General Question

dalepetrie's avatar

I'd like you to share your thoughts on Sarah Palin's speech last night.

Asked by dalepetrie (18009points) September 4th, 2008

Alright, I’m biased, I think of myself as an independent, but I lean pretty far to the left. And I KNOW everyone on that convention floor last night was biased to the far right. If one thing is perfectly clear it’s that Palin is a HUGE hit with the far religious right wing of the Republican party. Delegates are all over the radio this morning talking about how her speech has won them the election. I saw a much different speech than they did, but that is to be expected. But I’m really interested in how this plays to someone who is not all that partisan either direction.

My concern is that while I thought the Dems were hard hitting against the Republicans, they were not mean spirited, but Palin’s speech, as well as the other speeches last night struck me as EXTREMELY mean spirited. So, I’m curious if an impartial observer just thought they were telling their version of the truth, or if they thought the speeches were over the top mean and nasty like I did? I keep seeing what I think are HUGE inconsistencies and terrible hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans, but I’m wondering if I’d think that no matter what and am being more hypocritical than I should be?

One thing in particular, which both Guiliani and Palin did that just seemed to exemplify why I hate Republicans with a passion is that they seemed to openly MOCK community service. This is the party which says they honor service to country, yet both of them sneered and snickered at Obama’s experience as a community service leader. And were they chanting “beat ‘em up”, or what were they saying? I know they were chanting “zero” to indicate the Dem ticket’s perceived lack of experience, which is a whole other irony considering their VP candidate.

I just know that what Palin herself and her speech will do is energize and excite the right, which is fine, they got the candidate they want, and it will polarize the left who now feel personally attacked and are all the more ready to open their wallets to Obama. But I’m curious how that kind of vitriol sits with the person on the fence. I’m curious if your undecided voter would look at that and say “Oh, it didn’t seem mean spirited to me, just seemed like they were speaking their beliefs,” or if they’ll by and large think, “Man, for a group that has been in power for 8 years, they sure are bitter.”

I’ll take your thoughts no matter where you are on the spectrum, but if your answer doesn’t make it clear what your bias is (if any), please disclose this, just so I’m not hearing a Republican say “it was great”, but assuming it’s really an independent speaking.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

111 Answers

marinelife's avatar

Let her have her bounce. I have a feeling that her very own Troopergate scandal and some of her other positions will deflate any early popularity except with the far right.

dalepetrie's avatar

Marina,

I have no problem w/ them getting a bounce…convention bounces disappear in 2 to 3 weeks anyway. I’m just wondering if it was as bitter, nasty and mean spirited as I took it to be (or if I’m too biased to see it for what it was), and if I’m right about how nasty and mean spirited it was if that will sit well with independents or if it might actually work against them.

EmpressPixie's avatar

I thought she sounded really robotic. I didn’t like her delivery at all. I was shocked to hear on the news and see online that everyone thought it was great. But what do I know?

poofandmook's avatar

1) being pretty doesn’t mean you’re a good VP.
2) having spirit doesn’t mean you’re a good VP.
3) Having a son in the miltary doesn’t make you a good VP.
4) Having a baby with Down Syndrome doesn’t make you a good VP.

The big thing with the Republicans is Obama’s lack of experience. Hello? This woman was a MAYOR of a small town in Alaska, and while she was there, she championed the proposition to remove Alaska from the United States. Obama had, what, 8 years in the Senate?

Anyone who votes for McCain because of her has no business in a voting booth. How are you supposed to be trusted with a vote to change the fabric of the United States if you don’t even pay attention to the important issues, which do not include this woman’s family?

marinelife's avatar

Yes, some of it was. Sadly, there is so much polarization in our country, people who have aligned themselves with the Republicans will not even register that. Maybe some independents will.

RandomMrdan's avatar

I watched it as well…though I too am biased, so of course I saw it the same way you saw it….I really feel as though she droned on and on about how Obama isn’t ready, and then she would go back to talking about her family, and then end the statment with “United States of America!!!” and would get a lot of cheering.

I did however mute it for a moment, and thought he had a hot bod.

dalepetrie's avatar

I was just reading countless comments on a somewhat left leaning blog that tracks election projections, saying that they’ve just donated another $50—$100 to Obama’s campaign…one said they maxed out one of their cards, another said they gave the max allowable, and about 10 people said they volunteered to do phone banks. I think the speech was a HUGE success for Dems. But I still am only hearing left and right opinions, makes me wonder if there’s even going to BE a middle this year.

ezraglenn's avatar

I found her speech to be shockingly negative, as you said, toward us democrats. While the Obama campaign seems to be focusing on the issues and things that politics are actually about, the Republicans have apparently moved on from such logical tactics and are content with a convention of Dem-bashing.

benseven's avatar

This letter by someone who knows her is well worth a read, for more insight into her time as a Mayor in Alaska (and just how much she sucked at it). It seems like it’s genuine, and makes for a good narrative on where she’s come from…

basp's avatar

Too much dem bashing, enough about her family and her god and not enough said about the real issues.
It appeared to me that the bush speech writers told her what to say.
On the other hand, she is probably a great soccer mom.

breedmitch's avatar

Yes, full of hate. The bit about Obama saying one thing in Scranton, and another in San Francisco really chaps my be-hind. I’m sure there are plenty of examples of McCain “playing to his audience” but when they say San Francisco specifically, they mean gay. And everyong cheering so loudly in that arena knows they mean gay. And to me, personally, it sounds like a huge roar of hate.

breedmitch's avatar

She is, however, an impressive performer. She has a real natural understanding of cadence and how to turn a phrase. That also scares me.

RandomMrdan's avatar

@basp you mean hockey mom

kevbo's avatar

I still need to digest her speech, but what does it say when the main purpose of the night was to introduce Palin to America and yet Giuliani goes so far over on time that they are forced to skip the introductory video of her that they produced to precede her walking out and delivering her speech and lose some of her prime time audience by making her end late? I’m guessing that Guiliani was playing spotlight hog.

dalepetrie's avatar

breedmitch,

Did you see the Daily Show last night. Stewart nailed the Republican hypocrisy gambit. He first showed Karl Rove about a month ago talking about Tim Kaine, and how bad it would be for Obama if he picked Kaine as a running mate, because Kaine has only been Governor for 3 years, of a small state, and mayor before that, of only the 105th largest municipality in the country with only 200k people. That was of course after he played the clip of Rove talking about Palin having so much executive experience as a 2 year Governor of Alaska and a mayor of the 2nd largest city in the entire state (which I don’t even think is true btw).

He also played Dick Morris decrying media sexism, then played clips of him making obscenely sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton a few months ago.

Oh, and the night before on the Daily Show, since the topic is Republican vitriol, here’s one more reason I just think the Republican base is comprised of bitter, hateful people. They asked this guy on the street in front of the Xcel Center if he was excited for the Convention and he said, “I was really excited until they decided to cancel it to placate the liberal media.”. So the commentator asked him if he was upset about that, and he said,“I just don’t understand why it is that all of a sudden we can’t tell the truth about Barack Obama cuz some people are getting rained on.” With a sarcastic emphasis on “rained on” as if that’s all a hurricane was…just some people getting rained on.

dalepetrie's avatar

9ui11iani was definitely playing spotlight hog, no question. I sure hope Obama/Biden take them to task for mocking community service, I just can’t imagine that playing well with anyone other than a bitter, partisan Republican.

breedmitch's avatar

@RandomMrdan: Yeah the hockey mom thing scares me too. Sounds too much like a Disney, straight to video movie.
@dalepertie: Of course I saw it. I told you, we were separated at birth.

The fact that the voices of the Right have to so through (what Stewart called) “verbal gymnastics” to rationalize this choice of candadite only reinforces what I have always felt: They don’t actually believe in anything. The only goal is to get elected so they can further their own wealth. Public service doesn’t enter the equation.

dalepetrie's avatar

I don’t think I’ve laughed that hard in at least a month.

Had to love the bit about the Minneapolis airport bathroom. “How long do the memories last?”

Judi's avatar

Dale;
You might get a more right leaning view if you ask the question on askville.

critter1982's avatar

Why is everyone comparing the republican vp candidate to the democratic presidential candidate?

RandomMrdan's avatar

@ critter, I suppose it’s because it won’t be too long before McCain croaks. He’s what like 72?

critter1982's avatar

I’m confused on why people believe Obama has enough experience to be President when as a Senator he never held a single hearing? He also oversaw $100KK in grants which continually failed to go to education. His only other experience which makes him at all qualified is his experience running for President. Which could have made me just as qualified (if I was rich).

dalepetrie's avatar

Judi,

I’m done with Askville. And I pretty much already have the right leaning view on it. It’s called Palinguage. It’s where if the Democrats do something it’s very, very bad, but if the Republicans do the same thing it’s very very good:

http://www.thatminoritything.com/?p=53193

Notice my post on here.

@critter1982 – Palin set herself up for comparisons to Obama, or rather the party set her up for them. McCain spent the last 6 months building the case that Obama was too inexperienced, and an empty suit celebrity. Then he puts someone on his ticket who has FAR less experience than Obama (despite being 72 and having survived cancer 4 times, making it an actuarial assumption that his death is imminent) and the Republicans all clamor about how much experience she has (even though guys like Rove derided not just Obama but people who are also governors and former mayors that he might have considered as running mates). Palin even put out a commercial attacking Obama’s experience, and that speech last night, she compared herself to Obama, and the rest of the party compared her to Obama as well. They are trying to dilude themselves into thinking that she’s not just an unvetted, political choice meant to pander to the base and to women, so they’ve convinced themselves of exactly the opposite of what they’ve been saying all along. And she’s a friggin superstar among Republicans…the whole “celebrity” thing about Obama being bigger than Paris Hilton or Britney Spears….this past week her name has gotten more Google hits (by far), than Hilton, Spears and Obama combined.

Why is everyone comparing the VP on the Republican ticket to the Pres on the Dem ticket? Because they’ve backed themselves into a corner where they HAVE to make that comparison.

flameboi's avatar

@p&m
I can’t say it any better

poofandmook's avatar

The reason why Sarah Palin and Obama are being compared is because her image is what’s swaying a lot of undecided votes to the right side.

ljs22's avatar

I thought her speech was awful. I hated the fact that she took what was basically an honorable tone from McCain and threw it in the garbage with snark and misinformation. I was going to vote for Obama anyway, but now I’ve been inspired to donate money. If the republicans win in november I will be absolutely crushed. And worried.

RandomMrdan's avatar

@ critter being a senator doesn’t qualify for experience apparently?

poofandmook's avatar

Being a senator is way more experience than being Mayor of a podunk town in Alaska, who didn’t even want her state being governed by the US.

dalepetrie's avatar

@criter1982 – my post on the link I provided might put it into some better perspective for you:

If you spend 3 years as a community organizer growing your organization from a staff of 1 to 13 and your budget from $70,000 to $400,000, then become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new African Amerian voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, then spend nearly 8 more years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, then spend nearly 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you are woefully inexperienced.

If you spend 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, then spend 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then you’ve got the most executive experience of anyone on either ticket, are the Commander in Chief of the Alaska military and are well qualified to lead the nation should you be called upon to do so because your state is the closest state to Russia.

That and for me it’s about judgment. No one is experienced at being the President until they are the President.

Yet the Republican talking point is “the Presidency is no place for on the job training”, which in and of itself is bullshit when you see my point above.

Nonetheless, they then turn around and say that Palin may not have foreign policy experience, but she’s a “quick study”

The woman will be 2nd in command to a 72 year old who has HAD CANCER 4 TIMES!

To me the Presidency is a place for an intelligent person who knows how to lead people. Obama is intelligent and he knows how to lead people.

To me the President is the person who makes decisions with input from a variety of sources. That takes judgment and a willingness to listen to other’s opinions. Obama has that.

McCain and Palin go with the Bush (mis)leadership model. Make decisions first, ask questions later. That’s why this country is in such bad shape, in a war we should have never fought and in a financial crisis unlike anything we’ve seen since probably before you were born.

McCain making decisions first and asking questions later can be illustrated by his pick of Palin in and of itself. She was NOT VETTED. They have proven that he DIDN’T EVEN SEARCH THE ARCHIVES OF HER HOMETOWN NEWSPAPER.

McCain and Obama have both made their first Presidential level decision…the picking of a running mate. Obama picked someone who has been a leader in Congress for 36 years, with extensive foreign policy credentials. McCain picked someone he thought could sway disaffected Hillary voters because she’s a woman without finding out that she’s got a pregnant 17 year old daughter, is embroiled in a scandal and is rumored to not even be the mother of her youngest son.

I’m sorry, but the President doesn’t (or shouldn’t) just make decisions without input, Obama won’t, McCain will, bottom line, and we have enough proof to know that.

RandomMrdan's avatar

http://politicalirony.com/ funny website, everyone should check it out, some stuff on Palin there.

critter1982's avatar

The simple fact of BEING a senator doesn’t qualify any candidate to be President of the US. Little to nothing got accomplished when he was a Senator and if Obama is elected I highly doubt that anything will get done in office. I’m not arguing that Palin has enough experience to be in office but I certainly believe and not too many people argue that McCain certainly has enough experience.

RandomMrdan's avatar

McCain will only bring to the table what we’re already used to, and it isn’t working out.

gailcalled's avatar

@benseven; Warning; that letter has already showed up four times on my email. It is bogus.

My concern is that the GOP doesn’t offer concrete solutions to the problems plaguing the average American today. I am one of the lucky ones and still feeling a terrible economic pinch, desperate difficulties with medical insurance for me and my 93 year old mother, paying 20% of my yearly income to real estate and local taxes, as only a few personal examples.

steelmarket's avatar

Polarization is not helping the USA. Too much “love” and “hate”, with everyone hammering everyone else into one slot or the other. Does everyone either love or hate all of their employees, or coworkers, or team members, or class members, or acquaintances, or friends?

Just a radical suggestion: When talking and thinking about politics (at least!), replace “love” in your dialogue with “researched and agree with” and “hate” with “researched and do not agree with”. The polarization of American politics was one of the great fears of the Founding Fathers.

dalepetrie's avatar

Hell, the President’s job, what he is sworn to do is to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States…it’s what they promise to do on the FIRST DAY IN OFFICE. Who better than a 12 year professor of Constitutional Law? But Rethuglicans don’t go in for that fancy book learnin’.

But if it’s all about accomplishments to you, how about this…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×4578207

or this…

http://www.obama08-wa.com/files/experience.pdf

or this…

http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/2443642/

Here’s a link to the wiki on Obama’s Senate record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama

and here’s a wiki of the 131 bills he’s sponsored”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_sponsored_by_Barack_Obama_in_the_United_States_Senate

So, what have YOU accomplished?

kevbo's avatar

I feel like the experience issue is totally yesterday’s news and was hashed out to the nth degree during the primaries. Didn’t the public discourse already establish that change trumps experience in this election? Did we not already hear the argument that if experience was that important then the really experienced people would have solved our important problems by now instead of causing us to backslide?

dalepetrie's avatar

kevbo,

Completely agree, and I find it positively LUDICROUS that they undercut their message that they’ve been pushing down our throats for 6 months by picking an unknown, and NOW they’re building her up like she’s the most experienced person on either ticket because she was a mayor of a podunk Alaska town. The hypocrisy makes my head want to explode.

poofandmook's avatar

@dalepetrie: My doc says I’m supposed to be avoiding stress!! What are you doing to me?! LOL

dalepetrie's avatar

sorry poofandmook, the hypocrisy is just getting a bit too thick, I had to let some of out into the air or I’d drown.

critter1982's avatar

As Governor of Alaska, Palin operated a $9 billion budget, and managed $13 billion in revenue. She also runs a government that employs 25,000 people, and is the Commander of the Alaska National Guard. She has more EXECUTIVE level experience than anybody. But I don’t feel they are playing her up as having a ton of experience I believe they are simply rebuking what people are saying is a lack of experience.

megalongcat's avatar

She scares the shit out of me. The entire Republican Convention kinda’ freaked me out. Reminded me of a scene right out of 1984 when everyone yells during “Hate hour” or whatever it’s called. I didn’t think Americans were filled with so much spite towards one another.

dalepetrie's avatar

I love the “Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard” line. Does anyone spouting off that Republican talking point realize how ridiculous it sounds? Plus, not even true…Bush revoked the right of Governors to be the commander in chief of their state national guards one month before Palin took office in ‘07. He is now the commander in chief of all the state national guards. And 9 billion in revenue…we gave one billion to Georgia as an afterthought. And $9 billion…seriously. That’s less than one week’s interest on the national debt.

poofandmook's avatar

@dalepetrie: I meant the whole political debate… because I can’t not comment.

dalepetrie's avatar

poofandmook, I get you. Just be thankful you’re debating on a site where people actually debate and don’t just hurl insults ***cough….ahem…Askville…cough…ahem****

critter1982's avatar

Not really true, state governors retain command in in-state natural disasters and civic emergencies.

dalepetrie's avatar

@critter1982 -

in-state natural disasters and civic emegencies doesn’t sound much like “foreign policy” to me. And even if it were, I can’t recall Alaska ever having to defend its borders.

critter1982's avatar

I wasn’t arguing that Palin had foreign policy experience. And no Alaska doesn’t have to defend their borders (probably because they are adjacent to Canada, does Canada even have an army/), but they have had erosion issues where citizen rescue was required and times when National Guard had to be brought in for in-state security reasons.

RandomMrdan's avatar

@critter…go on believing all the garbage they’re trying to feed you then.

dalepetrie's avatar

I don’t dispute what you are saying. I dispute the whole “she’s more experienced than anyone in foreign policy on either ticket because she’s the commander in cheif of the Alaskan National Guard” talking point that you quote.

They are playing up what they themselves played down.

Karl Rove on why Tim Kaine would not have made a good choice for Obama’s VP:

“With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he’s been a governor for three years, he’s been able but undistinguished,” Rove said. “I don’t think people could really name a big, important thing that he’s done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I’m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States.”

Today Rove throws out the “more executive experience than any candidate on either ticket” and “Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard” lines at every turn, and even talked about how she was the mayor of the “second largest city in all of Alaska.”

And as goes Rove, so goes the Republican base.

Understate your opponents strenghts and overstate their weaknesses, and do the exact opposite for your candidate, EVEN if the strengths and/or weaknesses of your candidate are the same (or in this case worse)

dalepetrie's avatar

Hey, I’ve got an experiment,

“With all due respect again to Governor Palin, she’s been a governor for twenty months, she’s been able but undistinguished. I don’t think people could really name a big, important thing that she’s done. She was mayor of a town 1/20th of the size of Barack Obama’s Illinois State Senate District. So by picking Governor Palin, it was an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I’m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States.”

Judi's avatar

To guys like Rove it’s “win at all cost.” It’s just a chess game and damn integrity.

poofandmook's avatar

what frightens me is… Mitt Romney gave a damned good speech, content aside. He’s a salesman to the core.

Simple minds are swayed by guys like him.

kevbo's avatar

Regarding the speech itself…

Her opening salvo is “It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee…They overlooked the caliber of the man himself – the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain.” – so she’s saying that experience (vis a vis experts) doesn’t prove much and doesn’t trump character?

“The right reason [to go to Washington] is to challenge the status quo”- as in voting with the president 95% of the time?

“When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.”- Huh?

“To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies…”- So they’re going to cut off their own bread and butter? Unlikely.

”...what exactly is our opponent’s plan? ...The answer is to make government bigger, take more of your money, give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.”- as opposed to Bush’s lapdog who has helped make the national debt bigger, restrict our liberties, and reduce America’s credibility by manufacturing terror to justify imperialism.

“America needs more energy… our opponent is against producing it.”- Do we really need more energy? Could we not gain more energy from efficiencies such as improving gas mileage?

“Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America… he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?”- You mean we should give up our rights so that we can follow CIA asset Osama bin Ladin to the gates of hell? The same Osama whom the world’s most advanced and powerful military once surrounded on three sides and blocked one of two possible escape routes only to suffer the terrible luck of him slipping through our dragnet?

“death tax”- You mean what we used to call the estate tax before Orwellianspeak became the norm?

“How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?”- you mean the Bush economy? That economy?

“McCain’s record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency – from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.”- as evidenced by the utter lack of corporate interests present at the DNC and RNC.

”[McCain is] a leader who’s not looking for a fight…”- except in Georgia.

“There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you… in places where winning means survival and defeat means death… and that man is John McCain.”- If military service is a near requirement, then why does the constitution specify civilian control of the military?

“the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country”- you’re nobody unless you’ve killed somebody—legally, of course. I mean in a legal war or maybe just a police action. You know, so long as they’re foreign.

“For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.”- you mean like MLK? or Lincoln?

“If character is the measure in this election… and hope the theme… and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause.”- uh, Yes we can?

_

dalepetrie's avatar

So, kevbo, am I to understand that the conventions, particularly the Republican convention, and even more particularly Palin’s speech have helped you climb off the fence (and land on the left)? Or am I reading too much into that?

prince's avatar

GOP is base-pandering. The same strategy that worked for Bush in 2004—energize the base. I think they’ve totally given up on working moderate swing voters. (This is all spoonfed to me from TPM).

I think the comparison to Palin as a “mean girl” is totally spot on as well.

Sueanne_Tremendous's avatar

The sense of fear is palpable in this thread. Relax. I am a lesbian and a member of Unitarian Universalist Church. I would be proud to have this woman represent me. She is real. She is tough. She isn’t a push-over Washington insider. We may disagree on many issues, but for me I am ready for a real change. I believe she intends to represent all, not just a select few. I am in the Republican corner on this.

dalepetrie's avatar

So, Sueanne Tremendous, as a lesbian it doesn’t bother you that she is not only against same-sex marriage, but supported a constitutional ammendment to deny health benefits to same-sex couples? You have your right to your opinion, I’m just curious about your thoughts there.

kevbo's avatar

@dale, I’d say more that there are false assumptions perpetrated by both the establishment left and the establishment right. If you believe (as 1/3 of Americans do) that the government facilitated 9/11 then I would think you must disbelieve the above-board necessity for our recent wars, suspension of habeas corpus, torture, USA Patriot, FISA, and so on. You must disbelieve the necessity to preemptively raid the homes of convention protesters who are merely exercising their first amendment rights, confiscate their materials, and detain them for 36 hours without cause. Likewise, the necessity to arrest or detain members of the press for reporting at the scenes of protests or for attempting to report corporate lobbying at the conventions. All of these arrests, detentions, and other police tactics are justified via the legislation that has passed to fight terrorism.

Obama supports the war on terror. McCain supports the war on terror. The war on terror is predicated on the tragedy of 9/11. If 9/11 was facilitated by the government, then the war on terror must be a farce. Similar to Bush’s “you’re either with us or against us” decree, any elected leader who is complicit in obscuring the truth of 9/11 is not for “us” but for something or someone else, and Democratic leadership has been just as complicit in letting this issue lie fallow (not to mention the mainstream media).

I wish I could articulate more precisely what I support. I did support Obama in the primaries and prior to taking on a new perspective about our war agenda. I supported Nader in the past and agree with the gist of Ron Paul’s positions. I also believe there’s a global conspiracy afoot, which plays heavily into the injustices described above by co-opting our leaders and our national agenda. I suppose whoever cracks those opaque ceilings will be getting my vote.

jlm11f's avatar

i am watching the speech right now and it’s just painful to watch it. she’s going on and on about her stupid family. NO I DON’T CARE HOW YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND MET, talk about issues and why you qualify as a good VP. and what’s equally annoying is how eager the crowd is to hear about such nonsense. They aren’t gathered there for a dinner party. Ugh.

flameboi's avatar

Gosh, Palin was the worst choice ever, I thought he wanted to win….

dalepetrie's avatar

PnL, just wait until she gets to the Obama bashing. Hello pot, meet kettle.

jlm11f's avatar

i still am trying to figure out how “victory in Iraq is in sight”. Does she know something the rest of the world doesn’t know?

ladytmerie's avatar

While watching the Democratic Convention I was impressed with how Obama and Biden addressed the issues of the Republicans without showing any disrespect or hatefulness. Watching Palin made me feel sick to my stomach and had I not already been voting for Obama I am sure that her speech would have changed my mind. Does anyone else find it funny that Palin compared her job as Governor now to a job Obama had twenty years ago while he was still a young adult??

dalepetrie's avatar

PnL,

Didn’t you hear, “The Surge is Working™”?

Sueanne_Tremendous's avatar

@Dale: First off, she vetoed a bill that would have denied same-sex benefits to partners of state employees. Facts. Funny things, huh? (See the citation at the bottom. I’m sure I can find the official release on this…just haven’t looked hard enough) I am no more afraid of Palin’s religious views or views on same-sex marriage then I am Nancy Pelosi’s Catholicism and Pro-Choice stance. What so many people fail to realize is that my hot-button issue probably isn’t yours. And yours probably isn’t mine. But we only have two parties with a real chance to make a difference and I will choose the party who will make the most positive difference in my life. Frankly, I think McCain/Palin is that team. I don’t want more government. I don’t want more entitlements. I don’t want to be taxed more. For god’s sake, I make $160,000 and I am in the bracket that Obama wants to raise taxes to.

One last thing, one the most powerful things a person can do is to change the mind of another person and get them to understand your viewpoint. I think Palin has the capability to see the other side. Read what Tim Ruttman of the LA times wrote on her thoughts about creationism and, umm, same sex benefits:

“She also brings an interesting tinge of Alaska’s blue-collar, frontier libertarianism to the social agenda debate. Although she supports the teaching of creationism in public schools, Palin thinks it should be presented alongside, rather than instead of, evolution. “Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both,” she said during her gubernatorial campaign. “I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. ... Don’t be afraid of information, and let kids debate both sides.” Similarly, although she opposes same-sex marriage, as governor she vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to the partners of gay state employees.”

Link to the whole article.

jlm11f's avatar

@critter1982 – why was palin constantly talking about obama? since she was running for VP, shouldn’t she have spent more time comparing herself to biden?

@dale – it’s amazing how long it’s been working for.

@sue – i understand that everyone has different issues they focus on. But it surprises me that one your reasons is because you would have to pay more taxes since you make a lot of money. I thought people picked their president/vp as the team that would be better for the entire country, not just see their personal gain. If you make that much money, taxes can’t really hurt you and make you homeless I would imagine? I am not trying to change your mind in anyway. I was just caught off guard by your answer I guess.

Sueanne_Tremendous's avatar

^5^ @Kevbo on Ron Paul.

Sueanne_Tremendous's avatar

@PnL: $160,000 is a lot of money? I mean it is a comfortable wage but it supports one and a half households and college tuition (by the way, because of what I make my children and I are precluded from many college financing options? We were told that based on our financial picture we could afford $96,000 for tuition each year…yea…right). At my wage I am in the highest tax bracket. I pay a ton of income tax. Why should anyone have to pay more? I am all for spreading it out. Let’s say everyone just pay 24% of their income to taxes and call it a day. I’d most certainly be happy with that. By the way, I make no apologies and I am not complaining about what I make. I worked hard to get here.

dalepetrie's avatar

Yes, Sueanne Tremendous, facts are funny things…

http://dwb.adn.com/front/story/8508726p-8401181c.html

She indeed tried to deny what the Constitution ordered as she had no challenges left.

I’m not sure about what your hot button issues are, I’m just curious about that one.

As for the assertion that Obama will raise your taxes, you’re believing a distortion, he has stated he’ll raise taxes on those making over $250k a year…you’ve got a ways to go. Funny thing with taxes is, that when you don’t collect from the people who have it at the federal level, you have to cut aid to states and municipalities, which then have to raise taxes on the people who don’t have it, and/or cut services for those who most desperately need them. Your concern about your own pocketbook exemplifies the hypocrisy of the right wing which claims to be all about service and self sacrifice, except when it comes to their own pocketbooks (or when it can be used to mock someone for being a community servant for your own political gain). Personally, it seems to me as a religious person you’d realize that if Jesus made $160k a year, he’d want to know how to give more of it to the people who needed it, not less.

As for teaching creationism alongsige evolution I’m all for teaching facts…like the facts we know about evolution…things that are provable. Unsubstantiated theories in my opinion (which is where creationism falls) have to be dealt with very carefully. I’m no foe of presenting what’s out there to kids, but I am a foe of presenting theory as fact, and let’s face it, most who advocate teaching creationism, don’t also advocate using the word “maybe” alongside it (unless they use “maybe” with proven scientific facts that refute their assertions as well). Just another way in my view for her to force her religion and her values down my kid’s throat.

She also advocates teaching abstinece only sex ed, even though there’s proof in her own family that IT DOESN’T WORK. Basically she’s more of the same GW Bush crowd that derides someone for being smart enough to write a book and pushes forth with ignorance.

jlm11f's avatar

@sue – well since the “The median household income is roughly $50,000,” and since 160K is over 3 times that, yes i would consider that a lot. I don’t think that you should apologize for your salary. I am sure you worked your way up and deserve it completely. And I am not just saying that to appease you, I truly believe in that. Once I become a doctor and have tons of college loans to pay off, I would expect to make more than the average income due to all the work I put in to get there. I was just pointing out that you aren’t exactly in the financially insecure majority that actually has to worry about money problems.

As for not wanting a bigger government and more taxes. Here’s what a native Wasillian has to say about Mrs. Palin: “During her 6
years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over
33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the
City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation
(1996–2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a
regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she
promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they
benefited residents.”

Sueanne_Tremendous's avatar

I appreciate all of your comments. I look at both sides objectively and make a decision. I really don’t think there are too many Flutherites who are looking at both sides objectively. In my honest opinion, this thread looks like something you would see on a Pro-Football Fan site where each person yells and screams about how great their team is.

dalepetrie's avatar

Sueanne Tremendous-

Sending your kids to college that costs $96k a year is a choice, not a right, not a necessity. I went to a community college and a state University, I paid $30something a credit (albeit 15 years ago). I have the same Bachelor’s degree I’d have gotten from a pricy school, I have a good job (Controller), I make a comfortable living…not as comfortable as yours but I’m happy. And Federal taxes aren’t an issue to me, it’s all the other taxes I pay that put a pinch in the bottom line. I’d be all for reforming the tax code so it’s more equitable overall, even if that meant my Federal taxes would go up, I think I’d still be better off.

As for having everyone pay a flat tax rate, as PnL pointed out, the median household income is $50k. That means 1/2 of American families live on less than 1/3, almost less than 1/4 of what you make. Think about what rent/mortgage costs to live anywhere decent in this country, it’s at least $800/month for a family of 4. Food for a family of 4, at least $400/month. Transportation? At least $250/month. Clothing, another $100/month even if you shop @ Wal Mart and second hand stores exclusively. Utilities, another $200/mo easy. Incidentals/other household items added in, you’re taliking at least 2 grand a month, probably closer to $2,500. So, $25 to $30k a year is what it takes just to survive with no entertainment or quality of life of any kind.

Now look at taxes. We don’t just pay federal income tax, we pay state income tax, we pay property taxes, we pay sales taxes, we pay taxes built into things we buy like gas, we pay taxes on licenses…all these little taxes that people don’t count.

If you added up all the taxes you pay in a year, and divided it by your income, maybe you pay 15 to 20% of your income (because that highest tax bracket only touches a small portion of your income). If you’re making $30k a year, and you add up all the taxes you pay, it’s probably DOUBLE that. And realize that over a quarter of Americans make less than that. So they’re taking home $16 to $21k and it costs $25k at minimum just to survive. The math doesn’t work. If the tax bracket on incomes over $100k went up, you’d maybe be paying 17 to 22% of your income in taxes, max, an increase of maybe a couple grand a year. Yet maybe some of those kids who would otherwise end up barely making ends meet could get a good education because schools were fully funded.

Sorry, I’m not more sympathetic. I too agree w/ PnL, I’m sure you earn every penny of what you make, but people who make less than you are taxed more unfairly.

And just because we’re disagreeing with you does not make this anything like a Pro-Football Fan site where each person yells and screams. I think we’re all supporting our claims with facts, and we’re certainly not participating in the hatefest that was the RNC last night.

Bri_L's avatar

I feel the need to chime in here.

@ dale – I felt the same as you watching, there was a mean almost classless level of antagonism in the tone of her speech last night.

Also, if quips and generalities were facts then her points about Obama may have landed, but they didn’t. Unlike the Democrats who spoke to the facts, it seems they spoke to emotion.

It doesn’t matter to me if she was governor of Alaska. Only 16 presidents were before becoming president. The fact that she was a mayor and gov. does not speak to how well she did the job. I would be willing to be we will find out some interesting things in that light, as we already were before the speech, as time goes on.

I will say she was a vibrant speaker. I question wether she will be able to pull it off against 32 years of experience rather than a small town mayor and alaskan governor.

@ Sue – I have a family of 4 living on $33,000. We are not wanting but we sure don’t live in luxury. To be honest, I don’t pay attention to tax hikes. I don’t really think it is fair for people who make more to pay a higher percent. BUT I also don’t believe, nor will I ever in the trickle down loop hole bullsh*t. I am worried about healthcare. The one think I noticed, as others did, is they made fun of volunteerism. My whole life I noticed how the rich look out for the rich. That is my stance.

And it is possible to look at both sides and still come up on what ends up being the majority.

I commend you for your participation and honesty!!!! If I were a lesbian I would want to be just like you!!!

Bri_L's avatar

One other note,

It did hit me last night

one way or other, we are in for history. First female VP or First Black Pres.

And it feels like change.

gailcalled's avatar

I speak for the retired population on a fixed income. Unless there is tremendous family wealth, the retirees are in a huge pickle.

Palin’s speech had no substance to it, as far as I can tell, although she has good oratorical skills. (So do I. Should I be nominated for VP?)

And suddenly, she has grown fangs and poisoned quills overnight. A little modesty for at least a few days might not be amiss.

poofandmook's avatar

@Sue: I don’t see anyone yelling and screaming about how great our team is. That’s the only thing they did at the RNC last night, though. No issues from Miss Hotshot, just family stories and mudslinging. I don’t think you’d be saying that if we were speaking exactly the same way for your side. I really really don’t.

BonusQuestion's avatar

Yes, I think you are biased. I agree that Palin’s speech was really mean but I also saw Obama being mean in his speech. Maybe less than Palin but I can’t deny his twist of facts. When Obama says that McCain defines middle class those who earn less than $5 million when he knows that McCain’s remark was meant to be a joke that is being mean, IMO.

When Obama started running, by looking at his record and noticing that he made a speech against the war when it was highly popular, I thought he was a real messenger of change and truly a different type of politician but I am now not so sure he is different than other Democrats. McCain IS more of the same of Republicans and possibly very similar to Bush but Obama also seems to be more of the same of Democrats. I am just disappointed by this sort of hypocrisy. He brags for change and says McCain is not qualified because he has been a part of Washington for too many years and he picks Joe Biden that has been in Washington even more!

kevbo's avatar

Someone at the RNC needs to be spanked. They just showed the video that was meant to introduce Palin. The most important task for them yesterday was to introduce Palin to the party and the country, and instead of going ahead and running the 4 minute video, they decided to have her tell her own PTA stories. To me, and from a producer’s standpoint, it’s really inexcusable to let last night’s schedule get out of hand like that.

cheebdragon's avatar

Oh please, the DNC was just as mean spirited as the RNC.

nayeight's avatar

@ cheeb, I have to disagree with you on that, the DNC was not mean spirited in my eyes. They spoke about real issues that will affect this country, the failure of this administration, and how McCain’s administration would be more of the same.

nayeight's avatar

I think its weird how everyone said that Palin’s speech made them sick to their stomach and when I too watched her speech it really did give me a queasy, nervous, angry feeling. It’s that same feeling I got 4 years ago in my dorm at school when they announced that Dubya won the election.

I’ve watched a few conventions before but never like this, I guess its more serious for me now that I am of age to vote for the first time.

gailcalled's avatar

I have noticed over the past few days that the signs are going up. I was surprised to see so many “McCain” ones, planted on the lawns of modest houses of people who are feeling the financial pinch here. Gas prices are only one manifestation. Many small shops have gone out of business and there are empty commercial real estate sites everywhere.

However, this has traditionally been a Republican community, when that meant less government. The past almost eight years have affected everyone and the tilt in registration as a Democrat or Independent has switched. But still there are the hard core GOP supporters.

Bri_L's avatar

It would seem the less government we have the more jobs go over seas, the more tax loopholes for the wealthy and big corporations like happened in Milwaukee in recent years, individual heads walk away with millions of dollars in compensation and benni’s and bonuses after just asking workers to forgo their paychecks for a month, then close the plant. The execs go on to open new companies.

As I said before, it is by my observation, the exception and not the rule, that the wealthy do anything for anyone but themselves.

BonusQuestion's avatar

There is so many liars in politics. Tonight Republicans are talking about less government when they have expanded government in the last 8 years more than any time in the history of the US.

winblowzxp's avatar

Obama’s only been a senator since 2005, so 3 years.

poofandmook's avatar

I was misinformed about Obama’s time as a senator.

dalepetrie's avatar

Obama’s been a US Senator since JANUARY of 2005, so ALMOST 4 years, AND he was a state Senator (for a district several times larger than Palin’s entire state) for nearly 8 years.

Judi's avatar

@ bonus question;
I went to the Civil Forum where McCain said that rich was defined as someone making 5 mil. He was not joking, just unprepared for the question. It seemed to me that when he didn’t have an answer he would say, “my friends, let me tell you a story….” then tell some heart felt story, the audience would clap and forget what the question was in the first place. I wanted to scream, “JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!” When he was forced to answer a hard question because none of his prepared “stories” didn’t fit, he proved how out of touch he was! When he was asked how many houses he owned (at a different occasion) he told a story about living in a prison camp to avoid the question. I am sure they are preparing Palin, as we speak to tell a series of stories to address any foreign policy question that may be posed to her in a debate. It works for McCain, I am sure it will work for her too. The community at Saddleback bought it. Not to dis Pastor Rick at all. I applaud him for trying to give the Church credibility in politics again.

cyndyh's avatar

@Judi: Now you know a part of what it was like living in Arizona for all those years. The scary part is that McCain is no where near the worst of the bunch.

Judi's avatar

Just thought I’d throw in this little Vanity Fair article about Cindy McCain’s outfit. And Who is elitist?

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html

Knotmyday's avatar

Sounds like everyone has their partisan “beer-goggles” on again! Hooray!

See you at the polls!

gooch's avatar

I am registered as an Independant. I like Palin and her speech. Experiance is over rated Bush has been our President for almost eight years now so he has more experiance than either candidate and I am quite sure you would not reelect him if he could run again.

Bri_L's avatar

@ judi – to that end, meaning McCain’s inability to be in the moment here is a lovely clip of him on Leno playing his ever present trump card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q37O08IJstQ

BonusQuestion's avatar

Judi- There is a website that I usually check. They are really good at fact checking both sides and are REALLY fair in doing so. I usually go there and check stuff like this. Here is what factcheck.org says:

Obama asked why McCain would “define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year”? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, “But seriously…”

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

Just read that article and see how many times Obama who is supposedly a “different type of politician” twisted facts and misrepresented them. This doesn’t mean that Republicans don’t do the same or even worse than that. It just means that they are all politicians. I wish we could see at least a handful of honest politicians.

With all his flip-flops and shifting to the right I am disappointed by Obama but I hope he is just doing so because it is an election year and he will be back to what he actually was 2 years ago. Of course Republicans are much worse than him.

Judi's avatar

2bonus question;
When I heard him say it, I thought it was offensive, not a joke. I think he knew he blew it the minute it came out of his mouth.

dalepetrie's avatar

Gooch – I agree on a couple things you said, though I definitely do NOT like Palin. Re the experience thing, part of what you’re saying is true…I wouldn’t vote for Bush (didn’t either time he did run), and yes, he and Bill Clinton are the two most “experienced” people as it relates to President. You can’t be experienced in the role of the Presidency until you’ve been the President. Which is why the whole beating up on Obama for 6 friggin’ months was a damn outrage. But at least Obama has a dozen years as a professor of constitutional law, another dozen years as a legislator and several years doing public and community service, helping people in a very direct way. I’d say if you want the job of President ostensibly to help people, the fact that you’ve committed your life to actually helping people on a smaller level is pretty darn good experience.

But what is important to me is that a person has an understanding of the world outside his or her own borders, and is able to relate to people across a broad spectrum. I think life experience in any form is good and gives you some degree of preparation, but there’s a qualitative factor. I looked at Bush eight years ago and KNEW he’d be a friggin’ disaster…why? Because he had never even left the country. He pretty much only became governor of Texas a couple years before and that was simply because he was the son of a former President and a good ol boy. He was beligerent and was very much a my way or the highway kind of guy. He’s the type of guy who thinks being folksy and cute is a substitute for having good judgement.

Palin is the same type of candidate as Bush. I don’t think having met face to face with all the major players in the world and knowing the names of every President and world leader is 100% necessary (though Obama, and to be fair McCain as well, has met with many of these people and does know this information). But I think being the governor of a small state…a state with fewer people than 40% of the counties in the entire country, AND only being that governor for 20 months really doesn’t give you the bona fides you need to do the job. I would dare say that her job is probalby not a lot harder than that of just about any professional person, she just plain doesn’t have the type of life experience that makes me feel comfortable with the idea of her running a country. In terms of “experience”, I think Obama, Biden and McCain are fine. But there’s more to it than experience…for me it’s about ideology and judgment, and for my money, Obama and Biden have the judgment and I agree with their ideology, I distrust McCain’s judgment, I think it’s been quite poor many times, and I disagree with his ideology. And I think putting someone whose job has never even had exposure to the rest of the world on your ticket, particularly when you’re 72 and have had cancer 4 times, is proof positive of poor judgment.

But it brings up another problem for me…hypocrisy. OK, if you think experience is overrated, that’s great, that’s an argument I can at least buy that someone could legitimately believe. But I can NOT believe that the same partisans who were decrying Obama’s lack of experience can truly, honestly look at Palin’s experience and say, “oh yes, she’s ready to lead.” I have a hard time with the idea that someone who has been on committees dealing with foreign policy issues for years, someone who has met face to face with other world leaders and someone who has been singled out by world leaders as a breath of fresh air can be considered a dangerously inexperienced person on the world stage, while someone who has traveled outside the country once on vacation and has never had to make a single foreign policy decision can be “the best qualified candidate on either ticket.” It’s a disingenuous argument.

My biggest problem w/ the McCain/Palin ticket is now Palin, because she will be literally one 72 year old heartbeat away from being the most powerful person in the world, and I think she has a dangerous ideology. It’s an ideology shared by Bush and Cheney…it’s anti-science, anti-reason, anti-woman, anti-intellectual, anti-environment, anti-culture, anti-education….she’s against every single core value I hold. She supports only abstinence based sex ed (and look where that got her family). She supports a complete ban on abortion even in the case of rape or incest. She wants to drill in the wildlife refuge. She supported the shooting of several 1 month old wolf cubs from a friggin’ helicopter. She tried to get Alaskan libraries to ban books she found offensive. She doesn’t think global warming is manmade. She wants to teach creationism in public schools. She is against equal rights for same-sex couples in any form. She wants to force HER values down everyone’s throats…the same way Bush and Co did for 8 years.

All I gotta say is, my ass is sore enough, I’ve been screwed by an elephant for 8 years and I can’t take 4 more.

Now, re the McCain $5M line…he did say “just kidding”, in the same way many people say “just kidding” after they make a faux pas. You know how I know? Because he didn’t then offer a reasonable number. Here’s a joke….

Q: What do you consider rich?
A: If you’re talking in terms of income, I’d say, $5 million….just joking…but seriously, probably [insert real definition here]

Here’s not a joke….

Q: What do you consider rich?
A: If you’re talking in terms of income, I’d say, $5 million…pregnant pause….just joking. (End of discussion and never provide an alternate answer even a month later)

As for Obama’s flip flops and his twisting of facts and misrepresenting them…yes, he plays politics. But it doesn’t mean he’s not a different type of politician. I actually think on core issues, Obama has been almost 100% consistent. Often when he’s accused of changing his positions for example it’s because the media and the public never understood his fully articulated position in the first place. We live in a culture of 45 second sound bytes. I’ll give what I think is a good example of what I think BonusQuestion is talking about…the war.

John McCain, when asked if he supported Cheney’s vision of staying in Iraq for 50 years said, and I quote, “make it 100.” But what this doesn’t acknowledge is that McCain says he wants to end the war, he just wants it to end in victory. He has no timetable but “thinks” we can win it by 2013 (even though they now all say “victory is in sight”). He talks about having a military presence there indefinitely, that’s what he meant by his 100 years remark, not that we are going to be in open hostilities for 100 years. But bottom line is, McCain has an idea of how long we need to be there, but won’t put a cap on it, and if it DID come to fighting for 100 years to win that war, there’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t support that…victory is his goal.

Barack Obama said, “we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless going in.” He articulated that any decisions he made would be with the full input of his people on the ground. He provided a 16 month timetable but articulated that assumptions need to be adjusted from time to time and that the timetable was mostly a tool to give the Iraqi’s an incentive to take charge of their own security.

Now the right distorts Obama as wanting to pull out and concede defeat…that’s never been what he said, it builds a false impression. That is intellectually dishonest.

When Obama references McCain wanting to be in Iraq for 100 years…yes it’s politics, yes it’s an exaggeration of the truth, but unlike how McCain paints Obama’s position, it’s not an out and out lie/distortion. It’s more of an exageration, and let’s face it, people in this day and age if you give them somber, cold facts, it just doesn’t make as big of an impression in politics than does an exageration…we’ve been trained to need hyperbole to get points across. So I think it becomes necessary if Obama wants to build the impression among the left that McCain will commit our forces with no clear timetables for withdrawal….by pushing the 100 years line (which again, McCain DID actually say), he’s actually spreading a more realistic picture of the truth. It’s like that grapevine game…you almost have to be adept at saying things in an exagerated way in order to get the truth out of the other end.

Now, I don’t think Obama likes doing that per se. I think he is a politician and has been a politician and is willing to stoop to political tactics to win because it’s an issue of the greater good. But I don’t think he’s willing to resort to out and out lies (the way the GOP is), or character assassination (the way the GOP is). I think he’s been very consistent with his rallying against the politics of personal destruction and the ideal that we can disagree without being disagreeable. Yes, there is going to be hyperbole and exageration on the campaign trail…if you simply can’t even bring yourself to engage in political hyperbole, you will NEVER win an election.

Personally, to me the fact that he doesn’t wear the kid gloves the way Kerry or Gore or countless other Democrats who were better candidates but who fought like friggin’ pussies, is the SOLE reason he’s made it this far. You can have an Obama who takes the absolute high road 100% of the time and becomes another Kerry, or you can have an Obama who maybe 5% of the time resorts to political exaggeration which goes nowhere near the level of nastiness and untruthfullness of his opponent, and have him be the next President. Your choice.

BonusQuestion's avatar

Even if we disagree with McCain, the reason that McCain does not define “rich” is that he says it is irrelevant how he defines “rich” in his plan. He says he wants to give tax cut to everybody, rich or poor. This video explain it well. He explains his answer FIRST and then throws out a number just as a joke. Everybody laughs and then McCain continues by saying “But seriously..” He even goes ahead with saying, “I am sure that comment will be distorted”. What this says to me is that he regretted making that joke in this political campaign that people take on anything, even jokes, and hold them against the candidate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DENW3wSovTs&e

dalepetrie's avatar

I take the “I’m sure the comment will be distorted,” to mean, “ouch, I f*cked up, I’m gonna get nailed on this, better make a pre-emptive mea culpa here so some will actually believe I was joking.” But there are more reasons to believe he’s out of touch than that. You can be an apologist for the “I’ll have my people get back to you on how many houses I own” line as well, but it’s all a pattern that illustrates that when he SAYS he wants to give a tax cut to everyone, he’s not in touch enough with how real people live to make his statement credible.

First off, he has said in no uncertain terms that he wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Technically does this reduce EVERYONE’s federal tax liability? Yes, it does. But it gives a tax break to the wealthiest 1% of Americans which they don’t need, which is irresponsible, and which makes their overall tax burden out of touch with the overall tax burden of regular working class Americans.

What the Republicans either don’t get, or do get but pretend they don’t is that when they cut taxes (by reducing spending – which they accomplish by cutting off aid to states and local governments), that trickles down. They seem to believe in trickle down as it applies to the revenue side of things…if they give the tax cut to the wealthy and the business owners they seem to think that money will not just get spent up and hoarded at the top level but will trickle down into the pockets of regular people. But when they cut services to governments (which are top level just like business), it’s not like money in hand where you can choose to spread the wealth below or hold onto it, it’s a liability, you have to pay it, and to do so, you HAVE to spread the pain below, there’s no choice in the matter. So governments have to recoup that revenue by raising the taxes they can levy, which are not top line income taxes which if you make more money, you pay more taxes…they are by and large consumption taxes on necessities. Your consumption of necessities does not correlate on a 1:1 basis with your income, so whereas a person making $15k might spend 100% of his income on these consumables, but a person making $150k might spend 50% of his income on these consumables, and a person making $5 million might spend less than 1% of his income on these consumables. So the REAL tax burden is borne much more heavily on those who can least afford to pay it.

Unlike Obama, McCain’s plan has no way to tackle tax inequity. Obama actually wants to make it so that until you earn a living wage, you really don’t have to pay taxes, and have taxes collected on that portion of our incomes which is discretionary, which is HOW IT SHOULD BE! And he wants to make a minimum wage that would allow people who are willing to work to earn at least a sustenance living. He wants to restore funding to all those things that people as individuals can’t provide for themselves and look to government to do. McCain says he wants everyone to get a tax cut. His definition is too narrow, too myopic, and more of the same bullshit we’ve heard from Republicans forever. He also says he wants to have healthcare for everyone, by privatizing it and making sure that even fewer employers offer it. It’s Orwellian doublespeak….people believed it when Bush said it, and he decimated the middle class. McCain’s “plan” is no different than the trickle down economics that we’ve had for 30 years, and he’s part of the Grover Norquist, “make government so small I can drown it in the bathtub” every man for himself, rich get richer poor get poorer economic Darwinism that has destroyed our economy. I don’t CARE what McCain says, I’ve looked at his economic plan, I’ve looked at Obama’s economic plan, either McCain is lying or he doesn’t get it…by saying he doesn’t get it, I’m actually being NICE. But I’ve had it with this trickle down economics and I’m ready for Obama’s bottom up, pay as you go plan that will make a real difference in the lives of tens of millions of Americans, and not just the top 1 or 2 percent.

BonusQuestion's avatar

I am all with you Dale that McCain’s ideas favor only rich, makes rich people richer and poor people poorer. I just wish Obama really turns out to be the one who I knew. I remember in one of his debates he defended Hillary for her remarks regarding Bosnia when Hillary was attacking him and was making nasty remarks against him. Like bringing up Louis Farrakhan when it was totally irrelevant. I love that Obama, and I hope Washington doesn’t change him and he really changes Washington.

Bri_L's avatar

McCain and Palin are Speaking 33 min from me right now in Cedarburg and it is more of the same.

McCain just said Obama says we can achieve energy independance with out drilling. That is simply not true. McCain just uses parts of what Obama says. Argh.

dalepetrie's avatar

I agree with you BonusQuestion, and I am not as concerned as you are about it. You gotta play the game or you can’t win. It sucks, but hey, Obama claims he’ll be able to change that. Let’s see if he can really make the 2012 elections not about money and all about issues. If he can do that, we’ll be living in a truly righteous United States. If not, he’s just another politician. But at least he’s a politician who I don’t think you can claim does not care about the plight of ordinary Americans. Not perfect, but better than anything I’ve seen in my lifetime. It’s win/win, we just don’t win as much as we’d have hoped if he turns out to be just another politician…but hey, we still win something, and after the last 8 years, I’ll take whatever I can get.

benseven's avatar

@gail, and all: Snopes says they’ve confirmed the Kilkenny email as true…

cyndyh's avatar

If I have to listen to that voice of hers droning on and saying nothing for four years I’m gonna lose it.

allengreen's avatar

The speach was written by George W Bush’s former speach writer—it had nothing to do with Palin.

poofandmook's avatar

@allengreen: are you going to tell me you’re a Republican on top of everything else?

allengreen's avatar

no way! I am a Progressive with an Independant streak, voted for Ron Paul in the Primary and will vote for Obama in November.

cyndyh's avatar

@allengreen: Did they teach her to have that annoying voice and delivery, too? That’s just grating my nerves.

allengreen's avatar

i hope women in Penn, Ohio, and Michigan agree with you cyndy

cyndyh's avatar

I don’t think that’s going to be the driving issue, though. :^> I think they may be more likely to vote based on ideology. That’s a place the republican ticket is seriously lacking whether it was that grating voice or some other empty suit. I just find it funny thinking “that’s the best they can do?”

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther