I'll admit I tend to vote Democrat, but I think I'm a pretty open-minded guy, having swung first to the far left in high-school (a self-declared socialist) to the far right in college (a self-declared neo-conservative) and then having settled in the "moderate liberal" category. While I prefer Obama over McCain, I can understand why people would vote for McCain.

What I can't understand, though, is why the Republican Party chose Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. She's the least-experienced person I've ever seen run for the Oval Office, so it takes away the "Obama is inexperienced" argument, which is one of the better bullets the Republicans had in their arsenal. Her views don't coincide with McCain's own, from drilling in the National Artic Wildlife Refuge (she says yes, McCain says no) to taking military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan (same). She's an abysmal public speaker, worse than Dubya.

So how do the Republicans or conservative-minded folks here think about her? Are you disappointed, or do you see some virtues in her that I'm missing? If so, what?

Some samples of her responses to questions:



McCain appears embarrassed by her answers:



Palin's plans to save the economy:



Palin can't name a single newspaper or magazine she has regularly read:

The Vice Presidential debate is going to be interesting tonight. A big part of me is betting on her bombing it with hilarious/embarrassing results but I have to admit that when she keeps things general she sounds OK and the Republicans may have done a really good job of lowering expectations for her.

After all the Republican decisions from the past eight years you honestly think they thought about Palin in great depth before they nominated her?

They couldn't have known much about her, since she has been a constant source of embarrassment and negative press for the party...on paper I admit she looks good, a working mom of five from a blue collar family, livin' on the last American frontier...but under a microscope she embodies all of the traits which I have come to understand the American public is sick of.

This is from the perspective of a liberal Canadian, so take my opinion for what you will.

She looks like my mother-in-law.

I'm not eloquent enough to express my opinion about politics.

Your mother-in-law has nice glasses, then.

I don't know why the Republican party thinks having her as the VP candidate is in any way a good idea. She is everything that this country is sick and tired of and everything this country needs to change or get away from. On top of that - I don't see why they would choose Palin, who would be a terrible president if the presidential candidate was killed, died, impeached, etc... I can't imagine that any Republican in the United States would HONESTLY think she would make a decent president if McCain croaks (which I actually think is entirely possible given his age and not-so-great health history).

Not to mention the fact she can't speak well and is terrible at answering and avoiding questions.

I really want to like Palin. I really do. She is making it so hard for me though. I have no patience for extremists in politics, and to say Palin is anything but is idiotic.

I have yet to run into any really avid McCain supporters, but talk to people who LOVE Obama on a daily basis. Now I know I, as a college student majoring in journalism, I roll with a pretty liberal crowd, but this is Arizona for craps sake! Where is the McCain love?

I am looking forward to the debate though. I know nothing about Biden except that "He has foreign policy experience."

Every time they say governor or senator drink one. Every time they say economy drink two!

...Palin believes that humans and dinosaurs were alive at the same time and that creationism should be mandatory in public school science classes. I can understand some of her other views, I can wrap my head around a lot of her politics, even though I may not agree with them, but that is just...just madness. How can someone be a governor of a state, even a very remote state with a low population, and actually believe that? Or at the very least think it's a good idea for people to think she believes that?

I was really expecting the Republican Party to ask Condi Rice to be VP. While I don't agree with her views on everything, I think it's hard to deny that she's intelligent and experienced. She's probably the one person in the Bush administration I still have respect for after 8 years.

Maybe it's just my bias toward neoconservatism over traditional conservatism that makes me find Rice (or someone like her) so much more palatable than Palin as McCain's back-up?

The more important question is if she believes in the power of the Raptor Jesus.

Haha, I'm just waiting to see if anyone other than me is a conservative on this forum. Or even willing to admit it.

And I do like Palin, I like having both a mother in office and someone who is willing to cut government jobs (an impossibility for anyone who has a will to live). Additionally, she demonstrates a 6th grade level of understanding of economics, whereas the other 3 candidates are still operating at a pre-school level. I'm not going to get into it, because knowing the political bias on this forum will save me time and energy to yell at the TV and radio talking about the bailout.

Hope that answers your question.

And as far as Rice goes, I believe her political career is at a close (I think she would've been good too). Her real dream job (no joke) is to be the NFL commissioner. I have no doubt she'd do a great job.

Disclaimer: Raptor Jesus is sacrilegious. Long live His Noodly Appendage.


Amateur.

C-SPAN drinking game: To be played during a senate vote, preferably a fairly partisan issue (to go easy on the ladies.) Divide room into "Yea" and "Nay". It's pretty self explanatory from there.

The last time people voted for the guy they would have had a beer with. That worked out well for everyone.

Hell, this time they're voting for someone who had military experience 30 years ago or for someone who looks good and speaks well.

Both candidates suck large quantities of balls, in my opinion. And the best part of this whole thing is that NO MATTER WHO gets the presidency, half of the country will be pissed off and upset. Welcome to modern politics.

“Every generation needs a new revolution.”
- Thomas Jefferson

I'm willing to admit I'm a conservative but the Republican party has gone too soft so now I'm a 3rd party voter (Libertarian). I've been throwing votes away for the past 2 election cycles.

Hard to believe there are two of us on one forum. Glad to know it.

I can vote this time.

My suggestion:



That goes for everyone.

I actually can't wait for tonight's debate. Unless she did something insane and get lectured by the worlds top debaters and whatever-fact-givers, she is going to get owned by Biden. Have you heard that guy get angry? Geez.

I mean seriously- Palin literally got her passport last year. Biden has a seemingly endless list of foreign presidents he has spoken with. I feel that Palin... has that 'american stereotype' to her. It's like... "of course i've been outside of the country and traveled... to Mexico and Canada".

Just imagine- Mccain suffers some catastrophic heart attack and Palin becomes (actual) President. This would be straight out of a Disney Channel- just like Air Bud becomes a basketball player, a star football qb, plays soccer- etc. Except this time, Air Bud would be president of the united states, and Disney channel would have nothing to do with it. Ugh.

I think Razor's a conservative as well, and like I said, if you'd asked me five years ago, I would have self-categorized myself as a neoconservative.



But she can see Russia from Alaska! She said so!



Been watching Matt Damon interviews much?

It's difficult to argue with such a scholar and renowned actuarial authority as Matt Damon. And I would have a very difficult time classifying neo-conservatism with the libertarian conservatism, but maybe that's just my own bias.

I am very entertained with people who complain about Palin, so please continue.

The Libertarian party platform has interesting ideals at their core but in the end they're as hypocritical and partisan as anyone else.

Supposedly they have a hands-off approach to people's lives. Let them keep their money, their land, and their rights. Let's reduce government interference in day to day living and make the government only provide the basic skeleton of justice and order so that a private system may flourish.

Alright, cool ideas. Here's the reality:

-They love guns
-They oppose gay rights (though they do oppose the federal marriage amedment on the grounds that it is against states' rights)
-They're against the legalization of marijuana
-They despise welfare and taxation

Let's face it, the bulk of the Libertarian party is nothing more than a group of ultra-conservatives. What Libertarians don't understand is that having a hands-off approach to peoples' lives is NOT the same thing as ensuring any form of fairness or equality. It's like the myth of the free market expanded to social issues...there's no such thing as a free market, people. Deregulation of the market (first of all, we know it doesn't work from experience in the last couple decades: see Enron, banking, etc.) is nothing more than yet another policy toward how things are done. No policy IS a policy and it benefits a certain segment of the population, aka, the haves. The have-nots are fucked by mob rule which is, at its core, what Libertarianism in the US is.

I say all this because for several years I identified myself as a Libertarian. I was heavily swayed by their politics and ideologies. Then I started investigating their issues more deeply and I found their entire foundation DEEPLY flawed.

EDIT: Another part of the problem with libertarianism is that they don't seem to have a very strongly anchored party platform which makes each and every libertarian potentially hit or miss. Unlike democrats and republicans, who are reasonably consistent on their core issues, libertarians might construe their basic ideologies to mean all sorts of whacky things, which makes them a scary prospect to put in office, especially in an office with power of appointment.

Make it three.



How'd you ever guess? I may be the only registered 18-year-old Republican voter in Massachusetts.

Do you have a source for this information or are you just being contradictory?

The gun thing is a plus. If I need to clarify that further we can do it through private messages.
No they don't
No they aren't
I'm on board.

EDITED

Don't get me started about actors who think it's their job to tell us what to think about international policy...



Here's what I mean with the two terms. When I say "traditional conservative," I mean someone who is socially conservative (particularly on religion, abortion, gay rights, and gun control), economically conservative, and focuses on US self-interest in international affairs. The real focus of traditional conservatives, as I use the term, is the social and economic fronts. When I say "neoconservative," I mean someone who doesn't emphasize social conservatism (or may not even be conservative socially), and really focuses on international affairs, and when doing so, focuses on spreading democracy more than immediate US self-interest.

Havent actually seen the matt damon interview. Did matt damon say something I did?

I'm going pretty heavily based on what Bob Barr, their current candidate, has said and the issues he has historically supported. Now, you may argue that he doesn't represent libertarians at large, but then that's why I threw in the edit at the bottom of my post about the incosistency of libertarian policy stands.

As for the "they love guns" comment, that was to equate them to the conservative side of things, not to make any value judgment on whether guns are good or bad. Personally I support gun ownership, albeit with reasonable regulation.

There's even a spoof movie trailer about it. It's pretty good.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831461

+1
+1
+1
+1

Clark, the majority of Libertarians will tell you that "gay rights" mean that the government is defining what rights are and that the very nature of that is wrong on behalf of the government. And the vast, overwhelming majority of libertarians I've met believe that the war on drugs is asinine. There is a good bit of consistency on that.

Libertarians want the government to not dictate how you live your life. I can get behind that. Calling it hypocritical is ridiculous - that's just one person who doesn't follow the party (we've never had a candidate that has been anything special anyway). And I'm very lost as to how you can call it partisan. I'm just confused on that.

...do you honestly believe that civil rights can be guaranteed without the government there to iterate and enforce them??



I'm stating that because their issues align heavily with lots of the republican side of things. In the same way that the green party is full of democrats who are sick of the democratic party, the libertarian party is full of republicans who are sick of the republican party.

Wait .. no one has started a debate between pro choice and pro life. Those are always fun.

...I don't hold a particularly strong stand on abortion. I'm a bit confused at how it became one of the biggest social issues our country has ever seen for such a long period of time and continues to hold such sway over our political discussions.

Its because babies look cute. And pro lifers get this fussy feeling inside when they save a life but ruin the lifes of 5 other people in the process. Thats all fine and dandy. Oh and for some reason abortions are bad but death penalty and collateral damage in wars of terror are fine.

Also, cute puppy.

I don't know how to phrase any of the things I'm thinking. I've re-written this response 50 times and don't feel great about any of them.
My stance is as follows:
- The two-party system isn't working
- My rights end where yours begin.
- The less government in my life the better

The "us vs. them" mentality of Democrats and Republicans is truly tearing apart America from the inside.
If you want to smoke marijuana that's up to you. If you steal my lawnmower to afford your next ounce then you've gone too far.
The erosion of personal liberty didn't really happen overnight. Slowly over the past 200+ years the American people have allowed small intrusions from the government into their lives and we're where we are now.

Ok, if we're going all-out political, here's my stand. Keep in mind that I'm a conservative because the issues I'm conservative about happen to be those that I care about most.

Abortion: I'm pro-choice. Babies born into bad situations are worse than babies not born at all.

Guns: I support the right to bear arms. People should be able to defend themselves and their property. And yes, I'm an NRA member.

Marijuana: I hate it, but economically it seems like a sound thing to do, and at least little douchebags who do think it's cool will think less-so if you can buy it at CVS. Other people can plague themselves with it, but I won't.

Death Penalty: First degree murderers, child molesters and rapists have given up their right to live on the face of this planet, in my opinion, although proof should definitely be concrete before any action is taken.

Gay/Lesbian Rights: Hey, I live in Massachusetts. My state just became East Coast Gay Marriage Central. I have nothing against gays and really nothing against their civil rights. And no, I'm not just saying that because I'm on here.

Illegal Immigration: They can do the dirty work, but when they start taking advantage of things that aren't theirs (public school, hospitals, etc), I start to get pissed off.

Welfare: Communism. I don't work to pay the person that doesn't. Taxation is necessary, just not to give some lazy shitbag drug-money.

Universal Healthcare: Fine in certain cases, although smokers shouldn't get anything at all. Ever. They'll sealed their own fate. Let it work itself out. If they can pay, fine. If they can't, they can die.

...yeah.

EDIT: Whoops, forgot one...

Free Speech: I can tolerate what the press does... (yes, both sides) but when American citizens start burning flags and yelling "Fuck America," I can't help but think that they should be revoked of their passport and deported. Just an opinion, though, like the rest of all this.

I'm going to nitpick what I'm putting in the quotes here, and what I'm leaving out I consider perfectly reasonable:


That's where the haves vs. have-nots issue crops up for me. You're right, we all have limited rights as citizens. To state that is pretty obvious. To state that as a negative is selfish. To remove such limits is to invite a "rights grab", and whoever has the most power/influence/money/whatever is in the position to get more rights and have less limits. Which in turn allows them to have more power, which in turn gets them more rights and less limits and so on. What you end up with is a system that inherently subjugates the weak and/or minorities. That's uncontrolled democracy, NOT reasonable republicanism (and I mean the political systems, not the political parties).


I'm wondering if you've really thought that one through. Roads and highways, schools, the post office, prisons and law enforcement, regulations against monopolies, environmental protections, due process of law, emergency services and hospitals...have you really considered the effects of these things disappearing, becoming unregulated, or becoming privatized? It's a damned scary thought to lose control over those services and sectors. While it may seem like we, as individuals, don't have much influence over these programs through our own government, the fact of the matter is that we'd be bound to have even less if we had "less government".


Those are called laws. Currently the law states you can't smoke marijuana and you can't steal someone's lawnmower. Maybe in the future it could be changed so that you can smoke marijuana, but we'll probably still all agree that you can't steal someone's lawnmower. In either case, the government is in place to enact those laws, interpret those laws, and enforce those interpretations. Michael Badnarik (who I honestly respect quite a bit) has made the point that the government's one duty is to make sure there is an environment for justice to be consistently applied. So basically what you've just said is that you support our government, unless you honestly think that you standing on the porch with a .44 magnum is more effective than law enforcement. Because I can tell ya, that works pretty good if you catch the guy in the act (supposing you're not worried about the cost of human life inflicted), but if he gets away with it you're out of options. Vigilante justice doesn't really work on a wide scale, in other words...


The erosion of personal liberty is from the viewpoint of the white, priveleged, land-owning male, and only the white, priveleged, land-owning male. From the viewpoint of racial minorities, non-property owners, the impoverished and struggling, women, and so on, personal liberty has increased greatly. It is not an erosion of personal liberties that has taken place in the last 200 years, it is a rebalancing that has taken place under the greater understanding of equality.

Now, that's everything that's happened under "political correctness". The Patriot Act sorta stuff, where there's lots of information about us being collected that really shouldn't be, is not something I'm for.

Are you doing anything wrong? Ok, then don't worry about it. Why do you let the doctor check you for testicular cancer if you won't let the government collect information to keep you safe?

Biden has a long history of saying dumb shit... I think tonight will be a competition of who will step in a smaller pile of shit. I am very interested to hear their opinions on this bailout plan.

What pisses me off is that our economy is at complete shit and neither one of them is offering solutions. What's worse McCain knows very little about economics (he admitted that himself) and I doubt that Palin is any different. Not to say that Biden or Obama are experts in economy.

Can someone explain to me what is so bad about universal health care vs allowing for profit companies try to compete. And I don't want to hear the same old excuse "oh the government will fuck that up," the government has a pretty good track record with the military, why would they drop the ball on the healthcare?

...that's a stupid line of reasoning. First of all, when my doctor palpates my balls it's 100% confidential, whereas the government's looking for information so they can get warrants, prosecute, etc. My doctor could find cocaine duct-taped to my balls and he couldn't have me arrested for it, so your analogy doesn't even really make sense. Second of all, giving the government the right to search anyone and everyone by so many means goes against one of our countries founding virtues (innocect until proven guilty) and is, on a practical level, a HUGE waste of taxpayer resources. If you've got to keep tabs on 300 million americans to track down a half-a-dozen potential terrorists...well, it costs a certain amount of money to keep tab on each and every american. You want to talk about irresponsible spending, that's a big one right there.

And while I may be a frothing liberal in many respects, I support moderate government spending when at all possible. It's just that I'm a realist about what the government does better than private corporations (also, let's face it, you're not saving much money by privatizing things, all you're doing is shifting what you spend away from the government and giving it to private entities, the majority of which are for-profit).

The idea of forefiting rights because "you don't have anything to hide" is so against the fundamentals that this country was founded on, that it makes me want to dig up our founding fathers' bones and stab you to death with them. Fuck you.

I agree that the spending could be better allocated (energy grid would be an infinitely better choice of where the money goes, almost anything but to welfare works for me) and your previous comment makes more sense to me now that you bring up the financial side of things. Still, from the social side of things, I don't see why you're worried about warrants and prosecutions if you're not breaking any laws. I know I'm not, so I don't mind.

Dr. Strangelove said it way better than I ever could.

The day some government agent comes knocking on my door to search my place or arrest me, I'll come sobbing, bawling, and bitching and agree with you. I've said what I needed to say. I'm done with this thread now.

Are you serious? The modern computer systems are able to process insane amount of information... all of your phone conversation analyzed... if you don't trust the government with the health care, are you going to trust them to determine what is right and wrong? fuck that.

Look up "COINTELPRO." My uncle had a file. So did my grandfather. Both were law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, etc etc etc.

Each of the points at the bottom of my previous post were supposed to correspond to the bulleted ones above. I'm not good at writing coherently.




I'm not sure where you're going with this. The point I was trying to make that as long as what I'm doing isn't infringing on somebody else's rights then I should be free to do it. Gay marriage being an example. Outside of the 2 involved parties who's rights is it encroaching? Even polygamy. If you think you can handle multiple spouses, by all means have at it. How is it infringing on my rights?




I've actually given it quite a bit of thought. I don't know if this is the case but I pay tax on my truck every year when I renew the license plates. I also pay a decent amount of tax through fuel purchases. I think this falls into what is called a 'use tax' I'm using the system and I'm paying for it. Those funds should be available for the road system (maintenance, traffic code enforcement, etc). I'm getting ripped off with the school system. I pay a property tax every year but I don't have any kids. I should get my money back. There's no fairness in me paying for a service I don't receive is there?



I think that's about as much authority as the government has. Passing, interpreting, and enforcing laws. All 3 branches are covered right there yet the government has grown so unbelievably large and all encompassing. I don't see any problem with being able to protect my hard earned property with physical force (the state of Alabama does however). The stolen lawnmower definitely falls within the realm of the government's role.





As a white land-owning male I have no other perspective. Obviously desegregation and women's suffrage have been great steps forward. However, affirmative action is idiotic.




I don't know if anything I've said is coherent. I apologize. I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words. Also be offline until next Tuesday or Wednesday so if you roast my balls you'll have to wait until then for my poorly phrased reply.

I'll address fiber optic's post later because I gotta go.

But I watched the debate...I think they both did a pretty good job. My feeling was that Palin was focusing more on talking points and was keeping things a little more general ("we have to fix things!" instead of "here's how we fix things!") though they were both toeing the party line pretty strongly and neither were offering massive amounts of policy how-to details.

Overall I give Biden's performance a B+, Palin's a B-.

If folks are going to talk about policy in general, could a moderator spin off a separate thread about this, so that this thread can be about Palin (and the VPs in general)?

Palin was a lot more polished. What really bothered me, though, is whereas she didn't answer some of Katie Couric's questions in a fumbling way, at the debate, she refused to answer certain questions in a very polished way. Missing the question is not as offensive to me as refusing to answer it.

I was also surprised that she was hammering Obama for initially supporting the war, considering that most people who initially supported it but now oppose it (myself included) did so because we believed bad intelligence from the current administration. Not because we're spineless or something like that. Because we were lied to and we only found out about it later.

Biden may have come off as a cocky, arrogant Washington insider, but he didn't hesitate to give specific answers to the questions he was asked, and I personally liked the substance of his answers.

Palin stood up to a Washington regular alot better than I predicted. I dont particularly care for her folksy gee golly attitude. This is not Alaska, this is the entire United States, and you will be representing us if elected. Please do so in a way that does not make me feel like were about to elect another redneck.

Biden had more direct answers to questions, leading me to believe he was not only prepared, but had thorough understanding of the questions, and the issues themselves. He also knew Mccains record better than Palin ( or so it seemed). Know thy enemies...

Overall, im leaning in a Obama direction, since i find most of his policies less offensive than Mccains. This debate didnt really shore anything up for me. I didnt feel like i learned that much about the two adversaries plans for their perspective terms in office.

Honestly, I was pretty impressed with Palin tonight. Did you see the look on Biden's face when she reminded him of his comment that Obama isn't ready to lead the country? Priceless.

Didn't learn anything, but it wasn't the 'last nail in the coffin' I was expecting from Palin. I thought I was going to go to bed tonight convinced I was going to vote for Obama, but I am still on the verge. I guess thats something.