Re: The Sarah Palin corner of the Sandbox!

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-13-2008, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

The scariest thing about Obama isn't how unqualified he is. It's what his candidacy says about America.

I don't get that last sentence. What does it say about America?

**AMosely** · 10-13-2008, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

The scariest thing about Obama isn't how unqualified he is. It's what his candidacy says about America.

He is qualified, so if that's scary I don't know what to tell you. I would like to know what you think it says about America, though - something good?

What does Palin's candidacy say about America?

**CingularDuality** · 10-13-2008, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by AMosely

He is qualified, so if that's scary I don't know what to tell you. I would like to know what you think it says about America, though - something good?

What does Palin's candidacy say about America?

Oh, man... If Senator Obama is qualified to be President, why is Governor Palin unqualified to be Vice President? Their qualifications are similar, despite Senator Obama's trivial lack of executive experience.

And what DOES it say about America when we're seriously considering electing someone that is friends with an admitted terrorist that has attacked our country? Someone that refuses to put his hand over his heart for our national anthem? Someone that thinks American Flag lapel pins are a symbol for something other than true patriotism?

What does it say?

**AMosely** · 10-13-2008, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Oh, man... If Senator Obama is qualified to be President, why is Governor Palin unqualified to be Vice President? Their qualifications are similar, despite Senator Obama's trivial lack of executive experience.

I think it's fair to say that Obama and Palin are both somewhat unqualified for the positions they are campaigning for, but a comparison of experience illustrates what I think are noticeable differences:

Obama's experience begins with a degree in Political Science at Columbia (thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament), includes professional work in law and public interest research. His political experience includes eight years as a Illinois senator and four years as a United States Senator. He has at least 24 years of public service experience with twelve of those as a State or U.S. Senator.

Palin's experience begins with a degree in Journalism from Idaho State, includes work as a television reporter in Anchorage and a small business (personal recreation vehicles) part-owner with her husband. Her political experience includes six years as a city councilwoman (starting in 1992) and six years as mayor (1996-2002) of Wasilla Alaska. After an unsuccesful campaign for State Governor in 2002, she served as chair of the State Oil and Gas Commission from 2003-2004. She was elected as Governor in 2006. She has at least 16 years of public service experience with ten of those as a local politician and less than two as a State Governor.

Some cite a lack of executive experience, and in that sense Palin has eighteen months more than Obama. I see that as fairly negligible. This leaves us with a candidate that has more than a decade of legislative leadership, four of which were in the U.S. Senate and a candidate with less than two years of State legislative/executive leadership. Mayorial and council duties in a town of 5000 simply do not count much at this level.

So, fit to lead? Both not very, but Obama is slightly moreso than Palin in terms of years spent in public service.

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

And what DOES it say about America when we're seriously considering electing someone that is friends with an admitted terrorist that has attacked our country? Someone that refuses to put his hand over his heart for our national anthem? Someone that thinks American Flag lapel pins are a symbol for something other than true patriotism?

What does it say?

To me, that says you're listening to talk radio too much. I'm not patriotic enough to give up decades of my life, including that of my immediate family, to public office and the persuit of it. I doubt many of us are. To question another person's patriotism because they don't subscribe to the same brand you do is one thing, but to question it of someone who serves and continues to serve the public is actually unpatriotic.

Regarding the poltical labels you bring up; Ayers was a terrorist 25 years ago, did admit it, and Obama has nothing to do with him today and has said as much. Obama certainly does not 'refuse' to put his hand over his heart - the controversy surrounding his one documented lapse is well known as a dead end. Lastly, regarding the lapel pins, I agree with Obama and many other Americans - it's a cheap display of patriotism, and to claim it means anything significant only cheapens the argument. He made a significant statement when he stopped wearing it out of protest for the Iraq war, which at the time had become a kind of blind substitute for true patriotism. I and many Americans still agree with that, and are just as patriotic for doing so.

The question to ask is what really matters here. 25-year old associations with an untried domestic criminal? Flag pins? The way someone talks? I'm voting based on what I think matters, and I would hope millions of other Americans do so as well. They are all equally patriotic for doing so.

**CingularDuality** · 10-13-2008, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by AMosely

The question to ask is what really matters here. 25-year old associations with an untried domestic criminal? Flag pins? The way someone talks? I'm voting based on what I think matters, and I would hope millions of other Americans do so as well. They are all equally patriotic for doing so.

We're not talking about your weird uncle, the retired vet down the street or your roommate from college. We're talking about the President of the United States of America. If you don't think these things matter, you're just plain wrong. Perhaps they don't matter to you, but don't forget that the entire world is watching these candidates. EVERYTHING matters. How much is not for you or I to say.

**AMosely** · 10-13-2008, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

We're not talking about your weird uncle, the retired vet down the street or your roommate from college. We're talking about the President of the United States of America. If you don't think these things matter, you're just plain wrong. Perhaps they don't matter to you, but don't forget that the entire world is watching these candidates. EVERYTHING matters. How much is not for you or I to say.

No it's certainly not, which is why I didn't say it. I can offer my own opinion, which is all I'm doing. Furthermore I didn't say that they don't matter, but rather asked how much they mattered. In my opinion, such things do not matter much, and most especially regarding a Presidential election. Let me explain that.

I was recently reading something on Presidents, candidates and medical records. McCain and Obama are both dodgy when it comes to medical records. This should come as no surprise. Nixon famously covered up the fact that he regularly consulted a psychiatrist. FDR went to great lengths to cover up his trouble with polio. It is nothing new that Americans either consciously or subconscioulsly expect their Presidents to somehow be perfect in every sense, even when history so clearly dictates otherwise. If health and its impact on the function of a President really was an issue we would never have a 74-year old man with a long history of cancer at the top of a ticket, yet most people would tell you that medical records are an important factor in selecting such candidates. The chances of McCain falling ill in office are remarkably high, yet this doesn't appear to be an important issue. 'Important' issues are not only a matter of opinion and perspective, they are often not important at all compared to things like approaches and proposals in fiscal and foreign policy.

Anyone looking at the Ayers connection needs to think about what guilt by association truly means - especially when applied so indirectly and in the distant past. The Bush White House not only hosted the Taliban in the summer of 2001, but had given them over $40 million in support of the war on drugs (which was grossly eclipsed in September of that same year, and very much so in Afghanistan). Who, then, has supported terrorism more? Whose judgement do you trust more? My answer would be that both are matters of circumstance and have little to no bearing on the judgement of the men involved. Does it matter? Yes, but very little compared to their broader views on policies affecting the nation itself.

**leejo** · 10-13-2008, 03:25 PM

The Bush administration sure the hell changed its tune on the Taliban. What if anything triggered Obama's come-to-jesus moment with Ayers? Seems to me Ayers' past wasn't much of an issue for Bams. He was certainly willing to benefit personally from the relationship without saying peep.

Suppose McCain had a long-running professional and social relationship with David Duke. Would you find it preposterous to want to dig into that relationship a bit to understand where McCain and he see eye-to-eye and where they differ? Obama has never gotten into that, he just implies that it's ridiculous to associate him with Ayers's past. I agree that it's extremely unlikely that Obama had anything to do with the bombings, but I disagree that it's unreasonable to ask "wtf is up with that?"

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-13-2008, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

And what DOES it say about America when we're seriously considering electing someone that is friends with an admitted terrorist that has attacked our country? Someone that refuses to put his hand over his heart for our national anthem? Someone that thinks American Flag lapel pins are a symbol for something other than true patriotism?

I think the "patriotic" mistakes go to show Obama's political inexperience. I will bet you that he will never make those marketing mistakes again. (And all that symbolism is a particular type of marketing. Just because some take marketing seriously doesn't mean I have to.)

The Ayers thing is a bit more troubling. I looked passed McCain's association with Keating. I look at it as a mistake of an eager politician new to the game.

There is a difference. McCain has had years to prove that he isn't a leader that gives favors to crooks that steal the peoples tax dollars. Obama hasn't had that opportunity to prove that Ayers was a mistake.

It is a risk. But not a large one, unless you hate Obama for other reasons. I bet his gun control stance is your biggest problem and nothing the man did would ever convince you to vote for him.

**Switchcraft** · 10-13-2008, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by AMosely

McCain and Obama are both dodgy when it comes to medical records.

This is dishonest. McCain released his records incredibly early because the New York Times pitched a fit about it...only for everyone to find there wasn't anything there. Obama refused to release his records, and refused to allow his doctor to speak about his health, save for an undated letter from some time ago.

**AMosely** · 10-13-2008, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

This is dishonest. McCain released his records incredibly early because the New York Times pitched a fit about it...only for everyone to find there wasn't anything there. Obama refused to release his records, and refused to allow his doctor to speak about his health, save for an undated letter from some time ago.

I think the term 'dodgy' is pretty apt because of the reasons (both real and realized) I outlined earlier.

I actually think the term 'released' to describe McCain's records is a bit generous (maybe even dishonest). McCain allowed access to his records early (May 23 2008) because he's a 74-year old man with a long (as in not recent) history of cancer. The way in which those records were released - 20 journalists were given three hours to review 1173 pages of data (plus 1500 pages from the last time he ran) - can hardly be described as 'released.'

Obama released a letter on May 29 2008 from his doctor (since 1987) outlining his rather uneventful 21-year medical history. It included past events (common respiratory infection, minor injury) and current statistics (vitals and labs). Obama could have (perhaps should have) released or allowed access to his actual records as well, but hasn't.

There is no law requiring either of these men to do any of this.

I don't see anything dishonest about describing both as 'dodgy,' perhaps Obama moreso than McCain. There's a long history of this, it's nothing new, and in my opinion it doesn't really matter much.

**AMosely** · 10-13-2008, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by leejo

The Bush administration sure the hell changed its tune on the Taliban. What if anything triggered Obama's come-to-jesus moment with Ayers? Seems to me Ayers' past wasn't much of an issue for Bams. He was certainly willing to benefit personally from the relationship without saying peep.

Obama hasn't had anything to do with Ayers since. Every attempt to dig into this has yielded nothing. I brought up the Bush example because I didn't hear 'peep' from his administration about the atrocities of the Taliban until after 9/11.

I'm not saying the Ayers connection isn't worth mentioning, or that Obama doesn't need to address it, but the way in which it's being stretched to almost superstitious levels bears little merit.

Originally Posted by leejo

Suppose McCain had a long-running professional and social relationship with David Duke. Would you find it preposterous to want to dig into that relationship a bit to understand where McCain and he see eye-to-eye and where they differ?

I would agree that a long-running professional and social relationship certainly warrants some scrutiny. There is nothing that suggests that is the case with Obama and Ayers, and everything to suggest quite the opposite. No close relationship, no scrutiny.

Originally Posted by leejo

Obama has never gotten into that, he just implies that it's ridiculous to associate him with Ayers's past. I agree that it's extremely unlikely that Obama had anything to do with the bombings, but I disagree that it's unreasonable to ask "wtf is up with that?"

Extremely unlikely? He was 8 years old and was living in Hawaii! It's not only false, it's impossible. The problem here is the apparent refusal to accept 'nothing much' as an answer to your 'wtf' question. There really is nothing more to see here.

As for an explanation, read it from a Chigaco local - Ayers came with the territory. It's as simple as that. Obama has no more to do with him than do a host of prominent (or semi-prominent) names in Chicago politics and power. Obama would probably tell the same story (which in many ways he already has) except most polls seem to indicate people would rather hear about his platform at this point.

**leejo** · 10-13-2008, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by AMosely

Extremely unlikely? He was 8 years old and was living in Hawaii! It's not only false, it's impossible.

It's totally possible, but when I say that it's "unlikely" that an 8-year-old participated in the Weathermen bombings, I'm using an understatement, to say the least.

With regard to Obama and Ayers having a long-term relationship, they most certainly do have one! They have served together on several boards, have appeared together over the course of several years on various panels, and of course worked together on the Annenberg Project.

In no way am I suggesting that they were best pals, or that they shared a cubicle. However, I don't know anyone who, given the degree to which they have associated professionally and of course Ayers' now-famous meet-and-greet, would consider "a guy from the neighborhood" the truthful response to the question "what's your relationship with Ayers." I have been in board meetings and I know that board members don't necessarily even have to like each other, but once you've been in dozens of meetings with someone, you know them much better than you know "a guy from the neighborhood."

So, I think Obama's lying about this. I think his relationship with Rev. Wright is very similar: 20 years of no problemo with anything the good Rev had to say, but once the relationship became a problem, he was thrown to the trash heap, and Obama pretends to be shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!, to learn that Wright thinks these terrible things that have his congregation standing and applauding every time he says them. I doubt Obama sat stone-faced during these moments - and does anyone doubt there were such moments? Is it really likely that 20 years of this man's sermons contained none of these outrageous "God Damn America" statements? Maybe Obama is the most unlucky man on the face of the earth to have attended this church for 20 years and happened to be out sick on these days, and no-one mentioned the sermon, or expressed similar views, or gave him any clue. Or maybe he's lying about the relationship. And then there's Rezko. Good pals, then not so close. See how this works?

**AMosely** · 10-13-2008, 05:05 PM

Taking it back to Governor Palin, I though it interesting that she felt 'vindicated' by a Republican-majority panel report citing her abuse of power in office. I agree it was within her rights as a Governor to fire as she chose, but she clearly did some ethically questionable things.

I don't think it's a big deal, nor do I think it speaks to her character in a loud way, but it was worth putting in 'her' thread here.

**AMosely** · 10-13-2008, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by leejo

With regard to Obama and Ayers having a long-term relationship, they most certainly do have one! They have served together on several boards, have appeared together over the course of several years on various panels, and of course worked together on the Annenberg Project.

True, and the op/ed I linked explains those in pretty clear terms, I think.

Originally Posted by leejo

In no way am I suggesting that they were best pals, or that they shared a cubicle.

Palin is, and McCain by proxy, using those exact terms. I think that's unfair.

Originally Posted by leejo

However, I don't know anyone who, given the degree to which they have associated professionally and of course Ayers' now-famous meet-and-greet, would consider "a guy from the neighborhood" the truthful response to the question "what's your relationship with Ayers." I have been in board meetings and I know that board members don't necessarily even have to like each other, but once you've been in dozens of meetings with someone, you know them much better than you know "a guy from the neighborhood."

So, I think Obama's lying about this.

And I think he's being deceitful in that he's trying to distance himself, which any self-respecting politician does in these situations. Obviously the consequence is that some get the feeling you are lying or otherwise lose trust in you. I assume his campaign knows this, and chose to accept that risk. Time will tell if they are right.

Let's look at what's really at stake here. Is Obama a terrorist? No, he's not. Is he friends with terrorists? Nope. Will he cold-shoulder someone, especially when he stands to gain something from them, because they once were a criminal? Apparently not (well at least not until 15 years later when it might hurt him). Does this mean he's a bad leader? I don't think so, and I'll cite Yasser Arafat as an example. Both Bushes and Clinton looked past his history in an effort to better the U.S., Israel and Palestine (in that order). There's nothing new here but a media frenzy over double standards and heresay. Politicians do this, presidents do this - rarely if ever does it indicate conspiracy.

**leejo** · 10-13-2008, 05:12 PM

I agree that Troopergate says very little about anything.

Except the crappy cop and the insubordinate administrator who was fired. It tells us a lot about them. Otherwise it's a political furball.

Thread Tools

Display