here is more on the South Shore African Village Cooperative (SSAFC, which I mentioned before was a recipient of funds from the Obama chaired Chicago Annenberg Cooperative)

Apparently, the SSAVC "featured “African-Centered” curricula built around “rites of passage” ceremonies inspired by the puberty rites found in many African societies. In and of themselves, these ceremonies were harmless. Yet the philosophy that accompanied them was not. On the contrary, it was a carbon-copy of Jeremiah Wright’s worldview."

For more on exactly how Jeremiah Wright's worldview coincides with that of the "rights of passage" movement, click on the link and read the entire article.

Supporters of the rites of passage movement describe it as "a social and cultural ‘inoculation’ process that facilitates healthy, African-centered development among African American youth and protects them against the ravages of a racist, sexist, capitalist, and oppressive society.”

This is completely consistant with Ayers's philosophy of education reform as a "motor-force of revolution", a non-neutral, value-based, political tool to be used by social reformers in their fight against capitalism.

Ann wrote:
"Hallelujah?" A presidential candidate is promising to take my hard-earned money out of my wallet and give it to someone who hasn't earned it and you break into religious cheer? Sorry, but that doesn't rate any kind of approval in my book.

Some people talk about the "uneven distribution of wealth" as if it were a new phenomenon, or that government can somehow wave a magic wand and make everyone happy with equal amounts of money. It doesn't work that way, not in the US or in Russia or in China or Sweden or Iraq or anywhere else.

I recognize that there are people who need help feeding and housing and clothing themselves either through no real fault of their own or because life has simply overwhelmed them. And my wife and I have personally assisted people who have been trapped in bad circumstances on several occasions. If one takes the position that those with more resources ought to assist those with fewer resources, I have no quarrel with that statement. In fact, I live my agreement with it.

I do quarrel, however, with any position which holds that I must help with fewer resources without the choice of who I might assist. Some of the "less fortunate" only need a helping hand for a short time. I have been in that position before, and I know what it's like to have to depend on outside assistance to feed my children.

But some of the "less fortunate" are where they are because they don't want to work, they don't want to improve themselves, they don't want to sacrifice today to make a better life for themselves and for their families tomorrow. I'd rather not give those folks a dime.

Senator Obama's economic plan, if I understand it correctly, will take money out of my pocket and out of the accounts of my employer. It will hinder my employer's ability to give me raises in the future and my ability to plan for my retirement. It will reduce the ability of small businesses to expand and produce more jobs, and will give money to people who do not deserve it and are not willing to work for it.

Have we not learned that enforced socialism never works? We have the example of the former Soviet Union, which collapsed economically and politically when they were unable to produce enough food and shelter and clothing for their citizens. We have the example of China, which is wrenching itself apart economically trying to maintain a centrally planned society while competing in a global economy which shifts daily. And we see OPEC trying to keep prices up and production controlled to maintain their wildly lavish lifestyles.

(Wait, the Middle Eastern OPEC countries don't have lavish lifestyles for all of their citizens. Where's the outrage on the boards for the inequity in those nations? Why is the US the target for those critics when we are far from the worst "offenders?")

I do not plan to vote for Senator Obama for President in November. And my vote has nothing to do with his age, his skin color, or the gender and attractiveness quotient of his running mate. I am voting for my family's future security, and Barak Obama doesn't have my family's best interests in mind in his economic plan.

Terry, I'm a bit exhausted from defending my postion in the Wall Street thread, the one I started. I have posted many replies there, trying to explain my views. I'm not asking you to read everything I have written, of course. But I get the impression that you have not read any of my posts at all, if you can say this to me:

I think I posted thirty-seven replies in the Wall Street thread, give or take a few. I really tried to explain how I look at taxes and equality in those thirty-seven replies. So tell me, Terry. In which of them did I say that I want a society where everybody has, as you put it, 'equal amounts of money'? Where did I say that? Please tell me, so I can check the date of that post and go back and find out what I did that day, and who put the hallucinogenic or mind-altering drug in whatever I was drinking that day, to make me write something like that.

No, Terry. I do not believe that everybody in a society should have exactly the same amount of money. I don't believe that that is a worthy goal for any society. And I reject it as a goal for two reasons. First, that it can never, and I mean never, be realized. It is a pipe dream. It is more impossible than men who can fly.

The second reason why I don't consider that sort of perfect equality a worthy goal is that anyone who even tries to realize it will have to become a horrible dictator in the process. Talk about interfering with other people's lives. But no matter how such a dictator would use terror to try to distribute all the wealth in his country perfectly equally, he would still fail miserably at making everybody economically just the same.

So, Terry. NO. I do NOT believe that everybody should be perfectly equal in terms of income and property.

What I do believe - and indeed, I really do believe it - is that it is a good thing if those who are rich in a society are required to pay taxes, so that the government can use that tax revenue to make things better for all of those who are not among the richest in that society.

I believe that it is bad if a government cuts taxes for the rich. I believe that it is particularly bad if a government allows the richest people in their society to become even richer, while those who are poorest become even poorer. Even more than that, I think it is morally wrong and financially unsound if the majority of a population actually becomes poorer, while a small minority becomes almost exponentially richer. It offends my sense of fairness, my belief that we are all basically equals. I think that if a society allows the rich to become infinitely richer and the majority of the population to become poorer, then that society approaches a situation where a small, super-rich minority can basically own the majority of the population. If a small minority of the population owns most of the property in a country, then what is going to stop them from basically owning their fellow men, too?

So I think it is noble as well as financially sound to try to create a measure of economic equality in any society. But I most certainly realize that you can never, never have complete equality, and it is the worst kind of folly to try to strive for it. Indeed, it is not only folly, but it is madness, and it can only lead to what I would describe as a 1984 kind of society.

But, yes, I think taxes are good. I like taxes. I think everybody should pay taxes, except those who only earn the minimum wage. And I think that the richer you are, the more of your income you should be required to pay in taxes.

I don't mean that some people shouldn't be allowed to become filthy rich. Why shouldn't Bill Gates be allowed to become mega-rich? Why shouldn't J.K. Rowling be allowed to become a super-billionaire? I see no reason at all why some extremely talented and hard-working people should not be allowed to become incredibly wealthy.

On the other hand, I see no reason at all to cut Bill Gates' or J.K. Rowling's taxes. I see no reason at all to cut taxes for the rich. The rich should pay taxes, and that money should be used for the good of society as a whole and for the good of the majority of the population in that society. And it should definitely be used to help the most vulnerable and helpless in that society.

Let me add one more thing. Terry, I thought you sounded almost defensive about the fact that you are not going to vote for Obama in this election:

Well, you live in a democracy. That means that you don't have to defend your reasons for voting for a certain candidate. You shouldn't have to tell us that it isn't Obama's age or skin color that has convinced you not to vote for him. I don't think you decide who you will vote for based on such things. You shouldn't be obliged to tell us that you don't pick your candidate for such trivial reasons. Basically we should respect each other when we discuss these things, and that means we are wildly out of line if we assume that people who post in this thread are, for example, racists, airheads or simply uninterested in politics. No one should have to, sort of, almost apologize for either voting or not voting for Obama (or for McCain).

Ann

I was pleasantly surprised to find this topic. I'm eagerly awaiting my chance to vote for McCain/Palin. He wasn't my first choice for candidate
but Palin makes up for a lot. I haven't read all the posts yet, but i'm sure there are a lot of negative posts from Obama fans. Well, i'm a lifelong Democrat and i would not dream of voting for him. The Ayers and Wright connections are just a couple of the many reasons to NOT vote for him. Not to mention the fact that he was involved with Acorn which is under inditement in several states for doing things like registering Mickey Mouse to vote or the same person 30 times, etc. Why people can't see he is a Socialist with exrremely dangerous connections who
is dangerous for this country i just don't understand. I just hope and pray the polls will be wrong and he will get his comeuppance Election Day. Certainly no pollster has called me. LOL I so look forward to a real hero, Senator McCain taking the oath on Inaugeration Day.

Patti, I understand that you personally have serious concerns about Obama. IIRC, in this and any other political threads, there have been both positive and negative things said about all of the candidates. But I must admit that I was concerned by the way you phrased the following:

If you feel that Obama is "...", that's your opinion and you have every right to it. But the way you phrased that sentence was, to me, an implication that the people who don't agree with you on this are blind or stupid or...I don't know what. And they're none of the above - just people with other opinions.

Kathy

Hey Patti Welcome to the thread, and enjoy the discussion!

I want to avoid getting into discussion here, as I know I don't know enough of the detail, and I also don't have the time to get into it as carefully as some posters, but I did want to comment on the use of language and 'labels':

I'm not going to get into the 'dangerous connections' bit; others are talking about that and I really am not qualified to comment. But on the 'socialist' thing... no. Obama is not a socialist. He wouldn't even be considered as a social democrat. In some of his policies, he's to the right of Bill Clinton, who was not a social democrat in European terms.

Obama clearly believes in the provision of a state safety-net, and you'd be hard-pushed to find many Republicans who disagree with the principle there. He talks about some redistribution of wealth and about using the tax system to accomplish that, and of course redistribution is a socialist principle. Even conservatives aren't opposed in principle to redistribution, however: that's what a progressive tax system (one where you pay a greater % of your marginal income in tax the more your income increases) is for. The 'trickle-down' theory of Reaganomics is also redistributive; however, experience has shown that it just doesn't work - as Ann commented, the gap between rich and poor has widened significantly over the past 25 or so years. What she didn't say is that this is a relationship - between the top and bottom deciles in the income scale - which had remained relatively stable for over 100 years.

Anyway, Obama's not a socialist. - and, for some commenters here, 'socialism' isn't a dirty word! Just as an added note, socialism is not the same as communism; I sometimes get the feeling that people see them as the same. Communism is complete State control. Under a socialist government, private industry can and does exist - see France for many years. The Labour Party in Britain, in power for the past 10 or so years, is not a socialist party; they now call themselves social democrats, not even democratic socialists. Obama would be to the right of the Labour Party and probably closer, in political philosophy, to the British Conservative Party.


Wendy

First, a point of clarification. According to Dana Milbank, who was actually at the rally, and whose column Frank Rich refers to when he talks about the "frenzied" crowds, the man in the crowd yelled "Kill him!" immediately following Palin's comment about Bill Ayers and his bombing campaign. Milbank says his impression was that the man was talking about Ayers, not Obama. This still does not excuse the comment, however, and I commend McCain's calls for decorum.

That this isolated event could lead Frank Rich to conclude that mobs of frenzied Republicans might actually attempt to kill Obama is beyond ludicrous.

And, speaking about suggestions to kill politicans, go to Google images and search for the words "Kill Bush". Where has Frank Rich been for the past 8 years?

Now, for something that really gave *me* the creeps... the newest anti-Palin t-shirt goes completely beyong the pale.

WARNING! The t-shirt in this picture contains obscenity.

I've read more of the discussion now, but am
still catching up. It's early, so i won't get into much right now. However, a few things struck me. To a conservative, socialist IS a dirty word.
A filthy word because its essentially Communism light as far as i'm concerned. I don't know how old most of you are, but i'm in my mid fifties and grew up with the the threat of Soviet communism. I was not one of the idiots who joined the counter culture during the sixties. Many of the leftists from the 60's and 70's are now entrenched at our countries' colleges and poisoning the minds of young people. Ayers is a prime example. I, like a lot of other people are just extremely frustrated that so many people are just ignoring the associations
that Obama has had for many years. Well, i want to catch up on the posts then i'll post more.
Oh yes, before i forget it, the post, i think it was from rl awhile back about the success of the Iraq War was wonderful. Well said indeed
Patti

In this column, Roger Cohen of New York Times pays tribute to heartland America, and explains what he considers its values to be. He also explains why he considers those values far better than the values that he believes that Sarah Palin represents. Check it out. I thought it was interesting.

Ann

Ann,

I am surprised that someone who in this same thread expressed such disgust at smear campaigns, could read this hatchet-job, with it's continual smears, lies, and insults, and offer "I thought it was interesting" as your only comment.

Words Cohen uses to describe Palin and her actions, include rabble-rousing, nonsense, unbalanced attacks, vile, cloying, with-us-or-against us, imposter, fear-mongering, ideological confusion, trash talk."

The interesting thing about this hit piece is that the Cohen acknowledges that he was surprised at what he found in the Republican town of Branson. He found a mayor who is practical, has common-sense, and is interested in balancing the books of her town. People come to the town in search of "religion, family, and patriotic entertainment." In fact, Cohen is totally disarmed by Reanne Presley's values - little tolerance for debt, delinquency, dumbness, or dereliction of duty. Perhaps most surprising of all, this liberal author was surprised to see a woman who expressed pride in America that a black man was running for President and a woman for Vice President. (Stop the Presses! This goes directly against the most prevalent, persistent, and vicious of all liberal smears against the right - that those on the right are racist, sexist bigots.)

All of what he found in Branson, contrary to his expectations, actually appealed to this liberal author. What a surprise! The values of the Republicans are actually... good! Well, yes, they are good. And they are the values of Sarah Palin.

The author gives no evidence that Sarah Palin's values differ from Reanne Presley's. In fact, Palin's years as mayor and then governor show that she holds exactly the same values as Presley. Get on with it. Do the job. No tolerance for corruption. No tolerance for dereliction of duty. Balance the books. Practicality and common sense. All of this describes Sarah Palin.

I would say that every word highlighted in bold above is applicable to Roger Cohen's vicious, dishonest, and unwarrented attack on Sarah Palin.

Well, what was most interesting about the column, to me, was the way Cohen praised Branson, not the way he attacked Palin. There was nothing original about what he said about Palin, and he didn't back his attacks on Palin up with any supporting evidence. But I did think his praise of Branson was interesting. And I still feel that way. Maybe because I am a left-wing person myself, and Cohen sums up quite well what I admire about Republican, heartland America.

Ann

We actually agree, then.

As I say in my third paragraph, I also found Cohen's praise of Republican values most interesting.

It was his 'comparison' of these values with Palin that I found dishonest. Palin's popularity with the right rests entirely on the fact that she shares these values. I believe it is also the reason the left has been so aggressively attacking her - their implicit recognition that her values reflect those of the persons whose votes they are attempting to attain. They need to attempt to separate her from those values, at all costs.

Well, I think I can discern a difference between what Cohen says about Branson and what he implies about Palin. I think it has to do with anger and the readiness to attack. Cohen found no aggressiveness in Brandon, only the good values and virtues that I think most people can admire. I personally think that Sarah Palin has been very 'negative' when she has talked about Obama, apparently describing him on at least one occasion as a man who is friendly with terrorists (note the plural), and to me that is a far cry from the warm acceptance and pride of both Obama and Palin that the mayor of Branson talked about. Now that is something that warms my heart, where Sarah Palin fails to do so.

Ann

I live within spitting distance of Branson [okay not really, but close enough and I have family that lives there]. I don't know anything about Ms. Presley and I have heard horns a time or two on the strip. That said, I disagree with his contrast of Palin to the culture of the Ozarks [as embodied by Ms. Presley]. I think she'd fit right in around here and so do most people I know.

Take the abortion issue for instance... you *can't* get an abortion in this area. In an extreme life of the mother situation possibly, but an abortion on demand isn't going to happen. There used to be doctors who came in from St. Louis or Kansas City regularly, but they don't do that anymore. I don't know if it's a supply/demand issue or that the doctors in the area are ethically/morally opposed to it or some combination of the two. Most other 'small town values' that are represented by both Palin and Presley are found here.

Just a guess... but I'd imagine that Wasilla is probably a bit more liberal than Branson, but that's pure speculation on my part.

I would imagine that, had Ms. Presley [yes, I've forgotten her first name and don't want to go look it up again ] gotten the nomination, or if she does in a few years having followed in Palin's footsteps, he would find just as much wrong with her as he does Palin.

Perhaps it's simply a personality clash thing, but somehow I doubt it. This guy just likes Presley's personality better than Palin's. And Presley's not a threat. Yet.

*We're* not rednecks but we're awful close and only a few miles from those who are. We don't hunt but we own a weapon [and no, my kids can't get to it]. The guy four doors down brings home a deer as often as he can. Our pastor rescheduled our premarital counseling meeting 11 years ago because he accidentally scheduled it for the opening day of turkey season. My step-father in law used to reload his own ammo.

I think that any running mate McCain chose would have done/said much of the same things Palin has. Of course liberals are going to coming out with scathing attacks against her. If Lieberman had been the choice he would have been 'hate mongering' or whatever. If Ms. Presley had been the choice, I'm sure the same would be true.

I found it to be... disingenuous, I think is the word I'm looking for. For instance, the tourism comparison between Branson and Wasilla is invalid. Branson *is* a tourist town. Wasilla isn't. That's the only reason it has a population of 7500 - because of the tourism industry there. Unemployment in Branson is traditionally VERY low and pay relatively high for entry level work because the market is so competitive because it provides services to so many more people than actually live there. It's comparing apples to oranges in that sense. Branson has issues that Wasilla doesn't and Wasilla has issues that Branson doesn't.

He seemed to go into Branson with a semi-open mind, but not in Wasilla. His mind is made up there and I don't think that anything could change it.

By the way, if you ever go to Branson, don't drive a standard. The hills'll kill ya.

Carol [who had hoped to be a bit more coherent but who didn't get nearly enough sleep last night..]

Mayor Presley is not running against Obama for office. Palin's job is to highlight the differences between herself and her political opponent.

It is unfortunate that McCain and Palin have been pressed into the position of having to point out the negatives of Obama. That should have been the media's job. I do not mean a smear campaign. I mean the same thing they did with Palin - they should have searched out and reported the good AND THE BAD on Obama, as they did with Palin. It is not fair to hold it against McCain that he has been forced to do the media's job.

Here is exerpt from an interview with Connie Chung, in 2001 (immediately following 9/11):

Connie Chung: A lot of people out there are probably saying, "I would love to hear them say, 'We were young; we were idealistic; we were foolish, and we were probably stupid. We made mistakes and we're sorry about it. We're grown up now.'"

Bill Ayers: I'd say we were young. We were idealistic. We made mistakes.

Bernadine Dohrn: We made mistakes and we'd do it again. I wish that we'd done more, that we'd been more militant.

I feel like I am living in an alternate universe. Bizarro World. Since when is it considered acceptable to associate with terrorists? Since when is it considered 'negative' and contrary to the values of heartland America to question the association with terrorists? Since when are the candidates in a political race forbidden from pointing out the actions or words of their opponent which they feel highlight the differences between the two candidates?

Bill Ayers's wife, Bernadine Dohrn was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list. Both she and husband committed acts of domestic terrorism. Obama launched his career in the home of these two unrepentent terrorists. Palin's statement stands.