The pick shows that McCain understands he needs to shake up the campaign.

According to Slate's collection of national polling data (http://www.slate.com/id/2195956/) the Dem lead in "safe" electoral votes is 190-78. When states "leaning" in one direction or the other are added, it tightens to 260-191; still the Dems need only 10 of the remaining 84 "toss-up" votes.

The size of Obama's lead is obscured by the more widely reported national-popular-vote polling, which is much closer, and which is, thanks to the electoral college, meaningless.

Janice--I don't know what you are basing that on. Now, don't get me wrong, the Republican ticket is distinctively less appealing to me today than it was on Thursday, when it had no appeal whatsoever. But Palin is a meant by McCain to be a very formidable opponent to Biden and a strong VP candidate. McCain isn't going for a Vanna White here. Yes, he wants to appeal to women, but Hillary supporters are not going to vote for him. He is primarily moving to shore up his conservative Republican base (men and women) and win back righ-leaning independents. Her CV can be, and is being, framed as a saga of beauty queen from Palookaville takes on the big boys (like Biden) and wins. Pure Holywood. It sells.

RM



[This message has been edited by Rick Mullin (edited August 30, 2008).]

Rick, I should have sense enough to keep my big mouth shut.

Well, from all appearances, if that's what he's looking for, he picked well.


I beleive conservative women will be alienated by what they perceive as shirking her mom/family duties. I think Hiillary women will not regard her as a role model.

I think you're 100% right on this one. She's placed herself squarely in the middle of nowhere - she's neither fish nor fowl in the vast space between conservative stay-at-home-children-and-family-come-first women and the women who scorn the lifestyle.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. "Strong family values" does not compute well with "drag a three day old special needs infant to the workplace with you every day."

Being really snide here, and freely admitting it, does anyone else find it strange that she posed for Vogue in December 2007 with her daughters and never mentioned her pregnancy, and in fact, did not bother announcing her pregnancy to her staff or coworkers until March 5, 2008 when she announced that she was 7 months pregnant. Two months later she's in Texas when her water begins leaking. She consults with her physician (by phone, I presume) and they decide she can stay, give her speech and then fly home. She did not tell the pilot or the stewardesses on her flight home that she was a double high risk pregnancy (maternal age and a known Downs fetus,) para 5 gravida 5 and 36 weeks pregnant, much less in real danger of going into full-blown premature labor.

Wouldn't your first instinct, as a mother, be to check yourself into the nearest ER and make sure everything was ok before treaking back on a 7+ hour flight to Alaska from Texas? Call me a wuss, but I'd be terrified I'd deliver a dangerously premature infant with anticipated special needs (Downs children have a high incidence of heart related illnesses) in a damn plane.

http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008...n-governo.html

For that matter, The ACG recommends that even women with normal risk pregnancies do not fly after their 36th week.
http://www.pregnancy-info.net/wellbeing_flying.html

Now I realize that a woman with the strength and courage to return to work when her child is only 3 days old is far stronger than I - and I give her all the credit in the world for managing a family, an infant and a full time job without losing her mind - but where was the concern for the unborn child in all this?

Somehow, if you think about it carefully, she just doesn't seem to be the role-model for family values and motherhood that McCain would like her to be.

I'm not so much knocking her for doing what she's doing, or even for what she's done, we all do what we think we'vegot to do at any given time - what I'm knocking is the fact that she's allowing herself to be held up as a motherhood role model when, in fact, it appears she's taken horrible risks not only with her own health but with the health of her unborn child.

If she's as intelligent as McCain claims she realized the risks of flying after her water broke and very deliberately chose to ignore them - and if she acted in innocence and did not know the danger she was placing her child and herself in, well then all I can say is - she's not as intelligent as we're being led to believe.

Lo




[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited August 30, 2008).]

Yeah, where are the days when the parties relied on professional career politicians?

You go, girl! These were my thoughts exactly! Tell Dan hello for me. Hope you newlyweds are doing great.

Pat
(ImaginePat)

Lo,

Another thing I found odd for this "pro-lifer" is that I heard she had an amniocentesis before giving birth and was told the baby had Down's Syndrome. Unless things have changed since I was birthing babies, getting an amniocentesis is an unnecessary risk that sometimes causes spontaneous miscarriage. Why would anyone who would not consider an abortion take such a risk? It makes no sense at all. And call me old fashioned, but I think it is child neglect to have five children AND pursue a time-consuming career. I heard a rumor on one of the talk shows on Air America that her 17 year old unmarried daughter is thought to be pregnant. I can't confirm that -- just something a caller said.

The right-wing base is very happy with McCain's pick. I think they're all insane.

During the debates, I'd really like someone to ask her point blank if she believes that non-Christians are all going to hell when they die because they have not confessed the name of Jesus before taking their last breath. Most, if not all fundamentalist Christians do believe that very literally and it is a belief written in many church statements of faith.

Oh no Lo, don't get me wrong, I personally think who the VP is can be extremely important (to wit, Cheney in addition to those you listed). I also think the selection of a running mate shows something of the judgment and decision-making process of the lead candidate and his or her staff. I think it does matter.

What I meant in my admittedly flippant post was that the selection of a VP candidate hasn't seemed to have had much impact on the outcome of the election in recent history. That is, most voters vote for the headliner they like best, regardless of the running mate.

David R.



[This message has been edited by David Rosenthal (edited August 30, 2008).]

Anne, with respect, aren't there more relevant questions to ask a politician who theoretically might become president? Aren't state and church still separate entities in the United States?

[quote]Originally posted by Anne Bryant-Hamon:
Lo,

Another thing I found odd for this "pro-lifer" is that I heard she had an amniocentesis before giving birth and was told the baby had Down's Syndrome. Unless things have changed since I was birthing babies, getting an amniocentesis is an unnecessary risk that sometimes causes spontaneous miscarriage. Why would anyone who would not consider an abortion take such a risk? It makes no sense at all.

Last time I checked, knowing something and acting on something were two different things. I have no problem with amnio. There is, as you say, a slight risk to the fetus, but the benefits far outweigh the possible consequences. Amnio can not only tell you your child is Downs, it can also tell you that your fetus needs surgery or your child needs for you to take special medications. It's becoming more and more common for life saving fetal surgeries to be performed. Amnio is more about saving life than it is aborting it.

And call me old fashioned, but I think it is child neglect to have five children AND pursue a time-consuming career.

What if the woman is working out of necessity, Anne? Is it still child neglect? What if she has only one child, or two or three? Is it still neglect? If so, you're going to be condemning a whole lot of women as neglectful parents. Myself included. I fail to see how my working in order to feed and shelter my children makes me a neglectful parent - and I worked at not one but two time-consuming careers. Are dad's exempt? I mean, someone's got to work, don't they? Why would a mother be considered neglectful and her husband be considered successful for doing the same damn thing?


I heard a rumor on one of the talk shows on Air America that her 17 year old unmarried daughter is thought to be pregnant. I can't confirm that -- just something a caller said.

The rumor is that the child named Trig is the daughter's child. It's not just being bandied about on Air America, it's all over The Internet. I did not mention it because it is, as you say, a rumor. Much like "Obama is a Muslim" is a rumor. It is without basis and potentially harmful. I am unsure why anyone would wish to spread it.

And, although it's off topic, I do feel the burning need to ask - what the hell difference would it make if her 17 year old unmarried daughter was pregnant? Have you any idea of the percentage of unwed pregnancies in the world today? It wouldn't even make her the slightest bit of unique nor would it be the slightest bit scandalous.

I was an unmarried teenaged pregnant girl way back when. So freakin' what? My mother should have hid in the closet and taken me with her for the duration of the pregnancy? Your children are your children, when they make mistakes you ache for them, you pray for them, you care for them, you do not give up your right to pride or your accomplishments because of it.


The right-wing base is very happy with McCain's pick. I think they're all insane.

I think you've shared that opinion with us already.

During the debates, I'd really like someone to ask her point blank if she believes that non-Christians are all going to hell when they die because they have not confessed the name of Jesus before taking their last breath. Most, if not all fundamentalist Christians do believe that very literally and it is a belief written in many church statements of faith.

And that would prove what, Anne? My mother is Catholic and she believes that, my son is Baptist and he believes that. I'd still trust them both with my life. What people believe is or should be a non-issue. When and if they attempt to order me to believe it, then and only then does it become an issue. Last time I checked, most fundamentalist Christians are not ordering anyone to feel the rapture. The fact that some of them might wish it for us is immaterial. It's nice they care - I'm happy to leave it at that if they are.

I'm much more upset at the idea that Sarah Palin has been instrumental in getting The State of Alaska to allow aerial hunting of wolves and brown bears. I'm upset that she thinks grown men with rifles shooting defenseless animals while hovering above them in small planes and helicopters is sporting behaviour.


I'm much more upset that she was offering a $150.00 bounty for each wolf killed because wolves are the natural predators of caribou and moose and she apparently believes that man is the only animal which should be allowed to kill caribou and moose. I'm upset that she refused to quit allowing the bounty to be paid in spite of various lawsuits and the fact that the majority of Alaskan citizens opposed it until The Supreme Court of Alaska stepped in and disallowed it for her. I'm upset that The Alaska Board and Game Commission is still attempting to reinstate the bounty and that the Alaska Board and Game Commission is appointed and controlled by, you guessed it, the Governor of Alaska.


I'm upset that the governor-appointed Gaming Commission has voted to open up the land immediately ajoining a brown bear sanctuary to hunters even though the bears who live there are virtually tame due to the high volume of human visitors to the sanctuary. Brown bears are unaware of the unmarked border between safety and death - like all creatures, they do not recognise where their safety ends and a hunter's sport begins. These brown bears are particularly at risk since they have no fear of humans having been raised in close proximity to them throughout their lives. For years the area near their haven has been off-limits to hunters - but since Sarah took office all that's changed.

If she's consistantly refusing to protect the dumb animal creatures entrusted to her governorship and care because a special interest group whose interests she shares wishes her to - how does she expect us to believe her when she promises to care for us - especially if our interests differ from her own.

Lo

edited to remove thread stretching links. Why is this happening???? If anyone needs or wants the links for confirmation, PM me, please.




[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited August 30, 2008).]

I'm coming to the conclusion that Sarah Palin is Moosehunter Barbie.

That said, while I think McCain's choice of VP was a matter of calculated cynicism, it's always a matter of calculated cynicism. And with the Republican part especially, the goal is to assemble a winning team, not a competent team who can actually do the right thing once they're running the country.

Palin may pick up a few stray Yellow Dog Feminists who will vote for anything with a womb, but for the most part, the women wanting Hillary wanted what she stood for, and the fact of her gender was just icing on the cake. They'd never want the crock, ahem, cake, Palin's selling, even if it does come with the same icing.

The women it will appeal to are the various beer-drinking blue-collar soccer moms Hillary was pandering to at the end of her campaign, especially if they're Pro-Life Christian, and the other Pro-Life Christian types who didn't like McCain now at least have a reason to go out and vote for him, rather than stay home which is what they'd do if were he to pick anyone Pro-Choice.

She also clearly appeals to the NRA vote, and not in the obvious oblivious pandering way (thank you, Mr. Cheney, for shooting your friend in the face), and that's another point to shoring up the base. It does jack once you get elected, mind you, but the game of election doesn't care.

The business with her having the child with Downs syndrome who needs to be cared for.... She also has a husband who's a devoted stay-at-home dad, and liberals will shoot themselves in the foot if they question his competence or right to care for his own child while his wife takes care of the family fortunes.

She also wants Creationism in the classroom, which I find both annoying and creepy, but that doesn't change the fact that it's good for a turn-out-the-votes in the Republican whacky Christian base. And she soft-pedals it enough to say that it's just "talking" about it, nevermind the fact that the only place Creationism belongs in public schools is in social studies when discussing the history and beliefs of world religions.

As for debating, she looks like she's fairly keen and good on her feet, which should prove less embarrassing than Quayle or for that matter W.

It's going to get interesting.

Ah, that's different. I wondered what you meant, to be honest. It didn't sound like a theory you'd subscribe to - especially after mentioned Quayle and Agnew.

You're totally right, unfortunately. Much like a rock concert - no one goes to see the back-up band or the opening act.

ROFLMAO I love it!!!

Lo

P.S. I did not realize her husband was a stay-at-home father. I was under the impression that he was some sort of middle management for BP oil.

Now I've got to go check that. < sigh > This self-appointed fact-checking position is cutting into my poker time.

second edition

Ok....I've found several conflicting reports on what Todd Palin does nowdays.

The National Govenors Association has him listed as as a production operator on the North Slope and a four-time champion of the Iron Dog.

Military.com has him as a blue-collar North Slope oil worker.

Zimbio.com says Since his wife's inauguration as Alaska Governor, Todd Palin has been a devoted house husband and father of five, cooking meals and making sure younger children Bristol, Willow, and Piper make it to extracurricular activities.

The Anchorage Daily News says, Todd Palin, Alaska's new first spouse, has taken a leave of absence from his blue-collar job working on the North Slope for BP. Palin, husband of newly elected Gov. Sarah Palin of Wasilla, will instead work part-time for his union, the United Steelworkers Local 4959, according to officials with the union and BP. The agreement between the British oil giant and the union allows Palin to come back to his job within a year and keep his seniority.

OpEdNews seems to agree with Anchorage and Zimbio and says,
Palin is a union member belonging to the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers).[4] For 18 years, he worked for BP in the North Slope oil fields of Alaska. In 2007, in order to avoid a conflict of interest, he quit his job as production supervisor when his employer became involved in natural gas pipeline negotiations with his wife's administration.[1] In addition to his duties as First Gentleman, he is a commercial salmon fisherman at Bristol Bay on the Nushugak River.

So - apparently he's taken a leave of absence from The Oil Industry but he's left his options open and he's stayed active in The United Steelworkers Union.




[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited August 30, 2008).]

...

A ballot initiative to stop the aerial (same-day) shooting of bears and wolves failed by popular vote just a few days ago, so obviously a majority of the population is okay with it. We are a red state, after all.

-eaf


[This message has been edited by eaf (edited August 30, 2008).]

The article I read which said the people opposed it was written by a group called "Defenders of Justice" and stated:

A letter sent today to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin from nearly 200 scientists states, “We urge the State of Alaska to consider the ecological role that large predators play in preventing eruptions and crashes [of prey populations], and to consider conservation and preservation of predators on an equal basis with the goal of producing more ungulates for hunters.”

For more than a decade, the citizens of Alaska have voiced opposition to much aerial wildlife hunting and have twice voted to put an end to the state’s use of aircraft to kill wolves. But each time, the legislature has overturned the will of the people.

“The intent of Alaska’s citizens is clear,” said Joel Bennett, former member of the Alaska Board of Game. “We have voted against the practice of private hunters using aircraft to hunt wolves twice now, only to have our vote overturned both times. It is obvious we need the support of Congress to close this loophole.”
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/pr...2007/index.php

{Click on September 25, 2007)


Just goes to show me, once again, that you can't believe everything you read.

Thanks, eaf.

Lo



[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited August 30, 2008).]

Lo,

Without writing an essay, I just want to say that my assessment was my speculation of those facts and rumors through the eyes of a right-wing extremist. For example, I think it would be an issue in the "Dr. James Dobson" camps if they knew that Palin's 17-year-old unmarried daughter was pregnant. Why? Because they teach and insist that abstinence is the only acceptable life-style. I was not judging people who are pregnant and unmarried. You often have a way of twisting my points.

As for having five children when one cannot provide for them without robbing them of time with mother, I am old fashioned -- I think it is neglect, most especially though when it is not necessary. This is clearly a woman who pops out children and then puts her career first. More commonly, women who want a time-consuming career, choose to at least have fewer children. I think it is poor family planning in her case. However, those in the funda-gelical camp don't believe in family planning or a woman's choice.

This choice of John McCain's is (IMO) an insult to women.

It will not surprise me if they actually do win because even though the Democrats are once again united, our country clearly is not. Could be that we are in a season of extreme outcomes. Only God knows for sure. I suppose I have better ways to use my time than try to be a political pundit.

I'm done discussing politics with you because I find your responses are more aggressive than is necessary and therefore, I usually regret any discussion of the issues with you. And no one else seems to be in the mood to exchange views. Continue on with your expert political analysis.

Anne



[This message has been edited by Anne Bryant-Hamon (edited August 31, 2008).]

Lo wrote:
p.s. I do not trust Catholics or Baptists with my life. That is my point. I do not want to live in a theocratic fascist concoction. There is a good reason why our founders insisted on separation of church and state. They knew that the mixture of the two was deadly. The right wing DOES want to dictate their beliefs upon society, and though I am a person of faith, I find that to be a seriously dangerous thing.

It was hypocritical right off the bat for Mrs. Palin to stand there and thank Hillary Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, and Janet Reno! These are women that the right wing would burn at the stake since they really do believe in a God who plans to send such ones to eternal torment for not being in the right church, making the right confession, etc... Those are the worst kind of believers and they are they people who want to completely take over our government and bring our country to its knees. That is exactly my opinion. I guess I'm an extremist in my own right.

Anne

p.p.s. I hadn't scoured the web as you had Lo, and had only heard of the rumor on Talk Radio. I don't spend all of my time on-line, though it may appear so. But apparently, the word has been traveling fast around the internet about this suspicious pregnancy. I think the voters do have the right to decide whether or not they think Sarah Palin is a liar:

Sarah Palin Is NOT The Mother - she is the GRANDmother!

[This message has been edited by Anne Bryant-Hamon (edited August 31, 2008).]

[quote]Originally posted by Anne Bryant-Hamon:

p.s. I do not trust Catholics or Baptists with my life. That is my point.

How about Jews or Muslims or Jahovah Witnesses, or Buddhists or a member of any other organized religion? Do you really think that any one who belongs to an organized religion is to be mistrusted solely on the basis of belonging to a church or is it people of only specific religions you fear? That implies a certain amount of prejudging and prejudice that I'm pretty sure Jesus would have preached against. It also ticks off the Catholics and the Baptists - plenty of them who are here and reading this. Do you think for a minute that if you were in the back of my ambulance that I would let anything happen to you if I could possibly help it? That I couldn't be trusted with saving your life simply because I was a practicing Catholic at one time?

That is exactly my opinion. I guess I'm an extremist in my own right.

Well, if you're not, you certainly give a good impression of one. http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

I'm not picking on you, Anne, nor am I trying to twist your words. Your words are there for anyone to read - if they're occasionally misinterpreted it may be the reader's fault - if it happens consistantly, it may be your own.

I think you're a fairly intelligent woman that I spend a lot of time replying to because, for some reason, I think it might be possible to make you understand that extremism in any form defeats the purpose of the extremist. Having an opinion is fine, having a very strong opinion is also fine, but being agressive with it, being inflexible with it, being overwrought and dramatic (i.e. they'd burn them at the stake)is a total turn off for many more moderate-minded people. It renders them unable to take the speaker seriously. While I think your motives are good, I also think you do more harm to your cause and to yourself than good - no one has been burnt at the stake in decades if not centuries - to say it's going to happen, even if you're speaking figuratively, is just over-the-top overkill. It comes across as the same kind of overwrought hype that the right wing you detest uses and people give it (and by extension, you) the same sort of credence - which is to say "none."

It stops conversations dead because most people are reluctant to take on a fanatic of any sort - they're closed minded individuals for the most part and it's like talking to a wall.

I think you're interested and interesting enough in things to wish to keep a dialogue going - but it's only going to happen if you're willing to stay civil and not start calling people or groups names and accusing them of things like wanting to burn others at the stake.

People of other faiths and religions and people with differing political views can teach us just as much if not more than people we agree with can - but not if we make them feel dissed right off the bat by making wild accusations and pronouncements about their sanity.

You gotta realize, they think you're every bit as insane as you think they are.

The only way to convince them you're not is by remaining open-minded enough to allow them their opinions, too.

You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to respect it.

You don't have to vote for Palin and McCain, but this is America, they've got the right to run and the right to be heard - as do their supporters.

As do you.

And me.

Obama's world is big enough to allow us all to be heard and respected - your's should be, too.

God Bless Us Every One.

Lo



[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited August 31, 2008).]

Originally posted by Gail White:

...the Democrats could have won by nominating any presentable white guy in a flag pin. Instead, they offered a choice between a black guy and a female.

The nomination process was long, Gail. It began with over a half dozen potential nominees. Not only were there a couple dozen debates, there was plenty of campaigning for votes in most of the states, including full primaries and caucuses. It was the most hard-fought nomination process I've witnessed. VOTING BY CITIZENS, from both parties and independents, plus thousands of new and young voters, determined the eventual winner. You make it sound as though Democratic Party leadership made this happen, but I think it was a fine example of democracy in action. The leadership couldn't stop Obama: he won it by running a fine campaign, meeting the toughest test to show himself worthy as a leader. Compared with the crucible in which Barack and Hillary fought it out, McCain had it easy.

If Obama can't win the white male vote, it'll say more about the white male than the Democratic Party.

Shameless O'Honky

I know of no Jew, Jehovah's Witness or Buddhist that teaches an image of God as being an unforgiving, furious Deity. I don't personally know any Muslims, but from what I understand, their image of God is often as skewed as the typical right-wing Christian. I simply do not want people with those images of God governing the people. That's all. The extreme right-wing has dug America into this grave situation by believing that they had a mission to rule the whole world by force. And just because you happen to have those type of people in your own family doesn't change my opinion - I have a couple in mine as well. And the fact is, it is THEY who insist on extreme dogmatism and are not open-minded. As I've said before, I know atheists that I trust more than very religious people. The only way for me to stay in the good graces of my one and only biological sister is to never discuss God or politics with her. And so it seems that that is a reflection of the way America is right now - pretty much divided because of these issues. Perhaps that is not going to change.

Anne

[This message has been edited by Anne Bryant-Hamon (edited August 31, 2008).]

Interesting - I'll have to see if I can get Dan to leave his football boards for a couple minutes and have him introduce you to the Jewish God of the Old Testament. You know the One - He's the God who smote thousands of people several times over because they'd displeased Him. The One that sent Noah the flood and tore down Babel and turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt and afflicted Job. That God.

I'd also suggest you find a web page about The Witnesses.

This is a good start: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8034_1.html

Pay particular attention as to just who is going to be saved in the end and why.

As for not trusting Catholics or Baptists to run the country - how did you feel about John Kennedy? Warren Harding? Harry Truman? Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton?

Out of 43 presidents only 2 of them did not have a religious affiliation. The great majority of them were some form of Christian - 2 were Quakers, 1 was a Jehovah Witness. The rest were Episcopalian, Christian Reformed,
Methodist, Presbyterian, or Unitarian. All traditionally "Christian."

Has there not been a president in the bunch other than Abraham Lincoln or Andrew Johnson that you'd feel safe under?

Lo

Based on rumor?

By that reckoning, the people also have the right to judge Obama a Muslim who's been lying about it all along.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/Medi...er/Obama_2.htm

I mean, heck, it's all over the media. And we all know they never print rumor or innuendo. If they say it, it must be true. Especially if it's being said in more than one place.

So there you have it - Palin and Obama are both liars.

The Internet says so and it's been linked to right here on Eratosphere.

My first thought on hearing McCain's choice was that he was going after the former Hillary supporters who aren't comfortable with Obama.

My second though was, "It might work." I don't have a praticulalry high opinion of the average voter.

Then I hear her campaign slogan for the office of Governor was, "The coldest state - the hottest governor!"

Hmmm....

That was a popular question when Obama came on the scene, as I recall.

Her approval rating is north of eighty percent, and her citizens have dubbed her "Saint Sarah."

Lo,

As you might have noticed, I've gone independent and am running my own Presidential campaign. http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

Re: The Old Testament - I've read it, but certainly do not read it literally or as a history book. The bible is a spiritual book that must be spiritual discerned.

Re: JW's - I know what they believe - annihilation of the wicked. I think in a sense, I believe that as well, though I am a universalist and believe the righteous and wicked are simply our two natures. The old is passing away. We are 'by nature' the children of wrath.

However, I think we are getting pretty far away from to original topic.

LOL You hear right, Jerry. Her father even bought a few.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...837713,00.html

She's also known as "The Queen of UTube" according to Time Magazine. The videos are worth watching - especially if you need a good laugh.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...837607,00.html

Tim,

Are you concerned with her stand on Gay Rights? I think she is against Gay and Lesbian rights to unite.

Saint Sarah, huh? Wow. St. John/McCain and St. Sarah for president. That is change indeed.

Anne

In Alaska or in The United States, Tim?

Just out of curiousity, Tim, since you're a hunter and living here in DC I don't know too many hunters, how do you feel about aerial hunting of animals? Is it sporting or does it kind of negate the whole "sport" theory?

Also, regardless of your opinion of it, I'm wondering, what happens to animals which are killed from a plane or helicoptor? Are the carcasses left to rot? You can't just land your plane or helicopter wherever you've scored a hit - so do they just get left to rot or does someone later go back on foot and collect the dead animal?

Tree-huggers want to know.

http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

True, and you've neatly sidestepped my question about Kennedy and company.

Okay you're way out of line Lo. Alaska is in the United States.

It's not like we're talking about Panama http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

Heh.

My father had friends who shot wolves from ski planes on open ice. I don't think it very sporting, in fact it appalls me, but certainly they landed and brought home the carcasses, and claimed the substantial bounty offered at the time. I believe wolf hunting is now banned.

Like Governor Palin I am opposed to gay marriage and very much in favor of equal employment rights. She vetoed a bill denying health insurance to same-sexed partners of Alyeskan employees.

Obviously her approval rating is Alyeskan. Half the people in the Lower 48 don't know who she is, but I have watched her career the last two years with considerable interest. I suggest that Spherians show a little deference to the people who elected her to govern a landmass one third the size of the continental US, where Little Diomede is 800 yards from Russia. How many of you pouring derision on this choice have been to The Great Land, have seen the Alaska Pipeline, have hiked in brown bear country? You people are SO provincial.

[This message has been edited by Tim Murphy (edited August 31, 2008).]

Tim, I'll show some deference to the good people of Alaska if you show some to the good people of Illinois, who are almost 20 times more numerous than the population of Alaska, and who elected Obama to be one of their top law-makers http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/wink.gif

But aren't we all called upon to search our own minds and consciences (of course taking in to account the many and varied opinions of others) to reach our own judgments about who should be elected to our nation's top political office? So, while I may not ultimately defer to Alaskan opinion when voting in November, after the results are in, I can promise you I will defer to the collective decision of the nation and accept whichever ticket wins as the new president and vice-president.

No, that's the thing, Tim. It's not. In fact it's been encouraged since Gov. Palin took office.

Earlier in the thread I pointed out the following:

I'm much more upset at the idea that Sarah Palin has been instrumental in getting The State of Alaska to allow aerial hunting of wolves and brown bears. I'm upset that she thinks grown men with rifles shooting defenseless animals while hovering above them in small planes and helicopters is sporting behaviour.


I'm much more upset that she was offering a $150.00 bounty for each wolf killed because wolves are the natural predators of caribou and moose and she apparently believes that man is the only animal which should be allowed to kill caribou and moose. I'm upset that she refused to quit allowing the bounty to be paid in spite of various lawsuits and the fact that the majority of Alaskan citizens opposed it until The Supreme Court of Alaska stepped in and disallowed it for her. I'm upset that The Alaska Board and Game Commission is still attempting to reinstate the bounty and that the Alaska Board and Game Commission is appointed and controlled by, you guessed it, the Governor of Alaska.


Eaf, who lives in Alaska pointed out the article I cited was incorrect - that the people of Alaska were very much in favor of continuing the aerial shooting of wolves and bears -

A ballot initiative to stop the aerial (same-day) shooting of bears and wolves failed by popular vote just a few days ago, so obviously a majority of the population is okay with it. We are a red state, after all.

-eaf

I cannot post the links to the articles about Gov. Palin because for some reason they stretch the width of the thread too widely but I'd be glad to supply them by email if you wish to confirm the above.

Like Governor Palin I am opposed to gay marriage and very much in favor of equal employment rights. She vetoed a bill denying health insurance to same-sexed partners of Alyeskan employees.

Which she did under duress and only after a ruling from The State Supreme Court ordered her office to do. She publically disagreed with the ruling and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public about creating a constitutional amendment on the matter.

While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with a state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.[28] She disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling[29] and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[30]

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.[29]


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...on-gay-ri.html

In other words, she was looking for a loophole to get her out of it and the attorney general told her there wasn't any. If you call that supportive I respectfully have to disagree with you.


I suggest that Spherians show a little deference to the people who elected her to govern a landmass one third the size of the continental US, where Little Diomede is 800 yards from Russia.

True enough - and while we're taking that into consideration I'd suggest that you take into account that while the landmass is large, the population is small. In fact, it is the third to the last state in order of population. Only North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming are less populated - edited to remove D.C., which, as someone pointed out to me, is not a state. We do, however, pay taxes, even without benefit of representation - which makes us count - at least to those of us who live and work here.)

Elected officials represent people not landmass. It's not the size of the state which matters, it's what's inside the state that counts.

Just to put it into perspective, Sarah Palin represents 683,478 people, while Gov. Schwarzenegger represents 36,553,215. That's almost 36 MILLION more people that he bears responsibility for. To say nothing of how many more votes he probably amassed to acquire to win the office - or how many more people support him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population


How many of you pouring derision on this choice have been to The Great Land, have seen the Alaska Pipeline, have hiked in brown bear country?


I hardly see where anyone, with the exception of possibly Anne, has been derisive. In fact, I've been sticking up for Gov. Palin in places. Virtually everything which has been said in this thread, outside of the pregnancy rumors, has been firmly rooted in facts which are proven and readily available. I fail to see how reporting a truth is "pouring derision" on anyone.

You people are SO provincial.


'Tis ok, tho, if Gov. Palin gets her way no one will be hiking in brown bear country for very long. Then we'll all be forced into provincialness.

If nothing changes, state lands used by the bears near the 114,400-acre sanctuary in Southwest Alaska will be open to hunting as of July 1, clearing the way for a fall hunt.

Opponents say it's not sporting to hunt the McNeil River bears, which are accustomed to humans and routinely come to within 10 or 15 feet of small groups of bear viewers allowed into the sanctuary each summer. Supporters say the bears are fair game when they wander outside the sanctuary.

The Game Board, which is appointed by the governor to regulate hunting in Alaska, voted to open the state lands to brown bear hunting at the request of hunters.

McNeil, created by the state 40 years ago, is arguably the best place in the world to view brown bears. That's because two things make McNeil exceptional; how close the bears will safely come to humans and how many there are at the sanctuary.
http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/wildl...-8527665c.html


Lo



[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited August 31, 2008).]

True enough, Daniel.

In the 2004 Illinois Senate race Barak Obama received
3,597,456 votes, and and his closest opponent had 1,390,690 votes. He won with 70% of his state's vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Illinois,_2004

In the 2006 Alaskan Governor's race Sarah Palin received 114,697 while her closest opponent had 97,238 votes. She won with 48.3% of her state's vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_...election,_2006

It doesn't matter how big in size your state is - what matters is how many people inside that state support you.

Lo

I did a little research and Palin seems an interesting person.

She has executive experience, and no, she's not an ecologist but seems to have worked for the people she represents. She's changed her mind on a few issues when it seems contrary evidence came up to indicate she was wrong. (The bridge and the state-run dairy farm).

It seems the Trooper she wanted fired was investigated by his own department and suspended for wrong-doing (illegal activities indicated) but the suspension was reduced after pressure from the police 'union'. The Chief she fired stated his refusal to fire the Trooper "may be part of the reason" he himself was fired. Not the entire reason, and not definitely.

She's as much an unknown to the majority of the country as Obama was), but she's only running for VP. Given McCain's questioned health, she may well take over if they're elected.

The constituents who know her best apparently approve of her, the exception being the ecologists (I'm making a large assumption with this comment, based on a little information *grin*).

She's pro-life, pro-guns, defines marriage as between 'one man one woman'.

In short, she and Obama are both question marks. Big ones, to me.

We shall see.

Posted by Daniel Haar
And that is why democracy, though flawed, is still the best alternative we've got.

Hooray!

Tim, I think Daniel and Lo have responded well to this, but I couldn't resist as it seemed to be one of the silliest things I have ever read by you.

Why should anyone show deference to an electorate for its choice? People elect idiots, criminals, and scoundrels all the time, not to mention bad politicians.

Unless you meant to suggest we show deference to Palin for having been elected. But that is just as silly. Show respect perhaps, if she deserves it, but deference? No. Show deference for the office, maybe, but not for the office holder, who in our unique system is supposed to be one of the people, representing the people, and working for the people.

If we show deference to elected officials simply because they got themselves elected, then we abdicate our civic duties and cede control of our government. And in a democratic system already as flawed and unrealized as ours, such considerations are doubly, triply, quadruply important.

By the way I have vacationed in Alaska and hiked in bear country there, though I haven't seen the pipeline. It was a relatively short visit, which I enjoyed immensely, but which doesn't seem to be having much impact on the formation of my opinions about Palin one way or another. Of course I have never been to Russia and I have all sorts of opinions about Putin. Meanwhile, having spent most of my life in California hasn't given me as much insight into the election of its governors as I might wish I had, and it certainly hasn't helped me develop feelings of deference for any of them or for the voters of the state as a group.

David R.

I do not understand this. I get the part about "accept[ing] whichever ticket wins as the new president and vice-president." But why "defer to the collective decision of the nation." Those two phrases are not equivalent, or even necessarily related. What if the collective decision sucks? Skepticism and vigilance are as important as any benefit of the doubt. I say remain engaged, try to be constructive, but make demands and watch carefully, and be ready to raise your voice when you feel you must.

All this talk of deference is making me very nervous.

David R.

Ok...now that I've responded and Daniel and David - I've had time to think about it.

You're kidding right? You're pulling our leg from Fargo, ND - those of us who live and work in California and New York and Chicago and in the Nation's capital, Washington D.C. Those of us who didn't "watch live television for the first time in 3 years" as you remarked about yourself not so very long ago. Those of us who daily rub shoulders with Muslims and Indians and Palestinians and Iranians and people from all over the world and from every walk of life. We are people who work in the foreign services, who routinely breakfast with translators and writers and Greek historians and translators and whose friends and neighbors are members of the U. S. symphony and Chinese diplomats and war correspondents and where we are Jewish and our next door neighbor wears a full burka to go downstairs and get the mail and yet we chat regularily when we meet. And where we all coexist peacefully and happily without blinking an eye because, for us, it's normal.

It's not so hard to figure out which parts of America are more or less provincial once you look at it through non-serious eyes.


You were funnin' us!!!


See, I DO have a sense of humor - it's just delayed, is all.

Lo-Laughing



[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited August 31, 2008).]