U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[CountArach]

Now you're blowing it out of proportion. 20k more for a car? Give me a break...

[Xiahou]

Serious Threat + Fair Threat = 66%

I dont see those numbers...

[CountArach]

I dont see those numbers...

"This is not to say that Americans totally dismiss global warming. About two-thirds say they worry a great deal or a fair amount about it, and only 17% say they don't worry at all about it."

From the link you posted.

EDIT: My mistake, I should have put 2/3 instead of 66%...

[Xiahou]

You can worry about something without thinking it's a serious threat. They're different questions that were asked. Americans are good about worrying about things.

[Tribesman]

Oh dear , Palin it seems is a cretinist and wants cretinism taught in schools as science
Its so nice that she is really convinced about the wonderful accuracy of the old testament and doesn't really like them crazy scientists . Then again if she loved the OT so much she wouldn't be saying that her childs "defect" is a chromosone thing at all , it would be a curse from god , perhaps she prefers the NT version instead where it isn't a curse its just one of them things god does .

[JR-]

oh dear god, she's not a creationist is she? :(

phew, but she's cutting it close with my idiot-o-meter:

"While running for Governor of Alaska she was asked about the teaching of creationism in public school science classes. Palin answered that she thought it was important to teach creationism in the schools; although she clarified the next day that she meant that open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, but that creationism did not need to be part of the curriculum. She also added that she would not appoint State Board of Education members based on their opinions on evolution or creationism.[83] Since her election she has appointed three of the seven Board members, who serve five-year terms: Patrick Shier, Phillip Schneider, and Geraldine Benshoof. None of these appointments attracted criticism on this issue."

also:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...nd_Creationism

[Lemur]

It's good to see that not every right-winger is in a blissed-out love fest. Frum:

Ms. Palin's experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall. She served two terms on the city council of Wasilla, Alaska, population 9,000. She served two terms as mayor. In November, 2006, she was elected governor of the state, a job she has held for a little more than 18 months. She has zero foreign policy experience, and no record on national security issues.

All this would matter less, but for this fact: The day that John McCain announced his selection of Sarah Palin was his birthday. His 72nd birthday. Seventy-two is not as old as it used to be, but Mr. McCain had a bout with melanoma seven years ago, and his experience in prison camp has uncertain implications for his future health.

If anything were to happen to a President McCain, the destiny of the free world would be placed in the hands of a woman who until the day before Friday was a small-town mayor.

Ramesh Ponnuru:

Inexperience. Palin has been governor for about two minutes. Thanks to McCain’s decision, Palin could be commander-in-chief next year. That may strike people as a reckless choice; it strikes me that way. And McCain's age raised the stakes on this issue. [...]

And it’s not just foreign policy. Palin has no experience dealing with national domestic issues, either. (On the other hand, as Kate O’Beirne just told me, we know that Palin will be ready for that 3 a.m. phone call: She’ll already be up with her baby.)

Tokenism. Can anyone say with a straight face that Palin would have gotten picked if she were a man?

Compatibility. It doesn’t seem as though McCain knows Palin well. Do we have much reason to think they would work well together

[CrossLOPER]

Enjoy yer airhead veepee.

[CountArach]

This sums up my thoughts on Palin's effect on the race:

A few [Republicans] are cautiously optimistic that it'll turn out OK, but most of the strategists and consultants I've spoken to, e-mailed with, or read/watched are struggling with it. They expect her to have a good week... and then to crash and burn when she hits the campaign trail as scrutiny catches up with her.

It seems likely to me that this is what will happen. Her inexperience will show through and if Obama hammers home how bad she is on 'women's issues', then her pick will ultimately be a horrible choice for McCain. I suppose this is the ultimate test of identity politics.

[Ronin]

Oh dear , Palin it seems is a cretinist and wants cretinism taught in schools as science
Its so nice that she is really convinced about the wonderful accuracy of the old testament and doesn't really like them crazy scientists . Then again if she loved the OT so much she wouldn't be saying that her childs "defect" is a chromosone thing at all , it would be a curse from god , perhaps she prefers the NT version instead where it isn't a curse its just one of them things god does .

look at the positive side....the late-night comedians are gonna have a field day...

this is really amusing....."the world is a dangerous place, and the al qaeda wolf is at the door and all that....but who is McCains second line of defense if the worst happens?...a hockey mom that is the governor of the less densely populated state in the country....

you just can´t make this kind of stuff up

[Devastatin Dave]

This is obviously a great choice and good for the US, judging by the individuals attacking her in this thread so far.

Lemur, when did you start using "neocons" like Shrum to back up your arguements. You should be more like Tribesy and just use crazed incoherant rants with no shred of proof to argue your points, it works for him and myself for that matter!!!

[Lemur]

I wouldn't say I have anything so cohesive as an "argument" about the VP pick just yet. Still assimilating the stuff being written about her. I just find the reflexive joy-thumping a little irritating, so I'm posting some contrary thoughts.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't yet formed an opinion.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Following a tangent if I may, I would interested in US orgahs' analysis of why "executive experience" seems to be such a touchstone for the race.

Looking back over the post-war presidents, pretty much all of them had some sort of executive experience by the definitions referred to in previous posts: vice-president, governor or in one case, general. Only Kennedy came straight from legislature. The current President Bush was a four-year governor of the great state of Texas, yet almost no-one nowadays (even from his own side) would much dispute the notion he has been one of the worst ever occupants of the White House. For balance's sake, President Clinton was two-time governor of Arkansas yet one might be safe in saying that conservatives might feel this did not make him a good president.

To my mind, pretty much half of these made fairly useless presidents: Both Bushes, Clinton, Carter, Ford and maybe Johnson. Only Eisenhower, Reagan, Nixon and Kennedy stand out: and Dickie probably had too much "executive" experience , whilst JFK didn't have long enough to truly blot his copybook, if that was destined.

Now, of course we don't have a control experiment to judge how much more of a disaster "non-experienced" presidents might have been (the pre-war ones had perhaps, significantly different challenges and are clouded by historical distance) but being a governor or veep doesn't seem to help make one a good president necessarily.

My guess is that the office of president is so singular, nothing - not even the vice-presidency - can prepare a person for the burden. That is why - quite rightly - the voters focus on issues of character, fortitude and accurate, timely decision making in candidates.

Both Governor Palin and Senator Obama might surprise us all with their abilities in these areas. Senator McCain has the further interesting quality for a president of being to work effectively across partisan boundaries.

Just a thought from an observer. As noted, I'd be interested on your views as to how wrong my analysis might be.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Following a tangent if I may, I would interested in US orgahs' analysis of why "executive experience" seems to be such a touchstone for the race.

Looking back over the post-war presidents, pretty much all of them had some sort of executive experience by the definitions referred to in previous posts: vice-president, governor or in one case, general. Only Kennedy came straight from legislature. The current President Bush was a four-year governor of the great state of Texas, yet almost no-one nowadays (even from his own side) would much dispute the notion he has been one of the worst ever occupants of the White House. For balance's sake, President Clinton was two-time governor of Arkansas yet one might be safe in saying that conservatives might feel this did not make him a good president.

To my mind, pretty much half of these made fairly useless presidents: Both Bushes, Clinton, Carter, Ford and maybe Johnson. Only Eisenhower, Reagan, Nixon and Kennedy stand out: and Dickie probably had too much "executive" experience , whilst JFK didn't have long enough to truly blot his copybook, if that was destined.

Now, of course we don't have a control experiment to judge how much more of a disaster "non-experienced" presidents might have been (the pre-war ones had perhaps, significantly different challenges and are clouded by historical distance) but being a governor or veep doesn't seem to help make one a good president necessarily.

My guess is that the office of president is so singular, nothing - not even the vice-presidency - can prepare a person for the burden. That is why - quite rightly - the voters focus on issues of character, fortitude and accurate, timely decision making in candidates.

Both Governor Palin and Senator Obama might surprise us all with their abilities in these areas. Senator McCain has the further interesting quality for a president of being to work effectively across partisan boundaries.

Just a thought from an observer. As noted, I'd be interested on your views as to how wrong my analysis might be.

That is a fair and balanced viewpoint.

[KukriKhan]

I don't think you're very wrong, or even a little wrong. The focus on executive experience, I think, is a product, this round of elections, on it's relative absence, plus a concern on the part of the electorate (well, me anyway) that we want the next 'big guy' to be able to effectively and decisively deal with international leaders - both 'good' and 'bad', elected or self-appointed, immediately upon assuming office.

Of course, being able to accurately predict the candidates' decisiveness is a bit of a crap-shoot. All four have shown the ability to deliver a rousing speech from prepared text. Senators (3 of 'em) are well-practiced at that skill. Some of us are betting (rather, hoping) that someone accustomed to a leadership mantle (vs a legislative, all-talk background) will be effective sooner.

Point taken on 'surprise' candidates. Sometimes the job "makes" the man (JFK = prime example; he stumbled early and often, but grew into the role), sometimes the job overwhelms him (Carter).

[ICantSpellDawg]

Now you're blowing it out of proportion. 20k more for a car? Give me a break...

Countarch - I'm saying 20k more for a car because: Who buys new cars? A number of people can't afford to buy new cars UNLESS they buy the really inexpensive ones. Hybrids won't be a viable option for the average American until they slash the prices. New cars are a major reason why the American economy is hurting right now - people have been buying and leasing what they can't afford.

People will need to spend and average of 20k more on cars to buy a hybrid - and that is an unfeeling killer.

[Devastatin Dave]

Following a tangent if I may, I would interested in US orgahs' analysis of why "executive experience" seems to be such a touchstone for the race.

Looking back over the post-war presidents, pretty much all of them had some sort of executive experience by the definitions referred to in previous posts: vice-president, governor or in one case, general. Only Kennedy came straight from legislature. The current President Bush was a four-year governor of the great state of Texas, yet almost no-one nowadays (even from his own side) would much dispute the notion he has been one of the worst ever occupants of the White House. For balance's sake, President Clinton was two-time governor of Arkansas yet one might be safe in saying that conservatives might feel this did not make him a good president.

To my mind, pretty much half of these made fairly useless presidents: Both Bushes, Clinton, Carter, Ford and maybe Johnson. Only Eisenhower, Reagan, Nixon and Kennedy stand out: and Dickie probably had too much "executive" experience , whilst JFK didn't have long enough to truly blot his copybook, if that was destined.

Now, of course we don't have a control experiment to judge how much more of a disaster "non-experienced" presidents might have been (the pre-war ones had perhaps, significantly different challenges and are clouded by historical distance) but being a governor or veep doesn't seem to help make one a good president necessarily.

My guess is that the office of president is so singular, nothing - not even the vice-presidency - can prepare a person for the burden. That is why - quite rightly - the voters focus on issues of character, fortitude and accurate, timely decision making in candidates.

Both Governor Palin and Senator Obama might surprise us all with their abilities in these areas. Senator McCain has the further interesting quality for a president of being to work effectively across partisan boundaries.

Just a thought from an observer. As noted, I'd be interested on your views as to how wrong my analysis might be.

Actually this is a very good observation. Look at Lincoln. He failed running as a senator, if my history is correct, and then was the president who, though this can be debated as well, kept the Union from falling apart. Some would say that Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents in our nations history, others would say he was a tyrant that caused the death of over 600,000 troops and countless civilians along with in today's money standards billions if not trillions of dollars in national infrastructure damage. The arguement can be the same with Bush. In 20 years or perhaps 100, the view of "disastorous" might change. Its all in the eye of the beholder. I like Palin. I think she's agood choice. But I could possibly be in the same boat as the Obamamessiah flock and only be captivated by a flashy politician that has the same secret moral compass as Stalin. I beive that she is more experienced than Obama. I live in IL, and now that he's basically ran for president since he was elected here. Out of the 3 years he's been in Washington, 2 of those have been spent on the campaign trail. Then again, Mrs Palin has only been governor for 2 years and was a mayor in some eskimo infested tundra town in the middle of nowhere. But she has shook up the corrupt republican establishment in Alask and that has to be admired. In a way I feel like some of the blacks that I know that say to me that they can point to the screen on the tube and show there kids what they can accomplish. I found myself doing that with my 3 year old daughter last night. Shallow? Perhaps, but I have a better unserstanding of many of the black Obama supporters (not as intense I'm sure).

Again, BG, thank you for your post, it helped me look in the mirror.

[ICantSpellDawg]

In a way I feel like some of the blacks that I know that say to me that they can point to the screen on the tube and show there kids what they can accomplish. I found myself doing that with my 3 year old daughter last night. Shallow? Perhaps, but I have a better unserstanding of many of the black Obama supporters (not as intense I'm sure).

Again, BG, thank you for your post, it helped me look in the mirror.

I ended up talking to my little cousins about what this means for them. Of course my sister is black, so I did the same when Obama was nominated. Double whammy for her, huh?

Female integration into politics should be even keeled. For too long the democracts have made women feel like there is only one option for them. The way in which they have been responding to Palin has been informative. "Gimmick", "Puppet", etc; if anyone else said those things people would cry sexism. It is important that there is an even split - even Clinton recognized that.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

"While running for Governor of Alaska she was asked about the teaching of creationism in public school science classes. Palin answered that she thought it was important to teach creationism in the schools; although she clarified the next day that she meant that open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, but that creationism did not need to be part of the curriculum. She also added that she would not appoint State Board of Education members based on their opinions on evolution or creationism.[83] Since her election she has appointed three of the seven Board members, who serve five-year terms: Patrick Shier, Phillip Schneider, and Geraldine Benshoof. None of these appointments attracted criticism on this issue."

I don't see anything wrong with this. There is no reason that debate between the two should be prohitibed at all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I ended up talking to my little cousins about what this means for them. Of course my sister is black, so I did the same when Obama was nominated. Double whammy for her, huh?

Female integration into politics should be even keeled. For too long the democracts have made women feel like there is only one option for them.

Yes, dang those democrats for forcing the republicans to be pro-life and support poor education plans!

The way in which they have been responding to Palin has been informative. "Gimmick", "Puppet", etc; if anyone else said those things people would cry sexism. It is important that there is an even split - even Clinton recognized that.

Palin was clearly chosen to pander to female voters--that's why she's being called a gimmick:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1220...googlenews_wsj

You're saying that the republicans should choose a woman just because hillary ran this year, that's silly.

As for clinton's statement, it's obvious that the democrats are just going to be nice to palin for a while and let the media go after her for a while.

[KukriKhan]

If it comes down to a 50-50 split in November, let them settle it on the court, instead of in the courts.



Barak O'Basket, vs.



Sarah Barracuda

Half court, all baskets 2-pointers, best 5 games out of 7.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, dang those democrats for forcing the republicans to be pro-life and support poor education plans!

Limits on the current abortion laws are favored by the majority.

Palin was clearly chosen to pander to female voters--that's why she's being called a gimmick:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1220...googlenews_wsj

You're saying that the republicans should choose a woman just because hillary ran this year, that's silly.

As for clinton's statement, it's obvious that the democrats are just going to be nice to palin for a while and let the media go after her for a while.

Republicans needed to include women at the highest levels of their party. I don't believe that women should support Palin just because she is a woman - but I did hear a few Hillary supporters condemn women who were voting against Hillary as "gender traitors". Most women are not "liberals" or "conservatives" - they are in the middle. The choice of Palin as VP opens new doors for women in the GOP.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Limits on the current abortion laws are favored by the majority.

That's nice, limits like not allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest?

Republicans needed to include women at the highest levels of their party. I don't believe that women should support Palin just because she is a woman - but I did hear a few Hillary supporters condemn women who were voting against Hillary as "gender traitors". Most women are not "liberals" or "conservatives" - they are in the middle. The choice of Palin as VP opens new doors for women in the GOP.

But see, a lot of people voted for hillary because they thought she was qualified to be president and not because she was a woman. Palin on the other hand...


Obama's comment on McCain's vp choice:

(CBS) In his first reaction to the choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate, Sen. Barack Obama tells 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft that she is an "up-and-coming public servant." Of his own choice for running mate, the Democratic presidential nominee says Sen. Joseph Biden "can step in and become president."

Obama and Biden sat down with Kroft Friday night in Pittsburgh for an interview to be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Aug. 31, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"Let me tell you the reason I picked Joe Biden," Sen. Obama told Kroft. "Number one, he can step in and become president. And I don't think anybody has any doubt about that. Number two is that if I'm in the room making the kinds of tough decisions that the next president's going to have to make both on domestic policy and on international policy, then I want the counsel and advice of somebody who's not going to agree with me 100 percent of time - in fact, somebody what's independent enough that can push back and give me different perspectives and make sure that I'm catching any blind spots that I have. And Joe Biden doesn't bite his tongue.

"Number three, is somebody who I know in his heart cares about the American people and the American dream, and is willing to fight for them as hard as he can. And Joe Biden fit that bill," Obama added.

"What do you think of Senator McCain's vice presidential choice? And how does it change the dynamics of this campaign?" Kroft asked.

"Well, I don't know Governor Palin, I have not met her before. I had a brief conversation with her after she was selected to congratulate her and wish her luck - but, not too much luck! - on the campaign trial. And she seems to have a compelling life story. Obviously, she's a fine mother and a up-and-coming public servant," Obama said. "So, it's too early for me to gauge what kind of running mate she'll be.

"My sense is that she subscribes to John McCain's agenda. And ultimately, this [election] is going to be about where I want to take the country and where Joe Biden wants to take the country, and where John McCain and his running mate want to take the country."

[JR-]

I don't see anything wrong with this. There is no reason that debate between the two should be prohitibed at all.

i agree, it was posted in response to Tribesmans post; "OMGOMGOMG she isa creationist OMGOMGOMG!!!!!!111111

here is another article on the same issue of overreaction:

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska trotted out the usual creationist education canard: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

Teaching evolution and creationism in a scientifically balanced way is simply impossible. Evolution is accepted by scientists as driving the development of life on Earth. Creationism, which puts a (Christian) God in the engine room of life, is unsupported by science. Its arguments have been roundly dismissed by scientists — many of whom, it should be noted, believe in God. They’re just sensible enough to understand where science ends and religion begins.

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.

does she actually believe the LORD created the world in seven days five thousand years ago?
that is an important question to me, i cannot support idiocy of that stripe.

[Tribesman]

i agree, it was posted in response to Tribesmans post; "OMGOMGOMG she isa creationist OMGOMGOMG!!!!!!111111

OMGOMGOMGOMG !!!!!!!!1111111
slightly different from oh dear the GOP have chosen an idiot to be one heartbeat away from serious power and descision making .

[Strike For The South]

OMGOMGOMGOMG !!!!!!!!1111111
slightly different from oh dear the GOP have chosen an idiot to be one heartbeat away from serious power and descision making .

If, at this point, we can call it that

[Kralizec]

does she actually believe the LORD created the world in seven days five thousand years ago?
that is an important question to me, i cannot support idiocy of that stripe.

I couldn't care less about the beliefs of creationists, but their ideas should be kept out of science classes. Religious beliefs shouldn't be an issue but when a candidate calls him or herself a creationist that usually spells trouble. The position in that text you quoted is a good one, I hope she doesn't change (TM) it.

[KukriKhan]

Whew! Finally, the 'other' investigation the Tribesman referred to.

...Campaign contributions Palin collected earlier in her political career could also provide fodder for Democratic campaign ads, tying her to an Alaska Republican political scandal from which she has tried to distance herself.

Palin raised at least $4,500 for her unsuccessful 2002 campaign for lieutenant governor from executives of VECO Corp., an oil services contractor at the heart of a massive influence-peddling investigation. Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens is accused of accepting more than $250,000 in home renovations and gifts from VECO executives and failing to disclose them on his annual financial statements; the senator says he is innocent.

Palin received $500 each from nine VECO executives in December 2001, including then-CEO Bill Allen, who last year pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy, bribery and tax charges and agreed to cooperate in the corruption investigation.

Just throwing it out there to keep us informed. Looks like the media is still digging. I anticipate seeing stuff on the Palin hubby next.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't think the mccain group did a very good job vetting her at all. I wonder if it was a last minute panic choice.

[KukriKhan]

I don't think the mccain group did a very good job vetting her at all. I wonder if it was a last minute panic choice.

I guess we'll see in the next 2-3 weeks. I would say 1-2 weeks, but the Repub convention will bury/divert the media for next week, I think.

If you're right, and they poorly vetted her, and presuming they'd be the same folks vetting future cabinet appointments, military posts, etc... again: if you're right, the organization would deserve to fail.

O'course the same applies to the Dem camp.

Individual leadership skills aside, the top guy also needs to know how to attract and get top-notch help - personnel skills are almost as important (to me) as personal skills.