Hey y'all. Sorry to get political on you again. First, check out this video:
It's embarrassing to see as an American. I think both die-hard democrats and die-hard republicans are guilty of treating politics like a sport's league. You see, in sports, at some point in your life you choose a team that you connect with, a team that you love, and you support that team. And even when your team is 1-14, you still love them and root for them. Politics should not be like that. In politics, when the 2007 New England Patriots play the 2007 Miami Dolphins...you root for the Patriots even if you are born and raised in Miami. Because that's the right thing to do, isn't it? We're responsible for putting the most qualified candidates in office, right? And what boggles my mind is that we see Americans treating Palin like a sports team. They've got the t-shirt. They watch the debates with popcorn and coke. And if you say anything bad about Palin, they get angry and yell at you. "Don't talk about our quarterback like that!!" I see republicans who support Palin for the simple fact that she is on the republican ticket...just because she is a player on their favorite "team." Well, this isn't a sport we're dealing with people. Grow up and realize that this is the presidency of our Nation we are dealing with and not a high school football rivalry. Please understand what you are doing by voting for her. Please be honest with yourself about her lack of qualification. Don't you want a VP or potential president who is well-spoken, very intelligent, stately, and who has a very thorough knowledge of the Constitution?
8 comments:
Agreed. As somebody who has consistently voted for candidates from more than one political party, this post certainly rings true. I know very few people who can give a "legitimate" reason for supporting Palin except that she is "Republican" or "conservative." I may root for the Patriots, but I could never support them in trying to acquire Pacman Jones, for example. I would not root for that guy regardless of his team. And although many of my friends and associates are Republicans, I still fail to see how they can support Sarah Palin for office. And now that I have somehow compared Sarah Palin to Pacman Jones, I will stop ranting. See you at basketball tonight!
:: Nick
I don't really see how you can write that, without saying the exact same thing about Obama, only he actually IS running for president. She may be "folksy" as they like to call her, and a bit unpolished, but it's hard to say he is even the slightest bit qualified to be in the oval office...don't you think? She must have some brains and ability to be an executive of a state, and while running a state have the highest approval ratings of any gov. in the country. Even if you flat out don't like the lady, which I understand many don't, Obama's distribution of wealth philosophy, coupled with the fact that in all likelihood he (the MOST liberal senator in the US Senate in '07) will be appointing at least 2 new judges to the supreme court...THAT is scary. I can't imagine a country led by Pelosi, Reid, AND Obama... So if anything, if it comes down to the lesser of two evils, the answer seems clear to me...
(Said in a completely calm and friendly tone) = )
I admit we weren't given much to work with in this election (sigh...Romney.) but seriously Danny? Look what the gov't has done to medicare and medicaid. Do you really want our healthcare system run by the Feds too? And what about your 401k? Would you like to be required to give 3% of that to the gov't? Obama says he will give a tax break to 95%...well 40% don't even pay taxes, so rewarding people for doing NOTHING seems a bit unfair, as does increasing taxes on the better off, who already pay I think 70% of our taxes as it is. Not to mention small businesses...any small business with at least 4 employees makes $250k i guarantee, how else could they have a payroll and pay their workers? Your taxes owed aren't determined by the bottom line either, it's according to your revenues...so Obama's tax plans are severely going to cripple small businesses in an already frail economy. Again, you may think Palin (the VP candidate I am reminding you) is unqualified or whatever, but look at Obama...which would be worse?
Wow, sorry this was so long! As blog owner you can delete my comments haha.sorry.
For all the concern about "the government" doing a poor job of running things, we often forget what a poor job corporations do as well. A poorly managed system with regulations is no worse that a well "managed" system without regulations. Leaving our health care, for example, in private hands has put millions of people (my wife and I have experienced this firsthand) in a situation where they have no viable way of obtaining coverage. Last year my wife was hospitalized, and the initial bill was $9000. When they found out she didn't have insurance, they merely reduced the bill to $800 to cover the costs of the services.
And I'm sorry, but attempts to compare Obama and Palin in terms of experience are weak at best. Let's take a quick glance at their paths:
Obama spent three years as community organizer, was the first black president of Harvard Law Review, created a voter registration drive that registered 150,000 new voters, spent 12 years as constitutional law professor, spent eight years as state senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, was chairman of the state Senate's health and human services committee, spent four years in the U.S. Senate representing a state of 13 million people, sponsored 131 bills, and has served on the foreign affairs, environment and public works and veteran's affairs committees.
Palin spent four years on the city council in a town of less than 7,000 people and then six years as the mayor, then spent twenty months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people. Unless we begin to add in moments like serving on the PTA or working as an anchorwoman, that is where her experience ends.
I know a lot of people who support Palin, but using "executive experience" as an argument just doesn't cut it. And what little experience she does have has already been jeopardized by serious ethical questions.
This was also written in a completely calm and friendly tone, especially because I don't know you at all, but am sure that you are a totally awesome person if you visit Danny's blog! ;)
Hah, I love how Danny’s blog has turned into a forumn for political deliberation ; ) Forgive me, but I still fail to see the merit in Obama’s past, like how his time as a community organizer has prepared him to be president, unless you’re referring to his affiliation with ACORN and his past tinged with voter fraud. Because yes, that seems to have come in handy with voter registration in this election. To quote Michelle malkin, “What deserves derision is “community organizing” that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people to vote, shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.” I really have to wonder about those 150,000 new voters…I wonder how many of their names were “Mickey Mouse” or “Pluto”.
His time on the Harvard Law Review…well that’s great, but if he’s so interested in law review how is it that he did not produce a single work of legal scholarship while he was a young law professor (teaching RIGHTS, RACE AND GENDER, mind you.).
Next, State Senator…with 8 years representing Chicago, and with all of his “skill”, you’d think he would have cleaned the place up, rather than leaving it with one of the highest murder rates in the country. 4 years in the Senate? More like 2…he’s been campaigning for president the last 2 years. It all sounds good on paper, but I can’t see the true, executive experience needed to run the country.
Even Joe Biden didn’t think he was ready to be commander in chief. Speaking of Biden, just days ago he warned about a potential crisis if Obama becomes POTUS. Doesn’t that scare you that Biden felt the need to alert our nation to a very real threat to our national security -- the prospect of a totally inexperienced and untested Barack Obama up against Iranian leaders? It scares me. History has a way of repeating itself, and look what happened when Carter was president. Iran perceived him as “weak”, and they seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held over 50 US diplomats hostage for over a year I think...and that was in the late ‘70’s! I imagine the scenario will be a bit different when Iran becomes nuclear. The hostages weren’t released until Reagan was Pres.
But back to Danny’s original inquiry, “Don't you want a VP or potential president who is well-spoken, very intelligent, stately, and who has a very thorough knowledge of the Constitution?” I do Danny, which is precisely why I would not want Biden in that seat. Sure he has a lot of experience in Foreign Affairs (never mind the fact that he’s been wrong more times than not), but how could you say he is stately and well-spoken? He has made so many gaffes I can hardly remember them all…Let’s see: Saying FDR got on the TV when the stock market crashed (Hoover was pres. when the market crashed, and tv wasn’t invented until 10 years later), “Hilary Clinton is more qualified to be VP than me, let’s get that straight”, "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking.", saying Obama was the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking…the list could go on and on. Moreover, Biden himself said the role of VP is to advise the president. Who better to ADVISE the pres. on matters important to regular Americans, than Palin, who was one? P.S. I looked it up, and even on the Senate website it says about the Vice President, “is the least understood, most ridiculed, and most often ignored constitutional office in the federal government.” I really doubt Palin is going to be able to ruin the country as VP. Again, the real competition here is between McCain and Obama, and the choice is a no-brainer…or so I thought. I gtg, but I’ll check back in a few days to see if yall have come to your senses. = )
Sorry, but my addiction to political discussion this election season won’t allow me to sit back without responding. I think these discussions are important, and it is important to understand the decision we face. Obviously I disagree with your comments, and here are a few reasons why:
I agree with your assertion that this is ultimately a race between Barack Obama and John McCain, but that doesn’t eliminate the selection of a vice presidential candidate as irrelevant. If you look at the process by which both running mates were selected, you can see clear differences in the processes by which both candidate addressed a major decision. Obama conducted a thorough vetting process, weighed multiple options, and met with Joe Biden multiple times prior to offering him the position. McCain, on the other hand, made a last-minute decision in which he selected a running mate he knew nothing about. He was more concerned with preserving his “maverick” label than anything else.
And you are correct in pointing out that Danny is arguing for an articulate, intelligent vice president. To some extent, neither option fits the bill entirely. But Danny also argues for a candidate with a strong knowledge of the constitution, a claim which certainly favors Biden over Palin (despite your vague claim that he is “wrong” more times than he is “right”). And Biden’s gaffes are not inarticulate, they are just poorly thought out. The man needs to learn from what Barack Obama does so well: think for a moment before you speak. With Biden, however, we can at least look back at his senate record and realize that despite his public speaking issues, he has a real understanding of legislation and the world around him. Not to mention a stronger history of bipartisanship than either McCain or Obama. With Sarah Palin, we don’t have that option. In fact, the concern with Palin isn’t that she doesn’t know the answer to a question, but that she doesn’t understand the questions themselves.
Ultimately, this reflects back on the judgment of John McCain and his decision-making process. So when you assert that there is a “no-brainer” choice at the top of the ticket, I completely agree. John McCain would be a “brainless” decision. The better option (though certainly not flawless) is Barack Obama.
Let’s look at a few more points:
You claim that you don’t see the merits of Obama’s past experience. I will take that as an acknowledgment that his record is not paper thin, but that you simply see it as irrelevant as a presidential candidate. Part of the problem, of course, is that you make a number of false claims which have been spread by conservative pundits and John McCain’s recent robocall campaign. Obama’s “community organizing” efforts included a significant amount of legal work, and he worked on behalf of a large coalition of groups that included ACORN, but also included groups such as the Department of Justice and others. He never actually worked for ACORN. And his work for Project Vote, which was a non-partisan effort to increase voter registration, took place two years prior to any affiliation between the two groups. He was never involved in the voter registration scandals that have recently made the news, just as John McCain was not involved in a variety of right-wing voter registration scandals which have been reported lately. Let’s be honest: there are whackos on the far left and the far right, and attempts to pin either candidate to these nut-jobs seems pretty desperate.
Your second point about legal scholarship is equally lame. First of all, I should clarify that he was not a fully-tenured professor, and was not actively seeking tenure. I know of very few non-tenured faculty members—at a number of academic institutions—who are deeply concerned with scholarly publication. Believe it or not, there are actually professors out there who teach and don’t publish. And I have to ask myself why you put “race, rights, and gender” in all capital letters, as if that is not a legitimate field of study. Much contemporary legal scholarship is dealing with exactly those issues, and it makes complete sense that a young man who was fascinated by the civil rights movement to gravitate towards them. As much as we want to ignore the world around us, there are still serious issues in our country that require us to look at questions of race, individual and collective rights, and gender.
And your claim that eight years in the state senate should have miraculously resulted in the “cleaning up” of a major U.S. city is frankly quite asinine. Have the issues affecting Arizonians disappeared in the umpteen years that McCain has been working in the senate? There are hundreds of exceptional legislators at the state and national level that have not managed to “clean up” this mess of a country, or even their own states/districts. And if you actually look at what he did accomplish, the list is pretty significant. He passed a major ethics reform bill in a city with no history of ethical politics, worked on a state version of the earned income credit, and passed reform laws related to gun control—just to name a few things. If you are upset because he didn’t stop all the murders in a major U.S. city, I can’t help you there. Maybe murder rates have some relationship to urban environments and can’t somehow be magically legislated away. But perhaps I’m wrong on that. Let me know.
Regarding your claim that Obama has really spent only two years in the U.S. Senate, I will agree with you. I despise the amount of time that our politicians spend campaigning, but that is an issue that extends across the aisle. Yet if you are looking for “true, executive experience” then you have to take the campaigns into account. There are few experiences more “executive” than running a major political campaign, and Obama has topped the charts in that regard. McCain has repeatedly demonstrated his incompetence when it comes to organizing and orchestrating his campaign—to the point that he has angered a number of conservatives along the way. He has no clear message, has organized not ground game, has a poor grasp of the electoral map, and has resorted to fear-mongering in his final days. On the flip side, Obama derailed the mighty Clinton political machine in the primaries, has harnessed the power of the internet, has smashed fundraising records, and stayed on message throughout the campaign. If you want “executive experience,” and not just legislative experience, then you end up making an even stronger case for Obama. Frankly, on this one point I think Carly Fiorina was right.
On your final point, there isn’t much to say. You criticize Biden, when Palin still doesn’t even understand the role of the office she seeks. And your final argument is sad, because it represents everything that is wrong with the McCain/Palin ticket. You ask who is better to advise the president than a “regular American,” as if that even exists. Palin has repeatedly made the false claims that there is such a thing as a “regular” American, a “real” American, or “pro-American” portions of our country. Her claims obviously demonstrate the conservative bias that being American and patriotic means living in a small town, being anti-intellectual, and (dare I say it) “white.” America is not any one thing, and certainly can’t be defined by “Joe Six-Pack” and “Joe the Plumber.” We are a diverse nation that has always been divided on issues of government involvement, individual and collective freedoms, capitalism, and our role on the global stage. We are urban centers and small communities, black and white, religious and secular, rich and poor; and none of those categories is any more “real” than another.
My apologies for the mini-essay. I apparently have nothing better to do at the moment…
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this comment are not the views of Danny Amacher, lest he be confused with his crazy liberal friend. ;)
oh come on dan! you are getting me riled up. i think the "news" announcer is the one guilty of treating this like a sports team, criticzing a bad play. The way he twists what she says is sickening, i thought she gave a great answer, one appropriate for the questioner. now we are stuck with obama and our nation will likely implode.
a GREAT answer?? She clearly has zero knowledge of the Constitution! And this is the woman you support?? Obama is brilliant, compassionate, not quick to anger, and by the way, brilliant...and you fear HIM? Just because he is "Liberal" doesn't mean he is satan. Give me a break. I know many temple worthy Mormons who are democratic "liberals," I guess they are evil. Better tell their Bishop.
I'm the ward mission leader in my ward. I spend a lot of time with people who are poor, uneducated, and have no hope to ever achieve anything more than what they have. These people will never travel to interesting places, will never eat wonderful food at nice restaurants, they will never have a nice house, they will never have the cultural and educational opportunities that we have. Their only hope is to work more jobs so that maybe they can save a little money. And yet all I hear are well-off white christian people whining about what will happen to their stupid 401ks because they want to retire and play golf all day at 55 instead of 60.
I may not agree with everything Obama thinks, but to talk about him like he is some horrible person, some degenerate out to ruin us all....THAT is sickening!! I hear that crap and all I think of are those wonderful people who have no hope for bettering their situation.
Post a Comment