John McCain's VP nominee Sarah Palin

[xavier]

it is documented that in the 2000 elections Al Gore had over 500,000 votes more than Bush.

Your point? In this country, the President is not elected by the popular vote, but instead by the Electoral College. In that, the only vote that mattered, GWB won the election.

Your own grade-school level understanding of civics seems to be failing you here.

You leftists have had this thing called "MoveOn.org" since the Clinton impeachment days. I really wish you would apply it to yourselves, as it fits more than perfectly in the context of the 2000 election...

[xavier]

You try to mislead by saying "Yes, and I can go protest anything I want to anyone I want. When did opinion become evidence?" thinking you will get a laugh, but is just happen that, that is not true.
The protest in congress was not by ordinary citizens, it was carries out by the member of congress representing their disenfranchised districts.

Do you even know what you write? Or are you just making things up as you go along?

the hundreds and hundreds of precinct observers protest black voter disenfranchisement in front of congress.

Only a delusional mind can understand the two quotes of yours here, as saying the same thing.

Which is it, Victor? Was it non-elected "precinct observers", or elected "member of congress" that did the demonstrating (ignoring the absurd irrationality of the latter possibility)?

[Zool]

Since your political bent is rather obvious, assuming you are a US citizen (and were then), I'd love to know why you obviously voted for Gore and Kerry. What was it about them that made you say to yourself, "oh yeah, we've *got* to get this guy in office"?

The point is that I'm trying to understand your viewpoint.

You believe that for all kinds of domestic policies it's the Congress that controls things and it's not important who occupies the white house, is this correct ?
In general, why do you even bother to vote in the presidential elections, you want to pick the one that "looks good" as president ?

With this kind of criteria, how is Bush better than Gore ?

This doesn't make much sense to me, I'm sure I have misunderstood something, care to explain your reasoning more ?

[xavier]

Since your political bent is rather obvious, assuming you are a US citizen (and were then), I'd love to know why you obviously voted for Gore and Kerry. What was it about them that made you say to yourself, "oh yeah, we've *got* to get this guy in office"?

The point is that I'm trying to understand your viewpoint.

You believe that for all kinds of domestic policies it's the Congress that controls things and it's not important who occupies the white house, is this correct ?
In general, why do you even bother to vote in the presidential elections, you want to pick the one that "looks good" as president ?

Pretty much, that's how it's been in the BRAND NAME age.

I didn't say that *I* vote that way, I said that I prefer Obama over McCain, because Obama presents and carries himself as more of the statesman than does McCain.

With this kind of criteria, how is Bush better than Gore ?

I didn't say that it applied in that case. As I mentioned, it was clear to me (and apparently to others) that Al Gore didn't have a clue why he wanted to be President, other than "it's my turn to run". Similarly, John Kerry didn't have a clue either, and apparently neither did the Democrats in 2004, because their platform began and ended with "we're not Bush". I mean, really, you have to be for something, you can't win the biggest game in town only by being against something or someone.


The President's job is (a) to run the executive branch of the government (which means to *enforce* the laws, not *make* them -- that's a dictatorship), and (b) represents the United States to the nations of the world.

As it happens, (a) doesn't really end up meaning much, because there is a huge entrenched bureaucracy (on which the actual occupier of the top spot has no effect) that actually runs the Executive branch. (a) only becomes an issue regarding the individual when, like Bush (and Clinton before him, and nearly every President before them), they decide that in various ways, the law doesn't apply to them and instead invoke (or invent, or try to invent) all sorts of "executive privilege".

The more important aspect of the job for the years 2008-2012, will be (b). We've let 8 years of Bush do a lot of damage to our relationships with the rest of the world, and IMO, an actual statesman is what we need right now.

I think one of the problems you're having with me (I know VictorMoran certainly has this problem) is that you might be trying to pigeonhole me into some label or other. I am not Democratic, nor am I Republican. I'm not conservative, nor am I liberal, progressive, or whatever other all-encompassing idealogy you might come up with. I'm me, I think for myself and form conclusions based on (a) the evidence and (b) my experience with and understanding of human nature and events.

In the context of this election cycle, it's actually nice to have something interesting to watch for a change; I was afraid that the Dems were going to throw up yet another sacrificial lamb. It's unfortunate that both sides have let the tone of the debate sink already, but that's going to happen every four years.

I also wish McCain would stop repeating the same independently-debunked claims over and over, but he understands that "it doesn't matter if it's true or not, if you repeat it enough times". It's clear which tactics the two sides have chosen, and with 49 days left it's unlikely those will change.

It will be interesting to see (to bring this topic full-circle), whether they ever let Palin off the leash anytime before Nov 4 -- the VP debates are going to be interesting, we'll see if the crash course the Republican campaign is right now giving Palin on how to be a VP takes hold by then.

[VictorMoran]

You believe that for all kinds of domestic policies it's the Congress that controls things and it's not important who occupies the white house, is this correct?
In general, why do you even bother to vote in the presidential elections, you want to pick the one that "looks good" as president ?

That is not entiretly true, the president has the power to declare temporary laws by using signing statements, a power this president had exercised more than any other president in history.
The president also set economic policies and all other policies in the country, he does that by appointing key people to the various departments like: head of the treasury, head of agriculture, head of education, secretary of defense, head of the department of justice, head of department of health and human services, etc
Plus the president sign all bills into laws. For Congress to overwrite the president it needs a 60 vote majority.
I give you an example how the president affect many things.
Say for example the government runs a study that is better to vaccinate the population against the Influence, even if no every year you have influence outbreaks.
Then new government decides that a vaccination is an entitlement program and they cut the funds.
Two things can happens. One no big outbreak ever happens, or a big case do happen and then when have a health catastrophe at hand. It is what happened to FEMA with Katrina.

Your point? In this country, the President is not elected by the popular vote, but instead by the Electoral College. In that, the only vote that mattered, GWB won the election.

You said the people elected Bush because they wanted the devil the knew... (whatever that means), you just made that up didn't you.
Also this 40%, 40%, 20% voters distribution, you just made up didn’t you?
The truth is that the people voted for the democrats and in one state thanks to a very dubious procedure, the electoral process was suspended to give Bush the electoral vote.

Only a delusional mind can understand the two quotes of yours here, as saying the same thing.
Which is it, Victor? Was it non-elected "precinct observers", or elected "member of congress" that did the demonstrating (ignoring the absurd irrationality of the latter possibility)?

In every election the parties send observers to each electoral prescients.
They report back to their party if they see irregularities, and in the 2000 elections they did it in great numbers.
An individual person cannot go to congress and make a protest, you need to have your elected representative to do it on your behave.
Maybe you should watch CSpan a little more so that you have more facts and stop making stuff up and names calling to reply to the people to whom you disagree with.

Obviously you and I will never agree on anything.
You seem to have made up your mind that somehow you are, more intelligence, more experience, more pragmatic and better person than anyone in this forum who disagree with you.

I will let you continue being a moderator in the forum; it seems to be very important to you to make it clear, you are the alpha dog of the forum. I have otherthings to do.

[weshowe]

Also this 40%, 40%, 20% voters distribution, you just made up didn’t you?

Every serious student of politics in this country knows that rule of thumb.

As for the 2000 election results, it's sour grapes. The people that beleve that claptrap is true are in the 40% Democratic base already, it may help them "keep the faith" but it won't move the needle on the election. The malleable 20% were tired of it long ago.

[xavier]

The truth is that the people voted for the democrats and in one state thanks to a very dubious procedure, the electoral process was suspended to give Bush the electoral vote.

Someday you will stop letting the DNC do your thinking for you. Until then, it's entirely pointless arguing with a fanatic.

I will let you continue being a moderator in the forum; it seems to be very important to you.

Oh, *you* will let me? How magnanimous of you...

And my being a moderator has *what* to do with your inability to maintain a cohesive argument?

I have other more important things to do.

You wouldn't know it by the amount of time you've spent parroting the Democratic party line in here. The only reason I spend this amount of time trying to make you see reason is our builds take so friggin long...

[Zool]

I didn't say that it applied in that case. As I mentioned, it was clear to me (and apparently to others) that Al Gore didn't have a clue why he wanted to be President, other than "it's my turn to run".

That's pretty vague, the same could be said for Bush.
The way I see it, the voters identified with Bush. It worked much better for Clinton, a southerner coming from a conservative state.

The President's job is (a) to run the executive branch of the government (which means to *enforce* the laws, not *make* them -- that's a dictatorship)

You seem to assume that all democratic political systems work as in the USA, which is hardly the case.
There are many European countries where the winning party gets the majority of the parliament and the prime minister has the actual power to enforce the policies that he advocates, I wouldn't call them "dictatorships" though.
The nice side effect is that, due to the importance of which party gets elected, people focus on the real issues and the candidates are mostly busy trying to convince the people why their policies are better, too busy to talk about teen pregnancies and dance with their families on national BRAND NAME.

With the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if a tv show like "America's Next Top President" comes up.

I think one of the problems you're having with me (I know VictorMoran certainly has this problem) is that you might be trying to pigeonhole me into some label or other. I am not Democratic, nor am I Republican. I'm not conservative, nor am I liberal, progressive, or whatever other all-encompassing idealogy you might come up with. I'm me, I think for myself and form conclusions based on (a) the evidence and (b) my experience with and understanding of human nature and events.

What, you mean you don't get paid to advocate for Obama in the Ogre forums, like the rest of us ?

your political bent is rather obvious

I'd appreciate it if you followed your advice and didn't do the "pigeonhole" thing either.

Back on topic:
Initially I thought that the Republicans were toast. An old guy with health problems ?
Palin brought the fresh air that they needed, and the Democrats starting to utilize Obama's wife are signs of panicking.
Even if the Republicans loose, it won't be with the landslide that it was going to be.

EDIT:

We've let 8 years of Bush do a lot of damage to our relationships with the rest of the world, and IMO, an actual statesman is what we need right now.

The problem is that the average American doesn't give a crap about what is happening in the rest of the world.

[xavier]

The President's job is (a) to run the executive branch of the government (which means to *enforce* the laws, not *make* them -- that's a dictatorship)

You seem to assume that all democratic political systems work as in the USA, which is hardly the case.

Except that we are discussing the political and legal structure of the United States, not other countries, so I am not sure I see the relevance or introducing other political systems.

What, you mean you don't get paid to advocate for Obama in the Ogre forums, like the rest of us ?

Trust me, if I were a paid Obama operative, I'd be sticking with the campaign talking points.

Initially I thought that the Republicans were toast. An old guy with health problems ?
Palin brought the fresh air that they needed, and the Democrats starting to utilize Obama's wife are signs of panicking.
Even if the Republicans loose, it won't be with the landslide that it was going to be.

Blip on the radar. As I mentioned before, her novelty will wear off.

While we're talking about panic, can you otherwise explain why the McCain campaign suddenly has dispatched the highest-power operatives that they can find, to Alaska, to try to suppress thiis Troopergate thing until after the election?

The problem is that the average American doesn't give a crap about what is happening in the rest of the world.

Undoubtedly true. However, it's not the President's job to employ people or fix their mortgage problems. It's just too bad that the vast majority of the American voting public has been so thoroughly snookered into believing otherwise...

[Zool]

The problem is that the average American doesn't give a crap about what is happening in the rest of the world.

Undoubtedly true. However, it's not the President's job to employ people or fix their mortgage problems. It's just too bad that the vast majority of the American voting public has been so thoroughly snookered into believing otherwise...

Yeah but this is what can get Obama elected, not the reason that you will vote him for.

[xavier]

The problem is that the average American doesn't give a crap about what is happening in the rest of the world.

Undoubtedly true. However, it's not the President's job to employ people or fix their mortgage problems. It's just too bad that the vast majority of the American voting public has been so thoroughly snookered into believing otherwise...

Yeah but this is what can get Obama elected, not the reason that you will vote him for.

Everyone has their reasons.

At least hopefully enough people have an actual reason for which they are voting for one or the other, instead of basing their decisions on idealogy, demagoguery or even just 5-seconds sound bites. Unfortunately, it's the idealogy, demagoguery and 5-second sound bites (coupled with a distinct lack of critical thinking among a vast majority of the American voting public) that decides these things.

[Zool]

While we're talking about panic, can you otherwise explain why the McCain campaign suddenly has dispatched the highest-power operatives that they can find, to Alaska, to try to suppress thiis Troopergate thing until after the election?

That's piece of cake. "I was protecting my family!"
Throw in a talk about family values from "small town America" and you're good and ready.

[xavier]

While we're talking about panic, can you otherwise explain why the McCain campaign suddenly has dispatched the highest-power operatives that they can find, to Alaska, to try to suppress thiis Troopergate thing until after the election?

That's piece of cake. "I was protecting my family!"
Throw in a talk about family values from "small town America" and you're good and ready.

LOL

Problem is, this sudden concern comes from the McCain campaign, and not from Palin, who up until her announcement as VP candidate, professed herself entirely willing to cooperate (maybe it was because up to that point she pretty much had free run of the state and figured she could squash it if it became too real, but I digress).

On a related note, I find it amusing how now, in the wake of arguably disastrous unscripted interviews on "The View" and with Charles Gibson, suddenly no one can get a word out of the candidates themselves. Everything (including inquiries into the affairs in Palin's home state, Troopergate or otherwise) have to go through the campaign staff. I mean, it's normal for campaign handlers to have a high level of control over what the candidates do and say, but this is almost unprecedented. If their candidates are that close to being "loose cannons", do we really want them running the country? I've not seen this level of paranoia or control yet in the Obama campaign.

[VictorMoran]

It is not like the surrogates are helping much either.
No one can make this stuff up. She posted and answer in search of a question. What a blonder!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnBXXssj0KY
When you try to repiar a misstatement a you get deeper in the tar pit,
you begin to wonder when McCain will fallback to the safety of his General Petraeus message of war mongering or to his 5.5 years as POW.

[xavier]

It is not like the surrogates are helping much either.
No one can make this stuff up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnBXXssj0KY
What a blonder! When you try to repiar a misstatement a you get deeper in the tar pit,
you begin to wonder when McCain will fallback to the safety of his General Petraeus message of war mongering or to his 5.5 years as POW.

Ah yes, Carly Fiorina...I've never understood why he hired her as his economic adviser. This person ran HP basically into the ground, and got chased out of her job. *At the time* I couldn't believe that he put her on the campaign, and it's even more unbelievable that she is still there...as a result, I don't think I'd trust her word on who can and cannot run a corporation.

[warmi]

It is not like the surrogates are helping much either.
No one can make this stuff up. She posted and answer in search of a question. What a blonder!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnBXXssj0KY
When you try to repiar a misstatement a you get deeper in the tar pit,
you begin to wonder when McCain will fallback to the safety of his General Petraeus message of war mongering or to his 5.5 years as POW.

She was right.

What happens in congress in terms of budget shenanigans, would have been judged criminal if the same standards being applied to companies like Enron, were to be applied to them.

[syedhs]

Read this: Top Republican says Palin unready and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

[xavier]

Read this: Top Republican says Palin unready and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Bear in mind that Chuck Hagel may be a Republican, but he's mostly sided with Democrats his entire career, and in fact, has expressed that he would have taken the Obama VP spot if it were offered to him.

Not to say that what he says is in accurate, but you do need to understand something about who is saying it.

[syedhs]

Actually I do read the background info about him - and his point alone is the one I agree with. Okay maybe the title is a little misleading, but I paste it from BBC's.

[VictorMoran]

It gets better and better, pay attention to this lady here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPHbd7kt0Ws

All I am going to said is that Obama dodged a bullet in this one.
I will get back on this.

[xavier]

It gets better and better, pay attention to this lady here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPHbd7kt0Ws

All I am going to said is that Obama dodged a bullet in this one.
I will get back on this.

Rothschild is one of those Clinton crybabies who didn't get their way, and now they are throwing a tantrum any way they know how. These people have fostered such a sense of entitlement about the White House, for so long, that they can't see straight.

[VictorMoran]

Well I am going to reveal the story.
She was an ex Hillary Clinton supporter that cross over to the McCain camp, since then she had been paraded in FoxNews the entire week.
She keeps saying that she could never vote for that Obama guy because he is an elitistâ€

[xavier]

Heh, I wouldn't say the rednecks are bitter, they are loving life right now with one of their own on the ticket (see my comments above).

You have to wonder what cabinet post McCain promised her for this...

Like I said, though, Rothschild is one of those Clinton crybabies who still aren't over the 2000 election...and like Campbell said, this is her way of "getting even". I mean, this was "Hillary's turn", everyone told her so. So I guess they (Clinton supporters) feel bitter that Obama had the nerve to challenge Clinton's "turn". On a side note, I wonder when POTUS became a game of "it's my turn".

The person who is coming out smelling the best of all of this, oddly enough, is Hillary Clinton herself. She has showed much more character and poise in not only accepting the decision of her party to nominate someone else, she's actually out there campaigning for him. Hillary has actually risen quite a bit in my estimation over her handling of this. Her supporters ought to do likewise.

[Game_Ender]

The person who is coming out smelling the best of all of this, oddly enough, is Hillary Clinton herself. She has showed much more character and poise in not only accepting the decision of her party to nominate someone else, she's actually out there campaigning for him. Hillary has actually risen quite a bit in my estimation over her handling of this. Her supporters ought to do likewise.

She is supporting Obama because that is what any good Democrat soldier should be doing, not necessarily because she wants to. I would not be surprised if she is secretly rooting for McCain. After all in 2012 she can run the "I told you so campaign" for the nomination.

[xavier]

The person who is coming out smelling the best of all of this, oddly enough, is Hillary Clinton herself. She has showed much more character and poise in not only accepting the decision of her party to nominate someone else, she's actually out there campaigning for him. Hillary has actually risen quite a bit in my estimation over her handling of this. Her supporters ought to do likewise.

She is supporting Obama because that is what any good Democrat soldier should be doing, not necessarily because she wants to. I would not be surprised if she is secretly rooting for McCain. After all in 2012 she can run the "I told you so campaign" for the nomination.

True enough, but my point is, that sort of patience and control I hadn't expected of her. She certainly could have gone all Al Gore on us and cried about how unfair it all was until we all stopped listening. I just wish her supporters would take her lead, is all.