Town Square

Post a New Topic

Bottle Rocket Palin

Original post made by A Boomer on Sep 10, 2008

Lots of flash and a great recovery from the first strike the media hit her with. But she's a bottle rocket for now.

This person may have the gravitas for serious national office at some point in the future. But she is subject to many questions, all legitimate, about her positions on issues, and her lack of understanding of issues that qualify her for the position for which she is running.

At this point, she seems to be as good as Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, and Colin O'Brien on the witty poised presentation, but she has not displayed any insight on anything so far.

Likely there is a reason why....

Comments (76)

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 10, 2008 at 8:13 pm

A Boomer,

I don't thihk we know how witty Palin actually is. She's working pretty much off of prepared speeches and the teleprompter. I assume she's not an idiot, but I wouldn't assume she's informed after the Fannie May/Freddie Mac gaffe.

The continued lying about her record is troublesome. She may be attending church, but she's not into that "Thou shalt not lie." commandment.

Troopergate's ugly, too. Which is why the McCain campaign's working so hard to suppress it.

She really has about as much respect for the rule of law as Bush. Not what you'd call an agent of change.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 10, 2008 at 8:31 pm



Obama, on Letterman:

"Keep in mind that, technically had I meant it this way –- she would be the lipstick!"



This is supposed to help him, suggesting that rather than an animal it is just a decorative accessory which pops to mind when he thinks of his opponent's running mate? Someone, anyone with a modicum of common sense, needs to sit him and Joe Biden down and tell them to stop. Just stop. It's too painful to watch.


Biden,Hillary and Bill have bailed, obama is a dead man walking


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 10, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Sharon,

Why is it that you can't address Palin's continued lying about her record?

What do you think of Palin's flip-flop on co-operating with investigators on Troopergate?

As a post-feminist, what do you think of Wasilla rape victims having to pay for their own exams?

As an educated woman, what do you think of Palin firing the town librarian when she refused to censor books?

Please be specific.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 10, 2008 at 8:49 pm


Consider the source of these allegations.

Sarah will be interviewed for the next 2 days all over the networks, hundreds of millions of voters will hear the answers to those questions and more importantly what this team will achieve for our country moving forward.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 11, 2008 at 1:03 am

Sharon,

The source?????

Palin's consistent lying about her record on the Bridge to Nowhere are a matter of public record. She's reported saying one thing at one time in newspapers at the time and then changing.

There's not a source issue with this.

All of this stuff is a matter of public record, reported in several places.

So, why can't you answer the questions?

You can't even *defend* Palin regarding this. Why not? She's your candidate. You post repeatedly about her.

Her lying about her record on earmarks is a big credibility problem.

Even the Wall St. Journal and Atlanta Constitution are calling her a liar now.

So, why doesn't this concern you? Why would you expect her to start telling the truth in a highly controlled interview situation?

Watched Obama on Letterman tonight by the way. He seemed tired, but unlike Palin or McCain, there's a seriousness about him. He does want to change things--for the better, I'd say.

McCain once had a bit of that--but he's been giving it away in his desperation to win. Palin shows no signs of it. It's clear she cares about winning and coming out on top.

But I don't think she cares about anything else. Probably why she's so rigid--there's not a lot of deep thought there.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2008 at 5:08 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Palin seems to be the only candidate in either party who recognizes that energy trumps every other issue. Between that affirmative and the nature of those who hate her, Palin could cast runes and boil eye of newt and I would still vote for her.


Posted by Beek, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Walter,

"energy trumps every other issue": Wishful thinking.

Sure, her energy will get some Republicans off the couch on election day, and her positions will energize the far right of the party.

But most Americans are looking for serious people running for pres and veep. Biden, McCain and Obama are, whatever you might think of their politics, serious people, in the sense that they have given some thought to most of the issues and might reasonably be expected to run things as an executive. Palin ain't. You cannot imagine her running the country and she has given no thought to the pressing issues of the day. (I'm leaving aside her troubling and factually-challenged claims about her record.)

She is the final nail in McCain's coffin. He is not stupid, but it's hard to account for picking Palin. His decision highlights past concerns about his at-times impulsive judgement. At this stage, a lot of Republicans will not be able to stomach voting for McCain or Palin (Republicans for Barry), and they've shifted their attention to 2012.


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 11, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Walter,

Palin's "solution" is simply another way to funnel money to Alaska. That pipeline won't do anything for years except funnel money to Alaska.

Obama was pretty eloquent on energy last night on Letterman. So, I'd say he's thought about it and understand that our dependence on foreign oil is a major security issue.


Posted by realist, a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm

I am on the GOP email list, and this is what the Republicans say:

"Palin's beauty and tough-as-nails femininity are refreshing icing on a delicious cake."

Er, cake? As in cheesecake? Are beauty and yumminess important attributes for a VP?

A few weeks ago, McCain was bashing Obama by comparing him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Now his party is endorsing a vice president on the basis of the characteristics she shares with those two ladies: brash, good at self promotion, kind of cute, and not very talented.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

OhlonePar writes " That pipeline won't do anything for years except funnel money to Alaska."
It takes 18 to 20 years for a human to become a productive member of society, but no one suggests that having children is of no benefit. An old adage is "Well begun is half done." And if Palin is simply interested in funneling money to Alaska, I would paraphrase Abe Lincoln to say, find out what Palin drinks and send a case to Arnold.


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 11, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Walter,

Your analogy is besides the point. We have an oil crunch now and the pipeline is being advertised as a solution. It isn't.

Realist,

Palin is an example of tokenism--she would unacceptable as a male candidate.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 12, 2008 at 9:06 am

Nothing, including wind, solar and conservation can overcome the damage to our economy and security caused by past sabotage of our economic engine. As the recent drop in oil prices just from the Bush announcement of supporting more drilling demonstrated, any affirmation of a return to domestic energy production with its return of competition to the energy market will moderate world prices. As an example, the synfuel development was, for years discouraged by producers who always charged a dollar a barrel less than the going cost of synfuel. As much as libs attempt to obscure it, supply and demand still rules.


Posted by Walter's Walrus, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2008 at 9:07 am

I thought the run up in oil prices was caused by speculator's trying to make a profit and now prices are going back down--nothing to do with Bush and his plans.


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 12, 2008 at 11:48 am

Walter,

You're making a sweeping declaration that you can't back up "Nothing . . . can overcome the damage to our economy . . ." and you know this because?

Widespread and effective conservation would be huge--if all houses, say, had geothermal heat pumps and efficience insulation, you'd see heating costs plummet. No SUVs and only fuel-efficient cars--another huge drop in demand. Total switchover to fuel-efficient appliances--more savings.

More comprehensive grid better able to handle small energy producers feeding into it--in other words, a solar panel on every sunny rooftop. More drops in demand.

This is one of those areas that government incentives, rebates, etc. would make these kind of conversions financially feasible.

We live a cheap-fuel lifestyle. We don't have to. Time to embrace change.


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 12, 2008 at 11:51 am

Oh, and big changes in food production are needed, as well. Enough with the overdependence on petroleum-based fertilizers to grow monoculture. Processed food should not be cheaper than fresh food.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 12, 2008 at 3:03 pm

"Enough with the overdependence on petroleum-based fertilizers to grow monoculture. Processed food should not be cheaper than fresh food."

OhlonePar,

Could you, please, expalin that statement to me? Provide facts, if you do not mind.

To my view, monoculture and mechanization and petroleum-based fertilizers have been a HUGE boost to eliminating hunger and poverty around the world. Without them, the world population would be MUCH lower than it is today, due to famine and disease. Such monoculture/mechanization/fertilizers have also allowed a differentiation of choices in the a modern world...we don't all need to be poor garden farmers...most of us can choose to pursue other interests.

Processed food should, INDEED, be cheaper than fresh food!


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 12, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Back to Bottle Rocket Palin:

I was WOWED by her interview with Gibson. Try as he did, he couldn't trap her..she was downright impressive.

I know a lot of folks are trying to trip her up...but nobody has succeeded yet! She is still a rocket...

HINT: Listen to the interview yourself, don't trust anyone else to tell you what he said/she said.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 12, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Looks like some of those Mendocino County Nature Lovers are filtering back where they can get the real benefits of science while maintaining their purity of spirit.


Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2008 at 7:21 pm

There is no question that this woman has potential, based on the appearances thus far. I don't subscribe to her stated points of view, as I understand them, but that is a different discussion.

I look at her holding a shotgun on the cover of Newsweek, her comments about Russia, and her complete lack of understanding about the Bush doctrine and ask myself--a heartbeat or a tumor away from the Presidency?

Jingoistic. Been there, done that, the last 8 years. We need another flavor.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 12, 2008 at 7:32 pm

"I look at her holding a shotgun on the cover of Newsweek, her comments about Russia, and her complete lack of understanding about the Bush doctrine and ask myself--a heartbeat or a tumor away from the Presidency?"

Watch out for what you wish for, Boomer.

Why just a shotgun? She probably hunts moose with a rifle. Do you understand the difference? Have you ever killed a big animal, dressed it, and eaten it? Have you a clue?

"Her comments about Russia"...care to explain? Russia attacked the sovereign territory of Georgia. Georgia wants to join the West. Do you suggest that the West abandon Georgia?

Please expalin the "Bush doctrine". Charlie Gibson, clearly, does not know what he means with his own words.




Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 13, 2008 at 1:35 am

Gary,

No one, including Bush, was suggesting that Georgia joing NATO. There's a sort of pre-NATO association which Bush, McCain and Obama all favor for Georgia. We're talking 10 years before Georgia would be up for joining NATO.

Palin did not know this. It's just another sign that she's been winging it like mad.

More to the point, you don't toss around hypothetical discussions of war with another nuclear power. It's reckless. She lacks the kind of experience to know Diplomacy 101.

It's not surprising Condi Rice gave her such a lukewarm endorsement.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 13, 2008 at 5:00 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Anyone want to take a shot at explaining the Gibson Doctrine?


Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 13, 2008 at 5:51 am

Gary,

You are somewhat adept at attempting to distract from the matter at hand by questioning the poster's comments.

I sold guns one summer job while I was in college, Gary. I know the difference between shotguns and rifles, and what caliber of bullet or shot size is called for depending on the hunter's objectives. Don't go there with me. It's beside the point in any case.

Palin clearly had no idea what the Bush Doctrine is. I predict that the next interview she does, she will demonstrate that she really really knows it now, and is 100% behind Senator McCain's point of view on it. This is not someone who has a depth of understanding around a serious policy question, let alone somone who can provide insight or perspective on just one policy that is a huge shift in this country's overall foreign policy that prior to the Shrub Administration was consistently directed by administrations of both parties.

Saber rattling with a country like Russia may appeal to the likes of blow fishes in this country, but is not helpful in getting matters addressed in a peaceable way. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not end the various complexities in that part of the world, and her comments were simplistic, and frankly stupid. Military intervention by NATO or the US is not the first order of business, but she does not know what else is in the portfolio of foreign policy tools that address such matters.

Again, this woman appears to have potential to be more than governor of Alaska. I don't like her positions in general, but I will grant that she seems to have some character that could lead to her moving on to larger duties and national office.

But as a Vice President, she is helpful only to the extent that it helps McCain get elected. She lacks the depth of understanding of the issues the White House deals with to be the type of partner that VEEPs of late have been. Cheny, Gore, Bush Senior, Mondale. She is more of a Quayle (which by the way, Gary, you can hunt with 20g shot)


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 13, 2008 at 7:16 am

BTW, to OP...

Web Link

Above is a link to the Resolution passed this last Jan by our Congress to support Georgia and Ukraine in their quest to join NATO..

Looks pretty clear to me that you are inaccurate in your assertion that "no one was suggesting that Georgia joing NATO"

obviously Palin knew more than you thought..

Next?


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 13, 2008 at 7:26 am

OP states: "More to the point, you don't toss around hypothetical discussions of war with another nuclear power. It's reckless. She lacks the kind of experience to know Diplomacy 101"

Umm..what is wrong with answering "yes" to a question about defending a fellow NATO member from attack? To say "No, I wouldn't honor the contract" would be ludicrous.

As far as your thinking this is some sort of proof of lack of Diplomacy 101..please clarify how this is bad, but Obama is wise and experienced when he states he would be willing to sit without preconditions with any tyrant and enemy of the USA...or go into Pakistan to find Osama..

And, then,..ask yourself, ..why do dictators and terrorists want Obama for our President?

Why does 80% of the world want us to be weaker economically and in self-defense (if you want the link to that poll from a couple years ago) and ALSO 80% of the world wants Obama for our Pres. Could there be a cause and effect here?

What is ironic about the incredible nature of the "world's" desire to bring us down is that they don't realize they are wishing their noses cut off to spite their faces until our economy DOES start to decrease and, amazingly, so does theirs..and when they has for our help militarily and we don't wanna or can't come, I wonder how that will go over? ( I am thinking of the Phillipines most recently, who asked us to leave..then within 2 years asked us to come back as their Islamic terrorists surged).




Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 13, 2008 at 8:33 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Palin demonstrated by her response to specific questions that she is keenly aware of the world around her and that she understands the obligations of leadership. There are a great many Bush "Doctrines" to cover a vast number of possibilities. Have you stopped beating your wife questions are inappropriate and stupid.


Posted by R Wray, a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 13, 2008 at 9:06 am

OP writes: "This is one of those areas that government incentives, rebates, etc. would make these kind of conversions financially feasible."
So the government takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul to do something. And this makes it "financially feasible"? That's a perverse meaning.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 13, 2008 at 9:16 am

Agreed, R Way.

Word to the wise, whenever you see "governmment", hide your wallet.


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 13, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Perspective,

No, not NATO itself, but a Membership Action Plan. Palin and you don't know the difference. It was there on your link. Read it again, you'll see it.

There's one MAP member currently--Macedonia. It's been in MAP for nearly 10 years.

NATO's guidelines are quite clear on the difference.

So you don't understand why you don't toss around speculations on nuclear war? You really don't get that?

Unfortunately, I think you don't understand how little Palin understands. You grossly simplify and lump together a wide array of international reactions.

The Bush Doctrine was seen as a breaking of international law. Obama, a constitutional scholar, has a far deeper understanding of the law than anyone else running on either ticket. He would be less reckless about breaking it than was Bush.

And the United States would be seen as more trustworthy. Let me put it this way, Europe, home of all those other elected governments, is also rooting for Obama. They don't get why he's not a shoe-in.

R Wray,

The government does this sort of stuff all the time. It's only perverse if its counterproductive to our longterm interests--such as some of our agricultural subsidies which actually limit crop diversity.

For example, geothermal heat pumps cost twice as much to install as traditional heating and cooling systems. They are much cheaper to run over the lifetime of the product (and last twice as long.) They also use much less fuel.

So, a credit that made geothermal heat pumps cheaper for consumers to install would result in long-term gain. Similar stuff with solar. Initial costs limit its use.

What shocks me is that neither you nor Perspective seem to realize that this sort of stuff has been done throughout the modern era. Financial incentives are used ALL the time.

Seriously, how do you not know this? It's one thing to argue about how to use tax credits and such, but how do you not know about this?


Posted by R Wray, a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 13, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Government action injects force into the market place, i.e., through the taxes people are forced to pay to subsidize boondoggles they wouldn't voluntarily support. This is bad on principle. The fact that it's been done in the past doesn't make it right. Reality always catches up with misdirected resources--look at the Freddie/Fanny mess because the government gave incentives for poor loans. If geothermal is so great why wouldn't entrepreneurs develop it and make a ton of money?
It shocks me that you (OP) always disregard the taxpayer who is forced to pay for these schemes.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 13, 2008 at 7:33 pm

OP, of course it isn't NATO itself, it is support for becoming part of NATO....Which Palin said she would support. I am having a very hard time understanding how it is that you don't understand that supporting a plan to join NATO at some point in the future is supporting joining NATO.....hmmm..

And stating support for defense of a NATO member is not tossing around speculation about nuclear war..it is stating support for honoring a NATO agreement...good grief.

Ok back to incentives..yes, we use our taxes for incentives all the time. We incentivize not working, we incentivize dropping out of school to have babies when the mother ( and/or father) is unable to financially afford them, we incentivize bad loans ( used to, anyway) , we incentivize ethanol production, we incentivize capital investments, we incentivize unused public transportation, we incentivize embryonic stem cell research when the only progress has been through non-embryonic stem cell research, we incentivize abortion,we incentivize war, we incentivize NOT saving for college, we incentivize NOT passing money on to your kids on your death, we incentivize NOT saving for your own retirement, we incentivize NOT buying your own health insurance, we incentivize re-building homes in high risk flood and hurrican areas or in low water areas, ....well, you get the idea.

I do not support ill concieved notions of taking money from those who produce to give to those who make poor choices.

We can argue from now until our deaths what the function of our federal government is. I would say I completely oppose much of the "incentivizing" we do, and I do not support adding any more articial tax based "incentives" that encourage poor choices.

The best incentives are taking the consequences of your own choices, or watching others take theirs..and not making the same choices.

If I choose a car which guzzles too much of my wallet in gas, then I am "incentivized" to replace it. I do now want to allow someone else to take money from my wallet to then decide that we need to "incentivize" give to someone else to buy a Prius, (with the horrors on the environment that the batteries place) for example, or put in solar power ( regardless of the amount of shade over the house, either rendering it useless or forcing tree cutting, which indeed has already happened in my neighborhood in an attempt to take advantage of the tax breaks of solar!! )

In other words, I trust the cumulative effect of individuals bearing their own consequences far above the effect of "government" deciding what is right.


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 13, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Perspective,

"Of course it isn't NATO itself." Exactly. You made a basic mistake.

MAP nations may or may not ever become parts of NATO.

Which is exactly what I said.

"Incentivize" is not a word. The rest of what you've written isn't an argument, it's some sort of rambling that's off-point. You seem to conflate tax credits, entitlements and welfare and seem unable to distinguish between them.

I'm not impressed. Nothing you've written here precludes the use of a tax credit, say, as an incentive for more fuel-efficient heating systems. You show, instead, a sort of muddled misunderstanding and fear of government.

R.Wray,

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were not until this week, government agencies. What incentives do you think they were giving for poor loans? Particularly when they were only allowed to buy conforming loans? Be specific.

And if you don't know, admit to yourself that you've got something to learn.




Posted by R Wray, a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Freddie and Fannie were created by and sponsored by the government for the purpose of providing loans to those who couldn't afford them in the free market. They may not have "Agency" in their title, but essentially they were agencies of the government--as in Fascism rather than Socialism. It has been well known that Congress implicitly guaranteed their loans--witness the recent takeover which does that. Their mandate to make loans with no accountability for the results is a recipe for disaster just as has happened (and as also happened in the savings and loan fiasco of a few years ago). Like I said, you can't beat reality. It's basic economics--which you should learn something about. I recommend "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.


Posted by Grace Lee, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Words cannot describe the utter ignorance just displayed there in Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood. I suggest for a week consider thinking outside the box.

Fannie Mae was created in 1938 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. The US housing market was in the wake of the Great Depression. This discouraged private lenders from investing in home loans. Who steps in the US tax payer.

FDR hardly a venture capitalist.


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 13, 2008 at 11:40 pm

"Why is it that you can't address Palin's continued lying about her record? What do you think of Palin's flip-flop on co-operating with investigators on Troopergate? As a post-feminist, what do you think of Wasilla rape victims having to pay for their own exams? As an educated woman, what do you think of Palin firing the town librarian when she refused to censor books?"

what about obama's lies and flip-flops; he's like silly putty, taking whatever form works at the moment; troopergate? ha ha how about ayersgate, rezkogate, and wrightgate? palin didn't make the rules about paying for rape exams, she inherited them, and disagrees with them; palin did not fire the librarian, nor did she try to censor books. please site sources for all your exaggerations - sources other than daily kos, or give up. people in palto are mostly not going to vote for mccain, but palto is a little bubble...live with it...and why isn't there a law in alaska that says victims of rape have to bear their children...your fears are homegrown with too much paranoia fertlizer


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:11 am

Sorry Pam,

Palin didn't work to revoke those rules either. So that won't wash.

Sooooo, I'm afraid whining "Obama, Obama" doesn't get you off the hook. And none of things you mention have *anything* to deal with Obama misusing his authority. He's not under legal investigation--Palin is.

I don't ever use sources from the Daily Kos. The mainstream media--i.e. the New York Times have plenty of information on Palin's record.

But you're not answering the questions. I asked you some very specific ones and you're not answering them.

It's not about Alaska's laws on abortion--thanks, in part to Roe v. Wade--it's Palin's views on abortion that are in question. If you do not agree with them, why are you supporting her?

Why on earth do you think it's *paranoia* to think an open opponent of abortion in all cases but endangering the life of the mother would not act to outlaw abortion? That's kind of the point of the antiabortion movement.

You can't stomach the consequences of Palin's views on abortion, rape and incest, so you're pretending that she doesn't really mean it--even though she's been very clear about it.

Wake up and smell the coffee.


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:21 am

ooooo, palin is under investigation,oooooo, for firing a guy that threatened people, a state trooper no less - i love the panic...the nyt is an obama shill, just look at the obama pr on their front page, every day, something like 6-7 favorable stories for obama out of 10 on today's sidebar...naive...this Web Link should help explain what i'm getting at...i don't support palin//where did you get that idea??//she's upsetting the progressive left, the people who ruined the democratic party//if mccain wins the progressives are out//that's what i want, all of them kerry, dodd, kennedy, pelosi, biden...out! they prey on the poor and unfortunate with their "hopes and dreams"...it's hard to take a woman that's made choices different than yours, isn't it? get used to it...


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:22 am

palin's views will never become law, just like bushies ideas of armageddon didn't make it into a subcommittee...you need some of that coffee


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:32 am

Pam,

You need to read a newspaper. Palin is *not* under investigation for firing her ex-brother-in-law the state trooper. She is under investigation for firing a high ranking law officer who refused to succumb to her pressure to fire the state trooper. The officer in question had already disciplined the trooper in question. Palin abused her position to behave vindictively and quite probably illegally.

Now to you--thing is, you do support McCain/Palin. You've made it very clear. As you're making it now clear in what seems to be only some sort of meltdown.

You either disagree with or are ignorant about Palin's actual records and views. So why do you support them? Because you've built up this notion of the "progressive left" that you blame for everything.

Just how does the "progressive left" go about preying on people with hopes and dreams, anyway? Do they use dreamcatchers?



Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:34 am

Pam,

Why are you supporting someone who's views you're hoping won't become law?


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:42 am

op, are you really naive enough to believe that any candidate's promises, or preferences, will become law? who was running the congress the last two years? dems//who promised to get us out of iraq? dems//who hlet the patriot act become law dems// who stood by and let bush have his way? dems...and the press...//who let this country fall into energy dependance? both parties//they all lie; they are all bought and paid for//some manage to do more good than not, in spite of this//obama has done nothing, except change his mind//palin has done nothing, but shure packs a wallop//biden is a poor man's judas//mccain is probably the best of them, not perfect, but someone who has suffered, and truly risen above//obama is an opportunist, supported by very big money, more of the same...


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 14, 2008 at 3:26 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Is it a slippery slope from killing a fetus to tasing a ten year old?


Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2008 at 5:39 am

Palin is a bottle rocket, at best a Roman Candle.

These fireworks are revealing themselves to be just that.

There will be much light in the coming weeks, albeit with a great deal of residual smoke and newly introduced dust to which many will succumb, as they did in 2000 and 2004.

I fervently hope that Lincoln was right, and that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 14, 2008 at 8:19 am

Perspective is a registered user.

I can not let the illogic pass.

OP: Let me turn it around. Let's say there is an atheist running whose basic belief is that all faiths are dangerous and therefore she or he doesn't believe in anything? Yet, that atheist states that he or she knows that the law of the land is freedom of religion, and vows to uphold it.

I would. So, what is the difference between that and someone whose personal belief is that abortion does not right a rape? Yet has clearly stated that she believes in upholding the law of the land?

Last..again, I beg everyone. Read the actual Roe V. Wade that is so often bandied about. Again, I repeat, it stated that medical privacyy could not be infringed in the FIRST THREE MONTHS of pregnancy, and that after that the STATE HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST TO DETERMINE the best for BOTH LIVES.

There is a lot of misunderstanding of Roe V. Wade, ..educate yourself. And therein lies why so many of us want to overturn it, then bring the subject up through CONGRESS not through just a few folks on a bench taking more power than they were alloted in the Constitution.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 14, 2008 at 8:22 am

Perspective is a registered user.

I haven't checked to see if Lincoln said it or not, but assuming you cited the correct person, Boomer, I agree with you when you wrote "I fervently hope that Lincoln was right, and that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time".

However, PT Barnum was pretty smart when he ( paraphrasing) said that there was a sucker born every minute.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 14, 2008 at 8:23 am

Perspective is a registered user.

Oops,,.." I would VOTE for him or her" ... reference to my post above about the hypothetical Atheist.


Posted by Breath of Fresh Air, a resident of Professorville
on Sep 14, 2008 at 8:31 am

Perspective,

McCain flipflopped on this issue (to curry favor with hard-core, rightist religious fanatics like Palin) and now says he favors overturning Roe v Wade. He will work toward this by appointing more wacko judges to the supreme court.

Get with the program bud. If McCain and Palin are elected, they're gonn do their best to boost sales of wire coathangers.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 14, 2008 at 11:29 am

Breath: I suspect you don't realize that abortion was LEGAL before Roe V Wade, do you?

Do you have any idea what the actual number of deaths from abortions were before Roe V. Wade were and what they are each year post Roe V. Wade?

Sorry "bud". If your reasoning is to save women's lives by preventing deaths from botched abortions, you need to support going back to pre-Roe V. Wade.


Posted by Wade in da Water, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 14, 2008 at 11:54 am

Interesting how the left stoops to name calling when the argument slips from their grasp.

There is a difference between abortion on demand and abortion for medical reasons.

One is sold as a choice and the other is base on prudent medical ethics.

The pro-baby killing side is confused on the issue they keep bumping into the trees of the forest they can not see.

McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden can do nothing to change the existing state of affairs surrounding abortion. The left knows this, their argumentation theory on this subject is as empty as their soul.



Posted by R Wray, a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 14, 2008 at 11:55 am

We can't forecast all the issues that will come up during the next years, so we can't judge the candidates only on the specific campaign issues; we have to consider their fundamental values--these are bound to influence their future decisions.
In the case of Palin, we can see some of her values by looking at the choices she has made in her personal life. She knowing, by choice, brought a Down-syndrome person into the world. This is opposed to my values--in fact, I consider it evil.
Also, very few 17-years-old minors are ready for marriage--even fewer are ready for motherhood. Palin is sacrificing her child in a shot-gun marriage.
These actions show her Dark-Age values. They are not for me.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:42 pm

I think it is funny that someone tried to write under R-Wray's moniker.

Obviously a fakee.

Back to the word "value"..ok, if you want to say that killing someone because they are disabled is a "value" of yours..feel free. Luckily most of us don't have that value, or the nation would be run like Peter Singer would like, our nursing homes would be emptied, our hospitals would empty..hey!! Is that your solution to the health insurance problem??

As for few 17 year olds ready for marriage and motherhood..Agreed with you, my value system would encourage her to let the baby go to a loving, mature mother and father who are married..

However, given who this baby is the grandchild of, and given that obviously this 17 year old does not abort, I can certainly support the brave and valiant goal of raising this child in an intact, married family who is perfectly capable of loving this child.

How do you know that the Palins didn't beg her to give the baby up for abortion, acquiesing only after a great deal of discussion to the demand by their daughter that she be allowed to marry? What makes you know it is "shotgun"??

By the way, my grandmother was 17 when she had my father...worked fine. Usually does with the RIGHT parents. My grandmother didn't even have the tremendous support of 2 families that Palin's daughter will have.

Not exactly dark ages values.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:43 pm

On second thought..given the value in the Dark Ages was to marry and care for a baby you bring into the world...maybe it isn't an insult to call it Dark Ages values.


Posted by WHAT???, a resident of Hoover School
on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:44 pm

EVIL??? to NOT abort a kid????


Wow, what a crazy, upside down idea..


Posted by WHAT???, a resident of Hoover School
on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:44 pm

EVIL??? to NOT abort a kid????


Wow, what a crazy, upside down idea..


Posted by WHAT???, a resident of Hoover School
on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Sorry, not used to this. Didn't mean to post twice.

I see someone else already wrote a better answer than i did.


Posted by Breath of Fresh Air, a resident of Professorville
on Sep 14, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Perspective,

Nice try. In changing the topic, you quietly conceded that McCain flipflopped and will try to get Roe overturned, which contradicts what you first said.

Now that that is settled, let's turn to "abortion was LEGAL before Roe V Wade," which is more misleading claptrap. It was legal in some places, illegal in others. Once it was legal everywhere, women no longer showed up in emergency rooms having mutilated themselves. So yeah, Bud, Roe saves women's lives every day.

You and Backroom John are all set to ride into the sunset on the Coathanger Express. Gideeyup.



Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 14, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Please, "Bud", do a little research on the number of deaths from illegal abortions before Roe V Wade, and the number of deaths from legal abortions post Roe V Wade..

Be sure and sort out miscarriages from legal abortions from illegal abortions.


crickets.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 14, 2008 at 2:15 pm

It is good advice to "consider a candidate's fundamental values" before casting your vote.


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 14, 2008 at 5:27 pm

"It is good advice to "consider a candidate's fundamental values" before casting your vote."

what are obama's fundamental values? i want someone to help me sort that out. When you answer, please list the values that he has lived, not just talked about.


Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2008 at 5:44 pm

He has never had an abortion.


Posted by R Wray, a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 14, 2008 at 6:42 pm

Obama's fundamental "values" are socialism and anti-Americanism. But he acts like an "empty suit", adjusting to conditions pragmatically.


Posted by Short list, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 14, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Pam,

"what are obama's fundamental values?"

They include not lying about the other candidate's pig comments, not lying about earmarks, not lying about taxes, not lying about the other candidate's position on sex education, not using his office to pursue a family vendetta.

It makes for quite a contrast with the lying and malfeasance and lack of honor we see daily from McCain and Palin.



Posted by shorter list, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 14, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Short List -

If you are trying to say that Obama puts a high value on
honesty, or avoiding misrepresentation, that would mean something and is sorely needed. You may be right.

Do his actions (or I suppose for this one we measure the depth of the value for him by his words) support this? Is that really his key value, to be honest?

I think the values question is fair and deserves more than a glib response. Finding his values from his "body of work" is not as easy as finding e.g. H. Clinton's. Or McCain's for that matter. Until this election season, I really had only heard of him in the context of his big speech. And now, the usual answers to "what did he do?" are thin.

I sometimes feel he's pitching himself not so much as himself but rather as a representative of the party platform; the best representative right now, with a built-in edge in understanding the impact of prejudice and discrimination. And what it takes for inclusion. But I still don't feel solid about, "who is this guy?" Maybe we don't need to know; he'll be good for the country anyway. Or better than the alternative.

In contrast, McCain is representing a party that's gone bad, but I know who he is.


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 14, 2008 at 10:11 pm

both campaigns have used invective and lies...

what are obama's core values? not what positions he has taken (because he has, like every politician, flip-flopped, although more than most), but what does he believe, and how have those beliefs resulted in a record that is consistently generated from those values?


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 14, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Perspective,

Why do you assume that deaths from illegal abortions would have been reported as such. Actually, I can tell you that they weren't.

Pam,

Obama had an interview with Bill O'Reilly tonight--who certainly isn't his biggest fan. Why don't you watch it?

I think one thing about Obama's values is that he is much more aware of and cares about the rule of law--he's the only one on either ticket who's a legal scholar. That to me, is his greatest strength--that serious understanding of how our country's government is supposed to work. He is going to have to learn on the job--I'd have preferred him to have been a bit more seasoned--but, like Hillary Clinton, he's smart. He's very unlike Bush in that he doesn't fixate on something or someone and then tune out objections. He strikes me as a flexible thinker--he's going to want to adapt to the situation--and that has limited his willingness to make specific campaign promises.

And, no, both sides don't lie equally. When Bill O'Reilly, *Karl Rove* (!), the Army Times, all the women on the View and the mainstream media all complain about the lying in McCain's campaign--there's a real problem with the tactics of *that* campaign.

I saw large chunks of both conventions. The Dems made a point of saying nice things about McCain while saying he shouldn't be elected because he'd continue Bush's policies. The GOP convention had a snide, ugly quality to it, which has degenerated.

Trying to say both sides are doing it is a cop-out. McCain and Palin have gone way past the usual buffing off of blemishes and casting their records in a favorable light. It's just plain old lying.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 15, 2008 at 5:52 am



According to today's revelations Obama was trying to negotiate, with Iraq's Foreign Minister, to make a change in the US policy established by President Bush.
He did so without authority to do so nor any type of diplomatic credentials.
Clearly the is a Violation of the Logan Act!
The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.
It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994.
Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.
It will interesting to see how Obama tries to get out of this.
This allegation is way more serious than anything McCain or Sarah have been accused of.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 15, 2008 at 6:13 am

Sharon--Care to provide a link to your latest allegations regarding Obama or should we just take your word for it since you are a McCain/Palin supporter


Posted by hmmm., a resident of Meadow Park
on Sep 15, 2008 at 8:26 am

McCain spent money on an Ad congratulating Obama on his win...where was Obama's Ad?

Hmmm...

The DNC convention spent a great deal of time on props and pretty words..where was the substance? How did he differentiate himself and his party from McCain and the Repubs?

The biggest thing going for McCain is that the real nation knows he has gone against Bush and his "party" ( for right or for wrong, depending on your viewpoint) to reach "across the aisle" many times. People like me despise those actions, but apparently it is enough to keep in the loop as a real "maverick" of change.

Has Obama EVER ONCE gone against his "Party" to reach across the "aisle"? He has yet to even unify his own party..which McCain just brilliantly did of his own.

Shorter list: One of the best analyses I have read on who Obama is. Many of us have privately thought about how he is a "symbol" and hoping people remember we are electing someone to a position of powere, not a symbolic figurehead. I am happy to read your well written piece. Thanks


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 15, 2008 at 8:32 am

I don't want a "flexible thinker": Translation: Moral relativism, Finger in the Wind influenced by Polls, wishy washy, no core principles.

I WANT an "inflexible thinker" if you want to frame it that way, who is an open book. That way I know what I am voting in. With McCain and Palin what you see is what you get. No surprised.

I am not voting in a "scholar" who will use his position to further whatever idea of himself he has, or use my country and its future as a petrie dish for refurbished old and failed ideas, but a PRESIDENT I can count on to lead the way I expect him to. I know I will ( and already have) disagree with both McCain and Palin, but they are known quantities on the most importannt issuues facing us..economy and security..so they have my vote. I can trust both of them to leave the country in at least as good of shape as it is now, and probably bettter, unlike Obama who I can trust to leave it in worse economic shape and less secure. ( Obama would be another Carter Administration..go back in history and review what happened to our country then..and you will be forewarned)


Posted by No (lipsticked) pigs in pokes, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 15, 2008 at 10:18 am

Obama's values are quite clear. He has talked about them, put them in great detail on his website, and has acted accordingly. You cannot pick up a newspaper without hearing about his values. They are American values.

The same cannot be said for McCain. I did not agree with all his positions 8 years ago, but I did respect him. Since then, he has flipflopped on torture, abortion, dirty politicking, and campaign finance. He backed the Iraq war. What are his principles? John McCain has abandoned his principles to the extent it is no longer possible to say what he stands for, unless it is for getting himself elected at all costs.

If you vote for McCain, you just don't know what you're getting. Is it the sometimes thoughtful policy-maker? Is it the impulsive maverick? Is is the Republican lapdog, eager to kowtow to every element of the Republican party? No knowing.

It is no longer possible to respect this unpredictable McCain--he is a husk.



Posted by I wear lipstick also, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 15, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Lipstick: You must be very young to believe words over action...

And, research a bit more on how great all of Obama's actions have been. Find out what the results were of his "community organizing" work, what his votes are, and who he considers his "freinds and mentors".


Posted by Scholar? More, Please, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 15, 2008 at 10:41 pm

As a legal scholar, what has Obama concluded/articulated/elucidated?

I've seen the reference several times on this board, but his speeches did not bring my focus to legal scholarship. To be sure, that is not what I expect or look for in political speeches. (e.g. "There is no controlling authority" was not impressive, except in providing evidence of legal scholarship).

But if we think of him as being on the Court, what would he be trying to ensure others understand?


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 15, 2008 at 10:59 pm

"Since then, he has flipflopped on torture, abortion, dirty politicking, and campaign finance. He backed the Iraq war. What are his principles? John McCain has abandoned his principles to the extent it is no longer possible to say what he stands for, unless it is for getting himself elected at all costs."

boy, does this ever sound like barack obama!! mccain has flipped on issues, yes, but obama is the all time champ this election season. where have you been?


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 15, 2008 at 11:05 pm

"Trying to say both sides are doing it (lying) is a cop-out."

check out factcheck.org...they say you're wrong. seems you've retreated from many of the exaggerations about palin. keep it up...i have to laugh at the rove statement! brilliant!!!! how better to remove mccain from bush' shadow than to be criticized by rove!! and the obama campaign is circulating it! the arrogant obama campaign played right into rove's hands!



Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 16, 2008 at 12:29 am

Web Link gotta love it - a 20 point swing away from obama by women...they like sarah...this is what happens when we play 'american idol' for u.s. president//obama just met his match, and then some...this bottle rocket is more like a booster rocket to jupiter//gonna zoom right through november


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 16, 2008 at 6:10 am

I thought I was being overly cynical about the Rove statement,..my first, very first, thought was that Rove was trying to help McCain by distancing him. Then I thought "naaahhhh....

Maybe our instincts are right on this.

Brilliant as usual. ( rove, I mean)


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Handmade truffle shop now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 2,323 views

Why is doing nothing so difficult?
By Sally Torbey | 7 comments | 1,064 views

Breastfeeding Tips
By Jessica T | 4 comments | 864 views

Weekly Update
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 722 views

Call it a novel: Dirty Love by Andre Dubus III
By Nick Taylor | 1 comment | 245 views