Another Palin thread.

[sassandgroove]

I hope this isn't inappropriate. Ray asked me a direct question but it wasn't the topic of the thread. I've noticed rumblings saying that there is a pile on in threads about Palin. I managed to read through one today, but it took all day and there were so many things I either would have had to quote every post (exaggerating! sheesh) or just say "I like her because." which apparently isn't acceptable. (joke- lighten up.) The ones I've seen do appear to be negative, but that could just be my POV. (trying to not be confrontational there.)

Here is what Ray asked.

Personally, I really would like to know why you like her so much. It's not a dig.

I think it's an honest discussion and if people like her for whatever reason, they should be able to say it. Just as people who say they like Obama -- granted there will be people who say, "BUT...." Same here; still, I think it's always a good thing for people to come forward when they support a candidate.


That said, I think most people here have already decided one way or another anyway. Are there any true undecided here? It would be interesting to see their thoughts.

First, I didn't think anything you said was a dig. I was saying that the topic of that thread wasn't Palin, if that's what you are referring to. NOt sure.

I know you think we should be able to say we like her, but I did feel very overwhelmed reading the thread about her today- it seemed very negative to me and I didn't know where to start. I suppose if I responded to posts as I came across them I would have done better, but I felt I should read the whole thread first then felt at a loss.

So why do I like Palin?

Let me start at the beginning...I was born on a Tuesday. (kidding)

When I was young I decided I was a Democrat because my parents were. Naive? yeah. But my parents are bright, intelligent, solid people. Why wouldn't I believe what they believe?

So back when I was in my early 20's, I felt I should vote but had trouble navigating and understanding the political scene.

I married a conservative. I started listening to him, and started learning more about politics, and started to realize that - while not changing my core beliefs- that I wasn't a Democrat. I cried when we were watching the debate between Bush and Kerry, because Bush was saying things I had thought and felt. I didn't know before that any politician felt some of those things. ANd it was Bush. I also got fired up watching Cheney debate Edwards. ( please don't ask for details, that was four years ago. I mainly remember how I felt.)

So wow- I realized I am conservative. Fast forward to the primaries. I felt cut off at the knees during the primaries. One by one the people I wanted to vote for dropped out. By the time the primiary was held in my state, there was really no point to voting. HOnestly, I wonder what the outcome to both the Republican and Democratic primaries would turn out if every state voted on the same day. But that's probably another thread. I was left with McCain. I know some folks here will disagree, but he strikes me as a liberal in republican clothing. I like him for having served our country but dislike how he allies with libs on things like McCain Feingold. But I was still going to vote for him because I don't want to see Obama in office. But you know, I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I wanted to vote FOR someone, not against someone else. And I am not alone in that. My husband was debating whether he'd even vote, or he'd vote for a third party person or write someone in. Many of our friends, and his family have said similar things, and I've heard that sentiment on some of our local radio shows. One conservative talk show host here in B'ham said he might even vote for the Dem just because if we're going to hell in a handbasket because of liberals, he at least wanted a professed liberal in office to take the blame. (please don't jump on me for that, I'm just telling you want the talk show guy said. If you want to know it was on the Rick and Bubba show.) Now I don't dislike McCain that much. But I wasn't excited about him.

When I heard Palin accept McCains nomination on the radio, I got excited. She sounded intelligent and on the mark and she sounded genuine. She's real, she's a mom, she does what she says she believes. A few people I've noticed have said, "well she's not going to get the Hillary vote." or "big deal, so the base is excited." But I don't think those people are seeing the bigger picture. I don't think McCain was going for the HIllary vote by picking Palin. He's not seen as conservative by 'the base' and now 'the base' is excited because she is conservative. It's fine and good to go after the moderate vote, but it won't do you any good if the base camp is deserted. Palin has brought more than a few people back to the camp.

I didn't watch either convention. But I was excited this morning when I heard some of the sound bites. I also heard that the teleprompter malfunctioned and she sailed on through without a problem. I liked when Rudy said that change for the sake of change isn't necessarily good. I appreciated when she pointed out that she isn't a washington insider. She strikes me as a hands on sort of person. take the bull by the horns.


Another thing that amazes me is that the media has glommed onto things like her daughter being pregnant, that she should be at home with those 5 kids, stuff like that. First, isn't she the model of what liberals say women should be? Super woman who can bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan? And they're raking her over the coals because of something she didn't do. Her daughter is pregnant, and she is doing what a good parent should, standing by her and supporting her as she goes through it. We are all, ALL OF US, flawed and make mistakes. And she understands that and isn't casting her daughter aside.

I heard on the radio today that the (was it cop?) she fired was drunk driving. Ohhh lets make that into a controversy by ignoring that little factoid.

You know what? If that's all you got, bring it on. For the first time in this race I feel good about voting.

I know a lot of this is based on feelings. So be it. I tend to remember things in the abstract, I'm not good at quoting. When it isn't 10:30 (now almost 11) at night I'll google her speech and articles, but I couldn't sleep for thinking about this, so I decided since I was mentally composing this instead of sleeping I should post it. I couldn't get a word in edge wise in the other threads about her.

[StoryG27]

Sass, I think we can't take passion out of politics, which means both feeling and intellect go into making a choice. We have to nominate someone we agree with, someone who shares some of the same core values we do, so feelings and thoughts go hand in hand. I'm glad you answered the question and glad you shared your opinion though, I am left wondering what happened after you were born on a Tuesday? ;)

[maestrowork]

That's what I am talking about, Sass.

During this election, we've heard and will hear a lot of negative stuff about every candidate. I think it's great that we can have threads and tributes to people we are passionate and positive about. There's already so much negativity already.

I think it's a healthier state to say, "I am voting X because ... and he/she is great." It's a much healthier process, instead of "I'm voting X because I hate Y."

I think we need more positive threads. Sing about your candidates. If people don't like it or agree, they don't have to read it.

And I was born on a Friday.

[StoryG27]

I think it's a healthier state to say, "I am voting X because ... and he/she is great." It's a much healthier process, instead of "I'm voting X because I hate Y."

I think more people hate their X's, and end up asking Y.

:D

I'm too tired to be posting. I should go to bed.

[AncientEagle]

While my political position is almost directly opposite yours, and I disagree with almost everything I understand Governor Palin to stand for, I absolutely applaud your logical and reasonable explanation for your viewpoint. I enjoy the give and take on the P&CE forum, but in face-to-face conversation, I don't care for political argument at all. I only discuss politics face-to-face with people whose views I share. Why be uncomfortable, and why get angry and maybe lose friends unnecessarily? But if everybody discussed their reasons in the clear, sensible, non-confrontational way you did in your comment here, I could enjoy face-to-face political discussion.

But then, of course, I was born on Thursday.

[Jimmyboy1]

Were I allowed to post on the bigger boys' forum, under "Masks", I would have written this:

Forget part and names and, yes, masks, just for a moment. Instead of dividing people by names or party, try this experiment:

Each candidate is from one of two ideals. Each one either thinks more of self than country, or the converse. That should say a lot about who people vote for...but there's a caveat!

Many people vote for their interests only. Others vote for the good of the country. I know of what I speak, too. A great percentage of colonists slammed their doors in Washington's face, denying the American troops aid or food or firewood. Yet, those same people were lifted with the same tide of freedom which lifted all the people who sacrificed. That's human nature. For the most part, unless inspired otherwise, it won't change. in far too many.

Ronaldus Magnus said we should appeal to the better angels of our nature. When we vote, if we do consider ourselves Americans, in even one thousandth the selflessness a US soldier does, we should vote for the country before our own self interests.

We're at a crossroad in this country, where almost half the citizens receive more from the govt then they pay in taxes. If people continue to vote selfishly, this balance will tilt in an irreversible direction, dooming us all.

Think about it. Then think again.

[kristie911]

Excellent post, Sass!

I'm tired of the "Palin sucks" threads. Can't we just have one thread where everyone says she's Satan instead of 9 threads that occupy the entire first page of P&CE? Off track...sorry.

Since the negative group hasn't shown up here to beat us down yet, let me add my thoughts to the Palin pick.

I made up my mind to vote for McCain even before the primaries. I was not a Hillary fan at all and while on a personal level there are things I like about Obama...policy-wise I don't agree with him in the least. And, as Inky mentioned on another thread, his charisma scares the hell out of me. People are treating him like he's part of the second coming. They're crazy over him and I've talked to people that think he's the greatest thing ever, yet can't name one of his positions on any issue. They're voting for him based soley on his charisma. I've seen what happens with people like that...they're cult leaders. I'm afraid Obama is the same way...and that he's holding the special Kool-aid for all of us.

So when McCain (who already had my vote) picked Palin, I was actually pretty thrilled. I didn't know a thing about her (not a bad thing), she's a mother, she's a card carrying member of the NRA (gun rights are a HUGE issue with me! One of my make it or break it issues actually) and she's not a Washington insider...which is a welcome change. No, I don't agree with the Pro-Life stance but no one is going to hit everything I believe in.

Yes, a lot of what I like about her is gut instinct but I feel like McCain/Palin is the change I want to see. They have my vote. 100%.

[Shadow_Ferret]

*hugs sass*

So brave for throwing herself to the lions like that.

[Don Allen]

I understand and to a large part agree with your view, but regardless of your political leaning, you will find as you age that both parties do for themselves first and the public second if at all, harsh but history proves its true.

Obama picked Biden to enhance his credentials for white America.

McCain picked palin to solidify a conservative base, and possibly woo Clinton supporters.

Neither pick was made with "the good of the public" in mind. They were made to enhance their electability. Nothing wrong with that, but we has the public have a duty to seperate the bullshit from the benefits.

Does Obama believe what Rev. Wright believes? Does Obama want to change the name of the "Rose Garden" to the Watermelon Patch" (e-mail going around) ? Is Obama a flaming Liberal that will destroy the country, or is Joe Biden the best v.p for the country? The answer is none of the above, with a dash of truth to be sorted and picked out.

Will McCain start a war with Russia? Is Palin the best choice for V.P the republicans have to offer? Will McCain repeat the Bush presidency? Is McCain to old? The same applys here, none of the above with a dash of truth to be sifted.

So though I understand what you say and understand that you have a core belief system that makes you a conservative by definition, it's good to question these guys and girls because the real truth is that all of them are egotistical, arrogant, power hungry individuals that crave this job, and we the people have been burned with rhetoric to a point where we need to be really careful who we choose in this election, so regardless of your pick, its good to question.

[Don]

Great post, and it's good to see you stand up and be counted as pro-Palin. I've chopped out a bunch to get to the core that I want to address.

I was left with McCain. I know some folks here will disagree, but he strikes me as a liberal in republican clothing.

But you know, I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I wanted to vote FOR someone, not against someone else. And I am not alone in that. My husband was debating whether he'd even vote, or he'd vote for a third party person or write someone in.

I don't think McCain was going for the HIllary vote by picking Palin. He's not seen as conservative by 'the base' and now 'the base' is excited because she is conservative. It's fine and good to go after the moderate vote, but it won't do you any good if the base camp is deserted. Palin has brought more than a few people back to the camp.

For the first time in this race I feel good about voting.

And thus the GOP's strategy worked. Palin is a sop thrown to the conservative wing of the party to head off 'deserters' like your husband and get them back on the bus.

Before Palin, there was a good chance that Barr and Baldwin were going to suck up enough of the Republican votes that the GOP leadership would have to pay attention to conservatives next time around. Now the Barr/Baldwin combined vote will be in the single digits, and the GOP leadership will pick another liberal in four years, whether McCain wins or loses.

If conservatives want the Republican party to represent them, they have to stop voting for the liberals they are offered by the leadership. If they'd done so when, say, tricky Dick was raised from the dead, the political climate would be much different than it is today.

[Captshady]

We've entered into an era of tabloid politics, and no matter WHO the headline is about, it's just sad.

[maestrowork]

Since the negative group hasn't shown up here to beat us down yet, let me add my thoughts to the Palin pick.


But that's the exact mindset we want to avoid here, Kristie. There's a lot of anger already in these threads, the anti-Palin vs. the pro-Palin, etc. and I'd like to see that kind of animosity go.

There will be threads to question the candidates, not just Palin, but Obama, Biden, McCain.. in the next few weeks. There will be no shortage of that.

But not in threads like this.


As I said to Sass, anyone should be able to voice their support and opinions without feeling attacked and diminished. The reason I thought maybe she should start an "I'm for her" thread isn't so that people can have a place to attack her. Quite the contrary. I want people to start more positive threads about their chosen candidates because I think it's a healthier way of looking at this.

I understand why you feel like people are going to beat you down, and that's exactly the kind of things we should avoid here.

[Robert Brown]

I had somewhat the same transformation. My family were Democrats, but around 18 and an opinionated youth, I became a Republican and voted that way until, while in college later in life, I began to realize what liberalism really was. In these times, the word liberal is used for everything that's wrong with our country. Liberals, after all, stand for give- away programs like social security and welfare. But what is welfare? Is it okay to give subsidies to farmers for not planting crops but wrong to give social security to our elderly. Is it okay to give big oil companies handouts but wrong to help those who are down on their luck? I learned that liberal means socially conscious, that liberals are concerned for their fellow man and not so concerned for corporate America. Are Republicans really conservative? President Clinton, a supposed liberal, balance the budget in his eight years in office, while presidents Reagan and Bush have pushed our nation's deficit over 9 trillion dollars and neither came close to having a balance budget. So do the terms liberal and conservative somehow mean the opposite?

[InfinityGoddess]

Obama picked Biden to enhance his credentials for white America.




I think I might have a bit of a contention about "Obama picked Biden to enhance his creds for white America". Iowa = white state, went for Obama. Wisconsin = white state, went for Obama. Oregon, Montana, Vermont, all mostly white states, went to Obama.

It's more accurate, actually, that Obama's primary problems were mostly in Appalachia, not "White America" on the whole. Obama chose Biden because he needed someone who has been around the foreign policy block a bit and someone who is not afraid to speak his mind when it comes to McCain. Biden was also seriously vetted by Obama's vice-presidential team; Palin, as we are finding out, was not, hence why there is all the media scrutiny (for good or ill) on her.

[maestrowork]

By the way, I applaud Sass and Kristie and Storygirl for speaking out for their candidate, and to tell us their reasons.

So please don't launch your attracks here. ;) There are already plenty of negative threads out there.

That said, I do agree with Don Allen in that we should always question our candidates and not take their speeches and rhetoric on face values. I don't buy into the Obama worship and I'd like to see what he has to offer. Same goes with McCain -- I respect him as a war veteran and hero, but I want to see what he has to offer.

But we need more positive threads. We need a place where people can come and support their candidates without being attacked or ridiculed.

Can we do that?

[maestrowork]

I think I might have a bit of a contention about "Obama picked Biden to enhance his creds for white America"..

IG (and Don, in case you want to reply)....

I know you want to get into discussions. But this is a thread about support for Palin, and I think we should respect that and take some of the sidebar discussions (about Biden or Obama or whoever) out of here.

There are already many threads out there for these discussion, and I don't think we need to cloud it here.

Agree?

[InfinityGoddess]

IG, I know you want to get into discussions. But this is a thread about support for Palin, and I think we should respect that and take some of the sidebar discussions (about Biden or Obama or whoever) out of here.

There are already many threads out there for these discussion, and I don't think we need to cloud it here.

Agree?

Oh, I agree. I just thought I'd point that detail out. I'm not here to derail it too much, don't worry. ;)

[sassandgroove]

Yikes, that last post I read was captshady....

Well, thanks everyone who gave me a nod for posting even if you disagree.

Don and Don, I see what you are saying, but I feel it is my duty to vote, that people have died for our right to vote, and while McCain isn't the best rep for Republicans, what other choice do I have? I am not going to stay home on voting day.

Personally I think that Ross Perot split the vote in favor of Clinton. It's hard to say how it would have turned out if he hadn't run, but the people I knew who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush otherwise. I know that is anecdotal, but I don't want to vote for a third party and risk having a total liberal in there instead of a moderate. (in case you are wondering, I was too young to vote at the time.)

Also I think that for a third party - any third party- to garner enough support to solidify and have a viable candidate in the presidential race, that the change would have to come from the grass roots up, not the top down. People like Ralph Nader get in the news for running, but in the end don't get very far. What needs to happen for real change is to have city council members, alderman, county officials, mayors, elected for a party, then state representatives and governors, then after enough people are elected for that party that they are recognized by the general public as viable and mainstream and not fringe, then there can be a presidential candidate from another party that stands a chance. Besides, if a third party president were to win right now, that person would be adrift because neither side of congress would be from his or her party, or very few.

So yeah, I am fully aware of why McCain picked Palin. But you know what, I was going to vote for him anyway, now I can do it with a little more confidence.

[maestrowork]

I had somewhat the same transformation. My family were Democrats, but around 18 and an opinionated youth, I became a Republican and voted that way until, while in college later in life, I began to realize what liberalism really was.

I'm fascinated by everyone's backgrounds and how they switched around.

I didn't know what I was growing up. Obviously I wasn't Democrat or Republican because I wasn't even a US citizen. But I think I grew up a conservative. My parents were moderates. My brother and I had a lot of freedom growing up, and my parents allowed us to make our own choices and mistakes (they just came and cleaned up the mess). We were poor but we never asked the government for even a penny. We believed in hard work and making our own destiny. I came to the US with only two suitcases and no family and no friends. I didn't go home for six years. I was self-reliant to the max.

But college changed me. I grew up in a homogeneous society where 99.9% of people were Chinese. But when I came here, my best friends were a black football jock, an Indian pre-med student, a Arab computer science major from Pakistan, and an education student from Tennessee. And here I was, a gawky foreign student. I met so many people from all walks of life and perspectives that it fundamentally changed me. I realized America was a great place when people of all races and nationalities and religions could get alone and be great friends and share our hopes and dreams. We were one nation.

I'm still socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That's why when Clinton was elected, I felt like I could actually relate to someone now, someone who truly believed everyone should have the opportunity to flourish and those who are in need should be given a lift, but that we have a fiscal responsibility not just for Democrats or Republicans but for all Americans. At the time, I felt that his opponents were more about themselves and their status quo, their power, instead of really caring for the American people -- people like me. They would go to the length to impeach a President that had done so much for the country, just because they "hated him."

I started to wonder: Am I actually a liberal? A Democrat? Because I really didn't like what I saw in the conservatives at the time. But I also don't believe in hands out. I don't believe in getting something for nothing.

So in many ways, I don't think my core values have changed. I still believe in working hard and taking control of your own life. I still believe that we are all Americans regardless of your sex, age, race, sexual orientation, nationalities, or religion. I believe in individual freedom and smaller government. But I also believe that as a country, we need to think beyond ourselves. We need to help those in need and become more than just the person staring back in the mirror. We need to embrace our differences and not be afraid. We need to reach out and expand our horizons instead of being complacent with what we know.

So far, I haven't found exactly the same values in either party, and that's why I'm still an independent.

[kuwisdelu]

I actually like Palin. She seems like a great woman to me. If I were a conservative, I'd be excited about her, too. I'm not very excited about Biden, but I like Obama more than enough to make up for it. Unfortunately, Sarah Palin stands for just about everything I disagree with. Same with McCain. I think they're both good people, but I disagree with all their policies, which is why they won't get my vote. But I really wish she were liberal. :rolleyes:

Since we're all telling stories, I'll share mine...

When I was in middle school, I decided I was a Republican because Alex P. Keaton was. No joke. Michael J. Fox was my idol. My parents are both independents, and fairly moderate. They've both voted for both parties, and I think my mom's voted Nader on a couple of occasions. Once I started to think for myself and examine what I believe--along with seeing all kinds of poverty in my family, on my reservation, and domestic misfortune in my friends--I realized I was quite liberal. I'm not a Democrat, since they're a bit too conservative for me. Ironically, though, when I look up foreign political parties and find the one I most agree with, my Canadian/Polish girlfriend rolls her eyes and says, "the conservatives one??"

[lvcabbie]

Sass, you hit the nail on the head about how I feel with:
But I was still going to vote for him because I don't want to see Obama in office. But you know, I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I wanted to vote FOR someone, not against someone else. And I am not alone in that.
The only thing I can add is that watching McCain changed my mind about him in that it made me realize just how far more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief he is! I wasn't (and probably still am not) thrilled with his teaming up with Kennedy and Feingold but I have to realize just which of the two is going to work best to keep another 9/11 from happening.
I don't care about anything else than NOT seeing more innocent Americans die at the hands of the totally insane radical Islamists!

[lvcabbie]

kuwisdelu,
I am surprised that, after seeing the poverty around you, you would consider voting for more of it! Dependency upon government handouts is probably the worst addiction forced upon our nation. It not only creates a dependent populace but a bloated bureaucracy that cares more about keeping its own power than seeking betterment for its patrons.
Improved education helps people get decent jobs and better their lives. McCain and Palin support improving our broken education system and that should be enough to help you to decide about supporting them over two men who have no desire or push to do so.

[billythrilly7th]

They would go to the length to impeach a President that had done so much for the country, just because they "hated him."

Nah.

Because he committed felony perjury while President.

[billythrilly7th]

When I was in middle school, I decided I was a Republican because Alex P. Keaton was. No joke. Michael J. Fox was my idol.

Me too on all of that.

Luckily, it turned out that I was a Republican anyway or it would be an embarressing story.

I just dont know for sure which came first.

My love for Reagan or Alex.

I think it was Reagan and then solidified by Alex.

Thank you.

[Williebee]

Improved education helps people get decent jobs and better their lives. McCain and Palin support improving our broken education system and that should be enough to help you to decide about supporting them over two men who have no desire or push to do so.

Ok, gonna let you pass on the first half, because it was opinion. But in this part you are implying that Obama and Biden are anti-education, and stating that McCain/Palin are not. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but this is P&CE, and Training Camp. How about bringing us some evidence to back it up.

[maestrowork]

I think it's fair to say you support McCain and Palin because they're pro-education, pro-jobs, etc.

But I also think it's fair to say you support Obama because he's pro-education, pro-jobs, etc., too.

So I guess that's a wash. It doesn't tell me much.

[C.bronco]

Thanks Sass.
Someone just sent me this:

"The Mirrored Ceiling
TAGS: POLITICS, SARAH PALIN, WOMEN
It turns out there was something more nauseating than the nomination of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate this past week. It was the tone of the acclaim that followed her acceptance speech.
“Drill, baby, drill,” clapped John Dickerson, marveling at Palin’s ability to speak and smile at the same time as an indication of her unexpected depths and unsuspected strengths. “It was clear Palin was having fun, and it’s hard to have fun if you’re scared or a lightweight,” he wrote in Slate.
The Politico praised her charm and polish as antidotes to her lack of foreign policy experience: “Palin’s poised and flawless performance evoked roars of applause from delegates who earlier this week might have worried that the surprise pick and newcomer to the national stage may not be up to the job.”
“She had a great night. I thought she had a very skillfully written, and very skillfully delivered speech,” Joe Biden said, shades of “articulate and bright and clean” threatening a reappearance. (For a full roundup of these comments go here.)
Thus began the official public launch of our country’s now most-prominent female politician. The condescension – damning with faint praise – was reminiscent of the more overt misogyny of Samuel Johnson.
“A woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hinder legs,” the wit once observed. “It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”
Palin sounded, at times, like she was speaking a foreign language as she gave voice to the beautifully crafted words that had been prepared for her on Wednesday night.
But that wasn’t held against her. Thanks to the level of general esteem that greeted her ascent to the podium, it seems we’ve all got to celebrate the fact that America’s Hottest Governor (Princess of the Fur Rendezvous 1983, Miss Wasilla 1984) could speak at all.
Could there be a more thoroughgoing humiliation for America’s women?
You are not, I think, supposed now to say this. Just as, I am sure, you are certainly not supposed to feel that having Sarah Palin put forth as the Republicans’ first female vice presidential candidate is just about as respectful a gesture toward women as was John McCain’s suggestion, last month, that his wife participate in a topless beauty contest.
Such thoughts, we are told, are sexist. And elitist. After all, via Palin, we now hear without cease, the People are speaking. The “real” “authentic,” small-town “Everyday People,” of Hockey Moms and Blue Collar Dads whom even Rudolph Giuliani now invokes as an antidote to the cosmopolite Obamas and their backers in the liberal media. (Remind me please, once again, what was the name of the small town where Rudy grew up?)
Why does this woman – who to some of us seems as fake as they can come, with her delicate infant son hauled out night after night under the klieg lights and her pregnant teenage daughter shamelessly instrumentalized for political purposes — deserve, to a unique extent among political women, to rank as so “real”?
Because the Republicans, very clearly, believe that real people are idiots. This disdain for their smarts shows up in the whole way they’ve cast this race now, turning a contest over economic and foreign policy into a culture war of the Real vs. the Elites. It’s a smoke and mirrors game aimed at diverting attention from the fact that the party’s tax policies have helped create an elite that’s more distant from “the people” than ever before. And from the fact that the party’s dogged allegiance to up-by-your-bootstraps individualism — an individualism exemplified by Palin, the frontierswoman who somehow has managed to “balance” five children and her political career with no need for support — is leading to a culture-wide crack-up.
Real people, the kind of people who will like and identify with Palin, they clearly believe, are smart, but not too smart, and don’t talk too well, dropping their “g”s, for example, and putting tough concepts like “vice president” in quotation marks.
“As for that ‘V.P.’ talk all the time … I tell ya, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me, What is it exactly that the ‘VP’ does every day?” Palin asked host Lawrence Kudlow on CNBC sometime before her nomination. “I’m used to bein’ very productive and workin’ real hard in an administration and we want to make sure that that ‘V.P.’ slot would be a fruitful type of position.”
And, I think, they find her acceptably “real,” because Palin’s not intimidating, and makes it clear that she’s subordinate to a great man.
That’s the worst thing a woman can be in this world, isn’t it? Intimidating, which appears to be synonymous with competent. It’s the kiss of death, personally and politically.
But shouldn’t a woman who is prepared to be commander in chief be intimidating? Because of the intelligence, experience, talent and drive that got her there? If she isn’t, at least on some level, off-putting, if her presence inspires national commentary on breast-pumping and babysitting rather than health care reform and social security, then something is seriously wrong. If she doesn’t elicit at least some degree of awe, then something is missing.
One of the worst poisons of the American political climate right now, the thing that time and again in recent years has led us to disaster, is the need people feel for leaders they can “relate” to. This need isn’t limited to women; it brought us after all, two terms of George W. Bush. And it isn’t new; Americans have always needed to feel that their leaders were, on some level, people like them.
But in the past, it was possible to fill that need through empathetic connection. Few Depression-era voters could “relate” to Franklin Roosevelt’s patrician background, notes historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. “It was his ability to connect to them that made them feel they could connect to him,” she told me in a phone interview.
The age of television, Goodwin believes, has made the demand for connection more immediate and intense. But never before George W. Bush did it quite reach the beer-drinking level of familiarity. “Now it’s all about being able to see your life story in the candidate, rather than the candidate, with empathy, being able to relate to you.”
There’s a fine line between likability and demagoguery. Both thrive upon manipulation and least-common-denominator politics. These days, I fear, this need for direct mirroring — and thus this susceptibility to all sorts of low-level tripe — is particularly acute among women, who are perhaps reaching historic lows in their comfort levels with themselves and their choices.
Just look at how quickly the reaction to Palin devolved into what The Times this week called the “Mommy Wars: Special Campaign Edition.” Much of the talk about Palin (like the emoting about Hillary Clinton before her) ultimately came down to this: is she like me or not like me? If she’s not like me, can I like her? And what kind of child care does she have?
“This election is not about issues,” Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager said this week. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.” That’s a scary thought. For the takeaway is so often base, a reflection more of people’s fears and insecurities than of our hopes and dreams.
We’re not likely to get a worthy female president anytime soon." -Judith Warner

I have to say that I don't agree with it. I'm smart enough that I don't confuse intimidation with competence, nor do I make assumptions about the intelligence of a group of people based on their accents.

Second, the number of children that a male candidate has is not an issue. Why is it an issue for a female candidate? It's interesting to see that the most sexist criticisms come, often, from women.

Rick Davis' comments sounded shocking? Does the author have a memory? How many women voted for JFK based on his looks?

The above article is one cheap shot after the next, with no substantive criticism.

[kristie911]

Wow. That whole thing was not only incredibly insulting but just one nasty remark after another.

This in particular floored me.


Real people, the kind of people who will like and identify with Palin, they clearly believe, are smart, but not too smart, and don’t talk too well, dropping their “g”s, for example, and putting tough concepts like “vice president” in quotation marks.


I'm always surprised when people spew venom like this. I don't know why I'm surprised but I am. You'd think I'd know better by now that some people aren't happy unless they're cutting down others.

(BTW...c. bronco I know you didn't write this, so when I quoted it I took your name out of the quote just so no one reading it later was confused! :) )

[maestrowork]

Why I think Sarah Palin is an inspired pick:

- She brings executive experience to the ticket. Yes, McCain has experience as a legislator, but so does Obama and Biden, who has 36 years of experience. Palin's experience, while limited by Washington standard, will be a boost for McCain.

- She's relative new to politics. Much of the problem with McCain is that he's been seen as establishment. Worse, he's seen as a Bush-clone. He's not the maverick he was 8 years ago. He plays party politics. Palin does not have the problem. She's also seen as anti-establishment and corruption, which is a plus for him (although it could also backfire because it emphasizes the difference between McCain and Palin).

Also, because she's new in politics and not many people know her, she doesn't have the baggage McCain and Biden, and to some extent Obama. Yes, people are trying to find her records, etc. to scrutinize, but the fact is, there really isn't much there because she is new. You can go back 26 years to grill McCain, but you can't do that with Palin. She can help McCain get the "change" message across better than McCain can.

- She's young (the youngest of all candidates), poised, articulate, intelligent, educated, and attractive. She has given and will give the ticket a fresh new energy. He was having trouble getting his message across -- even the Republicans are a bit tired of him. But now they have someone new to be excited about. Her newness, however, may be short-lived, so that's something they would have to do to keep her fresh and exciting.

- She is a mother. She is not rich and she comes from a humble background. She has a normal family and they exude the middle class values that middle America can relate to. Yes, they're very conservative, but so are many Americans. They speak to those people. She's pro-education. They are not elites; they're both working class. That may deflect some criticism of McCain being the elite (especially his wife, who is an heiress).

- She is a woman. And if she was elected, she would make history as the first woman holding the second highest office, and if she succeeded McCain, she would be the first female President (it's probably why some people are so scared because they really don't know much about her). That's exciting. She is also strong and confident. She would appeal to the women voters, especially the independents. Her pro-life/anti-abortion stance would turn off some women, too, but then again, VP doesn't get to legislate.

- She is a conservative evangelical, and that would appease the segment of her party who have been criticizing McCain for being a "liberal." Her pro-life, pro-gun, pro-religion, and pro-abstinence-only education beliefs is welcome by conservatives who share her values, and would be willing to look past McCain's moderate leanings.

- She invites a lot of nasty attacks, and in truth, that could be a blessing in disguise. People are tired of dirty politics and negativity. The more the other side shouts insults, the more muddled their message would be, and the more Palin can come out the winner. Of course, the downside is if these criticisms turn out to the true. Or that Palin returns the favor with petty politics. So far, I think the McCain/Palin campaign has been handling it very cautiously.

- Traditionally the VP candidate is the "attack dog" of the ticket while the top seat speaks of policies and ideals. Sarah Palin has the chops to do that. The trick is to balance her confidence and tactics with poise and courtesy, so she doesn't come off as nasty (which some people are already accusing her of).

- She's well-versed in energy policies and her state is a big oil state, so she can speak about energy issues with confidence. The drawback is her tie with big oil and McCain's dismal record in supporting alternative energy. So that's something she would have to overcome and convince the people especially as oil prices continue to rise.

In every aspect, Palin is almost a perfect candidate. An inspired choice. She is not too brash. She is able to balance being a politician and a mother. She fills the gaps that McCain couldn't fill with anyone else. To people who are going to vote Republican anyway, she gives them a great reason to be excited about their choice. To those who are not sure yet, she is a viable choice -- however, in that case, I think her impact is less important than how McCain is going to able to convince them. To those who are going to vote Democrat anyway, it doesn't make a difference.

[sassandgroove]

Cross posted with ray. I was posting after Kristie's comment.

That's something that has bothered me for a while now. I lived in Los Angeles and NYC. I encountered an attitude in both places that the country is NY and LA with - something in between. The rest of the country doesn't matter, it's flyover country, those country bumpkins are dumb and, even worse, wrong to want to live there. I get that same vibe from liberals. Not the people here at AW I disagree with, (mostly) but the upper echelon Libs like the lib media and the lib celebrities and even the lib politicians. I think the every day average democrat voting person doesn't feel that way. Just like the every day average republican voting person, I've even seen it here, we all love America and want to help people, we just differ on how we think the best way to do that is. But one reason why I feel so strongly against the Dem ticket this time is I see that snobbery just dripping off of Obama, even more so that Hillary. I feel like if I met Hillary, she'd at least pretend to not be smug. Palin is a mom and started out wanting to make a difference in her town. And now look at her. She could be my neighbor. We're not stupid. we're just not elitist.

Because the Republicans, very clearly, believe that real people are idiots.um...what is clear to me is that this writer thinks real people are idiots.

oh and Ray- I want to second Billy- Bill Clinton perjured himself in front a grand jury, which is a felony. That was my problem with him. I don't care that he had an affair, that's between him, hillary and whatever other woman. I am sure he wasn't the only president with extra curricular activities.

[vixey]

I saw this thread yesterday and was so excited about it. I just want to say thanks for putting a positive spin on the election, Sass.

[Cranky]

Geeze, Ray, you're starting to convince me! :D Seriously, I'm starting to lean that way, even though I'm not thrilled with the total package Palin has. Putting her and McCain together, though...

Anyways, I still want to see what happens in the debates before making up my mind.

[sassandgroove]

Yeah, I'm looking forward to the debates. That's what really helped me decide last time.

[vixey]

We'll have to put Oct. 2 on our calendars.

[Cranky]

Yeah, I'm looking forward to the debates. That's what really helped me decide last time.

Me, too.

[maestrowork]

They say the conventions are there to energize the bases and to introduce the players. And I think they did a marvelous job (both sides) and Palin is the rising star, no doubt.

However, the debates are really the key here. Those who have decided would vote their way anyway, but those who haven't -- the debates really are the deciding factors. And a lot of times, it's not about who is right or who is wrong, but who do you agree the most based on your own values and experiences.

Cranky: there's a reason why I'm a moderate. :D I know, you can all hate me now. ;) Also, I haven't posted my objections about Palin, but this is not the place. This is a place where I think she is a viable choice, since many detractors say she's a "disaster" for McCain -- I happen to disagree. I think she's an excellent choice -- McCain is not stupid -- but that doesn't mean I don't have objections against her. I am just afraid if I posted that list, there will be dogpiling all over place. :)

[Cranky]

They say the conventions are there to energize the bases and to introduce the players. And I think they did a marvelous job (both sides) and Palin is the rising star, no doubt.

However, the debates are really the key here. Those who have decided would vote their way anyway, but those who haven't -- the debates really are the deciding factors. And a lot of times, it's not about who is right or who is wrong, but who do you agree the most based on your own values and experiences.

Cranky: there's a reason why I'm a moderate. :D I know, you can all hate me now. ;) Also, I haven't posted my objections about Palin, but this is not the place. This is a place where I think she is a viable choice, since many detractors say she's a "disaster" for McCain -- I happen to disagree. I think she's an excellent choice -- McCain is not stupid -- but that doesn't mean I don't have objections against her.

Understood. And I agree about the importance of the debates. They've always been something I watch with great interest. Certainly more helpful than Perot's pie charts, at least. :)

And I have my objections, too, but yeah, this ain't the thread for 'em.

[maestrowork]

The rest of the country doesn't matter, it's flyover country, those country bumpkins are dumb and, even worse, wrong to want to live there. I get that same vibe from liberals.

Not all people are like that, and certainly not all liberals. I know you don't mean all -- it's just a vibe you get. Still, I'd like to invite us to stop letting this divisiveness get to us -- the "us against them" thing.

Not all liberals are elitists (or dumb, or whatever). There are liberals just like you and me, or Sara Palin, just trying to make it in this world. And not all conservatives are elitist (or dumb or whatever).

I certainly don't think my friends here, liberal or conservative, are elitists or dumb.

It really creeps me out.

But I now where you're coming from. You feel you don't belong there, that they're looking down on you. Sometimes I feel the same way when I go places. I have people throwing eggs at my house calling me "Chink." I have people make Bruce Lee joke around me. But I don't want to equate these ASSHOLES with their party affiliations or core beliefs.

They're just assholes. Period.


I think there are a lot of myths. I used to think southerners were racist -- because that was what I was told. But I had some of the best experiences in the South when I was traveling. I didn't feel threatened or prejudiced against. Now, I don't know if they're talking about me behind my back, but I didn't get that vibe anyway. And of course, I have met many great people from the south who have not an ounce of racism in them.

Myth.

On the other hand, I have met people who are racists. But that goes with any group, any geography, any city or town.

there's also a myth that the Republicans are either rich snobs who don't care about anyone but themselves or country bumpkins who don't know anything. I am sure there are those everywhere, just as there are those who are Democrats! But it's a myth. And my experience tells me it's a myth.

There's also a myth that Democrats are either elitists or welfare babies who just want hand-outs from the government and they've never done a day's hard work. I am sure there are those people everywhere, just as there are those who are Republicans? I mean, tell me Republicans don't stand in welfare lines. But my experience tells me it's a myth.

That's why I was very offended by Huckabee when he said: "I became a Republican because I didn't want to continue to be poor and wait for the government to rescue me." It's offensive because:

- what about Republicans who are poor? Are they somehow less important than the rich Republicans! He's being elitist here.

- and is he saying that all non-Republicans are poor and waiting for the government to rescue them? Oh no.


Such divisive talks have no place in politics, IMHO.

He also said "McCain is my second choice. I thought I would be up here giving acceptance speech." In my mind, I don't think it matters if he's Republican or Democrat. He's an ass. I'm glad the Republicans didn't pick him.



I think my experiences make me realize all these myths are easy to make to demonize each other. As Sassy said, we're all Americans. I felt really offended when, during the war, people called us anti-war people un-American. Excuse me? I'm just as American as everyone else -- don't tell me I don't love this country just because I don't believe in violence, or that I believe in reasons behind a war (I won't go there here... but I was 100% behind the first Gulf War and the Afghanistan War).

Same thing with both sides.

I've said in another thread: I really hate this divisiveness. And one of the reasons why I have some animosity against the Republican party is that I feel a lot of divisiveness from them: the constitutional ban on gay marriage. WTF is that about? Putting discrimination in our constitution? You must be fucking kidding me. I think SOME Republicans are really out of touch and misguided, and they're trying to divide this country unnecessarily.

Does that mean the Democrats are not doing that also? No. That's why I am an independent. I hardly think either side is always right or always wrong. In fact, sometimes I think both sides are wrong. ;) Welfare reform? I don't think the Dems are serious about that. Individual rights and get the church out of state? I don't think the Republicans are serious about that either. And foreign policies? I think it's been a disaster, and both sides are to blame.

And then there are the lies. OMG. I know politicians lie, but wow. We've been lied to by the President, and we've been lied to by Congress of either party. Do they really think we Americans are stupid?

So, yes, I'm very disappointed with how things have turned out, but I'm also very optimistic that a brighter future lies ahead, and I would really welcome EVERY AMERICAN to think about what it means to be American. Why are we called the UNITED STATES of America.

None of this "if you're not with us you're against us" bull crap.

[Williebee]

Palin is a viable choice. She's just not mine. I don't believe in most of what she has stated that she stands for. If she did, she'd get my vote, and I'd wish she was on the top of the ticket.

That sounds generic and obvious, but it isn't. Take away the abortion stance, abstinence only stance, NRA stuff, and I think she is a competent leader and a good Mom. She's managing to raise a family, while rising to the level of Governor of a state. Go check out the hockey rink, soccer/baseball/football field of your choice. How any Hockey Moms/Dads have managed that? I know I haven't, and wouldn't consider trying it.

I'll repeat what I said in the first or second post I made during her speech. She delivered John McCain to America better than any of the previous speeches did.

So, I'm looking forward to the debate.

[sassandgroove]

Not all people are like that, and certainly not all liberals. I know you don't mean all -- it's just a vibe you get. Still, I'd like to invite us to stop letting this divisiveness get to us -- the "us against them" thing.I know you don't think I meant all liberals. But it isn't just a vibe I get, it is real. The article referenced above is evidence of that. And you are right what Huckabee said is snobbish.

[Brutal Mustang]

I love how Palin possesses such a classic femininity. But she fires big guns for play. What a lady she is! :)

[maestrowork]

I know you don't think I meant all liberals. But it isn't just a vibe I get, it is real. The article referenced above is evidence of that. And you are right what Huckabee said is snobbish.

I know it's real. I've met those snobbish people. I worked in NYC for 6 months and my parents live in LA so I visit often. But these people are everywhere and sometimes I don't even know if they're Republicans or Democrats. Like I said, they're just assholes. I've also met some really great people -- I think... as you live in a place long enough, you're bound to find there are general just about the same number of great people vs. asses in each place.

BTW, NYC people have a reputation for being rude anyway, and LA people are fakes. :) But like I said, I've lived in those places long enough to know there are just part of the population. There are some really great people and diversity. After all, there are 8 million people in NYC and 12 million in LA.

But I am not sure if the guy in the article actually called Republicans dumb:

Because the Republicans, very clearly, believe that real people are idiots.

I think he's accusing the Republicans are the ones who think people are dumb. He's not saying the real people are dumb. And also I took it that his gist was that there's a difference between "likability" and "electability." Because someone is relatable or likable doesn't mean he or she can do the job. Despite everything else he said, I think he has a point there. Sass, I know you like Bush and I don't... so I don't want to argue here. Still, I think the gist is that Bush is a likable guy, and he got elected because he's likable and people can relate to him -- meanwhile Kerry came off as an elitist and an ass. But then people started to realize Bush was an ass, too. He just hid it better. And now the Republicans want to paint Obama as an elitist, too (meanwhile, McCain has more money and his wife has more bling). It's again about likability. But likability doesn't always transfer to leadership, and many people think Bush was a terrible leader. But he was very likable (until now, even the Republicans wanted to distance themselves from him).

I don't like the tone of that article AT ALL -- he sounded really pompous and arrogant.

And then he went ahead and insult the "real people" (as quoted by Kristie).

Ugh. Message undelivered. FAILED.



That said...

But I do think he touches on some valid points and I'd like to examine those points. I mean I was just listening to NPR today and they were interviewing some young woman in Virginia about who she's voting for. She was so excited and said, "I love Sarah Palin. She's great. She's just like me and my mom!" And then when the reporter asked her what about her anti-abortion stance (no abortion under any circumstances, not even rape or incest), she suddenly paused, and said, "I didn't know that.... oh, I hope she would change her mind after she got elected."

So I think the initial excitement and her apparent likability could have that effect. It stops people from wanting to learn or know more. What about her politics? What about her views? It's not to say Palin is not capable -- not at all. After all, she did get elected as Governor. She seems really smart and articulate. However, how many people actually know her before they say, "I really, really like her"? I think that's something very valid to think about in this election. We are, after all, trying to put someone there to run an entire country -- not just Republicans... Democrats as well. A lot of thoughts need to be taken into consideration instead of just "I like him" or "I like her."

I mean, what about her policies? About her views on the problems of the country? Her thoughts on how to fix them?

These are all very pertinent questions to ask besides whether she is a good mother or not.

And I'm glad we're all waiting for the debates to start! :D



I ask these questions about EVERY candidate. I like McCain as a person, too. And I like Obama. But that doesn't make me vote for them. I want to know what exactly are they going to do for this country. All the oohs and ahhs and Obama worship or Palin excitement doesn't mean a thing to me if their policies and ideas suck, or if they turn out not very capable after all. I want a president and someone who CAN replace the President in time of need. It's a very important job, and I want the BEST person to be in that job.


I want to see Palin (and everyone else, for that matter) talk off script and prepared speeches. I want her to be interviewed, and I want her to tell me her views and thoughts with her own words. I want to see her in a debate. She looks great as VP, but I want to see if she really has the stuff to become one.

I am EAGER looking forward to those interviews. We know so much about McCain, Obama and Biden. But I don't not a thing about Palin except what the media and the Republican party told me. I want to get to know her directly.

Anyway, I think the message is there in that article but the way the author put it, it has that "condescending" tone you were talking about, and it's very off-putting, and I think the guy failed to convey what he really wanted to say. I had to read it a few times to get the gist of his tirade.

[Robert Brown]

My problem with McCain/Palin is simple. We've had about 45 years of Republican rule and what I see is an eroded infrastructure, a failed educational system, a country deeply, deeply in debt to foreign countries who used to be our enemies, depleted natural resources, a resource draining war, a possible resurgence of the cold war, higher and higher gas prices, rising food costs, one trillion dollars in home devaluation and more and most of this under one republican president. As a person I like and admire John McCain as we fought in the same war. I like Governor Palin, but McCain says he will continue George Bush's policies and I see that as a ruination of a country for which I've fought and bled. Maybe Obama isnt the right choice. I would have rather seen Hilary win the Democratic nomination as would 16 million other Americans However, I don't think our country can stand another year of George Bush policies. I sincerely wish we had a third choice, but as has been the case for me during the last two elections, choices have been limited. At the risk of sounding like an echo, we do need a change, any kind of a change or I'm afraid the next few years are going to be unbearable.

[maestrowork]

And Sass, RE: Clinton (I don't remember how that came about). Yes, he lied. He committed a felony, and he was impeached. He was never indicted or convicted though, and the impeachment failed.

Still, I believe he was a good President as far as his JOB performance is concerned. We had the longest peace-time economic boom in history, and he balanced the budget and reduced deficit. A triple-threat that not a lot of Presidents could do.

So hate him as a person. Don't like him at all. He's a scum and a liar. But he was damn good at his job. And for me, that is the important thing. For others, his ethics is the important thing.

Bush was very likable -- but he was not very good at his job. His job approval rating is below 30 now -- even Republicans don't think he's doing a good job.

But I also ask this question: Did he lie? Did he lie and send all these good people to war and die? Did he lie and that over 4000 soldiers are now dead? Where are the WMDs? If he did, I think his lies would be FAR, FAR, FAR worse than those told by Clinton. Because Clinton's lie didn't kill people.

I think many people, Republicans included, are very upset with the war now because of its length, its cost, and the way people are continuing to die for what? Why exactly are we still there? Saddam Hussen has been tried and dead for a few years now. The Iraqi government is in place. We have never found any WMDs. So why were we there in the first place, and why are we still there? Did someone invent a war so we could all root after it? Or why did we go in with false or incomplete intelligence report to begin with? Why didn't we exhaust our diplomatic means first before we declare war on Iraq? There are so many questions. And GWB has been stonewalling every single one of those questions.


I think that's the point: sometimes likability and ability are not the same thing.

Personally, I think McCain and Palin are very capable... certainly would be much better than Bush. But I also think Obama brings something new to this, and Biden is a good man, too (I still had tears when I heard him talk about how he raised his sons after his wife and daughter died in a car accident). So either way, I am very optimist that we would move forward as a nation.

I just want to see the debates!

[sassandgroove]

We've had about 45 years of Republican rule
How do you figure that?

[Woof]

I love how Palin possesses such a classic femininity. But she fires big guns for play. What a lady she is! :)

Really? What's so ladylike about killing animals for a hobby? I thought she was pro-life. Oh yeah, I forgot. When her tribe talk about the sanctity of life, they don't include the lives of animals any more than they include the lives of soldiers sent to die in an unnecessary and immoral war. Classic? Feminine? How about 'primitive' ?

[kristie911]

Really? What's so ladylike about killing animals for a hobby? I thought she was pro-life. Oh yeah, I forgot. When her tribe talk about the sanctity of life, they don't include the lives of animals any more than they include the lives of soldiers sent to die in an unnecessary and immoral war. Classic? Feminine? How about 'primitive' ?

You have the right to disagree with hunting but calling hunters names like "primitive" is offensive. I hunt for sport. I also have indoor plumbing and electricity.

Just say you disagree with those things and leave it at that. Drop the name calling.

[sassandgroove]

Amen. And this is the "I like Palin" thread. There's like 50 threads bashing her already.

[dmytryp]

You have the right to disagree with hunting but calling hunters names like "primitive" is offensive. I hunt for sport. I also have indoor plumbing and electricity.

Just say you disagree with those things and leave it at that. Drop the name calling.

No, he basically says that all enlightened people should be vegetarian pacifists.


(that was sarcastichttp://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif)

[Don]

No, he basically says that all enlightened people should be vegetarian pacifists.
(that was sarcastichttp://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif)
Sarcasm noted, and this is purely conjecture, but Woof's post doesn't sound pacifist, and the avatar doesn't look vegetarian. :D

[VGrossack]

Bush was very likable -- but he was not very good at his job. His job approval rating is below 30 now -- even Republicans don't think he's doing a good job.

But I also ask this question: Did he lie? Did he lie and send all these good people to war and die? Did he lie and that over 4000 soldiers are now dead? Where are the WMDs? If he did, I think his lies would be FAR, FAR, FAR worse than those told by Clinton. Because Clinton's lie didn't kill people.

I think many people, Republicans included, are very upset with the war now because of its length, its cost, and the way people are continuing to die for what? Why exactly are we still there? Saddam Hussen has been tried and dead for a few years now. The Iraqi government is in place. We have never found any WMDs. So why were we there in the first place, and why are we still there? Did someone invent a war so we could all root after it? Or why did we go in with false or incomplete intelligence report to begin with? Why didn't we exhaust our diplomatic means first before we declare war on Iraq? There are so many questions. And GWB has been stonewalling every single one of those questions.


It's 4,000 American soldiers. And about 1,000,000 Iraqi, although it's difficult to get reliable numbers on this (it's probably higher). Why does no one mention them?

[Robert Toy]

It's 4,000 American soldiers. And about 1,000,000 Iraqi, although it's difficult to get reliable numbers on this (it's probably higher). Why does no one mention them?
1) People have problems with large numbers?
2) We only count American deaths, not "allied" troops and especially not the other side.
3) It would make it sound worst than it really is.
4) other

[Don]

It's 4,000 American soldiers. And about 1,000,000 Iraqi, although it's difficult to get reliable numbers on this (it's probably higher). Why does no one mention them?
Because even the most liberal or biggest warhawk among us may say to ourselves:

"Hmm... if foreign troops came to our shores and killed a million of our citizens, I'd probably be mad enough to shoot back too."

We certainly can't have the average Joe realizing what the Iraqi invasion would look like to us if the shoe were on the other foot.

[dmytryp]

Because even the most liberal or biggest warhawk among us may say to ourselves:

"Hmm... if foreign troops came to our shores and killed a million of our citizens, I'd probably be mad enough to shoot back too."

We certainly can't have the average Joe realizing what the Iraqi invasion would look like to us if the shoe were on the other foot.

Oh, bull
How many of those 1000000 were actually killed by US or allied forces?

[AncientEagle]

Oh, bull
How many of those 1000000 were actually killed by US or allied forces?

What's the number you find acceptable?

[dmytryp]

What's the number you find acceptable?
Excuse me?
There was a number of 1,000,000 iraqis dead thrown around and a supposition that if you US killed so many, it is reasonable for the iraqis to shoot back

[AncientEagle]

Excuse me?
There was a number of 1,000,000 iraqis dead thrown around and a supposition that if you US killed so many, it is reasonable for the iraqis to shoot back

And you said "Bull" and asked how many of those were killed by US or allied troops. I wondered how many you feel would need to be killed by US or allied troops in order for us to feel some responsibility for the insurgency and, more important, to feel some remorse for the number of lives lost as a result, direct or indirect, of our actions.

[Don]

Excuse me?
There was a number of 1,000,000 iraqis dead thrown around and a supposition that if you US killed so many, it is reasonable for the iraqis to shoot back
We lost 2700 and invaded two countries, although we took a pass on Saudia Arabia, where most of the perpetrators were from.

I'd like to think most of those supporting our invasion of Iraq would be behind the barricades with a gun in their hands if we were invaded, but some would be exhorting others to do the fighting for them from the safety of their bunkers, and others would roll over and cooperate.

[Woof]

You have the right to disagree with hunting but calling hunters names like "primitive" is offensive. I hunt for sport. I also have indoor plumbing and electricity.

Just say you disagree with those things and leave it at that. Drop the name calling.


And here I thought I was being restrained. Believe me, there are a lot more adjectives to describe why I think that killing animals for pure sport is wrong.

[Don]

And here I thought I was being restrained. Believe me, there are a lot more adjectives to describe why I think that killing animals for pure sport is wrong.
Very few hunters kill for 'pure sport' these days. Hunters are actually more ecology-minded than many, because they want to preserve the animal populations and environment where their food supplies thrive.

Just curious: are you a vegetarian, or do you just eat animals other people killed and cleaned for you?

[dmytryp]

And you said "Bull" and asked how many of those were killed by US or allied troops. I wondered how many you feel would need to be killed by US or allied troops in order for us to feel some responsibility for the insurgency and, more important, to feel some remorse for the number of lives lost as a result, direct or indirect, of our actions.
Here (http://http://forum.giyus.org/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=54d9cb1c5b02b20f5f4ad530411674 cf&topic=872.msg2068) is a link for you. It deals mostly with the hypocricy of the world concerning Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but that applies well here, too. Here are two quotes that have special bearing on our discussion 9this is somewhat dated, so you'll have to excuse the incorrect final numbers):
Iraq: Most of the destruction of the last two decades was the doing of Saddam Hussein. This is another case of a regime that caused the deaths of millions. Nonstop death. One of the highpoints was during the Iran-Iraq war, in the conflict over the Shat El Arab River, the river that is created by the convergence of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. This was a conflict that led to nothing but large scale destruction and mass killing. Estimates are between 450,000 and 650,000 Iraqis, and between 450,000 and 970,000 Iranians. Jews, Israelis, and Zionists were not around, as far as is known.

Waves of purges, some politically motivated (opposition), some ethnic ( the Kurdish minority) and some religiously motivated (the ruling Sunni minority against the Shiite majority), yielded an astounding number of victims. Estimates vary from one million, according to local sources, to a quarter million, according to Human Rights Watch. Other international organizations quote an estimate of about half a million.

In the years 1991 - 1992 there was a Shiite uprising in Iraq. There are contradictory estimates about the number of victims. The numbers vary from 40,000 to 200,000. In addition to the Iraqis that were slaughtered one must add the Kurds. During Saddam Hussein’s reign, between 200,000 and up to 300,000 of them were killed in a genocide that continued all through the 1980’s and the 1990’s.

Over half a million more Iraqis died from diseases because of the shortage of medicine, which was the result of sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War. Today it is clear that this was a continuation of the genocide perpetrated by Saddam on his own people. He could have purchased medicine, he had enough money to buy food and to build hospitals for all the children of Iraq, but Saddam preferred to build palaces and to distribute franchises to many in the west and in Arab states. This issue is being exposed in the corruption of the UN’s ‘Oil for Food’ project.

The Iraqis continue to suffer. The civil war that is raging there now - even if some would rather not give that name to the mutual massacre of Sunnis and Shiites - is costing tens of thousands of lives. It is estimated that about 100,000 people have been killed since the coalition forces took control in Iraq.


Iraq Summary: 1.54 million to 2 million victims.
Iran Summary: 450,000 to 970,000 victims.


How many were saved by the invasion?

Afghanistan: This is a web of nonstop mass killings - domestic and foreign. The Soviet invasion, which began on the 24th of December 1979 and ended on 2nd of February 1989, left about a million dead. Other estimates talk of 1.5 million dead civilians and an additional 90,000 soldiers.

After the withdrawal of the Soviet Forces, Afghanistan went through a series of civil wars and struggles between the Soviet supporters, the Mujahadeen and the Taliban. Each group carried out a doctrine of mass extermination of its opponents. The sum of the fatalities in civil war, up to the invasion of the coalition forces under American leadership in 2001, is about one million.

There are those who complain, and rightly so, about the carnage that took place as a result of the coalition offensive to overthrow the Taliban regime and as part of the armed struggle against Al Qaeda. Indeed, the invasion into Afghanistan caused a relatively limited number of deaths, less than 10,000. Had it not taken place, we would have seen a continuation of the self-inflicted genocide, with an average of 100,000 fatalities a year.

Afghanistan Summary: One million to one and a half million, as a result of the Soviet invasion; about one million in the civil war.

Don, as you see, people of Afghanistan and Iraq didn't need the US to start killing each other. Claiming otherwise is naive and colored by ones personal bias.

[VGrossack]

The 1,000,000 plus is a number I found in Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia has its problems but let's go with it for now.

It's hard to say how many were killed by US & coalition forces, but I bet that it's plenty more than 4000! Furthermore, we should have known that it would descend into civil war - if we had done any research into the matter - the various factions would be at each other's throats. Instead we had to whitewash it with the term "sectarian violence."

I was on a plane once with a couple of soldiers coming out of Iraq. I did not speak to them, but I could not help overhearing them converse with others on the plane. They were saying that they could understand Hussein's harsh measures - that it was the only way to keep the population under control.

I don't know if one country can ever march into another to install democracy. Doesn't democracy have to come out of the people, when the people are ready for it?

[dmytryp]

The 1,000,000 plus is a number I found in Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia has its problems but let's go with it for now.

It's hard to say how many were killed by US & coalition forces, but I bet that it's plenty more than 4000! Furthermore, we should have known that it would descend into civil war - if we had done any research into the matter - the various factions would be at each other's throats. Instead we had to whitewash it with the term "sectarian violence."

I was on a plane once with a couple of soldiers coming out of Iraq. I did not speak to them, but I could not help overhearing them converse with others on the plane. They were saying that they could understand Hussein's harsh measures - that it was the only way to keep the population under control.

I don't know if one country can ever march into another to install democracy. Doesn't democracy have to come out of the people, when the people are ready for it?
"Harsh measures"? Are you kidding me? Read my previous answer. Hussein killed over the years millions of his own citizens (and close to a million Iranians). He didn't need US to do it. Are you only incredulous of the lives lost because of your percieved US responsibility?
True, mistakes were made in Iraq. Would the death toll be less if US hasn't invaded? No one knows.

[dmytryp]

By the way, I find this whole framing of the war in terms of casualties only to be detached from real world logic. In WWII twice as many Germans were killed as US and Brits put together. Yet nobody ever questions the rightcheousness of the war.

[Don]

By the way, I find this whole framing of the war in terms of casualties only to be detached from real world logic. In WWII twice as many Germans were killed as US and Brits put together. Yet nobody ever questions the rightcheousness of the war.
Not true. There are lots of questions that have been raised about WWII, and more are being raised every day.

[dmytryp]

Not true. There are lots of questions that have been raised about WWII, and more are being raised every day.
Please, show me any credible source saying US should have stayed out of the war or that UK should have just surrendered to Germany.

[VGrossack]

By the way, I find this whole framing of the war in terms of casualties only to be detached from real world logic. In WWII twice as many Germans were killed as US and Brits put together. Yet nobody ever questions the rightcheousness of the war.

I don't think anyone* questions the righteousness of British and the American participation in WWII. We were attacked, by Germany. Or at least Germany declared war on the US, after Pearl Harbor.

However, I think we all question Germany's role in WWII, don't we?

When exactly did Iraq attack us?

*Obviously someone does, above. However, I don't.

[dmytryp]

I don't think anyone* questions the righteousness of British and the American participation in WWII. We were attacked, by Germany. Or at least Germany declared war on the US, after Pearl Harbor.

However, I think we all question Germany's role in WWII, don't we?

When exactly did Iraq attack us?

*Obviously someone does, above. However, I don't.

The point was that you can't judge whether the war was just or needed based on number of casualties only.

[VGrossack]

The point was that you can't judge whether the war was just or needed based on number of casualties only.

And my point is that too many people are ignoring the grave damage that we have inflicted on Iraq - for a war which I believe was not just at all. (WMD, remember). The number of American soldiers is reported all the time - and I think that's understandable - but the media tend to ignore the Iraqi casualties.

[Don]

Please, show me any credible source saying US should have stayed out of the war or that UK should have just surrendered to Germany.

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/Churchill, Hitler, and)

Pat Buchanan's not one of my favorite people, but with over 1300 endnotes, he's obviously done some serious research.


Were World Wars I and II—which can now be seen as a thirty-year paroxysm of slaughter and destruction—inevitable? Were they necessary wars? Were the bloodiest and most devastating conflicts ever suffered by mankind fated by forces beyond men’s control? Or were they products of calamitous failures of judgment? In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen—Winston Churchill first among them—the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins. Half a century of murderous oppression of scores of millions under the iron boot of Communist tyranny might never have happened, and Europe’s central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations.

Among the British and Churchillian blunders were:

• The secret decision of a tiny cabal in the inner Cabinet in 1906 to take Britain straight to war against Germany, should she invade France
• The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that muti- lated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler
• Britain’s capitulation, at Churchill’s urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo- Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan, pushing her onto the path of militarism and conquest
• The 1935 sanctions that drove Italy straight into the Axis with Hitler
• The greatest blunder in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939—that guaranteed the Second World War
• Churchill’s astonishing blindness to Stalin’s true ambitions.

Certain to create controversy and spirited argument, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War” is a grand and bold insight into the historic failures of judgment that ended centuries of European rule and guaranteed a future no one who lived in that vanished world could ever have envisioned.

[dmytryp]

And my point is that too many people are ignoring the grave damage that we have inflicted on Iraq - for a war which I believe was not just at all. (WMD, remember). The number of American soldiers is reported all the time - and I think that's understandable - but the media tend to ignore the Iraqi casualties.

I bolded the key words.
And as I already posted, there is no knowing how many iraqis would be dead if not for the US

[dmytryp]

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/Churchill, Hitler, and)

Pat Buchanan's not one of my favorite people, but with over 1300 endnotes, he's obviously done some serious research.
Not a single thing here makes US and UK's participation in the war less just once it started.

[VGrossack]

Then what is the basis for the US attacking Iraq? We were told WMD. Obviously not true (I think even Cheney admits that's true, certainly Bush does). Some people seemed to think we were getting rid of the Taliban (also not true). Others think it was to topple Saddam Hussein (which we did, but this was not a reason to inspire

Even if you want to "justify" it with the idea that we were going after oil - and although I don't exactly like this reason, I can understand it, because wealth and resources are, after all, the time-honored reason for going to war - where are the profits to the US? Well, let's see, Iraq has a 79 billion dollar surplus, and we have an economy that is doing very, very badly...

Of course, Iraq might have been the target of sectarian violence without our enabling it. But we can't know that.

[Sheryl Nantus]

The number of American soldiers is reported all the time - and I think that's understandable - but the media tend to ignore the Iraqi casualties.

usually because they're being killed by other Iraqis.

you don't go into a crowded market and set off a bomb because you're out to get soldiers - you do it to terrorize your own people. You do it because it's a "soft" target rather than go for the bases and the heavily-armored soldiers. Much easier to blow apart women and children.

:(

[kristie911]

And here I thought I was being restrained. Believe me, there are a lot more adjectives to describe why I think that killing animals for pure sport is wrong.

I don't care what you "thought" you were being...I'm saying you can voice your opinion without calling names.

Respect your fellow writer.

[sassandgroove]

hey, my thread's been hijacked. (i know no one owns threads in AW. I'm just commenting that the thread has taken a different direction.)

[Alpha Echo]

I grew up Republican. My mother has only become more and more conservative (on just about everything but the gun issue...she hates them and hates even more that I have my carry permit and several handguns).

I am still...mostly...Republican. There are several issues on which I'm more liberal than conservative, but mostly I'm Republican.

I would vote for a Democratic person who, however, seemed to have strong ideals and the actions to back up his words. Or even words to express their beliefs rather than just promising change and saving the world but not telling us how they would go about doing that.

I like Palin. I like her because I think she seems fresh and honest, as though the ugliness of politics hasn't rubbed off on her yet. There's a lot of bad press, and that angers and saddens me. As Sass said, Palin's young pregnant daughter doesn't reflect on her as a politician! So, so many families deal with young pregnancies, and the fact that she is may mean that she will try to do even more for America who shares in those experiences. And the fact that she's a woman in politics and not home with her children - how many women say they want it all? How many woman want a career AND children? Many. Many. And it's not as though a nanny is raising their children - her husband stays at home to raise them. I see nothing wrong with that. I think Palin is exciting and fresh, and honestly, if she were running for President, I'd be more excited about the Republican ticket than I all ready am.

[sassandgroove]

Thank you Alpha Echo for posting on topic.

wanna see my pistol license? :D

[Alpha Echo]

Thank you Alpha Echo for posting on topic.

wanna see my pistol license? :D

:D

My first gun was a Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum. Loved it. My husband taught me how to shoot. :)

[Don]

Not a single thing here makes US and UK's participation in the war less just once it started.
Which makes the whole middle east invasion concept perfectly acceptable, since we can ignore the 50 years the US has spent meddling in the affairs in that part of the world and claim they started it all on 9/11.

Mugger: Honest, judge, I didn't start it. This guy punched me for no reason at all, just after I pulled his wallet out of his pocket. :rolleyes:

[Don]

Thank you Alpha Echo for posting on topic.

wanna see my pistol license? :D

:D

My first gun was a Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum. Loved it. My husband taught me how to shoot. :)
Be still, my beating heart. ;)

[Alpha Echo]

Be still, my beating heart. ;)

I don't wanna get off topic but, yeah, I pretty much rock.

:D

Joking.

Kinda.

;)

[dmytryp]

VG, Don, this is my last post on the subject because I don't want to derail the thread again. The only point I made that you can't judge the justness or necessity of war based on a number of casualties alone.

I am not arguing with you about whether the Iraq war was needed, whether UK's and US's behaviour contributed to outbreak of WWII, aggravated the things in the ME etc. If you really want to debate those things, start new threads (especially you, Don, since I know slightly more about the ME than about the European history between WWI and WWII http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif)