McCain Picks Gov. Palin As Running Mate 1813
Many readers have written to tell us about McCain's choice of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his VP choice. "Palin, 44, a self-described 'hockey mom,' is a conservative first-term governor of Alaska with strong anti-abortion views, a record of reform and fiscal conservatism and an outsider's perspective on Washington. [...] If elected, Palin would be the first woman US vice president, adding another historic element to a presidential race that has been filled with firsts. Obama, 47, is the first black nominee of a major US political party. The choice of a vice president rarely has a major impact on the presidential race. Palin will meet Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a debate in October."
Quote from the Future (Score:5, Funny)
Joe Biden: "Governor Palin, I served with Dan Quayle; Dan Quayle was a friend of mine. Governor, you're no Dan Quayle."
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Funny)
Joe Biden: "Governor Palin, I served with Dan Quayle; Dan Quayle was a friend of mine. Governor, you're no Dan Quayle."
In this case, that quote would be a great compliment.
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, that's what we in the humor biz call "the joke".
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, but Quayle want creationism taught in schools like Palin does [wired.com]?
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Insightful)
She only said the "not part of the curriculum" and "no litmus test" stuff after there was a backlash [google.com] against her mentioning it in the debates. During the debate, her exact wording was: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
Do you honestly think that we should be teaching creationism in science class?
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you honestly think that we should be teaching creationism in science class?
I think that should be what we ask our local school board candidates, not our Vice Presidential Candidates.
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Insightful)
That depends. How much of the scientific method was used on the creation experiments? How much was used on the ones in the textbook? In some cases, creationists do the scientific method better.
Really? I've never seen that. Can you present any paper (suitable for education or not) that presents creationism as a testable hypothesis, or better yet as a tested theory?
Personally, I don't care if the source is alien chasers or whoever. If they have a repeatable scientific experiment, regardless of whether it is damaging to some tenet of evolution or the big bang or whatever, I want it taught! Anything else is censorship of the truth, and holds back the progression of scientific understanding.
So here's the thing, not all theories are equally supported. Things like gravity and evolution have centuries of testing and support and huge amounts of known science are built upon them. They're staples of science and as such have earned a place in the basic curriculum. Even if someone comes up with a creation hypothesis and tests it with an experiment that is repeated, that doesn't bring it the level of credibility of the more tested theories.
Just last year there was a theory that there was an extrasolar planet similar in size to the earth because of a peculiar observed dimming of the star. They tested it with more observations and it seemed to hold up as a theory and was peer reviewed and repeated. Then a few months ago a counter theory appeared that it was not a planet causing the dimming and they predicted some other characteristics if it was more closely observed. Those predictions proved true and we have a new best theory to fit the data. This happens all the time. No one teaches these brand new theories in undergraduate education because they aren't the basic theories we know with great likelihood won't be outdated in another few years.
It isn't censorship to not teach either the theory about the planet I mentioned or creationism because they aren't well accepted and proven science. It is especially not censorship to not teach such unproven theories when they are championed by religious cults desperate to try to promote their religious beliefs in public schools in violation of the separation of church and state. For a creationism theory to earn a place in the basic curriculum it first needs to be proper, testable science, then it needs to build up a large supporting body of evidence such that it is not a theory of the month and we have a good and rational expectation that it is the best theory to understand the truth (or at least close to alternative theories in the amount of supporting evidence and testing).
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Insightful)
I demand my concept be discussed in elementary schools, so we can have a healthy debate and students can make up their own minds. You won't dare suggest I be censored, will you?
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:4, Insightful)
"Now, how many of the voters in your state/local area support this barfing turtle thing?"
If a majority of voters in my town vote to make 2+2 equal 5, you would support changing the math textbooks? Do you think those voters would be right because they had the majority; or is it that having the majority makes it proper to intentionally misinform children?
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Insightful)
Now see, this is exactly what she was advocating--introduce both concepts and encourage healthy debate.
I disagree. She advocated teaching both "theories" which strongly implies them being placed on similar standing. A discussion of what constitutes a scientific theory does have a place in the classroom, but the topic of evolution versus creationism is probably one of the worst topics to use since their are so many religious people with a vested interest in skewing the facts and hence convincing children that the latter is the truth, and in the process undermining the lesson about what the scientific method is and how it works. A less controversial example, such as the theory of gravity versus the theory of directional falling would better illustrate the subject and be less likely to be undermined by religious "leaders".
Debate requires constant research, exploration, and effort. This strengthens the mind and carries us forward.
This assumes the people are interested in logical debate instead of emotional considerations and pushing their religious beliefs. I don't think that is a safe assumption with teachers today. Schools have a limited amount of time, so they should teach the scientific method using non controversial examples and preferably real, hands on experiments, and they should teach the fundamental and well supported theories like evolution, gravity, relativity, atomic models, etc. They should not bring in unsupported hypothesis which happen to be the subject of huge misinformation campaigns. Right now a significant portion of our populace doesn't even know what the theory of evolution is and it is a complex concept for children, yet you think we should be using it as an example for teaching the scientific method at the same time? I think we should concentrate on making sure kids know what the theory is and how it works and if they want to debate the topic later in life at least they won't do so from a completely uninformed perspective.
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:4, Informative)
Well, you see, that's the beautiful thing about things like science and math. Sometimes things are simply wrong. Relativism need not apply in regard to these questions.
Exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, you can argue about Creationism. You can make very good philosophical arguments for and against Creationism in all its forms -- Intelligent Design being one of them. And you can make very good philosophical and scientific arguments for and against Evolution.
What is clear, however, is that Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism isn't.
In other words: Right or wrong, Evolution is science. Creationism isn't. That's not an opinion, it's a fact -- by definition, "I think the Earth is six thousand years old because an old book told me so" is not science.
The only place Creationism has in a science classroom is as an object lesson of something that is not science.
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Informative)
Science is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of fact. That doesn't mean that science is never wrong, it does mean that all scientific claims are either correct or incorrect. Further, the definition of science requires that any claim (hypothesis) that warrants consideration must be one that can be right or wrong.
By terming evolution as a matter of belief or non-belief and putting creationism, in anything but the strict deism sense, into the same camp you only reveals your ignorance of what science is and what is required to be considered "scientific".
Since there is absolutely no conflict between deism and evolution (though deism is still in no way scientific), we must assume that all anti-evolution creationists is of the strict sense.
Teaching your children that there is some sort of choice between creationism and evolution is on par with teaching them that flat earth claims are up for debate as well.
In science, there is no debate about this (Score:5, Informative)
In a science classroom, in a public school, there is no 'debate' to be had about creationism. The Supreme Court made that crystal clear years ago - creationism is religious in nature [wikipedia.org], and has no place in a public school.
(And Intelligent Design [wikipedia.org] is just creationism in a lab coat.)
Science is a philosophy of discovery (Score:5, Informative)
Creationism is a philosophy of ignorance. Ignorance has no place in a class dedicated to discovery.
Evolution:
Intelligent Design:
No recent discoveries, no predictions, no evidence, no tests that we can perform on it.
The roots of Intelligent Design mostly point to Michael Behe, a biochemist. What did he discover? Nothing. He looked at the discoveries of others, gave them a cursory analysis, and declared that God must have done it. Do discoveries, no predictions, and as far as he is concerned no falsifiability tests. God did it. That's final.
Then some folks actually took a look, discovered that the structures Behe asserted were irreducibly complex in fact were easily reducible [wikipedia.org]. Any retraction from Behe? No. He had made up his mind, and no evidence to the contrary will sway him.
So I quote again, "Science is a philosophy of discovery. Creationism is a philosophy of ignorance." - Neil deGrasse Tyson [youtube.com]
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Informative)
Nary a rebellious thought in her head.
That's not quite true. She's a staunch Republican, but even so, she bucked the party on several issues, including helping kill the Bridge to Nowhere, boosting taxes on the oil industry, and vetoing a measure that would have prevented Alaska providing benefits to the partners of gay state employees. She also managed to defeat the incumbent Republican governor while much of the party actively fought her, pulling in 51% of the primary vote against two other opponents, something hard to do in US politics. She also managed to get the state's Republican Party head to resign when she reported him for working on party issues while on public time. She's apparently not willing to kowtow to the Party at the cost of her ethics.
Now, whether she's willing to cross ethical boundaries for other reasons is under investigation. McCain is in serious trouble if the independent prosecutor finds that she really did fire the state Commissioner of Public Safety for refusing to fire her brother-in-law during a contentious custody battle between him and her sister. If that ends up without a finding against her, though, she at least is unlikely to hurt him.
It looks to me like the VP candidates are balanced in terms of negatives (excepting perhaps the experience side), each with a possible black mark against them but mostly clean. I respect and admire Biden, but I'm interested to find out what Palin is like in more detail -- something I'm sure we'll be soon learning.
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Informative)
, including helping kill the Bridge to Nowhere,
Actually, she was for [tnr.com] that before she was against it. Also she was against it only after it became apparent that the state would have to kick in serious $$$ that the feds weren't providing, *and* Alaska still got the federal dollars, just not earmarked specifically for that project anymore.
Not quite the maverick-y bucking the party line that McCain'd have you believe.
Also, she is anti-abortion (even in the case of rape), pro-creationism in science classes, a global warming denier, and has it out for polar bears [adn.com].
-Ted
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Informative)
Are you kidding? From the Christian Broadcasting Network:
Palin Pick Causes 'Elation' Among Evangelical Leaders [cbn.com]
Palin's trying to run away from Stevens as fast as she can. She took money from the same convicted VECO guy that he did -- just not as much.
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:4, Informative)
Evangelicals love her because she is so firmly pro-life, but she fights her with party all the time.
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:5, Informative)
What were you trying to show with that link? Someone repeating a bunch of debunked talking points? Because that's what she's doing. For example, that "2000 acre" thing. The oil is not concentrated in one 2,000 acre area; it's in more than 30 deposits spread across 640,000 acres of Alaska's North Slope coastal plain (out of 1.5 million), which means stretching roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure that practically renders the area uninhabitable for large wildlife. Even if you only want to look at the "touching the ground" measure of how much land it takes up, the combination of oil infrastructure, drill sites, airports and roads, and gravel mines is *12,000* acres, not 2,000. No rivers in the North Slope? Um, BS [usgs.gov]. I mean, come on [google.com] -- you think that all the water on the north side of Alaska drains all the way to the south? I could go on and on. This is a woman who thinks that an animal that spends most of its life hunting on ice flows isn't going to be adversely impacted by their imminent disappearance, and you're acting like she's some kind of environmentalist? Give me a break.
Actually it means horizontal drilling at safe distances below sea level.
It's not rocket science.
Department of Geology at Univ. of Wisconsin
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/courses/g115/oil/4.html [wisc.edu]
http://www.horizontaldrilling.org/ [horizontaldrilling.org]
Natural Gas Horizontal Drilling
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/researchers-say.html [greencarcongress.com]
Geothermal Conference on HD
http://www.nationaldriller.com/CDA/Articles/Industry_News/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000399698 [nationaldriller.com]
NaturalGas.org
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/extraction_directional.asp [naturalgas.org]
Re:Quote from the Future (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but so is she. [newsminer.com]
Her enormous popularity in the state took a hit this summer over her firing of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, a former Anchorage police chief.
State lawmakers launched a $100,000 investigation to determine if Palin dismissed Monegan because he would not fire the governor's ex-brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who has been involved in a messy custody battle with Palin's sister.
A candidate complete with pre-made scandal. Outstanding.
Re:More Quotes from the Future (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't have any religious beliefs, but I have no problem with the state using force to prevent you (or anyone else) from murdering other human beings.
Suggesting that an unborn child has no human rights until the instant of birth is absurd.
Suggesting that an egg gains full legal rights at the instant of conception is equally absurd.
This isn't an either-or situation. The answer isn't "pro-choice" or "pro-life".
I think that most all of us can agree that a clump of cells too small to be seen with the naked eye doesn't deserve any particular legal recogintion.
On the other hand, a unborn child that has developed enough that it could expect to survive outside the womb probably should have the same rights inside the womb as it would have outside.
In between these two points we can have reasonable laws the balance the interests of the mother with the interests of the unborn child.
If we'd quit listening to the people who say there is no middle ground then we could actually solve this argument and move on with life.
Re:More Quotes from the Future (Score:5, Informative)
None of this means a bit to people who believe in immortal souls granted by God upon conception. I think that's where the real argument lies.
Re:More Quotes from the Future (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad these people can't see that they'd eliminate a lot more abortions by supporting sex education and contraception then by pushing for absolute prohibition.
Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"when they shamelessly pander to the stupid lobby?
--"
You mean like anybody that has pandered to the anti-nuclear lobby?
Guess what they all do.
And I have not problem with creationism being taught as long as it is taught as science. So every bad fact they have can be pointed out.
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey my teacher taught use the theory of spontaneous generation and how it was proven to be not correct.
The problem is that the many creationist know just enough science that unless you know a lot of science you must take it on "faith" that they are wrong.
The majority of pro-evolution zealots on slashdot don't have enough science background to disprove a good creationist. Way to often they "believe" what they learned in school.
Since I do attend church and I am actually pretty good at science I was once invited to a creationist talk.
They had some very interesting facts but they really didn't understand them.
One of my favorite was that they found Carbon-14 in diamonds so they couldn't as old as the evolutionist said they where. They really didn't enjoy my lesson on radio active decay and quantum physics.
But I can tell you this. If you don't know a lot of science then they are totally believable.
I would bet that a lot of people on Slashdot only believe in evolution because they distrust religious people and not because they actually understand what is wrong with creationism.
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Distrust asside, when you do not come from a mystic background it is honestly baffling how anyone could confuse science and pseudoscience. It isn't even that creationism needs to be disproved, it is that it is seen as starting off with the burden of proof just like any other mythology. There doesn't have to be 'anything wrong' with it, but it has completely failed to put forward anything 'right'.
It is an interesting philosophical argument, but we end up confused why people want to teach mythology in biology classes.
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Funny)
The Republican ticket is now complete
Yeah, I still couldn't get the voice of Darth Vader out of my head for that.
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to that, she's also pretty rabidly pro-life. This is, among other things, a definite carrot toward the more religiously-oriented part of the conservative base - you know, the part that doesn't thing McCain is conservative enough (in the fundamentalist sense) for them...
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
>Both sides of the abortion debate are wrong.
One of the most sensible things ever said about the whole matter. (especially on /.) I said one of the other most sensible things about abortion, when talking to a pro-life friend:"
"Do you want to forbid abortion, or do you want to stop it?"
Abortion isn't a hobby, people don't do it for fun. I don't even think people do it lightly - I think most people feel that they are forced into it by circumstances. (Whether or not those feelings are "valid" or not is a different matter.)
But I think things can be done to address the underlying circumstances that cause people to feel that they need an abortion, and perhaps one of the foremost is to instill in girls the self-esteem that can help in postponing sexual activity. I once heard, "The most important give a father can give his daughter is to love her mother." Model a healthy relationship. We're talking *real* family values, not the fake tripe generally peddled by politicians.
My biggest fear about overturning Roe v Wade is that people will feel that the job is done, and even start dismantling the things that are in place now, like counseling, adoption assistance, etc. Oh boy, we've written a rule! That'll stop it! Then self-righteous heads will plop back down into the sand.
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because prior to abortion, girls never had sex...
Oh wait, they did, it's just that prior to the Suffrage Movement, people had no problem marrying off their fourteen year old daughters when they got knocked up, and then just screwing with the math a bit so the product of all that teenage lust looked like it was popped out of the vagina a few months later than it really was.
That's what I so detest about Fundementalists, they live in this fantasy land that never was. Kids have been fucking for tens of thousands of years (even longer, if you extend "kid" to apply to our more ancient ancestral teenage pregnancy cases). They like to make believe that there was this mythical Christian population that existed prior to 1965 that was virginal and liked sock-hops with chaperones and always got home at 9pm after a real swell time at Pop's.
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
how can anyone take a candidate seriously when they shamelessly pander to the stupid lobby?
I don't know, it doesn't seem to bother the Obama supporters.
Waiting to be modded as a troll while the OP gets modded as informative or interesting. Even though both took shots at the other side.
No bias to see here.
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They all pander to the stupid lobby, it's their biggest constituency. So really, you should be asking "How can anyone take any candidate seriously?" The answer is, you can't unless you're stupid.
Look at Obama for instance. He couldn't even wait until he was nominated to betray his stated principles and vote for immunity for telecom's who illegally tapped phones. If you expect him, or any other candidate to remain true to his campaign promises, you're part of that stupid lobby.
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:4, Informative)
For the sake of discussion Obama responded to that (in Q/A format) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX67mlUyutM [youtube.com]
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Funny)
This is so sexist, vpilf.com doesn't have a single picture of Dick Cheney.
Could I mod this (-1, Nauseating)?
Well-rounded? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a little something I read about the government not being allowed to outlaw or advance any particular religion. And, yeah, any form of ID? Yup, that's a religious belief, not a scientific one.
And for strict biblical literalists, teaching a heliocentric model of the solar system is going against their religion. Are we supposed to teach geocentrism in public schools, as well?
Re:Well-rounded? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what the Constitution says. Besides, I learned about different belief systems back in public high school in my world history class. You can't ignore religion and the Constitution doesn't require that it be ignored.
Yeah, history class, not science class. You want to teach different theologies in history class? Be my guest. I loved learning about all the Abrahamic religions in my high school world history class.
You want to teach that in science class? Screw you, you're not teaching your religion as though it's science.
Re:Creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
Because when people talk about presenting "both" sides of an issue, they usually don't mean the "informed" and "uninformed" sides.
Re:Creationism (Score:4, Funny)
If a sizeable portion of the population holds to an "uninformed" side, then you had better teach that, too. Heck, I try to teach my kids what Democrats think and we have a great discussion about it.
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any discussion on Creationism needs this David Brin quote:
I find it truly stunning how many people can shrug off stuff like this, preferring instead a tiny, cramped cosmos just 6,000 years old, scheduled to end any-time-now in a scripted stage show. An ancient and immense and ongoing cosmos is so vastly more dramatic and worthy of a majestic Creator. Our brains, capable of exploring His universe, picking up His tools and doing His work, seem destined for much more than cowering in a corner, praying that some of our neighbors will go to hell... - David Brin
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Science is only concerned with verifiable facts. So to Science, the creation story of any culture is dismissed because it is un-verifiable. It's faith. Science is a rigorous logical structure which is impartial. I'm not saying that the scientists practicing it are always impartial, I'm saying the system itself with the big capital "S" is. To acheive that impartiality it cannot simply assume belief and faith as the same as verifiable fact.
So saying that Science is ignoring evidence is really a question of semantics. It's not so much that it's not evidence, it's just inadmissable.
Re:What's so bad about teaching science history? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Evolution has nothing to say one way or another about the planet's origins. It doesn't even address the origins of life. It addresses solely how individual Species might originate.
2. At the time Darwin published his book, most people generally agreed that the earth was at least a few hundred thousand, possibly millions of years old. The concept of a 6000 year old Earth was introduced by Thomas Aquinas and largely ignored until the 19th century. And even he was simply speculating on the length of time since Adam left the Garden, based on genealogies given in the Bible, not on the age of the entire Earth, and certainly not on the relative age of the universe. Even amongst Christians, a 6000 year old universe didn't become an article of faith until the rise of radio preachers in the 1920s.
3. Evolution was widely accepted in 1859, when Darwin published his book. What was hotly debated was the mechanism by which species may evolve. The revolutionary idea Darwin put forth was that natural selection alone would be powerful enough to be that mechanism. There were many other theories being put forth at the time.
Re:What's so bad about teaching science history? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Informative)
She has strong libertarian roots, has made a point to go after Ted Stevens - and the bridge to nowhere that Obama also voted for.
Obama didn't vote for the bridge. Why are you fabricating this stuff?
In fact, the media is trying to portray McCain as having aggressively opposed the the bridge, when in fact he did no such thing, and he was absent from all key senate votes on the matter: http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html [factcheck.org]
To McCain's credit he has been a reliable opponent of pork-barrel spending. But your post simply gets the facts wrong (about Obama's vote), and the media does as well when they portray McCain as having opposed spending on the bridge. In fact, you're even wrong about Palin opposing spending on the bridge -- she was initially in favor of it, and changed her stance only when it became clear how tainted the project was, and that there was no support for it in the senate.
Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (Score:5, Informative)
Made a point to go after Ted Stevens - and the bridge to nowhere that Obama also voted for.
On October 22, 2006, Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in response to a question specifically about the bridge:
Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
Yeah. Using your congressional delegation's power to appropriate more money for your state. That's real libertarian right there. Her later statements to the same paper made it clear that she only killed the bridge after it was clear the federal government wasn't coming up with the bulk of the funding.
A female Dan Quayle (Score:5, Funny)
Age (Score:5, Funny)
Little experience and unqualified (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry, being a mayor of a town of 9000 doesn't qualify you to be Vice President, especially when the presidential candidate has age and a history of health problems going against him.
As for governor, Alaska has a population of 670,000, roughly twice the population of the CITY I live in.
Alaska also does not face the same challenges as other states. They basically don't have many taxes since they get all their wealth from oil, and so they don't have to deal with the budget issues other states have been stuck with. And she's only been governor for 2 years. At least George W. Bush had a lot more experience than that as governor of Texas. Also, they've been getting a huge windfall of revenue whereas most states are struggling to balance their budgets due to the high oil prices. There are no statewide income, sales, property or inheritance or state taxes (some localities have their own local taxes). Palin actually RAISED taxes on the oil companies and limited their exploration and development (which affects everyone else).
She has no international experience, or for that matter, any national experience.
Obama had millions of votes for him as a senator, several times the entire population of Alaska. Even as a state senator he represented far more people than she has as a mayor.
Palin is a bizarre pick (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no clear win for McCain with her. She takes the experience argument off the table. She accentuates McCain's age. She won't deliver any more states in the election. She'll raise focus on the Ted Stevens indictment. She has her own ethics problems. She won't bring in the Hillary delusionals when they find out she's pro-life. The only thing she does is excite the shriveling GOP base for a couple weeks.
Biden will wipe the floor with her at the VP debate.
She angered Big Oil in Alaska, maybe she was forced on McCain to get rid of her. If McCain is elected and doesn't complete his term, she might be very malleable to the hidden hands in Washington, which are much stronger than those in Alaska.
My Girlfriend will actually vote republican now (Score:5, Funny)
So, what are your front page setting again? (Score:5, Interesting)
Face it, though, neither Palin (a self-admitted creationist) nor Biden (a proponent of stronger police powers) is a 'nerd-friendly' pick.
Re:Good choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing as if he (McCain) somehow manages to get elected, I give his remaining lifespan a duration somewhere between James Garfield & William Harrison's presidencies. The good news is we'll have our first woman president. The bad news is she has experience leading about 670000 people total (9000 if you just want to go by her mayoral experience), is rabidly pro-life & loves Big Oil. It will be kinda like Bush, but with a vagina.
And don't bother to rail on me either, I'm voting for Barr. I've given up on the Republicrats, the only thing that will make our leaders stand up & take notice is another political party coming to power & taking it away from them.
Re:Good choice (Score:5, Insightful)
The ability of a VP to become President has to be considered. 9 VP's took over for the president. Out of 43 presidents, that is 20%.
Re:Good choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good choice (Score:4, Informative)
She's running as the VP of a 72 year old candidate who has had a deadly form of cancer, and suffers from lifelong health problems related to his extensive torture. His odds of surviving the next 4 years are vanishingly small. The odds that she is both the republican VP and presidential candidate is very high.
Re:Good choice (Score:4, Informative)
Obama: 7 years Illinois Senate, 3 years U.S. Senate
W. Bush (pre-Presidency): 6 years Governor
Lincoln: 8 years Illinois House of Reps, 2 years U.S. House of Reps
T.R. Roosevelt: 3 years Governor
F.D. Roosevelt: 2 years NY Senate, 3 years NY Governor
Palin: 4 years city council, 6(?) years mayor Wisilla, AK, 2 years Governor
So what you're saying the GOP will say is that you can only have a President after baking them for 30+ years in the Senate? History shows otherwise.
Re:Good choice (Score:4, Informative)
IF he goes senile???? (Score:5, Insightful)
if you subscribe to the Bush doctrine on torture (as McCain now does), then McCain himself was never "tortured" at the Hanoi Hilton and the anti-American statements he made to his captors are, in fact, truthful and accurate intelligence.
from a comment on a story in the Wash Post.
Re:Good choice (Score:4, Informative)
For most of that time she served on the City Council and later as Mayor of Wasilla, a town of between 5400 and 8400 people, depending on which estimates you look at. She spent 2003-2004 as a political appointee on Alaska's Oil & Gas Commision before resigning due to corruption, then ran for governor in 2006.
Being a council member or mayor of a town that small isn't in the same league as even a state senator position. Even when Obama was just a state senator he was representing a little under 220,000 people (calculated from population of Illinois over number of senators). Palin's experience as governor helps, but that experience only covers two years.
Re:Good choice (Score:5, Informative)
Palin's elected office:
Obama's elected office:
Rounding down, that gives Palin 8 years, most of which was at the city level, and Obama 11 years, all of which is at state level or above.
Re:Good choice (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not so sure this is a great political move by McCain.
One of the things the Democrats have been hammering McCain on is his lack of judgment. I can easily see Palin as another example of poor decision making.
While selecting a VP as a strategy to win the election is part of the decision tree (going after the disenfranchised Hillary votes), choosing a VP is also about having someone that can step in and do the presidents job competently.
I have a feeling this is going to backfire.
Re:Bad Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you overestimate how much the people will care.
Re:Bad Choice (Score:5, Informative)
She tried to get a state trooper fired for divorcing her sister and after that failed, fired his boss for not firing him.
True, she has been accused of this. But so far, the only people implicated in trying to get this state trooper fired are members of her family and staffers in her office, without her knowledge. The only documentation of any action by her pre-dates when she was elected governor.
I don't think it's going to get traction, because the state trooper isn't exactly a sympathetic figure. He was suspended for using a stun-gun on his 10-year-old stepson, and is alleged to have threatened Palin's father (among other things).
Story here, with links to background material: http://www.adn.com/politics/story/468174.html [adn.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think you are a little early on your verdict. (Score:5, Interesting)
AND, no one has been able to link Palin directly to the firing in question. Not through phone logs, witnesses, or anything else.
It also appears that Hillary voters are moving to Palin in a big way, according to some of their blogs.
Re:Hahahah (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, given the title, I am tempted to assume you're joking. But the capacity of Republicans and their supporters for self parody can't be down played. Perhaps you're actually serious. Next you're going to be going on about Palin's experience and readiness to be president in a job that is, as they say, a heart beat away.
I think that the opposite of your claim is true: McCain is doomed. He just destroyed the "Obama doesn't have the experience to lead" meme. Sure Palin is a hard right social conservative. But she also happens to be an ex-beauty queen with an ethical scandal in Alaska. The social conservatives claim that women should be at home, not running for the Vice Presidency. Of course they're a bit inconsistent on this. I think that you'll find that Palin and her big breasts are a huge liability for McCain. If nothing else, she'll emphasize that he's very old.
Re:Hahahah (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow you're COMPLETELY overlooking the Hillary/Obama race, and I'm honestly shocked you don't see it.
Hillary/Obama race was often summed up as: First woman or First black man?
You don't remember that?? Because, at least in my neck of the woods, there are still many who wish it had gone the other way. Many who would rather give the woman thing a go first...
Now McCain gets to tap into that vibe, and probably shore up at least a few of those voters that would have preferred Hillary over Obama. They didn't really WANT to vote McCain before, but they would have just for the woman factor, and because they have some kind of irrational hatred for Obama. Now they've been handed a reason to want to vote for him, too.
In short, my grandmother who has voted Democrat for the last 50 or 60 years will now almost certainly vote Republican.
Genius, really.
Re:Hahahah (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't remember that?? Because, at least in my neck of the woods, there are still many who wish it had gone the other way. Many who would rather give the woman thing a go first...
Because they've outgrown misogyny but not racism?
Re:Hahahah (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people EARN the grief they get and it has squat to do
with whatever "oppressed monority group" they would like to
have themselves associated with.
Re:Hahahah (Score:5, Insightful)
That has nothing to do with her being a woman.
it has a lot to do with her being a general snob and/or jackass. :-)
Re:Hahahah (Score:4, Interesting)
But don't listen to me. I'm just an evil conservative.
I think you're confusing Conservative and Liberal with being conservative or being liberal. Conservative (little c) generally means you want less drastic change -- you're content with the status quo (in my original post, this was a two century run of white male vice presidents - which as it happens has more to do with culture than with race, I'd suspect). I'm conservative about some things and liberal with others.
Conservative, these days, often gets mixed up with war-loving Neo-cons, while Liberal is a peace-loving, communistic hippy. It hurts to see descriptions of thinking become insults, and then have that be the understood definition.
There's good and bad to both sides: conservatives generally want you to do it yourself without the government's help (and everyone's taxes) -- America offers you the opportunity, it's up to you to grasp it. Liberal thinking is that not everyone really gets that opportunity without some effort on other people's part. Both sides have merit...we can neither be too hard nor too soft.
Re:Hahahah (Score:4, Interesting)
> I think that the opposite of your claim is true: McCain is doomed. He just destroyed the "Obama
> doesn't have the experience to lead" meme.
Not really. Obama is putting that sort of crap out today and you are faithfully echoing it. I expect it to abruptly stop as soon as somebody with a clue in camp Obama manages to get a handle on this unexpected event. Both Palin and Obama have about the same experience in high office, Obama entered the Senate in '05 and effectively left to campaign for POTUS in early '07. Palin was elected Governor of AK in early 07 and was doing that 100% until today. Palin can claim a few years experience on various statewide offices, Obama can claim a few years in the IL legislature. And Obama is at the top of his ticket, not the sidekick. So if Obama keeps talking about lack of experience he invites media outlets to do stories comparing the candidates and he loses that argument.
> But she also happens to be an ex-beauty queen with an ethical scandal in Alaska.
Only in the minds of Dems. The Dems in the legislature manufactured a 'scandal' because the anti corruption efforts were starting to interfere with their (not that she wasn't also at war with the totally corrupt Repubs like Stevens, etc.) feeding at the public trough. And even then the worst case in this supposed 'scandal' is that the story is true. She got a brother in law who was beating her sister fired from his State Trooper position. I wanna see the NOW gang taking a position on that one. Should be fun.
Because of course they WILL oppose Palin, we all understand 'diversity' is celebrated in everything except thought. NOW, the race hustlers, they all say one thing but what they really mean is "we support SOCIALISTS of every race, religion and sexual orientation."
Would I want Palin as POTUS now? No, she is a little green. But assuming the Presidency is different. If the unthinkable happened McCain would already have a functioning administration, all the Cabinet positions would be staffed with (hopefully) competent folk, etc. And assuming she in the loop she would be getting a crash course in the things she needs to know to assume the office. And give her a couple of years in office and, yea she will be ready to be President in her own right. She already seems to know the things that can't be taught easilly and appears to be a fast study by observing her fast rise through the ranks.
On the other hand Obama is just as green and has zero accomplishments to his name other than getting elected to the US Senate.... by defeating Alan Keyes. Wow. Just Wow. Got handed editor of the Harvard Law Review as a Equal Opportunity hire and published nothing. Taught in a University and published NOTHING in a publish or perish world... and somehow didn't perish. Worked as a socialist agitator (what other name do you piy on somebody putting the teachings of Saul Alinksy into practice?) and can't point to a single action where he actually accomplished something noteworthy.
The only executive experience he could claim was on that Annenberg Challenge fiasco where his own final report says the money spent accomplished exactly zero improvement in the schools. And since the original grant proposal was written by a terrorist[1] (William Ayers) who kept the lead active role in handing out all that money to political cronies instead of helping improve education (the stated goal in the proposal) Obama really wants to make the whole experience disappear from his resume.
[1] No sane person would disagree with the statement that Ayers was a domestic terrorist. Ayers, as late as 2004 repents none of his acts, thus isn't really debatable that he should be labeled a terrorist in the present tense.
Re:Hahahah (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahjlNLo_3TFE&refer=home [bloomberg.com]
She did not fire that cop for the right reasons. She fired him for the wrong reasons. And you should not encourage that.
Re:Hahahah (Score:4, Informative)
You've missed the point that in no way was it her or her office's responsibility or duty to fire this guy. She strong-armed the guy's boss into firing him. It wasn't something she should have even been involved with. She overstepped her bounds and used her political office to gain revenge for a family member.
Point of clarification: As far as I can tell, Wooten (the state trooper) is still on the force. He was suspended for cause for 10 days, reduced to 5 days after a grievance was filed by the union.
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/510080.html [adn.com]
Reading between the lines, it appears that Palin's husband was responsible for a lot of the pressure.
Re:Hahahah (Score:5, Insightful)
The ethical scandal is that she then got the commissioner fired for not doing as she wished. *That* is the big problem... she is, just like the current executive, intolerant of people who are not yes-men.
I, for one, do not want another my-way-or-the-highway executive, because no person is infallible.
Re:Pandering to the Vagina Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
What's sad is that when Democrats run women, it's looked at as somehow genuine but when Republicans run a woman it's looked at as pandering.
Re:Pandering to the Vagina Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because it is? How concerned have you ever seen the Republican party over women's rights? Hell, they have a hard time caring about anything other than wealthy, property owner rights.
Re:Pandering to the Vagina Vote (Score:4, Informative)
What's sad is that when Democrats run women, it's looked at as somehow genuine but when Republicans run a woman it's looked at as pandering.
Because, when Democrats run women, it's based on a long history of, y'know, actually having supported women's issues.
Since Republicans have a long history of voting *against* things like equal work for equal pay, then yeah - it's pandering.
Unfortunately (Well, unfortunately for the GOP - I'm fairly happy about it), I don't think it's going to be very effective - I have doubts most of the GOP is actually familiar with her record. So the xenophobes that are going to be really ticked at a 'tacking towards the center' approach, are going to be really ticked anyway, while the moderates that might be gained by *actually* tacking towards the center will be the ones that look up her record and decide 'No Thanks'.
On top of which, we have a McCain campaign screaming about Obama's lack of experience, but anointing someone younger and with *no* national or foreign policy experience.
Pug
If she was a man? (Score:5, Insightful)
No experience needed to be #2 in McCain's world! (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're saying that the number two spot doesn't matter? That she wasn't hired to actually do anything on the job. To say that it doesn't matter that Palin is less experienced is to say that the VP is a position with no meaning and no sway, so it doesn't matter if experience doesn't matter. It's an admission that Palin was put on the ticket for one reason - not because of her strengths, not because of what she brings to the White House, only because she's a woman. We don't expect her to actually do anything, so it's okay that she has no experience.
I repeat - if McCain, the older man with bouts with disease should fall ill to old age, then this woman becomes president. Not number two, but number one. McCain has come out and said that this woman with almost no experience is actually experienced enough to be understudy to the most powerful position in the land. McCain is either short-sighted of having delusion of immortality.
And that doesn't matter? That doesn't matter that the "Experience is Everything!" campaign just decided that experience doesn't mean squat for the NUMBER TWO POSITION in the country?! Can you imagine Palin inheriting the number one spot? Is that something that the experience-loving McCain fans would be able to handle?
Yes, we know. We know Obama is running for president. We know he's inexperienced. You keep saying that. You were saying it last month, last week, yesterday, you kept saying it. So why, why now, have you given us the least bit of ability to say it about McCain?! Why would you do that? We know what you think of Obama - why would you give us the chance to change what people think about McCain?!
This whole thing just absolutely boggles my mind! I do not for the slightest moment understand the least bit of logic behind it!
Re:A clever choice... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good contrast in beliefs, senatorial v. executive experience, should be interesting! I really didn't know who I wanted as VP but hearing her speak this morning, I think she can be solid.
Re:Pro Life (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pro Life (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you saying she should have? I thought it was all about the "woman's right to choose" with the abortion crowd.
Seriously. Choosing to have a child with Down's Syndrome is brave and not something any pro-choice advocate should have a problem with. They might suspect that she was pressured into it by her community/party/husband/church, but that'd be a concern, not a reason to condemn the decision.
No. The problem pro-choice women will have with Palin isn't that she chose not to abort a baby with Down's. The problem they will have is that she would like to deny them the opportunity to choose in the same situation.
Re:nice pick (Score:5, Funny)
Re:nice pick (Score:5, Funny)
Yea, she is pretty hot for her age, definetly a MILF, I'd tap that too if I got the chance. :)
I suppose you mean a VPILF [vpilf.com]?
Re:nice pick (Score:5, Funny)
But having worked with her, would you vote for her?
I guess that all depends on what "I'd tap her" means...
Re:nice pick (Score:5, Funny)
Call her 'North Shores' and I'd drill her.
Re:Obama is not "African American" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can we put the experience factor to rest? (Score:5, Informative)
McCain very effectively put the experience issue to rest by picking Palin, which makes you wonder what the last month of crap from him and his surrogates was about. Obama as celebrity? Palin has actually won beauty contests. Obama passes legislation with his name on it in the U.S. Senate; Palin governs a state with less population than Austin, TX. Palin is also a creationist, arguing for equal time in science class.
Magoo very effectively hijacked the media cycle with this choice, but one wonders why he didn't choose from a legion of much more qualified, experienced, effective female Republicans.
Re:Can we put the experience factor to rest? (Score:5, Informative)
We dont know what Obama stands for except that he for the most socialist policy that i have ever read...coming just shy to that of marxism.
Yeah, Obama was totally promoting all sorts of government and worker ownership of the means of production last night. Right after he did the crowd surfing.
Read a book [wikipedia.org] before you rant. And perhaps a reference on Obama's economic policy [barackobama.com], too.
*sigh*
Re:My only problem with this pick is... (Score:5, Informative)
When the story broke, he was stripped of all committee assignments and asked to resign, which he refused to do. What more do you want, Nancy Pelosi to spike him in the eye with a high heel?
Re:My only problem with this pick is... (Score:5, Informative)
She said no thanks to Sen. Ted "Internet Tubes" Steven's 100 million dollar "bridge to nowhere",
Anchorage Daily News, 10/5/06: Palin Said She Supported The So-Called "Bridge To Nowhere," But Was Concerned Money "Flow" Was "Going to Slow" [juneauempire.com]
Might want to revisit your history....
Re:The Vagina option (Score:4, Informative)
Such declarations get bandied about so much that one hardly bats an eye; in my opinion, though, you've just lowered yourself more than anyone else here could.
I like McCaain, but from what little I've learned so far, this VP selection pushes me away from him a little.
incorrect: Obama has more government experience (Score:5, Informative)
she's a vicepresident candidate and has MORE government experience than Obama
Uhm, not quite:
From Wikipedia:
Barack Obama:
Senator:
January 4, 2005 to now (3.5 years)
Illinois Senate:
January 8, 1997 - November 4, 2004 (8 years)
Sarah Palin:
Governor:
December 4, 2006 - now (not quite 2 years)
Mayor:
1996 - 2002 (6 years)
Welcome to Math 101.
That said, I like her stance on corruption, but she's only the VP candidate, so being VP under someone whose campaign is pretty much owned by the special interests she spurns is going to cripple any chance she has of doing anything unless McCain kicks the bucket.
She's also a creationist, anti-abortion, anti-contraception (!), all of which adds up to someone that Hillary supporters will have a hard time with.
I dunno whether this is a smart move by McCain or not, but you rarely go wrong counting on voters to be stupid, so it may help in the end. The GOP doesn't represent Republican voters, as they're clearly not for smaller government or less government spending (see also: Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 with a vengeance), or securing America (Bush 43, again with the vengeance), but the GOP always manages to sucker the Republican populace into *believing* they are for those things by *simply* saying they are. McCain doesn't have to win over any blue states, he just needs to tip enough states that are in contention.
Re:Gov. Palin as the "libertarian VP candidate"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most pundits seem to be focused on Palin's being a woman, but I see her as a way for McCain to reach out to the libertarian crowd. One commentator described her as the "libertarian VP candidate," or at least the closest thing to a libertarian that we're likely to see on a major-party ticket:
I'm not seeing it. I'm not a libertarian, but I do agree with a good number of their ideals and have voted for their candidates in the past. I don't know a lot about Palin, but my quick research did not really shout "libertarian."
In short, I see her pretty well aligned with the mainstream Republicans. I think her lack of history and relative obscurity is going to be a big asset since it lets people speculate and engage in a lot of wishful thinking. The libertarians would like her to be aligned with their position, or at least more aligned than other candidates because it provides hope. In reality, she seems more like a VP who would have little power under the assertive McCain and who is no more aligned with the libertarians than and of the other presidential or vice-presidential nominees.