Gov. Palin speech -- a great political debut

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="Trooper" date=1220941663]read the article 25.



<em>ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) ? Gov. Sarah Palin's church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.</em></blockquote>


Wow. I'm <I>so</I> glad that people are praying for the conversion of gays to hetros, opposed to say, world hunger, war, poverty or anything trivial like that.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1220944362]For anyone who wants to make hay out of the book banning rumor: <a href="http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/06/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt">Here is the original story on which the rumors were based.</a></blockquote>


So her defense is that it was a rhetorical question ... :S
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1220944027]Troop, I was fully aware that Tammy is gay. I'm also aware that there is an entire faction of the Republican party that is gay, yet still Republican. Neither you nor I completely agree with our preferred party's platform, yet we still tend to support those parties. If McCain and Palin were running an <em>anti-gay marriage amendment, pro-life amendment, declare war on Iran tomorrow</em> campaign I wouldn't be voting for them. As she put it:

<blockquote>Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. <strong>In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal</strong>; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, <strong>knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters</strong>.

<span style="font-size: 11px;">emphasis added</span></blockquote>
Let me be clear here, I am not trying to sway anyone's vote. Anyone who hasn't yet made up their mind probably won't bother trying to read a housing blog for their political information. I'm just interested in how the dynamic has changed since Palin was picked. For the first time in 24 years a woman is part of the ticket and yes, representing one side of the abortion issue, but also representing all the other issues that are gender specific (equal pay, sexual harrassment, etc.) that every American woman has to deal with today. Yet, rather than being embraced as a welcome addition to the national stage, she's been treated as a pariah by the party that is nominally for women's rights. That she has built her political career on non-gender issues tells me that she considers doing the right thing more important that doing the politically correct thing. In the end, I agree with Tammy Bruce: adding Palin to the ticket has changed the role of women in politics forever, win or lose.</blockquote>


I completely disagree with you. When Palin was running in small town politics she didn't support her own mother-in-law because she was pro-life. She also fired qualified people who she felt disagreed with her.



Built her political career on non-gender issues? That's just a weird statement. As if she's the only woman who's ever done that. Doing the right thing more important than doing the politically correct thing? Like being for earmarks before she was against them, and being for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it? And keeping the money? And heading up Senator Stevens 527? Besides which, she HAS been very aggressive trying to promote her pro-life views, even though the Alaska Supreme Court has been blocking her.



I do find it hilarious that Barbara Boxer called Palin an "Extremist" (Pot, Kettle, anyone?) Could you imagine the reaction to Barbara Boxer as a VP pick? Palin is on the exact same level (but opposite sides).



And actually, in the non-partisan circles, we have all been saying "Please let it be McCain vs Obama" Because the right loathes Hillary so much, it would just be nice to see both sides pick someone that isn't as divisive. And they did. Well, until Palin.
 
<strong><span style="font-size: 14px;">Palin on Fannie / Freddie</span></strong>



<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/08/palin-makes-her-first-gaf_n_124792.html">Keep studying Sarah !</a>



<em>Economists and analysts pounced on the misstatement, which came before the government had spent funds bailing the two entities out, saying it demonstrated a lack of understanding about one of the key economic issues likely to face the next administration.



"You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "These are huge institutions and they are absolutely central to our country's mortgage debt. To not have a clue what they do doesn't speak well for her, I'd say."</em>
 
<a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/new-patriotic-o.html">I'd be happy if Obama knew how many states were in the United States...</a>



<img src="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/images/2008/05/10/newlapelpin.jpg" alt="" />
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1220994660]<strong><span style="font-size: 14px;">Palin on Fannie / Freddie</span></strong>



<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/08/palin-makes-her-first-gaf_n_124792.html">Keep studying Sarah !</a>



<em>Economists and analysts pounced on the misstatement, which came before the government had spent funds bailing the two entities out, saying it demonstrated a lack of understanding about one of the key economic issues likely to face the next administration.



"You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "These are huge institutions and they are absolutely central to our country's mortgage debt. To not have a clue what they do doesn't speak well for her, I'd say."</em></blockquote>


Trooper, can you honestly say with a straight face that Fannie and Freddie weren't too big and didn't cost too much money? Where's the gaffe?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1221039790]

Trooper, can you honestly say with a straight face that Fannie and Freddie weren't too big and didn't cost too much money? Where's the gaffe?</blockquote>


Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Picking on her for this is a reach. Even if we thought her words weren't <em>quite</em> right, they aren't off anywhere close enough to convince me she doesn't know what Fannie and Freddie are.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221097313][quote author="WINEX" date=1221039790]

Trooper, can you honestly say with a straight face that Fannie and Freddie weren't too big and didn't cost too much money? Where's the gaffe?</blockquote>


Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Picking on her for this is a reach. Even if we thought her words weren't <em>quite</em> right, they aren't off anywhere close enough to convince me she doesn't know what Fannie and Freddie are.</blockquote>


FNM and FME have always had an implied backing from the Federal government.



I believe it was last July when Paulson became more vocal about using the Treasury to back paper issued by FNM and FME.



So I don't see how anything Palin said about them being too expensive is wrong. It's been quite clear for anyone paying attention to what's happening in the housing markets in this country for the last 18 months that this thing was going to cost every tax payer a lot of money.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1221125471]So I don't see how anything Palin said about them being too expensive is wrong. It's been quite clear for anyone paying attention to what's happening in the housing markets in this country for the last 18 months that this thing was going to cost every tax payer a lot of money.</blockquote>


I agree.



What I don't understand is why anyone who would not have voted for McCain before he chose Palin as his running mate would now vote for him. Palin isn't going to be President. She's not going to have any power. She will be a Quayle type of VP, not a Cheney. Like many VPs, part of why she was chosen is that she is no threat to the candidate for President. Voting for McCain due to Palin being on the ticket is either desperate or dumb.



I expect the Dems to stop talking about her. She was bait and they bit. From now on, I expect the focus will go back to Obama and McCain. That will put the newly-excited Reps back to sleep.
 
skek, as to #3... Mondale/Ferraro lost in a landslide with the Dems only getting 13 electoral votes to Reagan's 525. You can argue it was Reagan's popularity that created that result, but one thing is clear: the opportunity to cast a historic vote for a woman VP didn't help the Democrats.
 
What exactly are "small town values"?



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
skek,

Nice breakdown. So, now I understand that those people might now vote. However, it doesn't seem logical to me. She's not really going to change anything McCain does. I can't see him changing any of his policies because of her.



Other than Cheney, do VPs ever have much affect on the Pres? I mean this question seriously. I don't know the history of VP power. I only know the ones in recent history. If some other VPs did have an affect, I could see some people having hope there.
 
[quote author="skek" date=1221181874][quote author="Nude" date=1221181269]skek, as to #3... Mondale/Ferraro lost in a landslide with the Dems only getting 13 electoral votes to Reagan's 525. You can argue it was Reagan's popularity that created that result, but one thing is clear: the opportunity to cast a historic vote for a woman VP didn't help the Democrats.</blockquote>.</blockquote>
Obama still holds an Electoral advantage and has yet to deliver a counter-punch to McCain's pick of Palin. I expect the debates to provide that opportunity, with the last two Presidential debates sealing the deal for one side or the other. Living in a predominantly Democratic state (Washington), I am not optimistic. I expect this race to hinge on Colorado and New Hampshire if it stays close but I won't be surprised if Obama gets more than 400 Electoral votes. Palin's usefulness was in her being both a surprise and a tough woman but, even if she creams Biden in the VP debate, she has brought in all the voter's she is going to get. Once the debates begin, it becomes about Obama vs. McCain. Saddleback taught the Obama campaign what to expect, so I don't expect him to come off as badly as he did in the debates. If he gets any bump at all, it will solidify his hold on his Electoral lead and that will be the end of McCain.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221183005]skek,

Nice breakdown. So, now I understand that those people might now vote. However, it doesn't seem logical to me. She's not really going to change anything McCain does. I can't see him changing any of his policies because of her.



Other than Cheney, do VPs ever have much affect on the Pres? I mean this question seriously. I don't know the history of VP power. I only know the ones in recent history. If some other VPs did have an affect, I could see some people having hope there.</blockquote>


I am hoping McCain's plan is to put her to work. McCain seems like a guy with some kind of very long term privately held plan on how things ought to work in Washington and what he'd like to accomplish for the country, my guess is he is running to help make that plan a reality (rather than just wanting to be a career politian with no real plan other than reelection). For that he needs people to help execute the plan - I am hoping that is why he picked Palin, she is one of the people who would be of significant aid in carrying out the plan and making it work - not just for helping to get elected so the plan can be launched, but also to fulfill a very specific role. Just because most VP's don't do much, doesn't mean that a VP is obligated to do not much - if a presidential spouse (ex. Hillary pushing the health care thing when Prez Bill Clinton was in power) can be put to work, why not a VP?
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221183005]skek,

Nice breakdown. So, now I understand that those people might now vote. However, it doesn't seem logical to me. She's not really going to change anything McCain does. I can't see him changing any of his policies because of her.



Other than Cheney, do VPs ever have much affect on the Pres? I mean this question seriously. I don't know the history of VP power. I only know the ones in recent history. If some other VPs did have an affect, I could see some people having hope there.</blockquote>
T!m,



Republicans rejoiced when Cheney was picked because he filled in the holes in Bush's resume and was mainly known for his job as Secretary of Defense. Remember how much was made of Bush's lack of foreign/military/beltway experience? Cheney made Bush electable for those on the fence. Fast forward 8 years and the Republican party has been thrown into disarray by scandal, corruption, and war. Not only was the party fracturing along idealogical lines, but there was a general malaise in regards to the future. In short, as I mentioned to IR <a href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/1855/P50/#42813">here</a>, there was no Reagan waiting in the wings to lead the party. That changed when McCain picked Palin to be his VP. The Republicans will vote for McCain with enthusiasm, but a large majority of them will be voting for Palin because they see the future of the party in her. McCain's pragmatism (and possible death in office) will ensure that she isn't kept on the sidelines as is traditional with VPs, but will be given responsibility in certain areas (think energy policy, for example) while being kept in the loop on everything else.



In short, not as much a "Cheney" as a "Hillary-in-93"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top