http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/ 28/mccain-retracts-palins-pakistan-comments/? iref=werecommend
McCain is now retracting Palin's "gaffe" at a Philadelphia cheesesteak stand. I'm getting more and more worried. Let her off the leash, McCain. We might find out how much she actually doesn't agree with you!
Original Post by ignayshus:
It's the same for palin, but feel free to rationalize.
Well... I agree that all of these people are individuals and don't think the same way on every topic. But it's not the same for Palin.
My impression of Biden is that he had an opinion on the subject. He may have had some catching up to do with the current info (I am not too familiar with this particular "gaffe"), but it is possible for two people to have different opinions on a subject while having the same general mindset about it, if they developed their opinions from different sets of information. If it were not, none of us would ever change our minds about a topic after learning more about it.
The reason it is not the same for Palin, in my opinion, is that she never had an opinion about the subject in the first place. I don't disagree with your statement that she is quite an accomplished woman, and she is certainly no dummy. But she has no experience in foreign policy and no knowledge of it, and is trying to play it off like she does which is very irresponsible. She has come across in every interview so far like a deer caught in the headlights because she has no prior understanding of the topic she is being asked about. They ask her leading questions, like "don't you think..." and she answers it point blank the way it was posed to her. It is clear she had no opinion on the subject before. Most of the time she seems to be trying to connect the question with something she has been told to say, and then when she can latch onto something she talks about that somewhat more confidently, in vague generalizations and without answering the question.
That's a different wrinkle, but I'll grant that as governor of alaska, it's highly unlikely that's she grappled with the issues with which she's be confronted before her tutoring sessions over the last few weeks.
My point is, people got bent out of shape when each of the candidates veeps accidently got off message even though it's really just a distraction from the substantial issues.
I think my biggest gripe is that most people focus on the bullship issues and every media outlet whole heartedly encourages this behavior. I find it insulting to my intellect that our candidates deem us incapable of comprehending or unworthy of hearing their actual positions on matters of substance, but when nobody takes them to task, I guess I'm just dissappointed, because I can't blame them for playing it the way they do.
Original Post by denise07:
She has come across in every interview so far like a deer caught in the headlights because she has no prior understanding of the topic she is being asked about.
And just for good measure:
Original Post by ignayshus:
I find it insulting to my intellect that our candidates deem us incapable of comprehending or unworthy of hearing their actual positions on matters of substance, but when nobody takes them to task, I guess I'm just dissappointed, because I can't blame them for playing it the way they do.
"actual positions on matters of substance"? I'm curious as to what news outlets you've been watching, or what speeches you've seen. IMO, Obama has voiced his positions "on matters of substance", and for that matter, so has McCain. How the VP choices are voicing theirs, however, is a different story.
Darn, Santo. I thought you were going to post some real articles...
Original Post by peaches0405:
Darn, Santo. I thought you were going to post some real articles...
You have a problem with The Onion, America's Finest News Source? Can't please everyone, I guess.
Here's an interesting one from National Review.
Original Post by ignayshus:
@34
I'm sorry, but calling Palin pathetic is borderline retarded. She managed to get herself elected the governor of a state. She was both their youngest governor and first female governor.
She managed to beat the incumbent, from her own party in the primaries, and then beat by 8% her democrat opponent who outspent her.
She has had an approval rating across all voters of greater than 90% since she took the job in 2006.
I'm sorry, but if she qualifies as "pathetic" I'm afraid to find out what that says about me and everyone else on these boards.
I call it partisan, because it is. It's irrational to call someone that successful "pathetic" because of a gaffe, that stems from your campaign trying to control the message for the base.
It's a retarded distraction, whether the target of the nonsense is Palin, Biden, Obama, McCain, whomever.
I'm no fan, but I understand her purpose. McCain needed to get the social conservatives to the polls and that's where she comes in. I would have liked to see Olympia Snowe as his running mate, and while that would have gotten the moderates, he probably would have lost half his base with that decision and would have had no chance of winning. And much as that probably pains everyone here, that's why you'll likely never see me as POTUS... I know, I know... I'll go get some tissues.
Post #34Excuse yourself.
Nobody said "Sarah Palin is Pathetic." People have simply given examples of happening they deem as pathetic. Then agreed upon finding this and that pathetic. That's another example of you taking something and twisting it into one of your assumptions. That way you can harp on the partisan card. People from all sides right and left can be disappointed! I sure am more so than most democrats in all actuality. I'm Republican. It's My TEAM!!! However, that doesn't by any means mean I shouldn't call it as I see it. That I should just be quiet. . .Out of fear that someone may say the view is due to a partisan blinder! There is a difference between something and someone. One quality or attribute of a person doesn't make up a whole. Everyone has qualities that we like. However, that doesn't mean we should sheild them from our disdain. The fact of the matter is in showing it some of us are showing our bipartisan nature. It's "retarded" to twist peoples words in order to trump them with a false accusation. It's like hiding a extra ace from another deck up your sleeve because you have no game.
A republican expressing their disdain for another republican is bipartisan in it's truest form.The assumption that everyone expressing disdain for republicans is a democrat is a partisan view. The partisan blinder view that everyone expressing disappointment... is someone from the other team is a partisan outlook you have.
Original Post by santonacci:
You have a problem with The Onion, America's Finest News Source? Can't please everyone, I guess.
I love the Onion! I especially like how they go after everyone equally :-D
Thank you, Denise.
"Agree, totally. In fact, I think the Republicans have good reason to be far more upset than the Dems are; this makes them look like a joke. There were plenty of more qualified potential running mates who could have represented the party well."
Exactly.
If she supported the Democratic platform and was chosen by Obama, I would seriously have to re-evaluate my opinions on his judgement which so far, I highly respect. As well, I would be completely ticked off.
I dont support the Republican platform but the ones who are upset have my sympathies. This is a setback in the annals of progress made representing and recognizing qualified woman. She doesnt have to be a rocket scientist but she should be expected to answer a direct question, back up her own opinions and present her record without rewriting it.
It's like saying the president of the PTA should be considered 'experienced' as governor of a state.
Exactly, Sun. Some of us republican's are disappointed in the Mc. Cain presidential nomination. It wasn't something that knocked our socks off. It was barely tolerable to begin with by some of us. People were tweaked but... he still had a VP selection to level out the playing field.
again, justin's OP was
McCain retracting Palin's statement = pathetic
not Palin = pathetic
I think Palin is amazing. To have come this far with so little knowledge of anything besides Alaska and pipelines is ...amazing.
She is obviously politically shrewd to have gotten where she is. It's been said that she is good at reading the public mood and playing to it. Perhaps so, Charlie!
While there are a number of republicans who have flat out said that she is not qualified for the position (Sen. Chuck Hagel comes to mind), there are others who like her a LOT.
I'm not voting for her ticket, but I would respect their campaign more if they were treating her like she's qualified, competent and capable. Which I'm sorry, they have not yet done so.
I have seen this comment several times about how Alaska is not diverse. According to the U.S. Census, Alaska is MORE diverse that either the U.S. or Delaware. The U.S. is is 80.1% White, Delaware is 74.5% White, and Ak is 70.7% White. How is that relatively un-diverse? And unless you lived in the State how are you determining the requirements for the leadership in Alaska?
Original Post by akgal:
According to the U.S. Census, Alaska is MORE diverse that either the U.S. or Delaware. The U.S. is is 80.1% White, Delaware is 74.5% White, and Ak is 70.7% White. How is that relatively un-diverse?
Why are you defining diverse solely in terms of the percentage of the white population? How many different ethnic groups are in Alaska?
- Alaska Native 15.4% (0.4%, Delaware)
- Asian 4.6% (2.8%, Delaware)
- Hispanic 5.6% (6.3% Delaware)
- black 3.7% (20.9% Delaware)
- Pacific Islander 0.6% (0.1% Delaware)
- Persons reporting 2 or more races 4.9% (1.4% Delaware)
@44 - No santo, they're just slinging their "packaged for easy consumption" positions. I bet that if we heard their honest, actual positions that we'd find that they'd probably agree far more than they disagree. But that doesn't rally the troops like good 'ol fashioned rhetoric and chastising and it doesn't help the media sell ad slots...
The closest we'd seen was Obama talking about race, where I think for a moment he did truly give us his stance, but that's not really a critical issue. I'd like to see something like that, minus the flowery fluff, and heavy on specifics regarding the economy. I wish that people could accept that it's okay for candidates NOT to be polar opposites so that candidates wouldn't sterilize their message so strongly so as to conform that perception.
@ 47 - Ease off the huff n puff. It's hardly some conspiracy of mine to twist people's words for my own satisfaction. I have a life, I don't need non existent e-victories to feel good about myself. Read the responses and you can see that I'm not the only one who took the OP to mean that Palin the person is pathetic.
She wouldn't have been my choice, but I think anyone thinking clearly can see why he chose her. McCain's got no social conservative cred (which is why I think many of us here liked/respected McCain before he got the nomination) and he needed Palin to fill in that gap for him. That she was a woman was a bonus in that it got the media's attention.
It's the same reason Obama chose Biden. He needed blue-collar voters, and Biden's credibility to shore up his weaknesses on foreign policy and experience.
The veep is, and has always been, a political selection used to get the presidential candidate elected. From that point of view, both selections satisfy their roles well. Will either vp, actually do much in either administration beyond play attack dog? Highly unlikely, because if you're the president there's loads better sources to turn to than Biden on any issue. That goes without saying for Palin.
The point being, if it's pointless partisan politics (like it is in this case), I'm going to call it as such, whether or not it offends anyone's tender sympathies. That we're spending so much time even paying attention to veep's is silly, the position has a long established tradition of being nothing more than window dressing (with Cheney, being a notable and most unfortunate exception).
I've seen 10+ ridiculously long threads that are devoted to Palin, and all I can think is... why? Does anyone think, she'll actually do anything? But what if McCain dies?!!! Yeah... right. What does it tell us about McCain beyond that he needed to get the social conservatives to the polls and he was smart enough to pick the person most likely to do it? Nothing...
So please, spare me the righteous indignation, it's misplaced. I would like nothing less than for the current iteration of the republican party disintegrate, leaving the SoCons and NeoCons behind to picket about the end of days drawing nigh. That way moderates, fiscal democrats/republicans, and rational libertarians could leave the respective whackjob parties and find a new home in a party that focused on responsible government.
@51- KG, you know I love you and that I've got your back 99.5% of the time, but this is that 0.5% Nobody in this thread has done anything that comes close to being as impressive as what Palin has accomplished professionally. To insinuate that she is less than that is unsubstantiated at best.
You don't really think what she has accomplished is equivalent to being elected head of the PTA.
It doesn't mean we have to like her, or even respect her, but it does mean that we shouldn't belittle her in such a manner.
With most honest and heartfelt regard,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Devil's Advocate.
Pissing people off since I've learned how to type.
@ 47 - Ease off the huff n puff. It's hardly some conspiracy of mine to twist people's words for my own satisfaction. I have a life, I don't need non existent e-victories to feel good about myself. Read the responses and you can see that I'm not the only one who took the OP to mean that Palin the person is pathetic.
With most honest and heartfelt regard,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Devil's Advocate.
Pissing people off since I've learned how to type.
Poor you. Poor them. No. Selective reading is a choice that you make to enable your partisan blinder view. Views that are based on nothing but false accusations on your part. Try learning to read without your blinders on.
*attaches hose to fire hydrant*
*turns on fire hydrant*
*sprays everyone in thread with cold, cold water*
*enjoys the feeling of the power of that great big hose spraying all that water*
::giggles::
And the unfortunate result of Cheney's tenure is that, if not carefully watched, the VP can be a lot more potent in making policy than has been traditionally believed. Which is why so much attention is being paid, by me at least.
While I agree that becoming governor is an important accomplishment, and am in no way deriding the office of Alaska's governor, can any honestly say, especially after seeing her in the sparse interviews she has given, she is remotely qualified for the office of POTUS? "We can see Russia"...? come on.
...and I'll take .5% differential - else it would be a fairly boring horse race. :)
