| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Sarah Palin: the Devil is in the Details | |
| 2008-08-31 | |
| |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #26 I'm caught in a reprobate's quandary here, if she gives me a woody is it ever ok for me to vote for her based on her accomplishments, or am I a still a scoundrel? And I don't want to hear a lot of B.S. high brow stuff out of pappy and lopt on this cause this is the first time in my life I have had to come to grips with a naughty librarian mistress type nominee. So don't ruin it for me. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-08-31 23:47 |
| #25 her experience is equivalent to an elementary school principal....Then she ought to be good at being the President of the Senate. LOL! |
| Posted by: Betty Grating2215 2008-08-31 20:23 |
| #24 well Alan Colmes should know about pre-natal damage, but chromosomal downs isn't part of it. He's cementing his "get me a sammich, bitch" role for Hannity for the next 20 years |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-08-31 19:19 |
| #23 yeah, I guess it is better to discuss this now instead of giving the other side opportunities of bringing up stuff in a bad timing sort of way. ;) |
| Posted by: Jan 2008-08-31 19:17 |
| #22 Comments such as I heard on the Beltway Bunch this morning (something like) her experience is equivalent to an elementary school principal Then she ought to be good at being the President of the Senate. ------------------------- or on Colmes' blog accusing her of poor natal care causing the Down's syndrome You know, the last time I checked, it was because of chromosome damage and there really wasn't anything natal care could do to change the situation. What rock did these people crawl out from under? |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-08-31 19:12 |
| #21 well then I'm sorry I said that. Comments such as I heard on the Beltway Bunch this morning (something like) her experience is equivalent to an elementary school principal or on Colmes' blog accusing her of poor natal care causing the Down's syndrome or all of the bad mother comments are really starting to get under my skin. I could go on and on. The point I was trying to make is that sexist comments are just like "small thing" jokes, they are immediately offensive to all who read them and have absolutely no valid purpose other than to deflect from a rational argument. |
| Posted by: Betty Grating2215 2008-08-31 18:25 |
| #20 My take is yall are mis-interpreting Besoeker's comment. I took it as a poke at the Democrats who have only found her looks (hair, clothes, glasses) to be worthy of attacking her on. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-08-31 18:10 |
| #19 Knowing what I know about the Dems' tried-and-true politics of personal destruction, I figure once they've exhausted the book on Sarah Barracuda, the Donks' operatives will zero in on her husband. And that includes all of the dirty tricks, including set-ups. Whatever it takes for the tabs' front page. |
| Posted by: mrp 2008-08-31 18:00 |
| #18 .. guess I |
| Posted by: Betty Grating2215 2008-08-31 16:40 |
| #17 I'm sorry if I misunderstood. I agree with your overall point. I guess I don't misunderstand what solution you are proposing. |
| Posted by: Betty Grating2215 2008-08-31 16:38 |
| #16 I hear your frustration, Badnov. And perhaps you are voting for Ron Paul or some other candidate, which is certainly your choice. But Obama was at one point talking about forcing people to got to the doctor once a year for wellness checkups. Unless something changes, there is at this point in time only a choice between two candidates. You can make a statement vote if you wish, but I'm going to vote for the team that will do the least damage. WTF?? How did you get there from what I wrote? |
| Posted by: badanov 2008-08-31 16:32 |
| #15 I hear your frustration, Badnov. And perhaps you are voting for Ron Paul or some other candidate, which is certainly your choice. But Obama was at one point talking about forcing people to got to the doctor once a year for wellness checkups. Unless something changes, there is at this point in time only a choice between two candidates. You can make a statement vote if you wish, but I'm going to vote for the team that will do the least damage. |
| Posted by: Betty Grating2215 2008-08-31 16:25 |
| #14 Suppose for a minute she isn't small government What difference does it make? It's not like we really have a choice between small government and big government. It's a choice between intruding government and the government taking over every aspect of your life, thought word and deed Because our ability, or in this case, lack of ability to control the one societal element that can destroy every other element is a truley self fulfilling prophesy that says a great deal about how we view society as it exists. If we choose smaller government, it means we believe that people have the good sense and resources to make decisions about their own lives, that they are far better arbiters of their own fate than any political system. If we choose big government we are saying that only mass political will matters in society and that the individual matters little in society. I chose to take care of myself and I insist to be allowed the right to protect myself against those who believe that an amorphous society can better determine my life and its conditions than I can. And I am not even talking about my fundamental belief that government of any kind, even self government no matter how benevolent is always tyranny. The less resources at its command, the better behaved it will be. Everyone remembers the good old days of the Clintons, but what I remember is every police force in the US abbrogating their oath to uphold the US Constitution and assaulting US families when that oversized monster had zero business pressing its agenda in that field. You say so what, but I say Look Out! Big republican governmennt or big democrat government it makes little difference; they are both tyrannies. |
| Posted by: badanov 2008-08-31 16:18 |
| #13 "Does this dress make me look fat?" Why, yes it does, Besoeker. But I applaud you for having the guts to wear a dress in public, no matter how fat it makes you look. Try an A-line next time.... |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-08-31 16:11 |
| #12 It is quite ironic that all we heard leading up to Senator McCain's selection was how pissed upon most wimin felt due to the Hildebeast's, an alleged woman, non-selection. Now that Senator McCain has selected a LADY, the bitching and moaning has intensified. Does this dress make me look fat..... or are there other issues? Sexist pig. The entire article is about the issues and you whittle it down to does this dress make me look fat. Maybe your thing is just too small to handle discussing the issues. |
| Posted by: Betty Grating2215 2008-08-31 16:07 |
| #11 I'm reluctant to discuss these downside issues before the election as not wanting to take away any thrust to the McCain Palin campaign. Yeah, I've had THOSE discussions with my wife before. Loosely translated: You lose. I win. Let's talk about something else. |
| Posted by: badanov 2008-08-31 16:00 |
| #10 Yes. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-08-31 15:41 |
| #9 It is quite ironic that all we heard leading up to Senator McCain's selection was how pissed upon most wimin felt due to the Hildebeast's, an alleged woman, non-selection. Now that Senator McCain has selected a LADY, the bitching and moaning has intensified. Does this dress make me look fat..... or are there other issues? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-08-31 15:32 |
| #8 Suppose for a minute she isn't small government What difference does it make? It's not like we really have a choice between small government and big government. It's a choice between intruding government and the government taking over every aspect of your life, thought word and deed. |
| Posted by: Betty Grating2215 2008-08-31 15:23 |
| #7 Re lotp's: "I think her basic instincts and values are right and those will guide any stand on particular matters when they're in office." I second the motion. That's why I voted for Bush twice and that's why I'll vote McCain/Palin. I also think Obama/Biden's basic instincts and values are far more often wrong. I don't expect perfect from anyone. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-08-31 15:23 |
| #6 The one thing EVERYONE needs to remember is that Sarah Palin took on not only the Democrats in Alaska, but also the corrupt Repuglycon machine of Murkowski and Ted Stevens, among others, and WON. I would wish John McCain had someone else with her abilities to pick, so she could finish cleaning up Alaska, just as Bobby Jindal is cleaning up Louisiana. I hope the Assistant Governor is a good enough guy/gal to finish the job Palin started. I'm not sure I'd blame her for some of the things she did until I know why she did them, and what the results are. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-08-31 15:22 |
| #5 It really is important to address any and all concerns upfront. The legacy media have done the last three Democratic presidential candidates no favours by sheltering them from criticism until they crashed head-on into the wall of Republican skeptism... and lost three elections in a row. The more questions VP candidate Palin is asked, the clearer she'll be on the answers before she faces badgering reports, not to mention her opposite number in the VP debates. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-08-31 15:01 |
| #4 Palin's positions on some of those issues are tied directly to the rather unusual position Alaska occupies vs. the other states - its large tracts of wilderness, challenging climate, federal control of a lot of its territory and the fact that exploiting the energy resources there is highly capital intensive. That said, I guess where I come down on the issues raised here is that she has been tapped to serve as Vice President. McCain will set the agenda, not Palin, although her voice will undoubtably be heard. And if Mac dies in office, she will quite possibly have developed specific policy positions that are national in scope and that might differ a bit from her Alaska-specific ones. I think her basic instincts and values are right and those will guide any stand on particular matters when they're in office. shrug |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-08-31 14:18 |
| #3 I'm reluctant to discuss these downside issues before the election as not wanting to take away any thrust to the McCain Palin campaign. |
| Posted by: Jan 2008-08-31 14:05 |
| #2 Badanov, The way I've seen it is that she "went after" the oil companies to reverse the sell-out made by the corrupt Alaska pols in the past. Also, isn't it a royalty arrangement more than a tax? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-08-31 13:35 |
| #1 The main thrust of the article is that Sarah Palin isn't perfect; good but not perfect. That said, I have a terrific problem with raising taxes on a vital industry to the exclusion of any others. "Targeted" tax policy is bad economic policy no matter who does it, and as a conservative, Palin should have known better. The other issues enumerated in the article are secondary in my opinion to taxes, but they are there to be discussed. She has a huge upside but she has a large downnside as well and we may as well start discussing that downside now rather than later. |
| Posted by: badanov 2008-08-31 13:15 |