Palin sinking like a rock?

[ruffryder]

Liberals sure have turned out to be a bunch of sexist, sickening.

I find it interesting that Liberals get blamed with the sexist card, when they half were going to vote for Hilary for president, yet republicans don't get it, when they seem to think the only reason McCain chose Palin was because she is a woman?

Does that not seem contradictory?

 

[Sturgis Sledder]

DING DING DING!! Nobama has no great achievements or qualifications for the job. The minute that guy got elected Sentor, he started his bid for the White House. If I was from IL, I would fell betrayed that the person elected for the Senate is not even doing his job representing his own state.

Here's some of Obama's achievements from one of his campaign reps.

 

[Superjag]

Ok, normally I try and stay out of the political threads, since my personal experience is that most people have already made up their mind in terms of what "side" they are on, and any "discussion" is mostly just a big back and forth of why my side is better than yours, blah, blah... About as productive as kicking each other in the n*ts, but not as much fun.

Also, just for some background, I'm not really on one "side" or the other. I tend to vote by candidate, not by party. As evidence of my "independence" I offer the following: I think people should have guns if they want and abortions if they want; I support maximizing recreational land usage AND (gasp!!) reasonable conservation efforts, because I want my kid to be able to ride AND see cool, untouched, beautiful places; I believe that global warming does exist, and that we are at least partly to blame for it, but I also believe that that global weather patterns are historically cyclical, and that we can't all just stop driving our cars and start riding around on tandem bikes in our birkenstocks, and that hybrid cars are simply not practical for many people at this point in time; I support expanded drilling for our own oil, but also believe that at the same time it is absolutely necessary to push the issue of alternative energy sources, because the ongoing energy problem ain't gonna solve itself. I also believe that if you don't want to say "under God" in the pledge, or if you find "in God we Trust" on our money offensive, that's your right. But don't expect 85% of the population to to cater to 15% of the population. This is a democracy. If the other 85% of the population doesn't agree with you, well that's just the way the system works. You don't want your kids to say the Pledge? Convince enough people to vote for your side. Until then, shut the h*ll up.

Ok, having gotten all of that off my chest, and going back to the original subject of this thread, they need to shut Palin up, because lately, every time she opens her mouth, she hurts her own electability, and her party. Yes, we all know that there are ALWAYS going to be certain media segments who try and spin the issues one way or another, and that the segment of the media which tends to be liberal is going to pile on her every chance they get. This is not new, and it happens on both sides. However, Palin's latest interviews have been somewhat concerning to even the members of her own party. She IS sinking. Part of that is just because the novelty has now worn off (you love your new used car the first day you get it; it's not until a couple of weeks later that you start noticing the sh*t that rattles or is broken, etc.). But part of that is because certain weaknesses about her are being exposed. There have been an alarming number of times recently where she floundered for answers, or rambled on and on to where her position becomes unclear to even her. She keeps coming back to the whole "I can see Russia from my house" thing whenever foreign policy comes up, which is laughable at best. None of this is helping her party win this election. Does this mean she could not be vice-president? Of course it doesn't. She does have many strengths which she has demonstrated during her term as governor. H*ll, for all I know, she might be a great vice-president. I would estimate that many of our former Presidents or vice-presidents had experience levels that were questioned by their opponents. I would argue that speaking ability and knowledge of past supreme court cases are not really all that crucial to the vice-president's day-to-day duties (And let's face it, it's not like our current president is all that eloquent of a speaker). But again, this is about marketing a candidate. They need to stop letting her hurt herself by putting her in positions where she is virtually guaranteed to fail. They need to play to her strengths whenever possible and as often as possible. They need to not let her do these long, unscripted interviews where her lack of knowledge or experience in certain areas can be hammered on by the interviewer. To me it feels like they are not doing a good job of these things, and the result is that she is starting to look less and less qualified to be vice-president, even to people on her side of the aisle.

Rant over. Sorry so long. Over and out.

 

[JDKZRT]

and the result is that she is starting to look less and less qualified to be vice-president, even to people on her side of the aisle.

To stir the pot a little more about this 'qualification issue', I really wonder why nobody is bringing up Palin's previous work history.... in the private sector, before politics. To me, this is by far her biggest weakness.

 

[justadude]

Good points and well said!

Ok, normally I try and stay out of the political threads, since my personal experience is that most people have already made up their mind in terms of what "side" they are on, and any "discussion" is mostly just a big back and forth of why my side is better than yours, blah, blah... About as productive as kicking each other in the n*ts, but not as much fun.

Also, just for some background, I'm not really on one "side" or the other. I tend to vote by candidate, not by party. As evidence of my "independence" I offer the following: I think people should have guns if they want and abortions if they want; I support maximizing recreational land usage AND (gasp!!) reasonable conservation efforts, because I want my kid to be able to ride AND see cool, untouched, beautiful places; I believe that global warming does exist, and that we are at least partly to blame for it, but I also believe that that global weather patterns are historically cyclical, and that we can't all just stop driving our cars and start riding around on tandem bikes in our birkenstocks, and that hybrid cars are simply not practical for many people at this point in time; I support expanded drilling for our own oil, but also believe that at the same time it is absolutely necessary to push the issue of alternative energy sources, because the ongoing energy problem ain't gonna solve itself. I also believe that if you don't want to say "under God" in the pledge, or if you find "in God we Trust" on our money offensive, that's your right. But don't expect 85% of the population to to cater to 15% of the population. This is a democracy. If the other 85% of the population doesn't agree with you, well that's just the way the system works. You don't want your kids to say the Pledge? Convince enough people to vote for your side. Until then, shut the h*ll up.

Ok, having gotten all of that off my chest, and going back to the original subject of this thread, they need to shut Palin up, because lately, every time she opens her mouth, she hurts her own electability, and her party. Yes, we all know that there are ALWAYS going to be certain media segments who try and spin the issues one way or another, and that the segment of the media which tends to be liberal is going to pile on her every chance they get. This is not new, and it happens on both sides. However, Palin's latest interviews have been somewhat concerning to even the members of her own party. She IS sinking. Part of that is just because the novelty has now worn off (you love your new used car the first day you get it; it's not until a couple of weeks later that you start noticing the sh*t that rattles or is broken, etc.). But part of that is because certain weaknesses about her are being exposed. There have been an alarming number of times recently where she floundered for answers, or rambled on and on to where her position becomes unclear to even her. She keeps coming back to the whole "I can see Russia from my house" thing whenever foreign policy comes up, which is laughable at best. None of this is helping her party win this election. Does this mean she could not be vice-president? Of course it doesn't. She does have many strengths which she has demonstrated during her term as governor. H*ll, for all I know, she might be a great vice-president. I would estimate that many of our former Presidents or vice-presidents had experience levels that were questioned by their opponents. I would argue that speaking ability and knowledge of past supreme court cases are not really all that crucial to the vice-president's day-to-day duties (And let's face it, it's not like our current president is all that eloquent of a speaker). But again, this is about marketing a candidate. They need to stop letting her hurt herself by putting her in positions where she is virtually guaranteed to fail. They need to play to her strengths whenever possible and as often as possible. They need to not let her do these long, unscripted interviews where her lack of knowledge or experience in certain areas can be hammered on by the interviewer. To me it feels like they are not doing a good job of these things, and the result is that she is starting to look less and less qualified to be vice-president, even to people on her side of the aisle.

Rant over. Sorry so long. Over and out.

 

[HalfwayM7]

My .02 on Obama and his contribution to the current economic meltdown

IMHO, the perceived concern about Palin is just a smoke screen in order to draw attention away from the real issues surrounding this country right now.

Personally, I am a "bit" more concerned about how each Presidential candidate is going to handle this economic meltdown, which has been precipitated by the degradation of the mortgage industry.

Here is a tiny piece of history for those who are not aware. It is very interesting reading, albeit, at a very high level of detail. While I have not verified all of the writer's assertions, this is not the first time I have read something to this effect.

Read on and I think some people should be asking themselves why they are supporting their candidate. Of course, I expect a full diatribe to refute the article, but do your own research. I get the feeling the facts will pan out. My initial research has confirmed what started with Mr. Carter.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_590330.html

Just cut and paste into your browser to get there, if the link does not work.

 

[Ollie]

That is the major problem we have with the electoral system right now.
It is SO freeking polarized it isn't funny.
It used to be there were definite differences between the parties, however they could and would come to gether to work for the greater good and compromise. Which would usually make for a good bill.

The last 10-15 years it has become so polarized they can't and won't work together. Each side has gotten so "My way or the highway" that the system is broken. I don't think either candidate can "fix" the problem. I just think McCain at least has a record to TRYING to work towards a compromise on some issues whereas Obama is VERY much my way or else.

Unfortunetly I think it will reach the boiling point. We have had a central issue that overrode everything else the last 4 elections. 9-11, afganistan, Iraq, the economy, etc. These have been focal points for the elections. Unfortunetly by focusing on one issue it means the other issues have taken a back seat and the more extremist (on both sides) have been pretty much left alone to do what they want. This will reach the point where people say enough. Only this time, I think it will be bad.

 

[BroT]

Some things I don't get...

How come most of the "republicans" I talk with are conservationists (wait, that's not what they tell us)?

How come most "liberals" I talk with agree that too much environmental policy, especially when based on bad or incomplete science, makes no sense (wait, that's not what they tell us)?

How come most people I talk with agree that government's real bi-partison problem is that it is wasteful and corrupt, not that it is too big or too small (wait, that's not what they tell us)?

How come America keeps searching for leadership but keeps ending up with career politicians?

Just my opinion, but the people I talk with are mostly "middle". This game that is being played...we are merely sideline peanut munchers and have no ability to call plays. Frustrating as he!!

Sorry for the rant...needed a place to rumble

 

[ruffryder]

How come most of the "republicans" I talk with are conservationists (wait, that's not what they tell us)?

How come most "liberals" I talk with agree that too much environmental policy, especially when based on bad or incomplete science, makes no sense (wait, that's not what they tell us)?

How come most people I talk with agree that government's real bi-partison problem is that it is wasteful and corrupt, not that it is too big or too small (wait, that's not what they tell us)?

How come America keeps searching for leadership but keeps ending up with career politicians?

Just my opinion, but the people I talk with are mostly "middle". This game that is being played...we are merely sideline peanut munchers and have no ability to call plays. Frustrating as he!!

Excellent post! Yah, I don't get it either... we are much more similar than what the media wants us to think....

 

[TheFlyingFynn]

You know I think we need a Great depression so we could feel some pain for a change and pull our heads out of our @$$. And get back to the basic important things, equal pay for equal work, affordable housing and a stable economy with a decent foreign Policy and reasonable taxation.

Need to get off the war on drugs,war in Irac, homophobia, locking everyone in the country up ( US has more in prison then communist China and we have 300 million and they have 1 billion people, something is way off in our justice system), abortion rights, immigration.

We are so bogged down in the technical details of every policy and choosing sides that the big picture is escaping us.


I saw rip up the all laws created after say 1800. Life would be much simpler and in effect we would be much more content.

Now I know I'm going to get all those that think anarchy will break out, but i submit with simple common sense we would have plenty of civil, corparate and military laws to be applied to our problems and it be much easier without the red tape we have now. I Know what about womens rights, slavery workers etc. We may have amend it to say all humans are created equal and I think that would be a complete fix to the problem.

I would prefer to not be governed and taxed by the worlds largest super power. I'm for more of a regional approach to Govt. The people that live and work in an area should decide what is the rule of law in that area.

Just my 2 cents.

Fynn

 

[COGrizzly]

Excellent post! Yah, I don't get it either... we are much more similar than what the media wants us to think....

I agree as well, good post.

I would assume that the reason why the media portrays the left and the right as so far apart would have something to do with making money

 

[ruffryder]

IMHO, the perceived concern about Palin is just a smoke screen in order to draw attention away from the real issues surrounding this country right now.

Personally, I am a "bit" more concerned about how each Presidential candidate is going to handle this economic meltdown, which has been precipitated by the degradation of the mortgage industry.

Here is a tiny piece of history for those who are not aware. It is very interesting reading, albeit, at a very high level of detail. While I have not verified all of the writer's assertions, this is not the first time I have read something to this effect.

Read on and I think some people should be asking themselves why they are supporting their candidate. Of course, I expect a full diatribe to refute the article, but do your own research. I get the feeling the facts will pan out. My initial research has confirmed what started with Mr. Carter.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_590330.html

Just cut and paste into your browser to get there, if the link does not work.

To blame it all on the lending practices to the poor is a little much... the percentage of those loans is less then half when compared to all the sub prime mortgage loans being made.... the average american it seems is the majority stake holder here....

Wiki has a good talk about the risk and other info of the CRA loans... you have to scroll to the bottom though...

 

[bigfoot]

To blame it all on the lending practices to the poor is a little much... the percentage of those loans is less then half when compared to all the sub prime mortgage loans being made.... the average american it seems is the majority stake holder here....

Wiki has a good talk about the risk and other info of the CRA loans... you have to scroll to the bottom though...

I don't see anywhere in the article the poor were being blamed. The jist of the peice was idiotic legislation enacted and enforced by democrats are in large part to blame for the problems we have today. No not all subprime loans are CRA related, but the CRA is what got all this crap started.

 

[ruffryder]

I don't see anywhere in the article the poor were being blamed. The jist of the peice was idiotic legislation enacted and enforced by democrats are in large part to blame for the problems we have today. No not all subprime loans are CRA related, but the CRA is what got all this crap started.

I didn't say the poor I said "lending practices to the poor" hence CRA... again if you look at the wiki the amount of CRA loans and it's impact is a smaller part of the mortgage issue then shown in the other article... There seem to be a lot of people that think the CRA was the problem.. when in fact the CRA loans, being regulated such, are less of an issue then the majority of people that got in on the sub-prime deals....

So I am saying the jist of the piece is wrong and only showing a part of the situation and playing the blame game on "those darn democrats".....

 

[bigfoot]

I didn't say the poor I said "lending practices to the poor" hence CRA... again if you look at the wiki the amount of CRA loans and it's impact is a smaller part of the mortgage issue then shown in the other article... There seem to be a lot of people that think the CRA was the problem.. when in fact the CRA loans, being regulated such, are less of an issue then the majority of people that got in on the sub-prime deals....

So I am saying the jist of the piece is wrong and only showing a part of the situation and playing the blame game on "those darn democrats".....

The whole problem is lending money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back, right? Which is what the CRA is all about, and where it all started. Democrats happened to be the ones that lit the fire, then threw gas on it.

 

[justadude]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Where were you/republican over the past years? You are the one who ignored teh 700billion pound elephant in the room!!!???

Just saying!!


Blame is Lame
It's always the same
it's the same old game
of blame blame blame.
Get off that train
use your brain
it's time for something new
not the same same same.

I have no idea what got into me!!!

The whole problem is lending money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back, right? Which is what the CRA is all about, and where it all started. Democrats happened to be the ones that lit the fire, then threw gas on it.

 

[Ollie]

But the cra is just the tip of the iceburg. A large tip, but still not the whole problem.

What the CRA did was open a can of worms the likes of which no-one has seen. It opened doors to lending pratices that were illigal or just flat couldn't be done becuase of regulators. That is why you could take a car that you owed more than it was worth, go down to the car lot, put the amount owed on top of another car and get a loan.

The CRA was the road map with an idealistic goal that was corrupted by greed and socialistic ideas. Just as the wilderness bill was a noble idea that was corrupted by greedy power hungly tree huggers.

The whole thing is a snow ball.
Loans to people that couldn't afford them.
When the ballon payments came due, people used their credit cards to make the payments.
When the government double the payments they couldn't make the credit card payments.
So now they default on the home loan and the credit card.
They lose everything.

Now the government wants to say it's our problem so they have to spend billions of our tax dollars to bail out greedy corporate pukes that should be stripped of their money and "stuff" and tossed in jail.

 

[Ollie]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Where were you/republican over the past years? You are the one who ignored teh 700billion pound elephant in the room!!!???

Just saying!!


Blame is Lame
It's always the same
it's the same old game
of blame blame blame.
Get of that train
use your brain
it's time for something new
not the same same same.

I have no idea what got into me!!!

Actually the dems were in control.
A dem was in charge of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess that started this whole thing.

I do agree we have to do something, but paying off the bills of these greedy corporations is NOT the answer.

 

[justadude]

Again,

Blame is Lame
It's always the same
it's the same old game
of blame blame blame.
Get of that train
use your brain
it's time for something new
not the same same same.


Seriously though, are you telling me the GOP had been telling the world this can't be done this way and tried and tried to stop the inevitable?? Please

Here some data on who controlled the Senate over the past 30 years. Maybe peopel will quite trying to blame a particular party and see that both have had ample opp. to mesh Chit up.


96th Congress (1979-1981)

Majority Party: Democrat (58 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (41 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97th Congress (1981-1983)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98th Congress (1983-1985)

Majority Party: Republican (54 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99th Congress (1985-1987)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101st Congress (1989-1991)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

102nd Congress (1991-1993)

Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

105th Congress (1997-1999)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: As the 106th Congress began, the division was 55 Republican seats and 45 Democratic seats, but this changed to 54-45 on July 13, 1999 when Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire switched from the Republican party to Independent status. On November 1, 1999, Smith announced his return to the Republican party, making the division once more 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. Following the death of Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA) on July 18, 2000, the balance shifted again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when the governor appointed Zell Miller, a Democrat, to fill the vacancy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

107th Congress (2001-2003)

Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

________

Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

______

Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1

Total Seats: 100

_____

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 2

Total Seats: 100

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

108th Congress (2003-2005)

Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

109th Congress (2005-2007)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

110th Congress (2007-2009)

Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1Independent; 1 Independent Democrat

Total Seats: 100

Note: Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an Independent, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected as an Independent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually the dems were in control.
A dem was in charge of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess that started this whole thing.

I do agree we have to do something, but paying off the bills of these greedy corporations is NOT the answer.

 

[justadude]

Notice out of the 18 houses in the past 30 years.
Dems had control slighty less than 50% of the time.

Actually the dems were in control.
A dem was in charge of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess that started this whole thing.

I do agree we have to do something, but paying off the bills of these greedy corporations is NOT the answer.