home

The Threat

Bob Herbert misses the point:

The problem with Ms. Palin’s candidacy is that John McCain might actually win this election, and then if something terrible happened, the country could be left with little more than an exclamation point as president.

(Emphasis supplied.) Excuse me Mr. Herbert, the real threat is that John McCain might be President. This strange fixation on Sarah Palin ignores the real problem - that John McCain would be President. This is the height of Palin Derangement Syndrome - the belief that the real threat from John McCain is that Sarah Palin might become Vice President. The real risk of John McCain's candidacy is that McCAIN might be President.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< For The Record . . . | The Polls - 10/4 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Can't even begin to imagine (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:14:41 PM EST
    how McCain would handle the upcoming various financial crisis that we face.  Don't want to either.  Never want to know.

    Time for a Revolution (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:25:30 PM EST
    of Democratic economic values, USA style.

    Parent
    I was watching this conservative (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:31:42 PM EST
    economist this morning just FREAKING OUT over the government oversite and involvement that will now come with being asked to get bailed out.  He was losing his mind and said we were headed towards dictatorship.  It was so flipping funny.  He seemed to view the 1930's as a time when the country became a dictatorship too.  He did know that the recession and failures are going to get worse but having the government get involved was going to lead to AN OBAMA DICTATORSHIP OMG I'M LOSING MY MIND!

    Parent
    went straight to business school (none / 0) (#13)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:36:02 PM EST
    apparently he bypassed the liberal arts education neccesary to understand such things.

    We are currently heading to a more socialialist society. What we were heading towards was a dictatorship under Bush/Cheney (signing statements, no oversight of anything, a set of laws for the upper class, a second set for the rest of us, etc etc.)

    Parent

    I think our society cycles (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:38:26 PM EST
    democracy vs. socialism on all levels and we swing back and forth on different levels as needed and desired.

    Parent
    actually, it's never democracy (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:45:42 PM EST
    it's republic (as you probably know). But USA is ALWAYS a republic. (that means we elect representatives to vote for us rather than in a direct democracy).

    What people often do, what I did and what you did was compare the method of choosing  leaders (e.g., dictatorship v democracy v republic) with an economic system (e.g., communism v socialism v capitalism). We both made the same sloppy, common mistake. Republicans LOVE to equate communism with totalitarianism, and they aren't the same (although they often occur together)

    What we should have said is that there is a continuum of pure socialism  to pure capitalism, and that we have a mix that favors one or another at different times.

    (I am sure you know this already, I am just trying to sharpen the discussion a bit)

    Parent

    This is one of the things I find most hilarious (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:55:36 PM EST
    whenever I'm debating a well schooled conservative like say about the Iraq War and how the majority of Americans want it brought to a close and troops home.  They quickly remind me I live in a Republic and not really a Democracy.  But when something like the bailout with government oversite happens they holler and scream their bloody heads off that the democracy is in danger while I run around behind them attempting to explain to them how it isn't.  Why don't I simply say to them we live in a Republic and not a Democracy and continue on with my day humming a gentle tune to myself?  Yes, I do worry that their heads will explode on contact with such words during such times.

    Parent
    their heads are exploding right now ayway (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:02:36 PM EST
    me...I am interested to see what sort of Phoenix will rise from the ashes.

    I am crossing all my digits that we stop the "Reagan Revolution deficit spending gone wild" model of American economics and start using a reasonable tax rate so we can pay our bills and take care of the people we need to.

    I live in California, we cannot raise taxes unless we get 2/3 legislative approval. The effect of this is drastic and dire. Our fiscal future is held hostages be a handful of extreme right wingers that won't tax under any circumstances.

    Parent

    It's not a Republic ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:23:49 PM EST
    because the states aren't really independent entities.

    It more closely fits in the definition of "Liberal Democracy."  Which, roughly stated, is a Democracy with checks and balances.

    Parent

    Robot (none / 0) (#95)
    by cal1942 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:46:48 PM EST
    please read the US Constitution.

    Parent
    I have ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 02:07:19 AM EST
    many times.

    And the term "Liberal Democracy" is the most accurate description of the type of government we have, both in practice and as described by the Constitution.

    "Republic" is not.  It's a very spongy term, and it doesn't take into account the idea of a Democratic rule tempered by checks and balances which protect the rights of the individual.

    This is exactly the definition of "Liberal Democracy."  It is also the exact type of government described in the constitution.

    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    There is an implicit concession here that McCain might be acceptable, and he is obviously not.

    Obvious to some.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by oldpro on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    apparently not obvious at all to about half the voting public.

    Parent
    Thank you!! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    I have been bashing my head on walls regarding this exact issue.  

    I call it Pallin Simplex Virus.  

    That sounds like you have it for the rest of (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    your life :)

    Parent
    We might have another outbreak in 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:36:45 PM EST
    The flare ups don't stop (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:05:13 PM EST
    That's because it is a mutation (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:11:35 PM EST
    of a horrendous case that took the country.

    Ronald Reagan simplex.

    The vectors of this virus are: Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and GHW Bush.

    Palin simplex is the first spontaneous mutation the country has encountered...seemingly derrived only from remote, rather than direct, contact with the Reagan ideology.  

    Parent

    other vectors (none / 0) (#41)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    Negroponte, Wolfowitz.....

    John McCain has a variant that comes from kissing up to the vectors themselves.

    Parent

    Care to address Obama's admitted (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:23:40 PM EST
    respect for Ronnie?

    Parent
    sure. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:37:08 PM EST
    it's called political convenience. All the kids are doing it these days.

    Parent
    Ummmmm (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:35:26 PM EST
    We are all Gods children?

    Parent
    I've got a better answer. (none / 0) (#64)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    Obama respects the contagiousness of Ronnie simplex, but not the virus itself.

    Parent
    Keep tryin'. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:53:49 PM EST
    If you wanna believe (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:41:46 PM EST
    Obama's the only "liberal"in recent memory who's made hat-tips to the Right, just go ahead and keep believing that.

    Btw, The primaries ended a while back, maybe it's time to start thinking about moving on.

    Parent

    If you actually look at what he said (none / 0) (#72)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:33:59 PM EST
    he was not respecting Reagan for any of his policies. He was respecting his leadership. Which was pretty good, as much as I despised the man.

    Parent
    Didn't Obama tell the newspaper (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:35:49 PM EST
    in NV the Republicans have the better ideas and lauded Reagan?

    Parent
    i don't think so (none / 0) (#88)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:41:46 PM EST
    and if he did, it wasn't about governance. That's my point.

    Parent
    Washington Post: (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:23:07 PM EST
    Exactly what I said: (none / 0) (#92)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:15:21 PM EST
    The Obama campaign quickly arranged its own call with congressmen, arguing that the remarks were a historical observation, not an endorsement of Reagan's politics
    .


    Parent
    WORM (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:16:46 PM EST
    CATEPILLAR!!! (none / 0) (#94)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:17:28 PM EST
    Except that (none / 0) (#96)
    by cal1942 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:49:15 PM EST
    Cheney and Rumsfeld emerged from the slime and ooze of the Nixon administration.  Neither participated in the Reagan administration.

    Parent
    Re: Much rather have Palin be president (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by wasabi on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    You assume Powell would get to be VP?  She will be surrounded from day one by hand-picked neocons who will decidedly not endorse an appeaser like Powell for VP in the case one was needed.

    According to the NYTimes:
    [W]hen there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, [Palin] appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

    I'm guessing if she moves into the Naval Observatory, the positioning of childhood friends into important positions will stop.  She has no DC connections and the neocons will gladly provide "appropriate" staff for her.

    And whom do you imagine (none / 0) (#45)
    by oldpro on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    would be staffing Obama's White House/administration for him?  It's not as if he's spent enough time in DC to know anyone...

    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#54)
    by wasabi on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:28:59 PM EST
    The man's been there for 4 years.  He has Daschel, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, etc. backing him.  How can you compare that to someone who has been in Washington at most a handful of times?

    Parent
    Yes, I know who (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by oldpro on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:25:40 PM EST
    backs him and who will be making the decisions...I just wondered if YOU knew!  Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, Pelosi...reassuring, huh?

    Comparisons?  Uh, no.  But "4 years?"  Uh, no.

    She would have to rely on McCain's people.  Obama will have to rely on his 'backers.'  Same thing.  Neither of them knows enough about who to hire, who to trust, (except maybe for chief of staff) to field a hockey team, much less staff an administration.

    Parent

    Depending on what positions (none / 0) (#97)
    by cal1942 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:52:06 PM EST
    there would be heavy influence from paleocons

    Parent
    Her answers... (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    people are saying how her answers are "ridiculous", well folks, in light of the current conditions all standard Republican answers are beyond ridiculous.  From defending deregulation, to the war policies, to the economy.  So, if any other Republican said that stuff would it have more gravitas?  The Republican party line is dead on arrival.  It's not Palin, it's the party.  

    see L A Times on (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:33:47 PM EST
    current polls, shrinking of "undecided" demo, and how the most recent game changers have hurt, not helped McCain:

    L A Times:

    Parent

    Hey, it's the difference between DEFCON 3 and (none / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:15:04 PM EST
    DEFCON 1.

    One is real scary, but the other is downright terrifying.

    Beg to differ, half way only. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    If McCain wins, not only will we have him, but we will have her fighting and fighting to get more power while she is VP, trying to sop up everything that Cheney got away with. Her own definition of her office which will be as large as she can get away with.  And the only thing fighting her will be him. A constant brawl with McCain until she can either beat him down or otherwise get him out of her way, and then......

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    I can't envision Palin "beating down" John McCain as a Senator and certainly not a President.  To me it seems laughable.  But are you saying he won't be toxic because he'll be spending all of his time trying to get her off of his back?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#34)
    by Steve M on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:09:30 PM EST
    I honestly do not believe John McCain cares very much about domestic policy matters.  So in that respect, there may well be a vacuum waiting to be filled by some proactive person.

    Parent
    Well, he apparently (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by lilburro on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:14:28 PM EST
    managed to learn very little about the economy in 20 years in the Senate...which makes me wonder exactly what were you doing?

    Again, unfit for President.

    Parent

    Someone (none / 0) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:59:19 PM EST
    like Phil Gramm.

    Parent
    No, that's the half I agree with. I do not think (none / 0) (#84)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:28:06 PM EST
    that Palin, however, will be satisfied with a quiet role, deferring to him and other wise taking care of the children and the husband. I am not certain his own attention span for a lot of things is long enough, but I understand her to be very practical and focused as to her own career. She has already publicized her disagreement with his Michigan pullout decision, and there is no way that is a briefing mistake. If either he objects to her attempts to develop flexibility in the VP role or his familiars do, the possibility of loud conflict is present, on top of all of the problems with McCain we already have. She was an insider in Alaska before she turned on her mentors in order to move up, and knows how to play the current political game very well.

    Parent
    I believe (none / 0) (#100)
    by cal1942 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:01:51 AM EST
    that Palin's sole assignment would be just that

    "taking care of the children and the husband"

    to keep them from doing something embarrassing.

    Parent

    I would (none / 0) (#98)
    by cal1942 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:57:08 PM EST
    picture Palin doing whatever she was told. Of course she would make an occasional mind numbingly stupid statement which would cause her to disappear into the digs at the Naval Observatory, never to be heard from again.

    Parent
    On second reading... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    Is this an old 'no Hillary for VP' post, with McCain's name substituted for Obama's?  I just ask because so many of the anti-Palin talking points have sounded eerily familiar.

    Parent
    Ha. This commenter (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:43:21 PM EST
    still was Clinton-bashing only a week or so ago.  You called it.

    Parent
    Too bad there was no blogosphere in 1984 (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:46:34 PM EST
    The year, not the book.

    I'm sure there would have been people worried about Mondale being sabotaged by Ferraro. Can't trust a woman, you know.

    Parent

    Yes, exactly (1.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:33:19 PM EST
    there couldnt possibly be any rational, well considered reasons for "bashing" Palin in her own right, especially if you previously ever criticized Clinton.

    Way to swallow the Rethug strategy for picking Palin  hook-line-and-sinker.

    Parent

    Ha! There are plenty of rational, well considered (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:14:14 PM EST
    reasons for opposing Palin.  I just did not see any of them in  the post to which I responded.

    Parent
    Now, now, folks. I have long understood that (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:46:43 PM EST
    commenters on this site react in one way to anything mentioning HRC and another entirely, often more sensible than other sites I visit, when talking about other matters. I cannot help it if you want to bring into this something I didn't put there, in order to disregard what is being said, but I have no intention of leaving this site and its many interesting discussions behind because of that small problem. I have been insulted in my sleep by better than this.

     I was voting in 1984 and don't remember any of this with Ferraro, but I do hear in Palin an opportunity for really wretched ambition unaccompanied by competence or ever shame, that troubles me, with a target of opportunity who made the mistake of putting her on his ticket for all the WRONG reasons.  I think she brings to this mess a separately awful series of McCain- like problems which should not be disregarded just because he is awful in his own right. And I do hear in her the willingness to push her own position very aggressively if she gets to be VP, in a different range than another VP might have done, and I have a whole lot more problems with the Palin model.

    Ambition alone in a female politician is not a problem for me by itself, but in Palin I see the possibility of unscrupulous aggression that I did not see in the same way in Clinton. In addition, Clinton was and is just plain old, good old,  competent. She does her homework. When she gives offense, she knows she is doing it and is careful about doing it, and limiting it to the intended target (with the usual errors that all humans are entitled to make from time to time as long as they recognize errors also have a price) as opposed to this scattergun. She would never have let a treble damage clause find its way into the pipeline deal, the way this one did, apparently assuming nobody down here would even look into it.  A virtue for me.

    There, satisfied? Now kindly think on Palin independently please. She is her own person for good or bad.  Both she and Clinton are entitled to that. And it is in some manner I won't verbalize so I won't get bombed more, Clinton is entitled to better than being bundled in with Palin because of gender.

    Parent

    Nah, they didn't mention (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by nycstray on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:01:03 PM EST
    a food tester . . . .

    Parent
    Right, my mistake! (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:17:31 PM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    I can not make heads or tails of what you think you are saying.

    Parent
    A constant brawl with McCain? (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    I really can't believe that would happen.

    Parent
    McCain is more of a hawk (none / 0) (#6)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    than 2008 Bush is. Chew on that everyone.

    McCain's Health (none / 0) (#12)
    by Lendme50 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:35:15 PM EST
    Every American, all the Rs, the Is and the Ds, need to be concerned with McCain's medical condition. He has successfully avoided providing this information. He has seriously clouded every attempt including the recent controlled press review which was a sham.

    If he is unable to complete his term because of disability or demise, the last thing America needs is an empty skirt to be number 45. This will be worse than the Bush administration if that's possible.

    He is occasionally irrational and facial ticks are becoming noticeable. McCain's actions indicate that he has problems and he wants America to remain in the dark. We can not afford to and we must demand full disclosure of his medical records.


    I am concenred that (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:37:55 PM EST
    John McCain is a reckless, feckless blithering idiot.

    The last thing I am worried about is his health.

    Parent

    God yes (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    but why all the joy in attacking the second on the ticket?  And frankly at this point, is there any Republican who would not be any if not all the things you say?  

    Parent
    I've been wondering the same thing (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:50:58 PM EST
    What if it had been Huckabee? Would there have been the same level of vitriol?  

    Parent
    I agree with BTD that McCain being President (none / 0) (#28)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    is the real threat, the only reason Palin being on the ticket is troublesome is because the McCain campaign is using her as something of a distraction from the Republican policies that they would pursue.  They're counting on feminist solidarity, backlash against sexism and Palin's ability to seem moderate while holding far-right positions to pull one over on all of us.  So while we denounce "teh left" for acting sexist, they rev up the smear campaigns against Barack Obama, trying to label him a Muslim and a "terrorist's best friend."

    Though I don't mean to de-emphasize how bad it would be for someone who thinks abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape to be President...

    Parent

    I thought it was McCain who had (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by nycstray on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:03:06 PM EST
    fully disclosed his medical records and Obama that just released a signed paragraph?

    Parent
    Hmmmm..... (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:28:23 PM EST
    the last thing America needs is an empty skirt to be number 45.

    Would you refer to Dan Quayle as 'an empty pair of pants'?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and think so.  I think the phrase 'empty suit' is what you were going for.

    And yes, I very well may be overly sensitive.

    Parent

    occasionally? (none / 0) (#42)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:17:05 PM EST
    The man sold his values down the river for his ambition.

    He is a shell now.

    Parent

    Much rather have Palin be president (none / 0) (#19)
    by rilkefan on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:41:52 PM EST
    than McCain.  I think she would listen to responsible advice - maybe from VP Powell.  God only knows what McCain would do in a crisis.

    I suspect you might be right (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:48:13 PM EST
    If I wanted to I'm sure I could make an argument that Palin is less scary than McCain.

    Parent
    how is that? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:20:25 PM EST
    from what I know she's more conservative than he is, on a number of issues.

    Parent
    She does not come across as (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    a militaristic war-monger.  Not to me anyway.

    Wait, I said if I wanted to I could make this argument.  I agree with BTD that it is beside the point.

    Parent

    neither did Bush (none / 0) (#63)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:41:24 PM EST
    but he surrounded himself with those who were, and so would Palin.

    Parent
    she said withdrawal from Iraq (none / 0) (#65)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:47:58 PM EST
    was a "white flag of surrender" and that the war there is a "task from God."  I don't know what else we need to hear to understand her position.

    Parent
    yep (none / 0) (#73)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM EST
    No, she did not (none / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:41:04 PM EST
    say the Iraq war is a "task that's from God."  That's been completely debunked by the surfacing of the tape of her actual comments.

    Speaking to a church group, she said everyone should "pray"..."that the Iraq war is a task that's from God."

    Parent

    Iris had me at the (none / 0) (#80)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:42:35 PM EST
    "white flag of surrender" comment

    Parent
    she's not a militaristic war-mongerer (none / 0) (#91)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:44:29 PM EST
    but the way she talks about Israel makes me think she would be quick to jump into a war with Iran, believing that Israel is more important in the world than Iran is...

    also, the fact that she is heavily supported by the very dangerous Extremist Evangelicals is a big indicator that she would be quick to go to war with Iran because they (the Evangelical Leaders) believe that we should make a pre-emptive strike on Iran ASAP...

    and, any war with Iran that is related to Israel is probably also a war with Jordan and probably Syria...

    sounds like fun...

    I think someone said it best when they said that the worst thing about her is that she's able to come off very middle (and not just to the rural areas where the people vote based on whether they could have a beer on a fishing trip with the person) when in fact she is more likely extreme right...

    Parent

    Conservative? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:37:44 PM EST
    From what I've seen, she's more libertarian than anything else.  Not sure if conservatives have figured that out though.

    Parent
    "A white flag of surrender" (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    misdirecting a discussion of the financial crisis with Hannity-level blather about "tax and spend Dems"? Church exorcisms?                            

    Libertarian my as*, she wouldnt be there if the conservatives had any doubts about her being on the same page on 99.9% of the major issues.

    Parent

    i guess what i'm saying is it's a wash, n/t (none / 0) (#48)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:21:30 PM EST
    Powell? (none / 0) (#101)
    by cal1942 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:24:22 AM EST
    Where did that come from? Are you talking about Colin Powell? If it's that Powell then you should understand:

    Colin Powell was selected as Sec. of State to give some credibility to Bush in his first term.  He was never in charge of anything, he served as some kind of cloak of respectability for Bush. He had no influence.  He was used, simply used.  He must have known that but never had the character to do anything about it. He was always devoid of any character.  He followed orders. Period.

    Powell has no status in the Republican power structure. His shill, Col. Wilkerson, aims barbs at McCain and Bush in an attempt to salvage some of Powell's never deserved 'reputation.'  

    McCain threw in with hard-right paleocon and neocon goons to get the nomination.  They drive everything and would drive Palin.

    Please understand, that entire party is the captive of the Conservative Movement that includes paleocons, neocons and general right-wing lunatics. The wretched refuse of the old Republican Party.

    The important thing here is to defeat McCain and today's GOP. Pay no attention to Sarah Palin she's just another tool.

    Parent

    and he also misses the point about palin (none / 0) (#27)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:58:37 PM EST
    which is that by picking palin, mccain has proved himself unfit to be president. a lot of people miss that point. the most important single decision mccain has made, as nominee. the nyt put it perfectly:

    In the end, the debate did not change the essential truth of Ms. Palin's candidacy: Mr. McCain made a wildly irresponsible choice that
    shattered the image he created for himself as the honest, seasoned, experienced man of principle and judgment. It was either an act of incredible cynicism or appallingly bad judgment.

    that's why many of us won't let it go. a man who makes decisions such as that would be dangerous as president.

    It seems to me a Presidential (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:09:13 PM EST
    candidate picks the VP for political purposes, as did McCain.  But perhaps the miscalculated the positives of picking Gov. Palin.

    Parent
    can you give a similar example? (none / 0) (#37)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:13:44 PM EST
    JFK/LBJ (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:27:32 PM EST
    comes to mind.  Often the VP is picked with the hope that VP will bring home the electoral vote of certain states.  It seems quite obvious to me McCain picked Palin to "reach out" to recalitrant religious right Republicans.  

    Parent
    don't forget Biden. We know Obama (none / 0) (#58)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    probably wanted Kaine but he had to go for experience. I think he likes Joe just fine, but Joe does not fit his "change" campaign.

    Parent
    after initially thinking it was a bad pick (none / 0) (#66)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:50:20 PM EST
    I have warmed to Biden as VP.  Bill and Hillary also think very highly of him.  He really is a straight shooter who will serve Obama well and balance him with his advice.

    Parent
    I always thought it was a good pick (none / 0) (#70)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:17:42 PM EST
    (second to Hillary). I don't agree with everything he's done, but I like Joe.

    Parent
    hey hey hey (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:36:35 PM EST
    Gore/Lieberman, still my favorite :)

    Parent
    I still don't get that one. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    very confusing.

    Parent
    not very comparable, I am afraid. (none / 0) (#61)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    JFK/LBJ (none / 0) (#102)
    by cal1942 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:34:58 AM EST
    was an example of old style ticket balancing, like Roosevelt/Garner, Truman/Barkley, etc. but with a few other twists. At least those running mates were reasonably capable politicians on the national level.  Garner, for example, had been Senate minority leader.

    McCain picked Palin as a stunt, believing he'd pick up some Clinton supporters.  His choice had nothing to do with civic responsibility.

    Parent

    he clearly miscalculated (none / 0) (#38)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:13:59 PM EST
    he didn't even really have her vetted. but however political a veep pick might be, there has to be a minimum standard of competence and qualification. that's what was so appalling. as i've been writing, mccain's behavior the past month or so, including his bizarre behavior around the bailout, is increasingly unhinged. even his glaring apparent hatred of obama, in the first debate.

    Parent
    agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:17:59 PM EST
    I don't know (none / 0) (#68)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:55:21 PM EST
    if it hadn't been for the economic crisis would it still have been a miscalculation?  It seemed like the Palin pick really caught the Obama campaign off guard and was designed to play off its weaknesses.

    Has anyone else read about the concept of the OODA loop?  

    Parent

    the polling on palin (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:58:16 PM EST
    has tanked. a majority still considers her unqualified, and a plurality now disapproves of her. she gave mccain a quick bump, but that lasted only until people had a chance to take a look at her.

    Parent
    oh, i know (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:00:12 PM EST
    what I meant was the Palin pick lifted Mccain in the polls, albeit temporarily.  If he had picked Romney, liberals would be more united, I think.  As it is, we have people like Violet at Reclusive Leftist arguing that we should vote for Palin because she claims to be a feminist (lol)...it dovetailed nicely (for McCain) with the "PUMA critique" of Obama, and look at how BTD is claiming the left suffers from "Palin derangement syndrome" and hoping that she would not fail in the debate. I'm not trying to damage morale, but strategically it was a smart pick.  

    Obama has also run a very smart campaign, but smart for its caution, not strategic gambles.

    Parent

    romney, at least, (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    might have helped in michigan. i do think he would have been an amusing running mate, as he's also not terribly bright or experienced, but he's much more practiced on the national stage. i don't think he'd have been such an easy target.

    i think mccain expected more of a puma reaction to palin, because i think mccain's such a misogynist that he really didn't understand the basis of hillary clinton's support.

    Parent

    Agreed. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:52:54 PM EST
    Maverratic (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:26:26 PM EST
    you are worried about a maverratic man?  Had he run on and stayed true to a straight shooter, we might have been duped into electing him and by golly where would be then?

    I think the full court press needs to stay on Palin, she is not worthy of the spotlight when considering the plethora of women who have committed their lives to learning and leading on issues as opposed to winking and maintaining a half inch deep knowledge base of the leading issues.

    they are both threats (none / 0) (#82)
    by pluege on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    mccain is immediate and must be defeated at all cost. palin is a threat if the unthinkable happens and mccain wins, but it is also clear that she is concurrently campaigning now for 2012.

    Threats are threats - I'm all in for tearing them both apart and down and can quite frankly do more than one thing at a time.

    What is stupid however is arguing about, which is the bigger threat - they both are.
    .

    Not mutually exclusive concerns (none / 0) (#89)
    by bluejane on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:42:55 PM EST
    This is the height of Palin Derangement Syndrome -- the belief that the real threat from John McCain is that Sarah Palin might become Vice President. The real risk of John McCain's candidacy is that McCAIN might be President.

    Of course. I don't see these as mutually exclusive concerns. Obviously McCain as prez is unthinkable and if/when Palin becomes president to replace him is unthinkable. She is not the "real threat" (no more than McCain) if she becomes VP (altho looks like she's salivating to create a unitary vice-presidency a la Cheney whose interests might become her puppeteers). She's a threat if she becomes president. No use arguing if a worse threat than McCain if she becomes prez. A different kind of threat. She's already a threat to the evolution of consciousness, language, science, acceptance, peace and empathy of the sort Jesus embodied even if she's not elected with McCain. She'll be floating around for years like an evil Peter Pan.

    I agree with Jeralyn on this.