The Cheapening of the Democratic System via Sarah Palin

I have been giving a lot of thought to the introduction of Gov. Sarah Palin into the political limelight, and the more I think about it, the more it sickens me.

I must note that this thread will only discuss the issues and the devisive political tactics I feel are being used by the Republican Party. I don't care about Sarah Palin's family, or if she wears lipstick. That garbage is designed to keep people looking the other way while the facts are overlooked.

1. IMO, it was a cheap stunt to pull this late in the election. I realize that politics is dirty, but if McCain's new message is "changing the culture of DC", then please stop it with the same old DC tricks. Say what you want about Sen. Joe Biden, but at least we know who he is and we have given people a chance to vet him.

2. To me, it was a direct insult to women (my wife feels the same way). Let's face it. This action was a direct response to Hillary Clinton not getting the nomination, and it was political ploy to deepen the rift among democrats. I would argue that she was nominated BECAUSE she is a woman, for that one express purpose. Is this "change"? No. It was a blatant and shameless pandering effort on behalf of the Republicans to appeal to women.

3. The VP of the US is a very important role. Let us look at the unprecedented influence that current VP Dick Cheney has on the administration. The other fact is that Sen. McCain is not in the best of health and there is a very real possibility that Palin would become President. IMO, this would be disastrous. She has very little experience and does not have half the judgment that Obama has exhibited oer this TWO YEAR vetting process.

4. I feel like it speaks volumes of the judgment of John McCain. He met with her for 2 hours and made a decision. IMO, the decision was purely political in influence and was not considering what would be BEST FOR THE COUNTRY. Is this the way he will elect his cabinet and board of advisers?

McCain Pre-Palin: Mayors And Governors Can't Handle National Security

"I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism," the Senator declared. "I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."

Any way the wind blows...

reply to post by TruthWithin


First of all, lets look at how Obama was introduced. We were littlerly treated to months of fawning, glowing, puff pieces about Obama. Anyone pushing for a more critical look was labeled a racist or a neocon, as shown here.

But Barack Obama had a crucial advantage over his rivals this year: the support of the national media, especially the three broadcast networks. At every step of his national political career, network reporters showered the Illinois Senator with glowing media coverage, building him up as a political celebrity and exhibiting little interest in investigating his past associations or exploring the controversies that could have threatened his campaign.

IMO, it was a cheap stunt to pull this late in the election. I realize that politics is dirty, but if McCain's new message is "changing the culture of DC", then please stop it with the same old DC tricks. Say what you want about Sen. Joe Biden, but at least we know who he is and we have given people a chance to vet him.

I don't know what you're watching, but I've seen almost zero coverage of Biden. There has been no discussion about past racist remarks hes made. I realize he went through the ringer in the primaries, but to be honest I think we need a refresher.

Also, Palin wasn't picked unprecedentedly late in the election. Where are you getting that?

2. To me, it was a direct insult to women (my wife feels the same way). Let's face it. This action was a direct response to Hillary Clinton not getting the nomination, and it was political ploy to deepen the rift among democrats.

It couldn't just be that McCain wanted someone that wasn't part of Washington and thought she would be a new and interesting choice? Plus, even if it was a political choice, that would be nothing new. Hell, Biden is a political choice. Its pretty sad that your wife or any woman is "sickened" by a strong woman whos accomplished a lot and is about the be the first female VP. I guess it only matters if you have a (D) in your name?

3. The VP of the US is a very important role. Let us look at the unprecedented influence that current VP Dick Cheney has on the administration. The other fact is that Sen. McCain is not in the best of health and there is a very real possibility that Palin would become President. IMO, this would be disastrous. She has very little experience and does not have half the judgment that Obama has exhibited oer this TWO YEAR vetting process.

According to Joe Biden, Obama doesn't have the experience to be PRESIDENT and cant learn on the job. So, by your own logic Obama has no business running.

I think history will hold this to be true.

THIS modern notion of power will be viewed as modern and civilized as the HUN and the GOTHS...

PALIN and Mccain are no more aggents of change than a new coat of paint on a pinto.

conservative
1. tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions :

I find it silly that there are people want to stop or quell PROGRESS - this notion is the MOST FUTILE of ideas. THE same "conservative minded" people of the past believed in: an oath of faith, slavery, no vote for women, white supremacy ( in the public domain )

1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization

PROGRESS-

YOU can only slow it down - MY kind get the last laugh ALWAYS - even if it is from the grave.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by mental modulator]

Its pretty sad that your wife or any woman is "sickened" by a strong woman whos accomplished a lot and is about the be the first female VP. I guess it only matters if you have a (D) in your name?

I am sorry you think that my wife's and my opinion is "sad". I think it is sad that you have to call my opinion "sad" in order to get your point across.

Accomplished a lot? Really. That is a stretch don't you think?

I am not upset she is a woman, I am upset because I believe that the RNC is using the fact that she IS a woman for political gain, not because she would be the bet candidate. Country First? Hardly... Should be Politics First.

Also, Palin wasn't picked unprecedentedly late in the election. Where are you getting that?

I didn't say she was. My point is that hardly anyone knew who she was. It was a dirty political ploy and I see right through it. This does not stay in line with he newly adopted McCain for Change campaign.

reply to post by TruthWithin

Accomplished a lot? Really. That is a stretch don't you think?

You must have an unbelievably high bar for accomplishments. I'm not sure how you can dismiss everything Palin has done and yet, act like Obama has done everything she has and more. It just doesn't make logical sense.

Are you going to address what Biden said about Obama or just keep ignoring the obvious hypocrisy?

Some may think it is bashing I don't. 5 times in the 20th century the Vice President has been called upon to take on the role of President.

The idea of President Palin is just plain scary to me and seems like an impulsive, reckless, and primarily political decision on McCain's part.

McCain is not a healthy man and if he wants to be President he should have known better than to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate. He should not place his political ambition before the safety of the country.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Leo Strauss]

Originally posted by Dronetek
reply to post by TruthWithin

 

Are you going to address what Biden said about Obama or just keep ignoring the obvious hypocrisy?

YES, I will, BIDEN is a politician, it is politics 101 to discredit another less experienced politician.

WILL you address the fact that even FOX has and RUSH have alluded to the political genius of picking a FEMALE?

ITs politics DT.

I just wish Mccain could have found a more experienced VP.

I think it is self diluting to believe that PALIN is ready to take over as president.

WHY might I ask is she not capable to be subject to further media scrutiny via interviews?

If she is so experienced and knowledgeable why is she being sheltered like she is deficient?

OBAMA has to go toe to toe as does MCCAIN and BIDEN.

reply to post by Leo Strauss


Can you explain why we're supposed to be worried about Palin as VP and not at all worried about Obama as President? No matter how you slice it, Palin has quite a bit more experience in government than Obama. So, how do you justify attacking Palin on experience but still support Obama for President?

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Dronetek]

reply to post by TruthWithin


You know you can just decide to not vote for McCain due to his choice of Palin.

Why all this anger, what was so "undemocratic" about McCain picking Palin? If you really want to talk about an "undemocratic" pick of a VP, Obama made a critical error not selecting Clinton, who garnered near 50% of the primary vote. Look in the mirror before casting such accusations.

Politics is more Judo than boxing. Now Obama has to get thrown for his dissing of Hilliary and get up. Big deal.

Seems to me you want her removed from the ballot, pretty much the Modus operandi of Obama. Get your opponents removed from the ballot one way or the other, look up Obama's prior runs for political office if you doubt me.

I don't see how this thread promote serious dialog or debate. You see things from one side and others see it from the opposite, not going to change many minds either way IMO.

But hey, have at it.

reply to post by pavil

I don't see how this thread promote serious dialog or debate.

I agree. It is based upon innuendo, rumor, and opinion. No issues or sources are presented. It is a perfect example of a thread that should be removed under the new rules.

Originally posted by pavil
If you really want to talk about an "undemocratic" pick of a VP, Obama made a critical error not selecting Clinton, who garnered near 50% of the primary vote.

And I think that's just the point. If McCain had chosen someone because they would fill in his weaknesses or serve as a qualified and competent president, should he die in office, THAT would have been a wise choice and honoring of our democratic system.

As it is, he chose someone who would get him votes. He USED his choice of VP to get votes. And he got exactly what he wanted from her. I can't imagine being in her position and not feeling completely "used".

Obama chose someone who was strong on foreign policy and experience, where he himself was somewhat weak. He chose someone who has a lot of experience and could make a seamless transition should Obama die in office.

If he just wanted to win the election, he would have USED Hillary. But he's not that kind of man.

To the OP: Division of the populace has worked for eons now. There's really no reason for them to try anything new. "If it ain't broke..." But it's up to the people to look beneath the sound bytes and cute little flip remarks and get to the real issues and decide if we want to continue in this way or try something different.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As it is, he chose someone who would get him votes. He USED his choice of VP to get votes. And he got exactly what he wanted from her. I can't imagine being in her position and not feeling completely "used".

Obama chose someone who was strong on foreign policy and experience, where he himself was somewhat weak. He chose someone who has a lot of experience and could make a seamless transition should Obama die in office.

If he just wanted to win the election, he would have USED Hillary. But he's not that kind of man.

Just wanted to register that these are exactly my thoughts and you put it together very well. I in fact would have found it difficult to trust Obama if he had chosen Clinton. And I do find it difficult to trust McCain since he chose Palin.

No proof that it was a political stunt.

No proof it was a direct insult to women. (Maybe Democrat women)

Anybody can die at any given age.

Judgment is part of character. Obama picked Biden. Can we say his judgement will be to fill his cabinet with more of the same.

He will pick his cabinet based on what his advisers tell him.

Likewise, If Palin had to fill in as President, she would do what every other President does. She would listen to her advisors and make decisions based on that advice.

Spin it any way you want but that is what a President does. They are not experts in foreign policy, or welfare, or economy, or fema, or any other issue that is in front of them. They are KNOWLEDGABLE in many areas but are not experts. This is the reason they have advisors.


I know what you want to say and I respect that but this is a mere cheap shot at Palin. No proof to back up that title.



[edit on 12-9-2008 by jam321]

Originally posted by RRconservative
McCain had to make a pick that endeared him to conservatives, because someone off the wall like Joe Lieberman would have drove the base away.

Well you only seem to reinforce the point of the OP. That can be labeled "selling out", or "political prostitution" or something else, but in essense you got it right.

The left is freaking puking right now, and it shows.

Well any thinking person would have some discomfort in their stomach. We are in Iraq on a mission from God? Puh-leeze... Enough of Palin's nonsense.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Well you only seem to reinforce the point of the OP. That can be labeled "selling out", or "political prostitution" or something else, but in essense you got it right.

You don't make a VP pick to make your enemy happy. By picking Palin who is McCain "selling out"? The OP is obviously not a Republican, and his confusion over this pick was exactly why McCain had the good sense to make this pick!

I mentioned that Presidential candidates VP picks are not suppose to make the enemy happy. Well I for one was extremely happy with Obama's VP pick. That is a sure sign it was the wrong one. Did Obama make this pick to make his enemy happy? NO, he did it because he is not a great decision maker, which is extremely important for a President.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by RRconservative]

reply to post by MandM


Is your point that "stunning pictures" of the possible vice president is further proof that our democracy is seriously cheapened? If so, I couldn't agree more.

This is the first time in history that someone's looks have been a factor in their popularity and alleged "greatness". Typical "Rovian" politics.

Once again, how does this thread improve the dialog here? McCain made a political choice with his VP choice, all Presidential candidates do that, what is the big deal? Suddenly all of sudden having a politician play politics is a shock to people? What is so "undemocratic" about a politician making choices based on trying to get elected? This demonizing of either side by the other side needs to stop, it's childish. Makes me want to vomit.

Bring out the mud and water, cause that's all that is being done here.


Good Day.

A conversation about favorite lunch selections... Bob - "I think I am going to have a big fat chesseburger for lunch George what do you want? " George - "It figures you'd ask me that Bob, the Liberals are all weak traitors and you are too because you didn't vote for Bush that's why you like cheese on your burger" Or... A conversation about irrational fears... Bob - "When I was a kid I was afraid of clowns" George - "That's because you are stupid Christian and you've been brainwashed into thinking the world just appeared out of nothing despite all the scientific evidence." George wouldn't last long in my neighborhood, and I, for one, don't want him around my "Digital neighborhood" if he's going to act like that. Effective immediately, George is going to be edited and warned until he gets with the program or moves on. Springer...

[edit on 12-9-2008 by pavil]

Originally posted by TruthWithin
I have been giving a lot of thought to the introduction of Gov. Sarah Palin into the political limelight, and the more I think about it, the more it sickens me.

Why? Why are the republicans are not free to select any candidate they want? Why do they need approval of non-republicans (you) to go about their business?

I must note that this thread will only discuss the issues and the devisive political tactics I feel are being used by the Republican Party.

Why is "devisive" necessarily a bad thing? If you think the other party is mistaken, wouldn't you want to "divide" your positions from them?

1. IMO, it was a cheap stunt to pull this late in the election.

Why is it a cheap stunt? Because they are trying to win??? Don't you think the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to win?? Luckily for us, that decision is left up to the voters of the individual states to decide, and not your or me.

Do you mean that it was cynical, in that republicans "don't really want a woman?" Many pundits have noted that a lot of republicans seem to like Palin MORE than McCain. If McCain didn't want her on the ticket, I imagine he'd have picked someone else. As a matter of fact, my own investigations into the matter are pointing to the idea that McCain picked her because her name had been tossed around as a VP for another candidate.

If you google her name, you can (or could a week ago) find old youtube videos of a "write in campaign" that stretches back to april, of republicans wanting her as a VP for whomever won the primaries.

To me, it was a direct insult to women (my wife feels the same way). Let's face it. This action was a direct response to Hillary Clinton not getting the nomination,

I'm not sure how you insult a group by selecting one of their members as a running mate. Was Gore insulting Jews when he tapped Lieberman in 2000?

I don't see how Palin's nomination was a "direct response" to Hillary. You can just as easily say it was a direct response to every single event in this election cycle.

Maybe it was a response to McCain's inability to reach some of his own constituents, and the undecideds to his right.

and it was political ploy to deepen the rift among democrats.

And what about Democrats' attempts to peel of moderate republicans . . . under McCain's tutelage during the previous Republican-controlled congress, during the last Supreme Court nominations? What was that, if not a "political ploy to deepen the rift" in the other party???




[edit on 12-9-2008 by dr_strangecraft]