My gun's spoken for, but, on the larger issue, does this seem to anyone else just like Harriet Miers/Geraldine Ferraro all over again, aka, let's get an inoffensive no-one with all the right moral criteria for the constituency to bring in leverage from the 'if it's a woman it must be the right thing' baby boomers? Or maybe she's just PUMA-bait?
19 comments:
As far as PUMA-bait goes, women who supported Hillary and then turn their disgruntled selves around and vote for McCain because he's got a woman on his on his ticket can honestly kiss my ass. Seriously, she wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. If that's your cup of tea, cool. If not, don't vote for them. Vote with your brains and not with your breasts people - it's about issues, not gender.
As a woman, I'm just pretty damn insulted, and I despair at the thought of any educated female being taken in by such a bald-faced political gambit.
ok, clearly i need to switch to decaf - i just really dislike identity politics :-)
Actually, I'm thrilled that she's on the ticket, and it doesn't have the first damned thing to do with her having boobs. Palin might actually get me to vote this year.
Palin gets massive props from Club For Growth for having taken on numerous special interests in AK, and has been repeatedly praised by Porkbusters for just the same thing, including helping to kill the "Bridge to Nowhere." In short, she's precisely the kind of Republican I *wanted* to see nominated, even if she's more socially conservative than I'd prefer -- price of the Reagan coalition. If liberals were willing to give libertarians the time of day, I'd coalition up with them, instead. But they aren't.
(I do agree on kicking Roe v. Wade to the states, though, both on federalist grounds, and b/c even as a layperson, I can read the decision and tell that it's legally about as fluent as the 15th amendment. If the states have enough people who want to make an Amendment out of it, or kick it back up to the court for a more reasonable ruling, fine by me as well.)
Cynic I am....I think she was picked for the following reasons.
1) Obama has a HUGE media following, so by picking a complete surprise, the media focuses on her which steals Obama's post convention thunder.
2) She's a Tar baby - specifically picked for people to pick on so that they get stuck doing it, which in turn takes away focus on McCain's flaws.
I think I'm right about #1, as so far I've seen nothing by stories about Palin, and practically nothing about Obama after the convention. I also think I'm right about #2 as per the Bush-Quayle years, but we'll see what happens.
I think she was picked for reasons only to win in November. I suppose that's a "duh" statement, but she'll have NO power and is there only for appearances, much like Medvedev is for Putin.
Of course. Veeps don't get a lot of power. However, this is a gal who's heading directly where the Republicans should have been going for the last fourteen years.
Now, that doesn't mean current Dems will like that much -- they shouldn't, because she's fairly squared contra the left-populist positions they've been staking out.
But when you consider what passes for leadership among the more experienced Republicans... aka, 90% Rockefeller types, 5% total moonbats, 5% David Duke wannabes who haven't been outed yet... I'm quite happy with this move.
And, yes, it might be cynical as hell. Given the particular sport we're watching, I'm comfy with that.
(and, yes, I still agree: McCain suxx.)
Well, I like the fact that she is really a Washington outsider. And also isn't part of a big city machine, which usually is where we get the normal "outsiders". Eh, we will see. Going by the feedback in my particular block, most of my fellows don't like Obama due to overall lack of real world experience in anything, he is yet another flipping lawyer, and he is part of the CHicago machine.
Some of his gafs hurt him too in my area, such as visiting wounded troops in Germany or his wife's comments. Yeah, minor stuff really, but (and I have to chuckle at this fact considering how much ammo the Dems had going into this election) in a close race like this every little bit will matter.
She advocates "teach the controversy" - teaching creation science in science classes - and is a member of an Assemblies of God dominionist church.
I don't care if she has 6 ovaries and is awash in estrogen, I'm not voting for that.
I'm very happy with taking her taking on the corrupt SOBs in the AK, but she's no power to do this nationally, and even if she were to succeed McCain, it'd be Carter all over again.
Now, granted, there are some who would like to see a weaker executive, but I'm not sold on their perspective yet.
Moonbat creationist is a complete NO-GO from where I sit -- I'll need to research that; in the meanwhile, though, I consider it to be yet another tactically good move that puts a relatively weak woman in the national spotlight -- this doesn't help that cause much.
On a more lighthearted point of national pride, though, if Sarko can have a hottie, McCain should too!
the Creationist thing is interesting. Alaskan newspaper state that she pushed the position in general, but was actually pretty curiously inactive in pushing actual legislative agenda on social conservative positions. Including not doing an anti-gay-benefits bill even though she claimed to believe in that, on the grounds that it would be unconstitutional.
I have no problem with the controversy being taught, so long as it's in history. Not in a science classroom.
The fact of the matter is that American politics is almost a form of statistical engineering. It's not a coincidence we're seeing Palin on TV speaking about women's suffrage and glass ceilings.
Educated folk who truly care about a set of issues are not the object at this point.
Picking Palin was about capturing small percentages of conservatives and women who fall on the swing vote. Those numbers may seem meaningless - but they count in key states where McCain is weak.
Creationism taught as science is a dumb thing, but considering all the other crap that is in the school system, what's one more? If its taught as history, or just as "some believe that..." I have no issues with it (that's how I learned about it and I figured out quickly that creationism was a non-starter). Now, if it is taught in leu of something that has some serious science behind it alarm bells ring. Which is why people pushing Communism/US is evil in American History classes gets me worked up. The US is not a nation of saints, but compared to many of these other places we are paradise on earth and have the historic proof to back it up. Last time I checked we didn't kill 20 million of our own citizens in an insane purge by our ruling dictator as an example.
But that goes off topic, dumb stuff gets into the classroom. National manidates don't really fix it, it usually ends up in the courts. So I could really care how a VP thinks about stuff like this other than part of "how smart is this person?"
My problem is that many *do* want it taught in science class, as "Intelligent Design", and on an equal footing with evolution - including stickers on textbooks that explain that "evolution is only a theory".
Speaking of Communism, they should pay attention to what happened in the Soviet Union; science was set back decades because Lamarckism was more politically acceptable than Darwinism.
Yes, they SHOULD pay attention. But do they? Again, if more people on the p.c. half of today's liberals could recover from their emotional antipathy to economics 101, I'd be their politicall ally in a heartbeat.
Eighteen years from now, when self-replicating nanofab is starting to emerge and destroy our world by eliminating material scarcity, we'll need as many serious thinkers as we can get, so that we can get into the next one without a seven-digit body count.
Politicians on a national level have no reason to strongly support creationism or abortion issues (either side of line).
National figures pretty much peg these issue around 50%... so supporting one side to grab 2 votes looses you two votes on the other side.
Going way back to the beginning of this, uh, discussion, I'm compelled to address a few 'things' that have been mentioned, and obviously hit a nerve, or two:
#1 - Not all 'boomers,' particularly females, are going to vote for what's her name simply because she's female... just like many of us weren't the least bit enamored with Hellary (that's not a typo).
#2 - I get so ticked off when someone starts spewing stuff about the sufferage movement. Read a book. Check the REAL story. Watch 'Iron Jawed Angels'... then talk about women's right to vote. (see #1) Our sisters went through hell for 'us' to have the right and privilege to vote. My vote isn't lessened just because I may not vote for the 'winner.' Contrary to popular belief at the time, (and still in some good ol boys gatherings) women really did have brains before we got to vote! A really nice compliment to those breasts you all know and love!
#3 - If you want women to sneak back into the dark alleys, crawl up on a kitchen table, and hope that the cloths hanger has at least been washed... I need say nothing more about the consequences of repealing Roe v Wade. Don't kid yourself, these are the things that happen in real life.
Roe versus Wade in pretty much locked in concrete I think. I don't care who gets elected, this arguement has been put to rest. There may be some bickering about various limits to it, but no one is going to be able to turn it around short of a shooting war (which would would be some severe irony).
Heh, Hellery. Good one, I prefer Hitlary myself, but that one works too.
The sufferage movement is one more bit of history that has been distorted badly for poltical reasons. I fully agree with your comments on researching stuff like that as the "party lines" of history we get anymore are very skewed to say the least.
Suzn: I hear you, but I'm not sure to which comments some of your 'feedback' are addressed, as to the boomer-thing, it's sadly all over NPR interviews the number of, what else shall I call them, the "don't trust anyone under 50 crowd"? -- there are a lot of women that strongly believe that they've earned a female presidency (as if you can earn a right) and that if we don't get a woman in higher office, that it's a sign that they've been screwed again, rather than the sad fact that more women aren't willing to demolish their personal lives in the monomaniacal pursuit of power required to attain federal office....
Oh, and hello!
"An ABC News poll... found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible's book of Genesis is "literally true" rather than a story meant as a "lesson."
original here:
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/
In this case, more like 60/40 than 50/50.
It does seem as if both prez candidates take the "religious right" seriously as a voting bloc.
That's a scary poll.
Later reporting suggests that Palin is open to the debate, but did *not* insist that this be a part of the science curriculum.
Which means she's actually very close to my position here. I'm Comfy enough, then. She's still a politician, sadly. But we dont' draft our leaders.... hrm....
Post a Comment