I could not believe my ears last night when I flipped on CNN while I was bathing Evelyn to catch the latest info on the Palin running mate selection. I reeled, physically, when I heard McCain's campaign chief spewing and arguing with Campbell Brown about Palin's experience being vast as -- drumroll please -- the commander-in-chief of the Alaskan national guard. Come again? But I'm not as clever as this retort
I am offended, and I agree - this feels like a step backwards. Patronizing.
And there is this from the Huffington Post: "Yes, Sarah Palin is merely running for VP, not president, but with a 72 year-old candidate with a history of serious medical issues, this is who they're saying is able to step in as president in a heart-beat. She has so little experience that she makes Sen. Obama look like FDR, Winston Churchill and Julius Caesar combined. So, the Republicans pulled the rug out from under themselves. They have no issues. The economy? Housing? The national debt? Education? The Environment? Iraq? Afghanistan? Nothing. All they have is "Dear Democratic women: please pretend our VP candidate is Hillary Clinton. Just forget that she's pro-life. And against most things Democrats stand for." For the whole article click here.
16 comments:
Sarah Palin..she is a lovely looking lady,Steph. and she does have five children ..we have not heard of her before but she might be a 'Margaret Thatcher' in disguise and Maggie did well for England! I do like Hilary Clinton I must admit and think she would make a good President-a. A.Norma.
Palin has more experience than Obama to be president.
Palin has at least lead ---
what has Biden and Obama done??
Who would you have gone with??
Martie, you are counting years of public service on the city council and as major of a small town? Okay, I'll give you that point. But not sure that "experience" makes her more qualified.
I wish McCain had picked someone with more experience, as well. I don't like the idea of choosing running mates or voting for candidates simply because of their gender, race, religion, etc. Obama doesn't have much experience either, though. I think it's scarier to think of the President gaining on-the-job training rather than the Vice-President.
She might just be a Margret Thatcher one day but that is years in the making and hopefully those years won't be as VP of the United States. Her day is yet to come, and maybe it'll be after McCain actually gets to know her.
Gwynn
I wonder how well you'll like Obama when he starts impacting your fancy lifestyle in a major way. His hands are going to be deep in the pocketbooks of families just like yours. And it's going to be ugly.
ooooh, I like all these salty comments. Yes, many of my political views are about the greater good, not my own. Maybe I should live somewhere in Europe and endure ridiculous taxation for greater social services? Abortion for girls who were raped, rights for friends with untraditional relationships, funding for stem-cell research etc. It all takes money out of my "fancy" "pocketbook". Not that I have a pocketbook. It's more of a diaper bag. (p/s I do think Starbucks should be taxed for it's windfall profits now that we are all so highly addicted to caffeine. What do you think?)
Even though I wouldn't have an abortion myself, I am pro-choice. I must say, though, that I hate the 'girls who were raped' argument for legalized abortion. Statistics show that rape cases account for less than 1% of abortions. Besides, babies who were conceived from rape are just as innocent and loveable as those who were not. There are plenty of couples out there that would be thrilled to adopt a baby conceived under any circumstances. Btw, I admire your 'for the greater good' mindset. You do realize, though, that you don't have to wait for your taxes to be raised to contribute more than your current share of taxes to the government, right? Add as much as you feel is right--the government won't turn it down, and they will use it as they see fit.
Love the debate! Food for thought, anonymous: government isn't they, it's us.
Some of those "lovable" "babies" aren't so lovable and cute when they grow up and continue the cycle of welfare dependency and drug addiction on your tax money. Sound cute and cuddly now? hmm...
I do give more than my share. It's called philanthropy.
Philanthropy---exactly!! I think that is what many people who fear higher taxes are talking about. Many of us would rather give our money directly to the charities of our choice. We would like to give to the greater good by contributing to those groups that we personally see as having the most need or are doing the most good. Even though in theory the government is 'of the people', once you pay your taxes you don't have much control over where that money is spent. Offices come up for re-election only so often, and my vote may not be enough to direct government spending in the way I see fit. I would rather have complete control of my charitable spending and cut out the often wasteful middle man.
And that is why I am,at the end of the day, pro-choice. It should be each person's decision. Some, like you, might not want to take the risk of bringing a child into the world if there is a chance that it may continue a cycle of poverty and drug addiction when it grows up. Others might want to give another couple the chance to raise that child if they are not able to do so themselves. There are many factors that go into such a decision, and should definitely be a personal choice.
Ah, yes. Philanthropy.
Will you still give as you do today if the government doubles what is expected of you every April 15th?
What do you plan to give up from your current budget to account for the astronomical rise in taxes that Obama has planned for the wealthy?
wait you assume I am both wealthy AND that I budget. Just teasing! I could give up a lot of things. That is good food for thought.
We could give up a lot of things as well.
However, until the government shows that they can manage what they are already taking from our income, I have no desire to give them even MORE money to waste.
It would be an entirely different matter if the government was even half way reasonable and responsible with their current spending, yet still needed more.
Seriously, take whatever it is you pay in taxes, increase it by 10%, and tell me where you intend to start cutting your own personal spending to make up for the loss of income. What if it increased by 20%? 30%? More?
Is 36% of every dollar over a certain AGI not enough? What IS reasonable if 36% for the Feds alone isn't enough?
Post a Comment