McCain Postpones Friday's Debate

[Jen]

McCain Heads to Washington (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html)

I'm curious why he seems unable to multitask? I have been anxiously waiting for this debate for weeks and now it's canceled? :huh:

What do you think?

[6sticks]

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said McCain's move was "just weird."
Hah. Yeah, I guess he's going for the patriotic "country first" impression but he just comes across as an increasingly eccentric desperate old man. Still, erratic behavior in a major politician always keeps things interesting.

[nottaprettygal]

Lame.

I think that even the most avid McCain supporter can see through his explanation that now is the time to "put politics aside." He must be a terrible debater.

If you can't fix the economy and run a campaign at the same time, then I don't want you as President. I guess they want to keep his workload low so his heart doesn't stop.

[ajblaise]

They are still putting Palin through Political Science 101, she's still cramming before the test. Palin vs. Biden, such an unfair match lol.

McCain has a mixed history with debates. He has decent comedic timing, but Obama will no doubt give him little opening to use it.


The debates will be what helps Obama/Biden brake away and win this thing.

[Oberon]

I'm curious why he seems unable to multitask?

Must be some sort of mental defect?

Maybe he's going senile.

:rolli:

[Jen]

Must be some sort of mental defect?

Maybe he's going senile.

:rolli:Well he certainly looks fucked up.

So is it on or what? Obama wants to (not surprisingly) move forward.

[Udog]

There may yet still be a debate if this bill gets passed on Friday, and most likely it will. Many key politicians seem to think this is the last chance to save an economic meltdown, and if this REALLY does need to be done this week to avoid disaster, Paulson and Bernanke will likely concede some on issues such as the lack of oversight in the current bill.

However, I now see that McCain wants to replace the VP debate next week with the presidential debate scheduled this week. While I really, really doubt this is the reason McCain is suspending the campaign, he is certainly trying to milk this as much to his advantage as he can.

[ajblaise]

If there was ever a time when the Republicans needed a terrorist attack on the US, it's now.

[pure_mercury]

Lame.

I think that even the most avid McCain supporter can see through his explanation that now is the time to "put politics aside." He must be a terrible debater.

If you can't fix the economy and run a campaign at the same time, then I don't want you as President. I guess they want to keep his workload low so his heart doesn't stop.

McCain is a bad orator, and a so-so debater. He excels in the town hall meeting/public forum Q&A events.

[Enyo]

Y'know, I'm not so sure that this is an entirely bad thing.

You know what this does? This gives us a chance to see which way he'll go, economically speaking. I don't find it to bve a coincidence that this suspension happens the day after a couple of conservative pundits bitched about the fact that neither McCain nor Obama had any plans to go back and vote in this issue, because they were too busy campaigning.

Personally, I think that the fundraising and commercials can continue with their VP candidates running the show, but both of them had better get their asses back to Washington and try to fix this in a way that they'll be proud to have their names associated with.

[lowtech redneck]

....gee, maybe he just wants to make sure that he is well-informed enough for an extremely important vote, and doing so precludes the typical amount of preparation necessary for political debates. :rolli:

[ajblaise]

....gee, maybe he just wants to make sure that he is well-informed enough for an extremely important vote, and doing so precludes the typical amount of preparation necessary for political debates. :rolli:

Doesn't matter what his campaigns honest reason is. This makes him look like a wuss whose afraid to debate.

[Enyo]

Doesn't matter what his campaigns honest reason is. This makes him look like a wuss whose afraid to debate.

Not to everyone, though. There are those out there that think that this is a sign of patriotism: he's putting the needs of his nation before the needs of his own political ambitions. And that's hardly a bad thing.

[ajblaise]

Not to everyone, though. There are those out there that think that this is a sign of patriotism: he's putting the needs of his nation before the needs of his own political ambitions. And that's hardly a bad thing.

Will that be the prevailing perception? Probably not, his side had good spin doctors, but not that good.

And remember, it's only idiot undecided voters that matter right now, their perception is very limited. Only simple concepts like "back out of debate = wuss" translate to them.

[Lateralus]

Doesn't matter what his campaigns honest reason is. This makes him look like a wuss whose afraid to debate.
No, the people who don't like McCain will bitch. The people like McCain will praise him. The rest don't really care.

[Enyo]

Will that be the prevailing perception? Probably not, his side had good spin doctors, but not that good.

And remember, it's only idiot undecided voters that matter right now, their perception is very limited. Only simple concepts like "back out of debate = wuss" translate to them.

I'm watching CNN right now, and the call ins and emails on the subject seems to be 50/50 split, just like everything else about this election.

[kuranes]

However, I now see that McCain wants to replace the VP debate next week with the presidential debate scheduled this week.
Yeah, I think they're delaying the moment Palin has to engage in any lengthy dialogue requiring a lot of knowledge of what led to the status quo, or crucial details besides scripted or generic material.

[ajblaise]

I'm watching CNN right now, and the call ins and emails on the subject seems to be 50/50 split, just like everything else about this election.

Those people making the call-ins and emails aren't the same people as the undecided voters, there mind is already made up. For the most case, the people who haven't made up their mind are the same people who aren't exactly involved with politics and current events.

So whatever the prevailing perception is, that is what will most likely influence them the most.

[ajblaise]

No, the people who don't like McCain will bitch. The people like McCain will praise him. The rest don't really care.

The people that will still vote don't not care. They won't hear about all these mini-issues and squabbles, but they are still effected by public perception and current political events.

[Modern Nomad]

i don't get it.

friday night.... congressmen go home.

[Ivy]

Not to everyone, though. There are those out there that think that this is a sign of patriotism: he's putting the needs of his nation before the needs of his own political ambitions. And that's hardly a bad thing.

Then there are those that think that's what he wants us to think, and resent being manipulated.

I didn't enter this election with a bad opinion of McCain. I actually thought it was pretty cool that for once there was an election with two candidates I could live with. I have really lost a lot of respect for him with all the (what I consider to be) cheap tricks.

[ajblaise]

I didn't enter this election with a bad opinion of McCain. I actually thought it was pretty cool that for once there was an election with two candidates I could live with. I have really lost a lot of respect for him with all the (what I consider to be) cheap tricks.

With tapping Palin for VP being the cheapest of them all. I'm surprised that what would seems like such a transparent attempt to sweep up women voters isn't really an issue with most people.

[Modern Nomad]

i hope a camera follows him around friday night

i want to see what restaurant he eats at

who he talks to

unless he is performing open heart surgery on thousands of people at once, i can't imagine what is so important he has on his calendar on friday night that is less important than so many people panicking about what is going on in the world.

[Jen]

Dave Does it Better

[pure_mercury]

With tapping Palin for VP being the cheapest of them all. I'm surprised that what would seems like such a transparent attempt to sweep up women voters isn't really an issue with most people.

People dislike career politicians unless they happen to have unusually likeable personalities, like Bill Clinton.

[ajblaise]

People dislike career politicians unless they happen to have unusually likeable personalities, like Bill Clinton.

Yeah I'll agree that was another reason they picked her. I wish, if they had to pick someone not a lifetime politician, that they would at least would pick someone knowledgeable in the economy, foreign affairs...something. Maybe anyone that knows anything is too much of an "elite" for some people.

[pure_mercury]

Yeah I'll agree that was another reason they picked her. I wish, if they had to pick someone not a lifetime politician, that they would at least would pick someone knowledgeable in the economy, foreign affairs...something. Maybe anyone that knows anything is too much of an "elite" for some people.

Most members of the electorate don't know anything about those topics, either. They want someone who is attractive, somewhat articulate, doesn't have too checkered a past, and who espouses the same values they do. That is about it.

BTW, I generally loathe people who fit those criteria. Attractive is good. Articulate is nice. But I like checkered pasts, and I wouldn't want someone running the country who is just like me. Politically, it would be nice. In terms of mindset, forget it. We'd find a way to be at war with the Netherlands and New Zealand somehow if a guy like me were running things.

[ajblaise]

They want someone who is attractive, somewhat articulate, doesn't have too checkered a past, and who espouses the same values they do.

That's 30% of everyone. We need exceptional people for high offices. Biden is at least someone more knowledgeable and intelligent than the average joe, and knows foreign affairs.

[kuranes]

They want someone who is attractive, somewhat articulate, doesn't have too checkered a past, and who espouses the same values they do. That is about it.

BTW, I generally loathe people who fit those criteria. Attractive is good. Articulate is nice. But I like checkered pasts
Maybe we could get John Waters to run, since we're bringing in celebrities from the movies these days.
http://i36.tinypic.com/1em91z.jpg
http://i36.tinypic.com/4j82so.jpg

[pure_mercury]

I'd take John Waters over John McCain. Washington, D.C. would be a lot more fun, and Waters is used to making things happen on smaller budgets. That is what we need in this country. ;)

[kuranes]

I'd take John Waters over John McCain. Washington, D.C. would be a lot more fun, and Waters is used to making things happen on smaller budgets. That is what we need in this country. ;)
Exactly. McCain has only postponed the cornpone.

[ajblaise]

I don't know, one public showing of Pink Flamingos and he will lose all his support.

[pure_mercury]

I don't know, one public showing of Pink Flamingos and he will lose all his support.

He could pass that off as a documentary in some parts of this country nowadays. Maybe he could call it "community filmmaking."

[kuranes]

I don't know, one public showing of Pink Flamingos and he will lose all his support.
He can simply deny that he had anything to do with it. Failing that he can say that the movie took a different turn after he expressed disapproval, but that it was too late by then for certain scenes. All these difficulties endured show that he's feisty too, and that's a good thing.

[Edahn]

Canceling a nationally televised perennial presidential debate is fine, but how dare he cancel on Letterman. How dare he.

[ajblaise]

Canceling a nationally televised perennial presidential debate is fine, but how dare he cancel on Letterman. How dare he.

He'll get his. No one gets away with it.

[ajblaise]

Looks like a deal might get struck on the bailout, leaving McCain with no excuse not to debate.

[pure_mercury]

Looks like a deal might get struck on the bailout, leaving McCain with no excuse not to debate.

I think that may have been his hope all along. I don't think he fears debating Obama. I think he was just trying to put the political screws to him with this "it's for the country" charade. McCain tends to do well with direct questioning, as opposed to speechifying.

[ajblaise]

I think that may have been his hope all along. I don't think he fears debating Obama. I think he was just trying to put the political screws to him with this "it's for the country" charade. McCain tends to do well with direct questioning, as opposed to speechifying.

I think that's what they were going to try to do, paint that whole argument, but I'm watching the news now, and it looks like tomorrow everyone will the debate on their minds, and Mississippi stands to lose $5 mil if he backs out.

[kuranes]

The big meeting just ended - it lasted about an hour and supposedly McCain said very little during it. He and Obama's "demands" are pretty similar. That executives should have at least some restrictions put on their salaries and bonuses so as not to make a windfall out of this. That there be at least some oversight on the doling out from this kitty etc. Bush supposedly agreed, but they're still "working out some details". Business as usual.

[Enyo]

They just said on CNN that McCain isn't planning on being in DC on Friday night. If he's not there, and he's not at the debate, I have a hard time seeing how this could play out in his favor.

[Modern Nomad]

this one time, this guy in high school challenged me to a fight, then when i stepped up, he backed out saying "my finger hurts".

he even showed me the pinky that hurt.

[lowtech redneck]

this one time, this guy in high school challenged me to a fight, then when i stepped up, he backed out saying "my finger hurts".


John McCain had actually requested more debates than Obama had agreed to, a point Bill Clinton himself has noted. Obama's strength is scripted speeches, not debates; I don't think McCain fears losing the debates to him.

[Ivy]

I don't, either, but I do think he could've been trying to put off next week's VP debate by replacing it with this one.

[kuranes]

I heard that the VP debate is set up now so that there is even less interaction between the "debaters". Some "debates" are basically just opportunities for people to get up and speak for X minutes on a subject mostly of their own choosing. ( "That reminds me of ..." ) I wouldn't want a shouting match exactly, but I'd like to see more opportunities for back and forth nitty gritty to occur.

[kuranes]

Update - Looks like they are not that close on a deal after all. A guy ( I think he may have been a Senator ) just was on Lou Dobbs saying that there are still serious objections coming towards Bush's plan. He was a Republican ( Brad Sherman, IIRC ) and the way he made it sound was that any oversight that Bush is allowing is only going to be some more of Bush's pals. I guess Palin ( the way he tells it ) and some of the others are caving because they're afraid of how angry the voters might get if the foot dragging causes any trouble while we're waiting for something better.

[ajblaise]

John McCain had actually requested more debates than Obama had agreed to, a point Bill Clinton himself has noted. Obama's strength is scripted speeches, not debates; I don't think McCain fears losing the debates to him.

I think McCain's campaign is stressing more about the Biden vs. Palin debates, a lot more, than McCain's and Obama's.

[Eileen]

I think McCain's campaign is stressing more about the Biden vs. Palin debates, a lot more, than McCain's and Obama's.

As well they should. Palin doesn't have a fucking clue.

As for McCain and Obama, I think they'll be pretty well matched. They're both smart guys.

[Jack Flak]

I don't know, Eileen, I think the McC campaign knows what they're doing. To an observer with no prior knowledge of anyone involved, Palin vs. Biden is going to Palin. She's smooth.

[ajblaise]

As well they should. Palin doesn't have a fucking clue.

As for McCain and Obama, I think they'll be pretty well matched. They're both smart guys.

I think people underestimate how much Obama knows his shit. He is very well versed on every major issue. I think his effort should be to make McCain look like a old clueless grandpa.

I don't know, Eileen, I think the McC campaign knows what they're doing. To an observer with no prior knowledge of anyone involved, Palin vs. Biden is going to Palin. She's smooth.

She's a people person, but so is Biden. Socially, they are both adept, but on issues, Biden is so much more knowledgeable. He's going to talk and talk and show off how much he knows.

[kuranes]

I don't know, Eileen, I think the McC campaign knows what they're doing. To an observer with no prior knowledge of anyone involved, Palin vs. Biden is going to Palin. She's smooth.
If it goes the way of the Republicans on that debate, I don't think it will be due to Palin "out-smoothing" Biden, but rather the Republicans playing up Biden's ties to credit card companies. The attack dogs of the Obama campaign ( versus Obama himself ) still haven't realized ( as Bill Clinton has ) that a lot of people like Palin for the very reasons that she is being made fun of by the Liberals. It's not that they haven't heard about some of these ballyhooed liabilities so much as they feel those things make her "one of them" !!! I cut the Keith Olbermanns etc. some slack though, as they are trying to offset the constant barrage from people like Rush Limbaugh. Maybe you can't fight fire with fire, but I enjoy hearing some of it anyway.

I just read that Obama has supposedly taken a lot of contributions from Goldman Sachs, though, and I'm wondering how tough he can get with Paulson if that's so. But at least his side claims to be planning on doing something about the health insurance crisis.

Still, I admit that I'm glad that some Republicans are in there fighting this thing, all the more so considering that it is sponsored by "one of their own" where the temptation must be to "quit rocking the boat".

[Lateralus]

I think people underestimate how much Obama knows his shit. He is very well versed on every major issue. I think his effort should be to make McCain look like a old clueless grandpa.
I wonder if you and I have been looking at the same Obama.

[ajblaise]

I wonder if you and I have been looking at the same Obama.

Really? Have some examples? The past few months especially, he goes into specific detail and and shows a very good understanding of current events.

[Jack Flak]

He's thinking of Osama.

[Jeffster]

Here, I'll save you all the trouble:

McCain: Country, honor, I was a POW, country, my friends, country, POW, country, friends, POW, honor, POW, country, POW.

Senator Obama, your bebuttal?

Obama: Change, hope, change, hope, believe, hope, change, believe, hope, change, change, hope, believe, change, hope, hope, change.

*applause*

[ajblaise]

He's thinking of Osama.

lol?

[Eileen]

I don't know, Eileen, I think the McC campaign knows what they're doing. To an observer with no prior knowledge of anyone involved, Palin vs. Biden is going to Palin. She's smooth.

She's a people person, but so is Biden. Socially, they are both adept, but on issues, Biden is so much more knowledgeable. He's going to talk and talk and show off how much he knows.

Yeah. Based on the (admittedly just a few) interview clips I've seen with her, while she may have some charm about her, her weaknesses in terms of knowledge are pretty easily exposed. Will that convince the American people? Maybe not. And it may be that if Biden mops the floor with her because of his experience and knowledge, he'll just be widely considered to be a giant meanie... but I can't really imagine Palin actually winning a debate against Biden.

[Eileen]

I wonder if you and I have been looking at the same Obama.

Well, given your (and his) biases, you may be looking at Obama differently than each other, and it's possible that neither or both of you are right. :) Hello, relativity...

[ajblaise]

Well, given your (and his) biases, you may be looking at Obama differently than each other, and it's possible that neither or both of you are right. :) Hello, relativity...

I don't know, it seems everyone agrees that he's quite articulate, and he will talk at length on foreign affairs, the economy, even issues like the Georgia/Russia conflict.

[Eileen]

Yeah, I mean, I am for Obama and I agree with you. I just think that if someone doesn't take his ideas seriously, maybe it's easy for them to perceive it as all fluff and hope, maybe like it's easy for me (because I don't buy into John McCain's rhetoric) to perceive it as all fluff and patriotism.

[lindsay5889]

Does anyone know if he's doing the debate yet?

I'd be so mad if he cancelled, Mississippi has been so excited for this debate and Ole Miss about getting something important for a change. And people have been preparing for this debate all over the place, and desperately trying to get tickets. Like this is huge for us, and it's just so annoying that all of those plans people had made, he could just change on a whim.

I mean I understand it's a good reason or whatever, but he's like putting a country on hold. I've cancelled school to go (and we have a very limited amount of days off) and I really really hope he comes.

Now it's a little ridiculous, it's the day before the debate and he STILL has not decided.

[kuranes]

Yeah. Based on the (admittedly just a few) interview clips I've seen with her, while she may have some charm about her, her weaknesses in terms of knowledge are pretty easily exposed. Will that convince the American people? Maybe not. And it may be that if Biden mops the floor with her because of his experience and knowledge, he'll just be widely considered to be a giant meanie... but I can't really imagine Palin actually winning a debate against Biden.
I just now saw excerpts of her talk with Katie Couric. Palin looked like a child. I felt sorry for her. Katie wasn't even being that tough. I've seen some other people who are big shots in their countries and don't sound very nimble in live dialogues, but that is because English is not their preferred language.

[Jen]

I like how McCain made out like he HAD to go to Washington to save the day and said basically nothing the entire time. Mr. McCain was at one end of the long conference table, Mr. Obama at the other, with the president and senior Congressional leaders between them. Participants said Mr. Obama peppered Mr. Paulson with questions, while Mr. McCain said little. Outside the West Wing, a huge crowd of reporters gathered in the driveway, anxiously awaiting an appearance by either presidential candidate, with expectations running high.

I also got a kick out of this...“If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down,” President Bush on Thursday as he watched the $700 billion bailout package fall apart before his eyes, according to one person in the room."I'll try and find ya some and I'll bring em to ya"omg.

[01011010]

I just now saw excerpts of her talk with Katie Couric. Palin looked like a child. I felt sorry for her. Katie wasn't even being that tough. I've seen some other people who are big shots in their countries and don't sound very nimble in live dialogues, but that is because English is not their preferred language.

Exactly. With no pre-written media excerpts for the press or speeches that she can read from a teleprompter, she's useless.

[Modern Nomad]

John McCain had actually requested more debates than Obama had agreed to, a point Bill Clinton himself has noted. Obama's strength is scripted speeches, not debates; I don't think McCain fears losing the debates to him.

i cant stop thinking about the pinky

he showed it to me. it looked fine. my gut tells me this is similiar.

[nottaprettygal]

To an observer with no prior knowledge of anyone involved, Palin vs. Biden is going to Palin. She's smooth.

Well, the bolded part is a pretty difficult thing to overlook. She's is terrible at covering up the knowledge that she lacks. I really think that she is the opposite of smooth. She can repeat a witty, rehearsed story about lipstick and soccer moms a couple of times, but she seems completely unable to improvise while sounding remotely intelligent.

[Oberon]

I just now saw excerpts of her talk with Katie Couric. Palin looked like a child. I felt sorry for her. Katie wasn't even being that tough. I've seen some other people who are big shots in their countries and don't sound very nimble in live dialogues, but that is because English is not their preferred language.

Hmmm.

I wonder if Couric & Company didn't maybe edit the interview to deliberately make Palin look dumb.

Remember, this is the same network that brought us Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" Air National Guard memos.

[pure_mercury]

Well, the bolded part is a pretty difficult thing to overlook. She's is terrible at covering up the knowledge that she lacks. I really think that she is the opposite of smooth. She can repeat a witty, rehearsed story about lipstick and soccer moms a couple of times, but she seems completely unable to improvise while sounding remotely intelligent.

I don't know about that. I could see her making broad-but-incisive points against Biden in a debate. If it were a quiz on the issues (excluding energy and mining), then no, probably not.

[Jeffster]

Exactly. With no pre-written media excerpts for the press or speeches that she can read from a teleprompter, she's useless.

Now that's just wrong. I can think of several uses for her.

[Ivy]

If they IM'd: Team McCain - 236.com - News (http://www.236.com/news/2008/09/24/if_they_imd_team_mccain_9118.php)

[The_Liquid_Laser]

2508

I found this to be funny.

[pure_mercury]

2508

I found this to be funny.

That is amusing, but this commonly-held assertion that McCain doesn't really want to debate Obama seems a little misguided. As I've stated before, McCain can handle direct questioning. His "closing statements" would be the area in which he gets muddled and sounds like some old guy rambling.

[Jennifer]

Well, the bolded part is a pretty difficult thing to overlook. She's is terrible at covering up the knowledge that she lacks. I really think that she is the opposite of smooth. She can repeat a witty, rehearsed story about lipstick and soccer moms a couple of times, but she seems completely unable to improvise while sounding remotely intelligent.

Yes, based on personality, I don't think she deals well with conceptualizations and thinking on her feet about situations she's not immersed in.

She comes across as an ESTJ type -- great within her area of practical knowledge and good at making things happen swiftly, but strategic thinking of new complex situations (something that is a great boon in today's world for a presidential figure) ... meh. She'll be either dismissive or overtly procrustean... or make terrible excuses.

Get her outside her experience zone and she is so hosed.

[nottaprettygal]

Yes, based on personality, I don't think she deals well with conceptualizations and thinking on her feet about situations she's not immersed in.

I agree. I worry more about the possibility of her becoming President than McCain. She seems less willing to consult others and more willing to stubbornly hold on to her beliefs. I think I remember another President who acted similarly and got us into a bit of trouble. . . hrm. . .

Those are just my general impressions of her from what I have observed thus far. I could be wrong.

I wonder if any other women are slightly embarrassed that she is currently the main political representative of our sex.

[Lateralus]

I wonder if any other women are slightly embarrassed that she is currently the main political representative of our sex.
I'm sure there are. I'm not particularly thrill with her, myself. I really hate the choices in this election.

Apparently McCain has changed his mind and decided to attend the debate.

[Udog]

Smart move. McCain skipping this debate would have been a huge story, plus the townhall style meeting would have been an incredible opportunity for Obama.

[Jen]

Apparently McCain has changed his mind and decided to attend the debate.His mind was changed alright, as in he had no other alternative.

[Lateralus]

His mind was changed alright, as in he had no other alternative.
I don't plan on voting for the guy, but I'm almost tempted to just to spite the irrational haters.

[pure_mercury]

Smart move. McCain skipping this debate would have been a huge story, plus the townhall style meeting would have been an incredible opportunity for Obama.

I completely disagree. McCain excels at town hall meetings, and Obama excels at oratory.

[ajblaise]

I was under the impression that today's debate wasn't/isn't going to be a town hall style meeting.

[pure_mercury]

I was under the impression that today's debate wasn't/isn't going to be a town hall style meeting.

It may not be. I haven't seen anything about it short of the "Will he/won't he?" coverage.

[Udog]

I completely disagree. McCain excels at town hall meetings, and Obama excels at oratory.

Obama was going to have a townhall style meeting if McCain didn't show. My point was that a McCainless debate like that would have been a great opportunity for Obama.

As far as I know, since McCain is showing it will be a standard debate.

[pure_mercury]

Obama was going to have a townhall style meeting if McCain didn't show. My point was that a McCainless debate like that would have been a great opportunity for Obama.

As far as I know, since McCain is showing it will be a standard debate.

I see. Well, Obama with the whole time to himself would definitely have been a huge blow to McCain. Still, IMHO, Obama works better with the rousing, lofty speechifying. As charismatic a political creature as he is, I also get the feeling that he would seem less magnetic face-to-face. He's like U2; you may not like his stuff personally, and his appeal would probably be totally lost in a 100-seat venue, but he puts on a tremendous arena show.

[ajblaise]

I see. Well, Obama with the whole time to himself would definitely have been a huge blow to McCain. Still, IMHO, Obama works better with the rousing, lofty speechifying. As charismatic a political creature as he is, I also get the feeling that he would seem less magnetic face-to-face. He's like U2; you may not like his stuff personally, and his appeal would probably be totally lost in a 100-seat venue, but he puts on a tremendous arena show.

Have you seen Obama participate in a structured debate yet? I haven't.

[Udog]

I watched one of his debates with Hillary. I was actually a bit underwhelmed, but some of that was likely because of how articulate he is with prepared material. McCain has nothing to fear, and considering this is a foreign policy debate I can easily see him getting some really strong hits on Obama. The only downside to McCain is that the economy is a big enough issue right now that I can't help but see it work it's way in to some degree.

[pure_mercury]

Have you seen Obama participate in a structured debate yet? I haven't.

He debated Alan Keyes during the Senate race in 2004. It was pretty weird. Nice to see two black men with two very different philosophies debating in a major political contest, though.

YouTube - Keyes-Obama debate 2 (Christianity) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md2bf9DNVB4)

[Udog]

I see. Well, Obama with the whole time to himself would definitely have been a huge blow to McCain. Still, IMHO, Obama works better with the rousing, lofty speechifying. As charismatic a political creature as he is, I also get the feeling that he would seem less magnetic face-to-face. He's like U2; you may not like his stuff personally, and his appeal would probably be totally lost in a 100-seat venue, but he puts on a tremendous arena show.

Obama is a bit like (the old) Brittney Spears... so much of his draw comes from his performance. In a debate, he still remains articulate, but other factors, such as timing, inflection, and passion, seem to get thrown off. When those factors get stripped, I find myself often thinking "he could have answered that question better." His content becomes a bit more bare, and a bit more plain.

I guess I should disclose that I am an Obama supporter, though, despite just saying that. I am just not an unconditional supporter.

[nottaprettygal]

I don't plan on voting for the guy, but I'm almost tempted to just to spite the irrational haters.

Pfft. The irrational thing is to believe that McCain's attempt to skip the debate were for the reasons he stated. I don't hate the guy, but I know bullshit when I hear it.

[Jen]

I don't plan on voting for the guy, but I'm almost tempted to just to spite the irrational haters.I don't hate McCain and would have taken him over Bush any day, but this time I don't believe he has what it takes to get us out of this mess we're in. Voting out of spite isn't what our country needs.

[Lateralus]

Pfft. The irrational thing is to believe that McCain's attempt to skip the debate were for the reasons he stated. I don't hate the guy, but I know bullshit when I hear it.
Don't assume that a single event is the catalyst for my opinion.

Look at my previous post in this thread. People who view him unfavorably will view this situation unfavorably. People who don't, won't.

[Lateralus]

I don't hate McCain and would have taken him over Bush any day, but this time I don't believe he has what it takes to get us out of this mess we're in. Voting out of spite isn't what our country needs.
You've made enough posts, previously, voicing your displeasure with McCain for me to not believe this.

I don't care enough to actually do it, but I do get annoyed when people start assigning motivations. I don't like Fe.

[pure_mercury]

Pfft. The irrational thing is to believe that McCain's attempt to skip the debate were for the reasons he stated. I don't hate the guy, but I know bullshit when I hear it.

Yes, that would be silly, but the attempts by Obama supporters to spin it like McCain is scared to debate are just as irrational.

[Jen]

You've made enough posts, previously, voicing your displeasure with McCain for me to not believe this.

I don't care enough to actually do it, but I do get annoyed when people start assigning motivations. I don't like Fe.So, childishly threatening to vote for a candidate out of "spite" isn't displaying Fe? Embrace your inner F, man! ;)

As for expressing annoyance over others opinions, that to me is silly. I do like to hear other people's pov on most things and when it comes to politics I don't claim to be an expert and do not feel animosity towards those who don't share my view. (just pity ;P)

[ZiL]

Well, I'm glad to see that it looks like the debate will proceed tonight as far as I can tell....

Then maybe we'll have more substantial fodder to throw our biases at :cheese:.

[Enyo]

I wonder if any other women are slightly embarrassed that she is currently the main political representative of our sex.

That's like saying that white men should be embarrassed because of W.

*shrugs*

One's gender has nothing to do with their politics.

Besides that, prior to her, we had Nancy Pelosi as our "main political representative". If we can survive that embarrassment, then we can survive anything. :P

[Modern Nomad]

cool. mccain is gonna show up.

i love a good fight! watching one is pretty fun... i hope a lot of sparks fly... *oohhhhs* and *ahhhhs*


edit*

i can't believe that i am actually looking forward to a presidential debate. my gawd...

[Modern Nomad]

dang, feel bad for anyone who worked at washington mutual...

i wonder if wamu would have been able to avoid meltdown this week if congress was able to pass something legit on time...

[kuranes]

If they IM'd: Team McCain - 236.com - News (http://www.236.com/news/2008/09/24/if_they_imd_team_mccain_9118.php):happy0065:

Hmmm.

I wonder if Couric & Company didn't maybe edit the interview to deliberately make Palin look dumb.

Remember, this is the same network that brought us Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" Air National Guard memos.
Well, it was excerpts, as I acknowledged upfront. But these weren't simply quick clips of a candidate being momentarily tongue tied, for which I'm sure you could find examples for any of the four. The entire interview with Katie was supposed to be shown later, on the same channel. At least they said they were planning on showing it. ( I didn't stay up to watch and confirm that. )

Two clips were shown.

One was Sarah explaining how her occasionally sending some Alaskan trade missions to Russia, and her being on the lookout for Russian jets in USA airspace, constituted foreign policy credibility. This part was kind of funny, but Sarah still managed to hold some shreds of dignity there.

During the segment on "second-guessing Israel" however, she looked like a frustrated 12 year old as she "explained" to Katie about "good guys" and "bad guys". I felt so bad for her that my male protective instincts were even involuntarily activated. :)

That's like saying that white men should be embarrassed because of W.


If George was one of the few white men in politics, I probably would be. :)

[Eileen]

i can't believe that i am actually looking forward to a presidential debate. my gawd...


that means you're old.

[Modern Nomad]

that means you're old.

i know!

T_T

i was actually debating and talkign about it and laughing about what they were saying with my friend while we were watching it

man... this is some serious aging going on...

[tblood]

They are still putting Palin through Political Science 101, she's still cramming before the test. [...]

The LA Times reports:

Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs. Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said.

When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska. The idea of a "young Earth" -- that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on -- is a popular strain of creationism. Though in her race for governor she called for faith-based "intelligent design" to be taught along with evolution in Alaska's schools, Gov. Palin has not sought to require it, state educators say.

In a widely-circulated interview, Matt Damon said of Palin, "I need to know if she really think that dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. I want to know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes."

[Jack Flak]

You're right, I don't know what I was thinking not wanting to be a communist just yet. Because it matters. *votes Obama*

[Jeffster]

The LA Times reports:



After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs. Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said.

When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska. The idea of a "young Earth" -- that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on -- is a popular strain of creationism. Though in her race for governor she called for faith-based "intelligent design" to be taught along with evolution in Alaska's schools, Gov. Palin has not sought to require it, state educators say.

In a widely-circulated interview, Matt Damon said of Palin, "I need to know if she really think that dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. I want to know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes."

And?...

[pure_mercury]

The LA Times reports:



After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs. Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said.

When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska. The idea of a "young Earth" -- that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on -- is a popular strain of creationism. Though in her race for governor she called for faith-based "intelligent design" to be taught along with evolution in Alaska's schools, Gov. Palin has not sought to require it, state educators say.

In a widely-circulated interview, Matt Damon said of Palin, "I need to know if she really think that dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. I want to know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes."


What a person believes politically is far more important than what they believe about Jesus or Buddha or Allah or whatever.

[Udog]

True, but to believe dinosaurs roamed the earth 6,000 years ago alongside man? It suggests to me that she doesn't even acknowledge science or history. What if she isn't an expert in other subjects, such as economics, foreign policy, and medicine? Will she ignore the experts who present compelling evidence against her preconceived notions in these areas as well?

Of course, this is all moot. The only real source (I've found) is some "local music teacher". I need something a tad bit more solid than that.

Sure does make a sensational story, though!

[pure_mercury]

True, but to believe dinosaurs roamed the earth 6,000 years ago alongside man? It suggests to me that she doesn't even acknowledge science or history. What if she isn't an expert in other subjects, such as economics, foreign policy, and medicine? Will she ignore the experts who present compelling evidence against her preconceived notions in these areas as well?

Of course, this is all moot. The only real source (I've found) is some "local music teacher". I need something a tad bit more solid than that.

Sure does make a sensational story, though!


Well, yes, most likely. You don't get elected (and shouldn't be, IMHO) if your policy is "I don't make up my mind about anything until I see every single piece of evidence." That is no way to run a country. You have to have some opinions and principles upon which you operate. She happens to be wrong about some of these opinions, but you can't fault her for having beliefs in the first place.

Also, like 25-30% of Americans believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted 6,000-10,000 years ago. I am not saying that makes sense, but it's the truth. They're not all retarded, either. They just really, really believe.

[Eileen]

What a person believes politically is far more important than what they believe about Jesus or Buddha or Allah or whatever.

Unfortunately, what a person believes about Jesus etc certainly does affect what they believe politically as well. It just so happens that people who deny evolution also tend to have problematic beliefs about the right to choose and a whole slew of other issues. That Sarah Palin denies this wouldn't necessarily be a problem if this one belief occurred in isolation from other beliefs that affect people's bodies, livelihoods, and the like... but it doesn't. I don't think she should be judged based on this one belief, but if you look closer at it, it is part of a larger system of fundamentalist views.

[Jack Flak]

That's true, Eileen, but it can be mountains vs. mole-hills when one (such as myself) compares the alternatives.

[Udog]

Well, yes, most likely. You don't get elected (and shouldn't be, IMHO) if your policy is "I don't make up my mind about anything until I see every single piece of evidence." That is no way to run a country. You have to have some opinions and principles upon which you operate. She happens to be wrong about some of these opinions, but you can't fault her for having beliefs in the first place.

I definitely don't fault her for having principles. I don't agree with all of them, but she does a respectable job living up to them, and I like that about her. It scares me, though, when a politician will operate so much on an opinion that has so much evidence against it. Decisiveness is important, and you have to have principles to help clear the white noise, but you also need to be able to sort between 'relevant data' and 'white noise'.

I consider fossils, carbon dating, the egyptian pyraminds and hieroglyphs, and universally accepted ideas from the experts in their fields to be relevant enough to not be ignored. Principles should not be an excuse to ignore all dissenting evidence.

Just to be clear though, I don't believe she actually said those things. It's far too likely the "local music teacher" is getting the quote wrong. My opinion of Palin, which is somewhat positive, has not changed.

Also, like 25-30% of Americans believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted 6,000-10,000 years ago. I am not saying that makes sense, but it's the truth. They're not all retarded, either. They just really, really believe.

"They're not 'all' retarded either"... hehe. Couldn't have said it better myself! ;)

[Eileen]

That's true, Eileen, but it can be mountains vs. mole-hills when one (such as myself) compares the alternatives.

Woah. What do you believe in so strongly that you're willing to take a risk on the fundamentalists? Or do you have great faith that her beliefs really just don't matter?

[Jack Flak]

Woah. What do you believe in so strongly that you're willing to take a risk on the fundamentalists? Or do you have great faith that her beliefs really just don't matter?
To avoid details, it's about 20 to 5 in favor of the Republicans. I am pro-choice and stem-cell research.

[Jennifer]

After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs. Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said.

When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska. The idea of a "young Earth" -- that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on -- is a popular strain of creationism.

That's rather pathetic... it's leftover Young Earth garbage left over from "Genesis Record" Henry Morris, stuff that has been invalidated decades ago. (I saw the pics of dinosaur footprints and human prints when I was a kid and believed it at that point, but the photos were debunked long ago.) She's believing things without having done any serious reading of criticisms.

That sort of assumptive thinking especially about things that seem absurd to begin with really bothers me. If she could so easily dismiss easily accessible expert criticism of details like that, what other knowledge might she be inclined to dismiss just because she doesn't feel like believing it?

[Eileen]

To avoid details, it's about 20 to 5 in favor of the Republicans. I am pro-choice and stem-cell research.

And I guess that's a reasonable enough way to vote. But if I were Republican/fiscally conservative, I'd be freaked out by the prominent presence of religious nutjobs in my party, and I wouldn't want their beliefs forming any kind of policy. Seems to me like a sure way to destroy individual rights--which I don't believe is a value of only the Democrats (certainly not stereotypically).

[Jack Flak]

McCain>>>>>>>>>Bush>Obama imo.

[Udog]

Where does McCain of 2000 fall in that graph?

I consider myself to be fiscally conservative. If either candidate could be considered that, I'd be much more likely to vote for him, regardless of the party.

[Jack Flak]

McCain 2000 is like wayyyyy over to the awesome left.

[Udog]

McCain 2000 is like wayyyyy over to the awesome left.

:yes:

[pure_mercury]

Unfortunately, what a person believes about Jesus etc certainly does affect what they believe politically as well. It just so happens that people who deny evolution also tend to have problematic beliefs about the right to choose and a whole slew of other issues. That Sarah Palin denies this wouldn't necessarily be a problem if this one belief occurred in isolation from other beliefs that affect people's bodies, livelihoods, and the like... but it doesn't. I don't think she should be judged based on this one belief, but if you look closer at it, it is part of a larger system of fundamentalist views.


Then you seem to have a problem with people having overarching values systems, or their having overarching values systems which conflict with yours. Again, you can look at the individual POLICIES (about abortion or taxes or gay marriage, anything at all) without indicting someone for his or her belief system. Sarah Palin's believing that human beings coexisted with dinosaurs has absolutely no bearing on me whatsoever. Her policy initiatives could, and I base my lack of support on her for those. Saying that, because someone is a fundamentalist, she makes poor decisions is pretty fundamentalist on your part. I know a few fundamentalist Christians who are libertarians or liberals (at least when it comes to "social justice" concerns).

[kuranes]

Saying that, because someone is a fundamentalist, she makes poor decisions is pretty fundamentalist on your part. I know a few fundamentalist Christians who are libertarians
Hmmmm. Not too surprising to hear about Fundy Libertarians. :) Would you go so far as to say that a believer in a "flat earth" would not cause you any concern, and should be looked at as only one category among many in evaluating a candidate ?

[pure_mercury]

I consider fossils, carbon dating, the egyptian pyraminds and hieroglyphs, and universally accepted ideas from the experts in their fields to be relevant enough to not be ignored. Principles should not be an excuse to ignore all dissenting evidence.

As do I, but her opinions on the matter are A) non-expert; and B) irrelevant to whether or not she would make a good or bad executive. Willful ignorance of scientific opinion isn't a good quality, but it's small potatoes compared to ignorance of the Constitution or ignorance of foreign policy.

[pure_mercury]

Hmmmm. Not too surprising to hear about Fundy Libertarians. :)

It should be. The majority of libertarians I've met are either agnostics (like myself) or committed atheists. Perhaps you haven't spent much time talking to libertarians?


Would you go so far as to say that a believer in a "flat earth" would not cause you any concern, and should be looked at as only one category among many in evaluating a candidate ?

I'd consider that person completely stupid, but if they were for cutting taxes and spending, balancing the budget, restoring civil rights, and getting out of Iraq, I'd vote for him/her in a heartbeat. Some of our greatest Founding Fathers in this country were idiots, religious wackjobs, or just plain weirdos.

[Eileen]

Then you seem to have a problem with people having overarching values systems, or their having overarching values systems which conflict with yours. Again, you can look at the individual POLICIES (about abortion or taxes or gay marriage, anything at all) without indicting someone for his or her belief system. Sarah Palin's believing that human beings coexisted with dinosaurs has absolutely no bearing on me whatsoever. Her policy initiatives could, and I base my lack of support on her for those. Saying that, because someone is a fundamentalist, she makes poor decisions is pretty fundamentalist on your part. I know a few fundamentalist Christians who are libertarians or liberals (at least when it comes to "social justice" concerns).

Unfortunately, what a person believes about Jesus etc certainly does affect what they believe politically as well. It just so happens that people who deny evolution also tend to have problematic beliefs about the right to choose and a whole slew of other issues. That Sarah Palin denies this wouldn't necessarily be a problem if this one belief occurred in isolation from other beliefs that affect people's bodies, livelihoods, and the like... but it doesn't. I don't think she should be judged based on this one belief, but if you look closer at it, it is part of a larger system of fundamentalist views.


"Fundamentalist" is a pretty specific term that describes a religious position. That I am intolerant of fundamentalism makes me intolerant, not fundamentalist. And I'm not necessarily intolerant of fundamentalism, unless it potentially infringes on rights through court appointments or legislation. People can believe whatever they want, but you are damn right that if A. it's different from what I believe and B. potentially limits somebody's rights, I have a problem with it. If it is only different from what I believe, then I can just live and let live... which is why I can deal with the dinosaur thing by itself (but not with the anti-abortion or anti-gay rights things).

And sure, I could criticize her policies--and do--without regard for her value system. However, that there are exceptions to the rule doesn't mean that there aren't some real, observable tendencies among most Christian fundamentalists that can affect policies.

[Udog]

As do I, but her opinions on the matter are A) non-expert; and B) irrelevant to whether or not she would make a good or bad executive. Willful ignorance of scientific opinion isn't a good quality, but it's small potatoes compared to ignorance of the Constitution or ignorance of foreign policy.

In this case, it's are mostly irrelevant, I agree. I would need to know if her willful ignorance only pertains to this religious aspect, though, or if this would extend to other areas that could be relevant. That's the red flag that I raise.

Education, in particular, would worry me. Who needs to teach our children science when we have the Bible?

[ptgatsby]

What a person believes politically is far more important than what they believe about Jesus or Buddha or Allah or whatever.

I guess that depends on her stance of rapture and the end of the world, I suppose... or, the whole Islam-Christian thing, at the present... Religious beliefs have more influence than political beliefs when guiding an individuals actions.

It's one reason why I tend to side with Libertarians - I tend to agree with their moral fibre more than the others, simply due to them being the most dominantly non-religious. I disagree on a lot with them on the political topics, but rarely at a personal level. I have no common ground with 'libertarian YEC'.

[pure_mercury]

"Fundamentalist" is a pretty specific term that describes a religious position. That I am intolerant of fundamentalism makes me intolerant, not fundamentalist.

Actually, it does. Fundamentalism is not specific to relgiosity. I've been called a "market fundamentalist" before, in regards to my libertarianism. If you have a problem with Christian Fundamentalism per se, that would be a fundamentalist position.


And I'm not necessarily intolerant of fundamentalism, unless it potentially infringes on rights through court appointments or legislation. People can believe whatever they want, but you are damn right that if A. it's different from what I believe and B. potentially limits somebody's rights, I have a problem with it. If it is only different from what I believe, then I can just live and let live... which is why I can deal with the dinosaur thing by itself (but not with the anti-abortion or anti-gay rights things).

And sure, I could criticize her policies--and do--without regard for her value system. However, that there are exceptions to the rule doesn't mean that there aren't some real, observable tendencies among most Christian fundamentalists that can affect policies.

That is reasonable, but you can't paint everyone with the same brush. Obama wants to limit our rights in many ways, as well, but I don't assign his reasoning automatically to the fact that he is a Democrat (or black, or a Christian, or from Illinois). You can make SOME educated guesses to what a Democrat believes, but you have to take people at an individual level in order to judge them fairly. There are Democrats who believe the most outlandish things imaginable about economics, the environment, all sorts of things. I am not going to say "Obama is a dope by definition, since he's a Democrat." I'll say he is a dope based on observing him speak and looking at his record.

[pure_mercury]

In this case, it's are mostly irrelevant, I agree. I would need to know if her willful ignorance only pertains to this religious aspect, though, or if this would extend to other areas that could be relevant. That's the red flag that I raise.

Education, in particular, would worry me. Who needs to teach our children science when we have the Bible?

True, but public schools in our country range from pretty good to awful. I would not blame most parents for wanting to homeschool or send their kids to private school. I was lucky; after 9 years of crappy parochial Catholic schooling, I earned a full academic scholarship to a very expensive private school.

Also, Palin sends her kids to public schools, doesn't she? I know Bristol Palin went to one, because it became a big deal about whether or not she received "comprehensive" sex education (she did).

[kuranes]

It should be. The majority of libertarians I've met are either agnostics (like myself) or committed atheists. Perhaps you haven't spent much time talking to libertarians?
I have a Libertarian friend, also a member of MENSA, that I hang around with often. He is an atheist/agnostic. Other than him, I mostly encounter them here. I have entertained it as a stance for myself at times, as well. I was alluding to the fact that there are some real extremists amongst the Libertarians, which IIRC was something that you were bemoaning also the other day.

My friend will be voting for Obama vs. Bob Barr, partly to focus on getting us out of Iraq. I guess you'll be doing the "protest vote" thing, which I flubbed around with back during Perot's run.


I'd consider that person completely stupid, but if they were for cutting taxes and spending, balancing the budget, restoring civil rights, and getting out of Iraq, I'd vote for him/her in a heartbeat. Some of our greatest Founding Fathers in this country were idiots, religious wackjobs, or just plain weirdos. The world was not such an interconnected place back in the days of the founding fathers and people did not have their fingers on nuclear codes. "Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die." Some people are the first world equivalent of third world "martyrs to the cause" with very different priorities than myself. I've heard that these fundies have even become a problem on the battle field itself in Iraq, trusting to God being on their side versus agreed upon fallback measures and detailed battle plans prepared in advance; which is not always so great for guys who don't share their certitude.

[ZiL]

" A. it's different from what I believe and B. potentially limits somebody's rights, I have a problem with it. If it is only different from what I believe, then I can just live and let live...

However, that there are exceptions to the rule doesn't mean that there aren't some real, observable tendencies among most Christian fundamentalists that can affect policies.

Exactly. It very well could be that Sarah Palin is the types of person who can believe in scientifically-refuted things, yet make good policy decisions. But I find that a person's principles usually form a blueprint for all patterns of their behavior. If they act one way towards one thing (continued belief in disproven theories), it's not some heinous extrapolation that they would act the same way towards another (closed-minded towards experts in policy who do not share the same principles). If it were the norm to isolate each strand of an individual's social behavior as entirely discrete entities, then these stereotypes about Fundamentalists being closed-minded and dictatorial towards others beliefs probably wouldn't exist. In fact generalizations - whether right or wrong - about people wouldn't be able to exist period.... And we know that's kind of impossible.

I dunno, I'm a big Ne freak so it's nigh on impossible for me to not extrapolate one thing from another (and I'm right about my extrapolations when it comes to analyzing people. Often.).

Again, she could be a perfectly fine policy-maker, and if I see more proof of that as this campaign continues, I'll be glad to admit it regardless of her beliefs. I just want to make sure that the beliefs that she holds that do not correspond with the majority beliefs of the populace she is to be representing (Americans), do not somehow work their way into her governance and cause the rest of us trouble.

[pure_mercury]

Exactly. It very well could be that Sarah Palin is the types of person who can believe in scientifically-refuted things, yet make good policy decisions. But I find that a person's principles usually form a blueprint for all patterns of their behavior. If they act one way towards one thing (continued belief in disproven theories), it's not some heinous extrapolation that they would act the same way towards another (closed-minded towards experts in policy who do not share the same principles). If it were the norm to isolate each strand of an individual's social behavior as entirely discrete entities, then these stereotypes about Fundamentalists being closed-minded and dictatorial towards others beliefs probably wouldn't exist. In fact generalizations - whether right or wrong - about people wouldn't be able to exist period.... And we know that's kind of impossible.

I dunno, I'm a big Ne freak so it's nigh on impossible for me to not extrapolate one thing from another (and I'm right about my extrapolations when it comes to analyzing people. Often.).

Again, she could be a perfectly fine policy-maker, and if I see more proof of that as this campaign continues, I'll be glad to admit it regardless of her beliefs. I just want to make sure that the beliefs that she holds that do not correspond with the majority beliefs of the populace she is to be representing (Americans), do not somehow work their way into her governance and cause the rest of us trouble.


A little extrapolation can be a dangerous thing. I am CERTAIN that any extrapolations regarding me (for instance) based on my posts in the Politics, History, and Current Events thread would be inaccurate.

Also, her beliefs coincide with a HUGE percentage of Americans. More than you'd probably think.

[Jack Flak]

The principle reasons behind my Palin affection are that she's intelligent and considerate. Whatever her personal beliefs or previous world knowledge, she doesn't seem likely to actually take hasty, ill-advised actions.

[ZiL]

A little extrapolation can be a dangerous thing. I am CERTAIN that any extrapolations regarding me (for instance) based on my posts in the Politics, History, and Current Events thread would be inaccurate.

Also, her beliefs coincide with a HUGE percentage of Americans. More than you'd probably think.


Well, that's why I stay open to new information as I make extrapolations. I'm no fundamentalist extrapolator. You don't have to be to get fairly accurate impressions.

EDIT: Ignoring the possible implications of a persons principles on other parts of their behavior is just as daft as rigidly stereotyping them based on their principles.

I guess I need to leave this country then. It's a slippery slope to a government that I don't want to be part of.

[ZiL]

The principle reasons behind my Palin affection are that she's intelligent and considerate. Whatever her personal beliefs or previous world knowledge, she doesn't seem likely to actually take hasty, ill-advised actions.

I hope all that "pit bull" nonsense was a big old joke then.

[Udog]

Also, her beliefs coincide with a HUGE percentage of Americans. More than you'd probably think.

And so she will win over many votes on that issue alone. She is like them, she shares their beliefs, and so she gets their vote. I don't think people are disputing that fact more than they are mourning it.

[kuranes]

I don't think people are disputing that fact more than they are mourning it.
Preach it, bro' !! :)

[pure_mercury]

And so she will win over many votes on that issue alone. She is like them, she shares their beliefs, and so she gets their vote. I don't think people are disputing that fact more than they are mourning it.

I wish the Religious Right would go back to the old "Leave us alone to believe what we want; the government isn't of God, anyway" program. Somewhere along the way, the conservative part of the Christian conservatives died off, and it now it's Big Government for God all the way. Makes me sad.

[Jack Flak]

I wish the Religious Right would go back to the old "Leave us alone to believe what we want; the government isn't of God, anyway" program. Somewhere along the way, the conservative part of the Christian conservatives died off, and it now it's Big Government for God all the way. Makes me sad.
+1+

[ZiL]

True that. Which is why automatic distrust was my reaction to Palin. It seems she was picked to seduce the religious right. I mean, an increase in support among them is what happened right? And it wouldn't have happened if they didn't think her beliefs, which are like theirs, would somehow effect her policy decisions....

So whether it will happen or not, SOMEBODY out there thinks that her beliefs will connect to her policy decisions. Unless they don't care about her policy decisions and solely like her because she is like them. Which makes her being chosen appear even MORE cynical.

[pure_mercury]

True that. Which is why automatic distrust was my reaction to Palin. It seems she was picked to seduce the religious right. I mean, an increase in support among them is what happened right? And it wouldn't have happened if they didn't think her beliefs, which are like theirs, would somehow effect her policy decisions....

So whether it will happen or not, SOMEBODY out there thinks that her beliefs will connect to her policy decisions. Unless they don't care about her policy decisions and solely like her because she is like them. Which makes her being chosen appear even MORE cynical.


It was a completely cynical (and, thus far, successful) choice. Do you think that any of these decisions are made for reasons other than the belief that it will help people win? Obama didn't pick Joe Biden because he wants to "change Washington." It was obvious that McCain had problems energizing the Religious Right and reaching out to women. He is trying to kill two birds with one stone. People fall for that type of shit, even though it looks bush league to you and me.

[ZiL]

Yeah, and since it's obviously such a cynical choice - more cynical than anything I've seen yet - I'm having a hard time understanding why some people around here aren't completely put off by her.

Sure, you can argue the Democrats do the same thing, I don't doubt that it's the arena of all politicians, but this pick was EXTREMELY blatant. Maybe I haven't been around long enough, I don't know.

My point was really that you can look at a persons policy decisions separate from their (fringe-like) beliefs, and you can hope that the person will not mix the two in office, but whether you like it or not, there is an implied assumption (on the part of the religious right, which is why she was chosen) that she will mix her beliefs with her policy decisions. I pray that she doesn't. But if she falls in line with those religious right types who share her background and largely support her, it's not unlikely that she would try to make policy decisions that stem from religious belief. Beliefs are inextricably tied to actions. If she values objectivity and open-mindedness in governance before religious belief, then we're fine. If not, her beliefs become a problem for me.

I can't just look at her policy decisions and not pay attention to the whole package she might bring with her, based on the fact that the religious right - not exactly a bastion of objectivity - was happy with the choice.

[Jack Flak]

As long as McCain's around, it won't be anything like Bush-Cheney. He'll be the brains behind the operation. Personally, I'm quite afraid of Biden. Two sides to every coin.

[ZiL]

As long as McCain's around, it won't be anything like Bush-Cheney. He'll be the brains behind the operation. Personally, I'm quite afraid of Biden. Two sides to every coin.

Heheh, McCain, plllease don't leave usssss.

I don't know much about Biden. Want to fill me in?

[Jack Flak]

Okay, LOL. Here's the first conservative Biden article I found. I'll read it shortly.

MASON CONSERVATIVE: Biden's Mess (http://masonconservative.typepad.com/the_mason_conservative/2008/08/bidens-mess.html)

[Udog]

As long as McCain's around, it won't be anything like Bush-Cheney. He'll be the brains behind the operation. Personally, I'm quite afraid of Biden. Two sides to every coin.

Yes, two sides indeed. McCain of 2000 was awesome. Somewhere in the 8 years he seemed to have lost his way. I can't get a feel for the McCain of 2008. On the surface he is pushing the same Bush policies that I don't feel has really done much good for the country at all.

Obama makes me sad. I like to think I'm a pretty good reader of people, but I misjudged him a bit. I bought his Primary campaign rhetoric, for the most part. I started to feel he could offer genuine change with all the money he was earning via the people on his website, and then once he was nominated he goes back on his word and supports FISA.

*sigh*

[Eileen]

Obama makes me sad. I like to think I'm a pretty good reader of people, but I misjudged him a bit. I bought his Primary campaign rhetoric, for the most part. I started to feel he could offer genuine change with all the money he was earning via the people on his website, and then once he was nominated he goes back on his word and supports FISA.

*sigh*

This makes me sad about him as well, but he has to appeal to a more moderate constituent as a presidential candidate than he did as a Dem. primary candidate. I still think it blows, though.

[pure_mercury]

This makes me sad about him as well, but he has to appeal to a more moderate constituent as a presidential candidate than he did as a Dem. primary candidate. I still think it blows, though.

A lot of people would be more upset about the FISA vote if they knew what it actually meant. But, then again, something like 40% of the population believes that the POTUS can suspend the U.S. Constitution in a time of national emergency. I get depressed just thinking about it.

[Jeffster]

I wish the Religious Right would go back to the old "Leave us alone to believe what we want; the government isn't of God, anyway" program. Somewhere along the way, the conservative part of the Christian conservatives died off, and it now it's Big Government for God all the way. Makes me sad.

That mostly happened because homosexual activists started attacking institutions such as the Boy Scouts, and "women's rights groups" starting pushing for 13 year old girls to be able to have abortions without their parents even knowing about it, much less giving permission. That kind of crap tends to kick people into a more active role.

[heart]

I wish the Religious Right would go back to the old "Leave us alone to believe what we want; the government isn't of God, anyway" program. Somewhere along the way, the conservative part of the Christian conservatives died off, and it now it's Big Government for God all the way. Makes me sad.

Not an accident. (http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm) :whistling:

And the same thing could happen to the Democrats with the Green Agenda.



“…[O]ne ought not to say to someone whom one wants to kill, ‘Give me your gun, I want to kill you with it,’ but merely, ‘Give me your gun,’ for once you have the gun in your hand, you can satisfy your desire.”

Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli, University of Chicago Press, 1978, page 9.

[Jeffster]

Not an accident. (http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm) :whistling:


Once again, this forum needs a gagging smiley. Crappy articles like that are why nothing ever gets done in politics. It's all about demonizing people and not understanding anyone or anything.

[heart]

Once again, this forum needs a gagging smiley. Crappy articles like that are why nothing ever gets done in politics. It's all about demonizing people and not understanding anyone or anything.

If one carefully reads the article, it is about how the good intentions of many common people were used to bring about the agenda of the the few and how people's idealism was used against them. The same thing can happen in any group. It's a good lesson to pay attention to, though few will. And I do foresee that the same thing could happen to the Democrats through the Green (new age religion) agenda. But people won't want to see it.

Also there's this smiley :sick: you can use. :rolleyes:

[Jeffster]

If one carefully reads the article, it is about how the good intentions of many common people were used to bring about the agenda of the the few and how people's idealism was used against them. The same thing can happen in any group. It's a good lesson to pay attention to, though few will.

The problem is you have to strip off all the layers of ridiculous sensationalist garbage rhetoric to even get to that idea. There's probably some "good lessons" in that book by Hitler, too.

Yeah, I just Godwined this mofo, who's gonna step to me? That's what I thought.

[Jeffster]

If one carefully reads the article, it is about how the good intentions of many common people were used to bring about the agenda of the the few and how people's idealism was used against them. The same thing can happen in any group. It's a good lesson to pay attention to, though few will. And I do foresee that the same thing could happen to the Democrats through the Green (new age religion) agenda. But people won't want to see it.

Also there's this smiley :sick: you can use. :rolleyes:

Quit editing your posts. It's like a damn rewind button. :alttongue:

And that smiley is vomit, much different than gagging.

[heart]

Why are you so quick to dismiss the idea that idealistic religious people (either conservative Christian or New Age Earth pagans) could be used by those with more nefarious intentions in a Machiavellian fashion?

[Jeffster]

Why are you so quick to dismiss the idea that idealistic religious people (either conservative Christian or New Age Earth pagans) could be used by those with more nefarious intentions in a Machiavellian fashion?

READ MY FREAKING POSTS. I SAY WHAT I MEAN.

[heart]

READ MY FREAKING POSTS. I SAY WHAT I MEAN.

I did read your posts and it seemed more like a mental firewall response than anything else. I totally understand it. I used to have the same exact thing whenever anyone questioned the integrity of the motives of the Democrat party.

[Jeffster]

I did read your posts and it seemed more like a mental firewall response than anything else. I totally understand it. I used to have the same exact thing whenever anyone questioned the integrity of the motives of the Democrat party.

:doh: If "mental firewall response" = not swallowing crap because the crap might contain a tiny piece of candy in it somewhere, then I plead guilty.

[heart]

:doh: If "mental firewall response" = not swallowing crap because the crap might contain a tiny piece of candy in it somewhere, then I plead guilty.

But that's the way everything is in the world. Truth is always sandwiched between lies and one has to ferret it out. This article does not reveal the dark manipulative side of the left, but it does expose some of the history of how the Christian conservatives were used to bring in Neo-Con agendas that had little to do with what the average CC person truly wanted and very little of the average, everyday CC's true wants were ever addressed by the Neo-Cons they helped to vote in. It is the same with the average, everyday people voting on the left side, their wants and idealism is used against them to gain their votes too.

[heart]

Crappy articles like that are why nothing ever gets done in politics. It's all about demonizing people and not understanding anyone or anything.

I disagree strongly.

I think that our plutocracy actually gets a lot done for the corporate interests that feed, sustain and drive it.

The things that people focus on that "don't get done" were never truly intended to be solved or fixed but kept in a permanent state of flux, doing just enough to keep the voters satisfied that a solution hangs in the balance just around the corner, meanwhile the common people on the left and right haggle endlessly over these issues that were never seriously considered in anyway except as distractions.

[Jeffster]

But that's the way everything is in the world. Truth is always sandwiched between lies and one has to ferret it out.

Nah, I don't buy that. Anyone can write an article making a point without wrapping it in insulting demeaning crap. I was a subscriber to Sojourners magazine for a while. There were plenty of articles making similar points without all the "George Bush is the new Jesus" garbage in there.

[heart]

Nah, I don't buy that. Anyone can write an article making a point without wrapping it in insulting demeaning crap. I was a subscriber to Sojourners magazine for a while. There were plenty of articles making similar points without all the "George Bush is the new Jesus" garbage in there.

So the point that irritates you is that the article says Bush was compared with Jesus to gain votes, not whether or not it could be backed up with evidence that this was actually the case?

I am not exactly seeing what is "dehumanizing" about this if it were the case.