Gary,

Of course she does. She said three weeks ago that she didn't have a position on Iraq.

Why do you think she's being shielded from interviews? She lights up the base, so it would behoove the GOP to get her out there. But they don't want her saying things like she doesn't know exactly what a vice president does.

It's not that surprising, really--it reflects, as much as anything, how last minute a pick she was. Otherwise, she'd have been prepped earlier.

Remember, she didn't write her speech. How she responds to interviews involves a different set of training.

I know you've got stars in your eyes over her, but it's not even an insult to say she needs to learn a few things first. You know, then you can go on and talk about how quickly she learns and what a brilliant student she is.

See, I've got the spin down for you already.

Money has been pouring into McCain’s coffers – he left the convention with $200m to spend – and the enthusiasm and charisma gap with obama has been obliterated.

McCain even achieved the same record-breaking 40m television audience as obama for his convention speech.

“When Obama says he wants change, he means he wants to change Americans,” said Grover Norquist, an influential tax reform lobbyist.
“One message of change is pro-American, the other isn’t. obama thinks there is something wrong with us.”

obama and his wife want America to apologize to them first and then to the world.

McCain says-

THE DAY WE LOOSE OUR WILL TO FIGHT IS THE DAY WE LOOSE OUR FREEDOM

OhlonePar,

All she needs to do is use her own judgement. I mean, Biden and Obama got it completely wrong on the surge in Iraq. Biden has been so wrong, so often, that Palin will kill him in the debate of judgement. Palin is fully supportive of her own son shipping out to Iraq (in the infantry, not the jag, like Biden's son). If her son ends up making the ultimate sacrifice, she will shed tears and feel the overwhelming pain, but she will not jump on the "it's a waste" crusade. Why? Becasue she knows that the liberation of Iraq is central in the war to free the world from both Saddam and al qaeda.

She is one tough broad, with lipstick. That is why she bothers you, and other leftists so much. You are jealous that you have nobody that can match her. Hillary isn't even close.

I heard something like, "How can she take care of five kids, one a special needs child, and run for VP?"

I first thought that this, coming from strong liberals, meant that they had devolved into Neanderthals - "it's one thing for a man, but a woman's place is in the home."

But I heard it so often I began wondering about it.

There is a senior executive at the company I work for who has five kids. I have one and find myself too busy. She spends more time working than I do, and yet more readily accepts invitations to social engagements that I am too busy to accept. Mostly too busy doing stuff related to my one kid.

So I ask, how can she do it?

I realize this is not a put-down, but rather, just a question. Sometimes I am jealous and feel there must be something better about what I am doing with my time. But that is not a criticism of the executive.

So which is it? Are the liberals Neanderthals, or are they just wondering how she does it?

It takes a family to raise a child, or 5 children, a normal family is father and mother, siblings, grandparents, uncles and aunts.

The next VP of the USA is in good shape, anyone who saw the youngest daughter with the new baby of Sarah knows in their heart that the love and commitment is there.
Your senior executive boss's family must have the same qualities, which is why she is where she is.

I am sure Obama feels your pain and that must be a consolation.

Gary,

If Voter's account is correct, Palin revealed that she doesn't understand what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are. That's a pretty big gaffe. I mean I realize it's not something your average person on the street probably doesn't understand--but someone running for national office to show that kind of misunderstanding about the secondary mortgage market when there's a huge mortgage crisis? That's an issue, among other things, with her lack of experience outside of Alaska--and not being wonky enough to know anyway.

I know that you're very taken in by the story and image here, but think it through a little bit. What is her record here? She's got a knack for getting federal funding. Is the Pork Barrel Princess really someone who's going to help reduce spending?

I feel the basic issue is fairness, we have a well qualified African American candidate for the " White " house, it is our turn, we have supported the Democratic Party by a 96% margin for many many years, it is our turn, I cannot believe the prejudice thrown at Obama, he is our candidate and our hope.
How can you people in Palo Alto attack him so unfairly. he went to Harvard Law School, not the University of Idaho, he is obviously much more qualified, than that woman Palin. This election is unfair!!!

Sara,

The election's not over yet. Obama has more supporter in Palo Alto than does McCain and Palin.

One of the things that's impressed me with Obama is the dedication of his volunteers. A lot of this going to hinge on getting out the vote. The GOP has been very organized about targeting potential GOP voters--the Dems have more numbers. Making sure people get out and vote for Obama will do more than fretting over the conservatives on this forum.

Don't get mad, get votin'

Sara,

I admire that Obama graduated from Harvard Law, but that doesn't make him more qualified to be president that a graduate of Idaho.

Obama's problem is that his shifting positions, nuances, cavaets, etc. creates a perception among many undecided & independent voters that they don't quite "know" what he is for.

McCain has emphasized his character; his whole story as a POW, and his opposition to Reagan on the Lebanon deployment, the McCain - Feingold campaign finance reform, the gang of 12 (6 republicans & 6 democrats) on judicial nominations, the support of the Iraq surge when it was highly unpopular, etc. tells a story of a man who will do what he thinks is best for the country.

When McCain was shot down, he was injured badly. N. Vietnam offered him early release in hopes of using him as a proproganda tool. He refused, despite his injuries, and ended up being tortured for years. He did what he thought was "right" for the country.

When the Iraq war was going badly in 2006, he supported the "Surge". Democrat's labeled it the "McCain war strategy", knowing that he was running for president and wanted to associate him with a "loser". McCain's reply: "I'd rather lose an election than a war". Again, he's pushing for what would be best for what he thought was "best for the country", not his self interest.

So given a choice between Obama, who we don't quite "know" what he will do, and someone who has demonstrated that he put's the country first, undecided & independent voters will go for McCain.

Don't forget that McCain was rattling cages to get us into this war with Iraq from the very start, and that he saw Afghanistan as kind of a side issue (Afghanistan being where Al Qaeda really was, not Iraq).

If you really have common sense, please vote the Democrats back long enough to straighten out the economy again. I can't help but noticing that every time Republicans have taken office in my lifetime, the value of the dollar has tanked. I could see that coming a mile away when Bush took office, only this time it's tanked so badly, it may not long be the world's reserve currency and that would have significant impact on our economy in the future.

There is an undercurrent of racism in the attacks against Obama, he is qualified to be the president and bring us compensation for years of slavery and discrimination, he knows how that feels,
How can you priviliged people in Palo Alto allow this critisim I see on this blog, it is unfair nobody critisizes that woman Palin, what is her qualification? a bwety queen, I carnt believe it!

What liberals have been criticizing Palin for her family? I seem to recall Obama saying something like, Let me make this perfectly clear, her family is off limits.

I have heard a number of conservatives (mainly moms) criticize Palin - they think her commitment to her special needs baby and her pregnant teenager should come first. Mostly I heard this in private, but I think prominent conservatives like Dr. Laura have gone public with that opinion.

Slavery was an abomination, and no one left or right defends it.

Obama is a product of a polygamous Africa male here on a student visa and a 60s lifestyle white American 18yr old girl.

Obamas Muslim ancestors, on his fathers side, were actively involved in the slave trade.

Obama has no right to cloak himself in the shameful history of slavery, his ancestors were among those traders, not that that makes any difference, I suppose.

Let the election stand on competence to lead, not PC revisionism.

Common Sense,

McCain has flip-flopped on numerous positions in the last couple of years--enough so that the Daily Show made it the focus of its McCain nomination film spoof--this includes a major flip-flop on Roe v. Wade and, of course, an early prediction that the war in Iraq would be short followed by a later rewrite that he always knew we would be in Iraq for a long while.

He came out strongly against earmarks in his convention speech, but has a VP who specializes in getting earmarks for her town or state.

He's been in the Senate for 23 year, his party's been in power for the last eight. He has close ties with lobbyists.

Yet, he's claiming he'll "change" things. Well, what's he been doing for the past 23 years.

He's totally business as usual.

I've never heard that McCain behaved less than admirably as a P.O.W. Does that mean he's entitled to the presidency or will make a good one?

Ulysses S. Grant was one of the greatest generals of all time--and one of our worst presidents. Different jobs, different skills.

Obama, unlike McCain, is a self-made man. He wasn't an admiral's son. He wasn't a member of the eastern elite. He's got a serious work ethic to go with his ambition.

I'd like to see what he'd do--because I know what four years under McCain would look like.

To the continuing belief that social conservatives, usually defined by those who think only evangelicals ( usually defined in "not in the know" minds as non-Catholic Christians) should be appalled by full-time working mom Palin. Apparently Evangelicals are not who the left think they are...

Sarah Palin Feminism by Naomi Riley of the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

Web Link

Sara, you sound a little hurt. I understand why from how you are thinking.

But, you have to remember, opposing someone on his or her values, perspective on our country, policy propositions, and lack of any relevant experience at all ( please remember that Mr. Obama has never held a paid executive job, let alone been responsible for a budget of any organization, city or state, nor has he ever voted for allowing any person of any age to defend himself) is not racism, implied or otherwise.

The Presidency of the United States is not a job for someone with the above lack of qualifications. It is not a symbol. It is not a job gained by "taking turns". It is not a job based on color or gender..like MLK said, in a big paraphrase, it is a job gained by content of character not color of skin ( or gender).

I hope this helps you understand better why when/if Obama loses..it will not be from racism.

Or, to think of it another way, there would probably be no more racism in an Obama loss than there would be in an Obama win ( voting FOR someone because of color/gender is just as racist/sexist as voting AGAINST someone based on race/gender.

Good luck and peace with whatever the outcome is.

And Gary: I agree with you. When did Time ever run anything on schooling Obama? Oh, I forgot, Time and most of the rest of print and TV media annointed him long ago as the President, with not even one day of the vetting they are giving Palin.

For example, 7 times Obama on cover of Time mag...2 times McCain.

And yet, in all that coverage, where are the stories of ACORN, Rezko, Ayers, voting record, successful bills passed, voting record, the Woods Fund, his voting record, the Annenberg Challenge, his 20 years with Wright, his voting record........

With such concerted campaign propoganda like that, it is amazing that Obama isn't ahead in the polls.

Shows we are wising up.

OhlonePar,

You miss the point; politicians change their position frequently and over time, and both Obama & McCain have done so. The partisans of each candidate, generally will rationalize those changes.

The undecided and independent voters however will look towards the character of the candidate to determine their vote. That's where McCain has an advantage through his life story, and the demonstrated positions he's taken against opinion polls, and against his own party. Obama doesn't have that, and so for the undecided and independent voter, they don't know how Obama will make decisions when the best decision may not be the popular one.

Surely graduating from Harvard, great public speaking ability, and being a senator in good standing qualifies Obama to be president. It's better qualification than our current president, isn't it? And he can pull a rabbit out of a hat; defeating Hillary was not an easy job.

Put that against McCain or Palin.

In reality, to paraphrase Clinton, all you have need to be qualified is of a certain age and a born citizen...

so, yes, Obama is qualified by law.

But then you have to pass the public's qualifications test. That will be decided on election day.

Somehow I suspect graduating from an Ivy League school, sitting as a National Senator for 143 days, voting "present" as a State Senator, being able to read from a teleprompter well, working for the much maligned ACORN and a couple supposed education funds, voting against the right to bear arms and for allowing babies to die when they are born alive from a botched abortion, claiming to not have voted for Iraq when he wasn't even in office yet, voting against a surge which worked, and benifitting from Rezko, Ayers and Wright, will not pass the "qualifications" meter of the public.

But, I have been wrong before....

"a VP who specializes in getting earmarks for her town or state."

OhlonePar,

Yes and no...

Earmarks are the mother's milk of Alaskan politics. After all, Alaskans voted for statehood in order to get federal money to build roads. Palin was not particularly different, until the past couple of years. She has cut her requests significantly, and has made enemies in so doing. She is not in McCain's league on this issue, but she is headed in that direction.

Biden, on the other hand is one of the true kings of pork. On a proportional basis, Alaska, the largest state in the union, gets much less pork than Delaware (the second smallest state). On a logical and fair basis, a young and huge state like Alaska, which has very little infrastrucutre, needs more federal funds than a small, already developed state, like Delaware.

Palin is not pure on this issue, but she is headed in the opposite direction, compare to either Biden or Obama. She deserves credit for this.

I question Palin's judgement. She appears to be very religious, probably more so than Bush. When she chooses a mystical base for her fundamental values, one should be skeptical.

"I question Palin's judgement. She appears to be very religious, probably more so than Bush. When she chooses a mystical base for her fundamental values, one should be skeptical."

R Wray,

You are describing a tension in American politics, since its founding. John Adams was a believer, and Jefferson was not (well not particularly, he was a deist...like me!). I'm not sure that we have ever a had a declared atheist as president...you might know better than me, have we?

Since Obama claims to be a believer, I doubt that it is much of an issue in this election.

I think Palin has judgement, based on her record and her speeches and biography, and press reports and family commitment. Mysticism has only an indirect connection to what I am talking about (re: She beieves in god, and it forms her underlying confidence and wisdom). Frankly, I found much more mysticism among avowed socialists.

Non-issue, Wray.

Obama claimed this morning that he wanted to join the military in 1979, do you believe him?

I think William Shakespeare has his number

"Gentlemen in England now in bed will think themselves accursed they were not here and will hold there manhood's cheap wilst any speak who fought with us upon St. Crispin's Day."
Obama will not "serve", only continue his journey of personal discovery.
Serving means personal sacrifice. He is above wasting his time on "service." Obama should "hold his manhood cheap" when someone who did serve and risk himself for the nation--maybe someone who served in the "Hanoi Hilton."
A better statement on Obama's consideration of military service can be found at Shakespeare's"King Henry IV.i.3 "But for these vile guns, he would himself have been a soldier"

FDR never served in the military, directly. Yet, he had the judgement to oppose Hitler. Unforutnately, Obama had not the judgement to oppose Saddam. McCain had it and has it.

History makes harsh judgements. Obama will not look good on this one. Both GWB and McCain will look very good.

Gary

Didn't FDR have polio?

The Sacrifices Obama Has Made for His Country

Barack Obama addressing donors at a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by the aging rock star Jon Bon Jovi:

"I hope you guys are up for a fight. I hope you guys are game because I haven’t been putting up with 19 months of airplanes and hotel food and missing my babies and my wife – I didn’t put up for that stuff just to come in second."

Airplanes? Hotel food? What a martyr.

Sharon..what is the source of this quote? It accurate, it is priceless.

Not only in the martyrlike tone, but in the implication that he has been campaigning for 19 months for President, instead of doing his work as Senator for the first 12 months...

Perspective-


The source is the New York Times Web Link
today

September 6, 2008, 9:41 am
Obama: ‘I Don’t Believe in Coming in Second’
By Jeff Zeleny

MIDDLETOWN, N.J. – For Senator Barack Obama, the television image of his day on Friday took place on the floor of a glass manufacturing plant in the small Pennsylvania town of Duryea. But by nightfall, he was a world away from that scene, as he arrived here for a pair of high-dollar fund-raisers.

The singer Jon Bon Jovi and a nearby neighbor hosted back-to-back events for Mr. Obama. While his message was largely the same – criticizing Republicans for their convention message – he steeled his supporters for a tough battle ahead in the final 60 days of the campaign.

“I hope you guys are up for a fight. I hope you guys are game because I haven’t been putting up with 19 months of airplanes and hotel food and missing my babies and my wife – I didn’t put up for that stuff just to come in second,” he said. “I don’t believe in coming in second. The American people can’t afford for us to come in second.”

As he stood beneath a tent on the expansive Bon Jovi compound, which resembled an Italian villa, Mr. Obama criticized the message of the Republican convention. He even suggested that his rival was running a negative race – perhaps more so than Mr. McCain would like, but offered no evidence to bolster his point.

Common Sense,

No, I think you're missing my point. There is nothing in McCain's record that shows that he'll change business-as-usual in the Republican party. It really will be more of the same. He'll say one thing and then he'll cave.

Gary,

Yes, earmarks are the mother's milk of Alaskan politics. Palin was doing busines-as-usual. She only cut her requests when Bush wanted those earmarks cut.

And Alaska isn't the largest state by any other measure than geographic--it has the smallest populations. You're being disingenuous. It gets for more in kickbacks per person than any other state--thus, earmarks being mother's milk.

More to the point--*McCain* has made cutting earmarks a center of *his* campaign promises--not Obama, not Biden--but McCain. So his having a pork-barrel princess as his VP candidate is problematic.

So, no, backing off something (while keeping part of the money) is not the sign of an anti-earmark crusader.

As for Palin's religious beliefs--they matter in that she seems to belong to a sect that has a particular investment in the existence of Israel as a sign of the Second Coming--I'd guess that's R. Wray's reference to mysticism--the whole idea of the Rapture. I don't think we should base our policy on Israel on the idea that the vast majority of us are going straight to Hell in a couple of years, while Palin and co. take the express to Heaven. Oh, yeah, that's right, the remaining few can face Armageddon and run about baptizing one another.

It's fringe-y out there among the fringes.

Fundamentalists are an issue in public office simply because too many of them want the rest of us to be subject to their beliefs. There's a separation of church and state issue here. Palin, remember, is someone who wanted to ban books from her town's library and fired the librarian because she refused to censor books.

Palin has the right to believe what she believes and attend the house of worship of her choice. What she doesn't have is the right to inflict those beliefs on *me*.

Lincoln, by the way, may have been an atheist--though he seemed to have some of those spiritualist influences common at the time.

As for Iraq--we destabilized the region, didn't have a good plan for stabilizing it, so keeping it from further destabilizing it is costing us a bundle. Now we're looking at Iran.

Meanwhile, North Korea's doing what it wants, Osama bin Laden still hangs out who knows where and Afghanistan/Pakistan are in the red zone, and China's capitalized on our distraction.

It was just all very, very poorly thought out.

Sharon,

In 1979, Obama would have been getting out of high school and probably looking for a way to pay for college. The army was fairly mellow at that time and I had friends who joined the military to pay for college--very left friends. Don't know the details with Obama, but it's completely possible.

All sorts of people consider the army--it's a long tradition in my family, for example.

Perspective,

Joke. Humor. Joke about airline food. Got it. Good.

Palin. Not really pitbull with lipstick. Joke. See?

(step by step)

"There is an undercurrent of racism in the attacks against Obama..."
Unlike the 98% overcurrent of support Obama receives from the "Black" community?
Give us Dr. Rice or Walter Williams or Ward Connerly or even Willie Brown and we will show you undercurrent. Look up the "Nickle-O-Trey for the folk I admire. Don't demean the very real accomplishments of the American African community by defining them by color. Don't diminish the very real accomplishments of the better half of our society by defining them by gender.

Gary-

Obama & The Selective Service Web Link

During his 7 September 2008 interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Obama said the following:

"I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school. And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there.

"And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue."


Obama did graduate from high school in Hawaii in 1979, but he could not have registered for Selective Service then. Nobody could. In 1975, President Gerald Ford terminated the Military Selective Service Act. It was not reinstated until July 1980. That is one year after Obama graduated from high school. In July 1980, Obama was no longer living in Hawaii. He was living in Los Angeles.

"Didn't FDR have polio?"

Yes, but that was long after he was of age to join the military, as an infantryman. He evenetually got himself appointed as assistant Navy secretary, but that was a fallback, after he lost an election.

Unlike his fifth cousin, TR, he wanted nothing to do with carrying a gun on his shoulder. He was a super-rich single child, and he was not about to endanger that priveleged position.

However, FDR had a moral and ethical sense about him. He did not need to fight Hitler...he needed to fight Japan. Yet, he realized evil in his time, and made the choice. Good for him. Same for GWB and McCain vs Saddam.

Sharon,

So the situation changed within a year of Obama's graduation from high school when, yes, indeed, he would have had to register as he was born in 1961.

And Hawaii does have a very large military presence. So, yes, when he registered--as all the guys did--yep, even if they were in college--his views of the military would have been formed by his friends in Hawaii.

You are scraping the bottle of the barrel here, Sharon. This is just sort of pathetic, frankly.

OhlonePar writes "There is nothing in McCain's record that shows that he'll change business-as-usual in the Republican party. It really will be more of the same. He'll say one thing and then he'll cave."

OhlonePar ignores the list in my post "McCain has emphasized his character; his whole story as a POW, and his opposition to Reagan on the Lebanon deployment, the McCain - Feingold campaign finance reform, the gang of 12 (6 republicans & 6 democrats) on judicial nominations, the support of the Iraq surge when it was highly unpopular, etc. tells a story of a man who will do what he thinks is best for the country."

"And Alaska isn't the largest state by any other measure than geographic--it has the smallest populations. You're being disingenuous. It gets for more in kickbacks per person than any other state--thus, earmarks being mother's milk."

OhlonePar,

Now you are getting silly. Many towns and villages in Alaska are not connected by roads (even crude gravel roads)...plane and/or boat only. Roads in Alaska, due to terrain and weather, are very expensive. With a low population, there is no way to fairly compare earmarks on a per-capita basis...talk about being disingenuous! I was in Delaware, once, and actually needed to get to samll town there...no problem, just buy a map at the nearest gas station, then drive there. A completely specious argument, OP. You can do better than this!

As for the religious arguments, I am MUCH more concerned about fundmentalist collectivists/socialists than their Christian brethren.

Gary,

C'mon, it's a huge state with no population and a lotta airstrips. Given the snowpack, it's not a surprise there's not a road everywhere.

Nor should there be.

I haven't noticed, though, the feds paying for a $20 million sports center for Palo Alto either. Those earmarks aren't all roads--or even bridges to nowhere.

I realize from previous posts that you're worried about collectivists and all--but I'd say your concerns are out of scale. Even Cuba's worker's (non)paradise is on the deathwatch. What we have now are a fair number of capitalist/authoritarian regimes with no regard for human rights.

And I haven't noticed that the socialism in Scandanavia is destroying or threatening our American way of life.

"And I haven't noticed that the socialism in Scandanavia is destroying or threatening our American way of life."

OhlonePar,

That one was too juicy to let slide. Not ours, OP, just theirs...they are so busy with their committees to redistribute the wealth, that they forgot to have babies. They are, by design, killing thmesleves off as nation states. Palin, clearly, takes a completely opposite approach, as pioneer women have always done...she is the face of vigor (or "vigah", as JFK used to say).

I might add that Scandnavia, under the shadow of Russia, and sympathetic to the socialist model, will, nonethless, come pleading to the U.S. to protect them, when the Bear decides to get serious with them. The Scandinavian countries lack the military will to fight for themselves...even Norway, a hero nation in WWII (unlike Sweeden) is now so soft that it would choose to be red than dead.

Talk about being on the wrong side of history, OP!

Cato on Palin, not exactly a fiscal conservative.

Web Link

Obama owes much of his new troubles to his friends in the news media.
Women I know, republicans and independents and democratics are appalled by their sexism they are enraged by the vicious assaults on Sarah Palin and her family.

After he learned his fleet had attacked Pearl Harbor before a formal declaration of war, Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto is reputed to have said:
"I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

The vice presidential debate is Oct. 2. If I were Joe Biden, I would be very, very afraid.

Gary,

Sorry dude, Scandanavia doesn't have the biggest problem with declining birthrates in Europe. That honor belongs to countries in southeastern Europe--opportunity for women combined with very, very traditional ideas about maternal roles makes for a bad reproductive strategy.

Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway actually have some of the *highest* birth rates in Europe--well above real problem countries like Greece, Italy and Spain.

Given the overall population of the earth, a falling birthrate is not a terrible thing--better a lower birthrate than some of the alternatives--famine, disease, war--that are the result of too many people vying for too few resources. It does mean some societal restructuring.

(You do have to wonder, too, about the drops in sperm count that have been reported. There may well be an environmental factor here. Part of Denmark's relatively high birth rate (close to the U.S.) is apparently because of the wide availability of affordable IVF.)

There was a lengthy story on this in the NYTimes magazine not too long ago. In Europe, reproduction is highest in countries that offer ample services for parents. In the U.S.A. where reproduction isn't the same kind of issue, it's posited that we don't the same kind of bust because our society is very flexible in a way European societies are not.


Back atcha.

"too many people vying for too few resources"

OhlonePar,

Paul Ehrlich, again? This Malthusian, luddite agrument surfaces ever twenty years or so.

Yawn....

Past Perf,

In just 20 months, Palin raised taxes? Corporate taxes at that? Go, go, go Pork-Barrel Princess.

Damn, you got yourselves another tax-and-spend conservative. Though I do have some sympathy for wanting to build a sports center. (Yes, seriously. Kids need stuff to do besides drink and have sex on long winter nights.)

Wow, she's in for a shock if she bothers to learn McCain's platform.

Gary,

What, no thanks for my informative post? I think this stuff is interesting in and of itself. Hadn't come across that bit about IVF in Denmark before. It's a little scary if this decline has a serious environmental component.

Never read Paul Ehrlich--it's just kind of obvious if you know history.

It's a curious thing, one of the consequences of the Bubonic Plague in the 14th century was a revitalized economy. Fewer people meant more options for those people (and the decline of manorialism) and a healthier population no longer just surviving on a subsistence diet.

Gary asks, "I'm not sure that we have ever a had a declared atheist as president...you might know better than me, have we?"
It's a sad commentary, but I don't think we have. Some were probably not too serious about religion--like go-to-church-on-Sunday types. There have been many, however, who believed in separation of church and state.
Palin, however, is serious about religion--just look at her family actions. She is likely to be a pitbull in getting her religious views accepted in law. She believes God is interested in pipelines and soldiers. She will push for anti-abortion laws. She may even think that God talks to her, and who knows what He/She will say.
The collectivists/socialists are practically at a dead end--they have nothing new to offer. The religionists, however, are a growing threat to individual freedom--I wouldn't discount them.