McCain's VP pick = Sarah Palin [Archive]

6sticks

08-29-2008, 05:15 PM

I think it will appeal to some Hillary supporters, which may be enough. In my opinion it was a good idea to go for an unexpected choice like this... it'll be difficult for Democrats to label a 44-year-old woman as "more of the same", whereas with Romney or Pawlenty it'd be a given. This should either work quite well or backfire miserably, and I'm fine with either outcome.

SolitaryPenguin

08-29-2008, 05:30 PM

I think it's going to backfire in a big way, just in the sense that it puts this seemingly unknown woman in the #2 spot for when John's ticker finally gives out in a year or two.

I must say, I am having fun watching this whole thing though, it's like a giant caricature of government.

booyalab

08-29-2008, 06:29 PM

Do you think she will appeal to disaffected Clinton supporters? No, Don't you see?! If there's a black or female Republican who holds high office, it's a political tactic. If there's a black or female Democrat presidential nominee, it's because Democrats are more progressive.

Lateralus

08-29-2008, 06:35 PM

No, Don't you see?! If there's a black or female Republican who holds high office, it's a political tactic. If there's a black or female Democrat presidential nominee, it's because Democrats are more progressive.
Yeah, Democrats aren't exactly praising Bush because he appointed the only two black secretaries of state in the US history, one being the second woman.

Splittet

08-29-2008, 06:39 PM

Do you think she will appeal to disaffected Clinton supporters?

At first I was thinking it was a brave choice, perhaps a strike of genius, because she could perhaps appeal to exactly those voters. Now I am more skeptical. She is pro-life, and I think that will ruin most of her appeal for Hillary supporters. Also her nomination will make the experience argument against Obama much weaker, a massive drawback, and that could very well lose the election for the Republicans...

ajblaise

08-29-2008, 06:59 PM

No, Don't you see?! If there's a black or female Republican who holds high office, it's a political tactic. If there's a black or female Democrat presidential nominee, it's because Democrats are more progressive.

This is actually true to a degree, because most blacks and women are already democrats, so it makes sense for some to hold high offices, where as with Republicans, there is a better chance they are being used as a token black or female. Repubs have to deal with racist and sexist stereotypes more often, so of course they will try to combat this with their political selections.

pure_mercury

08-29-2008, 08:10 PM

This is actually true to a degree, because most blacks and women are already democrats, so it makes sense for some to hold high offices, where as with Republicans, there is a better chance they are being used as a token black or female. Repubs have to deal with racist and sexist stereotypes more often, so of course they will try to combat this with their political selections.

It really does NOT make any sense.

Didums

08-29-2008, 08:16 PM

pure_mercury

08-29-2008, 08:17 PM

Here is my short and sweet take on the ticket, reposted from a political site I frequent:

"You know, in theory, I'd love to vote for a presidential ticket consisting of a crazy, ex-POW/Navy captain who took over Barry Goldwater's seat in the Senate, and a kinda-hot maverick female Governor from Alaska. In reality, John McCain is a complete tool."

pure_mercury

08-29-2008, 08:39 PM

I would take issue with that Nolan chart. Ron Paul should definitely in the libertarian side of the ledger, and there is NO WAY that John Edwards is more libertarian than Bill Richardson.

sassafrassquatch

08-29-2008, 10:24 PM

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z9/rabidhominid/i-heart-hot-moms.jpg

A heartbeat away from the presidency? DO NOT WANT

Beat

08-29-2008, 10:40 PM

Lol government

Jack Flak

08-29-2008, 10:41 PM

I want to kill that graph of yours, Didums. It is ridiculous.

Hmm

08-29-2008, 10:47 PM

I don't see how picking her changes anything at all.

Lateralus

08-29-2008, 10:52 PM

The VP breaks ties in the Senate. Important stuff.

Didums

08-29-2008, 10:57 PM

I want to kill that graph of yours, Didums. It is ridiculous.

Lol why?

htb

08-29-2008, 11:11 PM

If this report (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_24-2008_08_30.shtml#1220031014) is indicative of the center/center-left electorate, the pick was good politically.

phoenix13

08-29-2008, 11:12 PM

Former Clinton supporters that switch their vote to McCain because of his VP are really, really retarded. Actually any Clinton supporter that votes for McCain for any reason is stupid.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

Your words are truth, oh wise Didums. It's so cheap. Shamelessly cheap... and yet November 2004 taught me that people like it cheap. Cheap and dirty. I'm straying dangerously close to a sexual metaphor, so I think I'll stop there.

Really though, I wouldn't want her leading the country should McCain suddenly drop off (and age + traumatic head injury which increases your chances of dementia big time say that's not a trivial concern). She doesn't have the thoughtful charismatic idealistic intellectual prowess of Obama to counterbalance her inexperience.

How exciting this is! I've got lots 'o reading to do.

Jack Flak

08-29-2008, 11:15 PM

Lol why?
Ron paul is more toward authoritarian than libertarian in the graph, for one. And it fucking says "Left" and "Right."

Lateralus

08-29-2008, 11:16 PM

She doesn't have the thoughtful charismatic idealistic intellectual prowess of Obama to counterbalance her inexperience.
:rofl1:

phoenix13

08-29-2008, 11:20 PM

Many people seemed shocked by this, but I had her in the Top 3 Most Likely with Romney and Pawlenty for months now. Do you think she will appeal to disaffected Clinton supporters? I'll add my personal views in a bit.

This is all very new, and hopefully no one's opinions are solidified... BUT my mom (former HillDog supporter, as was I) just texted me gushing her approval, saying she believes in "smart women" to which I replied that I believed in "silly people" (can't call your mom dumb, ya know?). Both of my parents are violently anti-Obama (I still don't understand the vigor behind it), and she's sounding ripe to switch sides.

I'm sad to say that proClinton peeps may be swayed. This Hillafan isn't switching sides, though. Hell naw!

Didums

08-29-2008, 11:31 PM

Ron paul is more toward authoritarian than libertarian in the graph, for one. And it fucking says "Left" and "Right."

Its because people would be scared if it said "Communism" for "Left" and "Fascism" for "Authoritarian", lol. Here's a graph that has the extra names for top/bottom/left/right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif

^Estimates of historical peoplez.

I'm pretty sure they got each candidate to actually take the test btw, it would be difficult to try to plot them on the graph via each decision they had made in gov't.

Also, Ron Paul was a good Idea, just wouldn't work in this country, Obama is all we have now.

5 Ron Paul quotes that Scare me (http://dmiessler.com/blog/5-ron-paul-quotes-that-scare-me)

Jeffster

08-29-2008, 11:35 PM

Ooh I'll be the first to guess!

Palin = ESFJ ?

pure_mercury

08-30-2008, 01:09 AM

Its because people would be scared if it said "Communism" for "Left" and "Fascism" for "Authoritarian", lol. Here's a graph that has the extra names for top/bottom/left/right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif

^Estimates of historical peoplez.

I'm pretty sure they got each candidate to actually take the test btw, it would be difficult to try to plot them on the graph via each decision they had made in gov't.

Also, Ron Paul was a good Idea, just wouldn't work in this country, Obama is all we have now.

5 Ron Paul quotes that Scare me (http://dmiessler.com/blog/5-ron-paul-quotes-that-scare-me)

Well, considering the first two quotations weren't written by Ron Paul (and it even says so there), I think you can write them off.

#3 = "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs."

That is 100% true. We do NOT have a rigid separation of church and state in our Constitution.

#4 is a reach, but certainly, our Founding Fathers wanted voluntary institutions of civil society to have more influence over our lives than does the state (except for possibly Alexander Hamilton and his closest colleagues). That much is inarguable.

#5 is basically Christian Right rhetoric. I won't defend the paranoia, but I will point out that there are some militantly secular people who have a problem with any public acknowledgment of religious faith. Those people are extremists, too.

Didums

08-30-2008, 01:45 AM

Ron Paul on Evolution

Thats what turns me off of him the most :(

That is 100% true. We do NOT have a rigid separation of church and state in our Constitution.

We also didn't have a ban on slavery in our constitution until we added it in :P (maybe an extreme comparison but it makes sense).

Jack Flak

08-30-2008, 01:47 AM

Ron Paul exudes integrity, and he would never shift public policy based on his religious beliefs.

Didums

08-30-2008, 01:51 AM

Ron Paul exudes integrity, and he would never shift public policy based on his religious beliefs.

Yes but it is the naiveness that saddens me.

Jack Flak

08-30-2008, 01:53 AM

Call me old fashioned, but I vote based on what I think will transpire during a term, nothing more.

pure_mercury

08-30-2008, 01:53 AM

We also didn't have a ban on slavery in our constitution until we added it in :P (maybe an extreme comparison but it makes sense).

Slavery was a tremendous moral failing, and a violation of the principle of self-government. That is not the same thing as religion. The relationship between government and religion is spelled out explicitly in the 1st Amendment.

Didums

08-30-2008, 02:04 AM

Slavery was a tremendous moral failing, and a violation of the principle of self-government. That is not the same thing as religion. The relationship between government and religion is spelled out explicitly in the 1st Amendment.

Just because the Constitution says so doesn't mean that it's being upheld ;) (Religious people putting creationism into schools)

pure_mercury

08-30-2008, 02:10 AM

Just because the Constitution says so doesn't mean that it's being upheld ;) (Religious people putting creationism into schools)

Sure, that is an issue now. Of course, 150 years ago, everyone thought some type of creationism was right, so they taught it then, even though the Constitution should have prevented them. Things like education inevitably become politicized. Personally, I'd scrap the Department of Education, so, in my perfect world, these arguments would be held at the local school district level, or not at all.

Lateralus

08-30-2008, 02:13 AM

Just because the Constitution says so doesn't mean that it's being upheld ;) (Religious people putting creationism into schools)
There is actually nothing unconstitutional about having religion taught in public schools, not that I advocate it.

Lateralus

08-30-2008, 02:15 AM

Sure, that is an issue now. Of course, 150 years ago, everyone thought some type of creationism was right, so they taught it then, even though the Constitution should have prevented them. Things like education inevitably become politicized. Personally, I'd scrap the Department of Education, so, in my perfect world, these arguments would be held at the local school district level, or not at all.
No, the Constitution should not have prevented it. Public schools are under the jurisdiction of the state, not the feds. So it could be a violation of a state constitution, but not the US constitution. The feds don't have the power. It's actually unconstitutional for the feds to dictate that public schools can't teach religion.

pure_mercury

08-30-2008, 02:20 AM

No, the Constitution should not have prevented it. Public schools are under the jurisdiction of the state, not the feds. So it could be a violation of a state constitution, but not the US constitution. The feds don't have the power. It's actually unconstitutional for the feds to dictate that public schools can't teach religion.

I would disagree here, because there is no possible way to teach every religious belief in the world (there are almost as many as there are people), and, thus, a government agency would be promulgating certain beliefs over others, thereby violating the Establishment Clause.

EDIT: This is assuming that we are talking about the current day, and the federal government is supplying money to school districts. If the Dept. of Education were gone, and all school taxes were local, it would be a different story.

Didums

08-30-2008, 02:22 AM

There is actually nothing unconstitutional about having religion taught in public schools, not that I advocate it.

Actually it is, you can't be Forced to be taught religion in schools, however there can be non-manditory classes that have it.

Lateralus

08-30-2008, 02:38 AM

I would disagree here, because there is no possible way to teach every religious belief in the world (there are almost as many as there are people), and, thus, a government agency would be promulgating certain beliefs over others, thereby violating the Establishment Clause.

EDIT: This is assuming that we are talking about the current day, and the federal government is supplying money to school districts. If the Dept. of Education were gone, and all school taxes were local, it would be a different story.
The federal government doesn't even have the power to fund public schools, much less tell them what they can and can't teach.

Lateralus

08-30-2008, 02:39 AM

Actually it is, you can't be Forced to be taught religion in schools, however there can be non-manditory classes that have it.
There is nothing in the Constitution that grants that power to the federal government. At most, state constitutions are violated.

pure_mercury

08-30-2008, 02:52 AM

The federal government doesn't even have the power to fund public schools, much less tell them what they can and can't teach.

They don't have the right to. They obviously have the power to, since they do.

pure_mercury

08-30-2008, 02:53 AM

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants that power to the federal government. At most, state constitutions are violated.

But if the federal government funds public education (as it does), teaching religion WOULD be unconstitutional.

Lateralus

08-30-2008, 02:55 AM

They don't have the right to. They obviously have the power to, since they do.
I suppose I should have been more specific. The Constitution doesn't grant that power. The federal government usurped that power, unconstitutionally.

Lateralus

08-30-2008, 03:00 AM

But if the federal government funds public education (as it does), teaching religion WOULD be unconstitutional.
The funding is what is unconstitutional. With this logic, the government could fund whatever it wants, then use that as a means of control. And that is exactly what it does.

pure_mercury

08-30-2008, 03:07 AM

The funding is what is unconstitutional. With this logic, the government could fund whatever it wants, then use that as a means of control. And that is exactly what it does.

The funding AND the teaching of religion would be both be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Interstate Commerce Clause and various Supreme Court decisions, the feds have overstepped their boundaries. Still, teaching religion with federal money is EXPLICITLY unconstitutional. It should never happen.

Magic Poriferan

08-30-2008, 03:37 AM

I'm amused by how transparent the balancing act is.

Obama picks a really typically presidental kind of guy, who's an old veteran of Washington. McCain picks a young chick who's a new-comer and an outsider.

It almost seems like they're trying too hard, you know?

Didums

08-30-2008, 03:42 AM

It almost seems like they're trying too hard, you know?

Yea its sad, and its going to completely backfire too lol.

Magic Poriferan

08-30-2008, 03:50 AM

Yea its sad, and its going to completely backfire too lol.

Well, if they're both going for a strategy that will backfire, then it's an even match. The winner is the one that suffers the least reprecussions.

sassafrassquatch

08-30-2008, 04:14 AM

Getting back on topic...

THEY'RE CYLONS!!1

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z9/rabidhominid/cylons.jpg

Enyo

08-30-2008, 02:27 PM

There is actually nothing unconstitutional about having religion taught in public schools, not that I advocate it.

I absolutely love religion taught in public schools. As an elective. I absolutely love religious texts being read in school. As literature.

I remember in my 10th grade honors English class, we read the creation stories from both the Bible and the Koran. It was in our textbook. (We had a different text than non-honors students.)

It was, IME, a good thing.

Religion exists. It shouldn't be ignored or denied, but it should not be government regulated. *shrugs* And I think that's the whole point of the Constitutional separation of church and state.

Splittet

08-30-2008, 02:54 PM

Isn't religion a subject in the US? It is here... It's basically about learning about different religions, which is important in developing understanding for each other. What is wrong with that?

Enyo

08-30-2008, 03:01 PM

Isn't religion a subject in the US? It is here... It's basically about learning about different religions, which is important in developing understanding for each other. What is wrong with that?

Comparative religion isn't a subject that is available in public schools afaik. It private and post-secondary schools, it comes up more frequently. Nothing is *wrong* with that being a subject, but there is a fear among the non-Christians and the ACLU-ers that it will become 55 minutes/day of promoting Christianity in a classroom.

And that would be the case if the wrong teacher were to run the class.

(Example: My psych teacher [or his wife my English teacher] would have done fine teaching it. They were awesome about not projecting their own biases because they wanted everything to be open for debate/discussion. My journalism teacher would probably not have been the greatest for teaching a class that had anything to do with religion, as he was a Seminary student working towards the priesthood before he became a teacher, and his very Catholic stance came through enough to be of potential influence.)