The Real Problem With Sarah Palin Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I view Gov. Palin as having some inate capabilities that a succesful politician must have, and the potential to go from her current office under certain circumstances. I don't subscribe to what I understand to be her politics, but that has no bearing on my perception of her potential.
What I perceive, however, it someone who has come across in her public utterances during the campaign the way the really cool girl in high school disparages people she decides she does not like. It is a Hannah Montana kind of thing, in that the really cool girl influences the more impressionable peers, but when you get past the superficial personality criticisms, there really is not much there about the character or value of the person being criticized. I have not been in high school for many years, but that is how her comments and speeches in the election came across to me. Example--the communi
ty otganizer --vs-- small town mayor juxtaposition.
If she is not able to get beyond that sort of catty, take people down, don't build them up, he has cooties sort of commentary, it suggests she is not up to greater office. Sadly, it works in high schools. How much sadder should such rhetoric, with nothing else of substance, be viewed as among the better qualities of a potential leader.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I thought you were describing Obama. Mr. cool, I-am-above-the-fray, rope-a-dope, scripted to the core.
Now comes the real test. I have said that he is an empty suit. I know you are a true believer, but you are about to be disappointed. He not only lacks judgement and experience, unlike Palin, but he is being surrounded by the adults that will run the show.
Expect his cut-and-run promise from Iraq to be violated. Expect Obama (I mean his puppeteers) to reject any notion of policies that cause additional economic downturns ... does the name Volcker come to mind?
Obama helped bring us this current economic meltdown, with his supprt of CRAs and Fannie/Freddie. Those days are over. Too bad so many innocents needed to suffer, becasue of his leftist ideology.
This will be a long four years, but it will be over in four years.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Funny, a guy I know had a very similar impression. Sarah Palin, to him, seemed like the cheerleader who thought she was better than everybody else.
She doesn't come across as a kind or compassionate person. I thought that was a mistake in her convention speech. It roused the base, but wouldn't persuade people outside the party to vote for her.
I think it's telling that she was more unpopular with women than with men. I don't think that was simply about her rigid anti-choice stance. I think she irritated women in a particular way. With men, there was a bit of the "hot babe" thing going on.
Meanwhile, Begich has pulled ahead of Stevens in Alaska, so it looks like no Senator Palin in the immediate future. I still expect to see her hosting a cable talk show at some point.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Gary can always be counted on for an amusing post, adhering to the Limbaugh/Hannity school of thought. Funny how Gary claims that Obama lacks " judgment and experience", while claiming that Palin has (are we going to bring up Bill Ayers again). then he blames Obama for our economic situation.
Some things will never change--death taxes and Gary bashing any democrat.
My prediction is that Palin will fade from the spotlight very soon.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 4:06 pm
No, HERE'S the problem with Sarah Palin: she wouldn't do interviews in which she was going to be asked "unfair" questions that explored the basis of her supposed qualifications, high moral ground, etc. Now, she is going around talking to anyone who would listen aout how unfair people were to her and how she didn't mean any of her inarticulate statements that were "misinterpreted."
Right, she didn't understand that "annoying" Couric question about what she reads "up there in Alaska." If she wre more articulate and had actually meant that she thought the question was condescending, she would have said "Katie, we read the same thing you read in the rest of the United States. We're not a foreign country" (wink, wink). It would have earned her points. Only now does she come out and explain her self, leaving us to wonder if it has taken her this long to come up with a snappy comeback to cover her complete under education and resulting anti-intellectualism.
Unfortunately, Sarah Palin is so inarticulate and circuitous when she talks that she very much leaves her listeners interpreting and wondering what the heck she is talking about. Unless, of course, she is bashing someone in her "cooler tha thou" you-betcha way. In those situations, she can certainly deliver a talking point.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Sarah has had so much experience in the past couple of months coupled with the fact that she has become a national celebrity as far as the media are concerned, that whatever she does or says in the future is going to become news. Whether she is ambitious or not, it doesn't matter, she won't become the has been that Geraldine became and she won't be allowed by the press or anyone else to just fade away in the background. The experience she has garnered from the past run, will only stand her in good stead for any future project.
I expect much more of this lady, even if it is only running her own chat show, but I think she has more backbone than that. Next time she will be a stronger voice because of what she has learned, and she will not make the same mistakes again. Just watch her, that's all I say.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 5:12 pm
"Expect his [Obama's] cut-and-run promise from Iraq to be violated."
You've been out of the loop, Gary. Bush preempted Obama; he's already negotiated (appeased) a cut and run timetable from Iraq. He let his puppet government kick him (us) out. To keep his promise Obama just needs to follow the Bush timetable. Neat, huh?
Posted by All about timing, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 6:27 pm
" Bush listens to his commanders on the ground. "
Unfortunately, he didn't do that during the first few years of the war. The irony of it all is that much of Bush's foreign policy recently has been diametrically opposed to his earlier stances and it has been much more effective. I found it funny that during the campaign so much was said about Obama's "talk without preconditions" when that is precisely what our current administration is doing now. We already started talks with Iran. We've restarted talks with North Korea, although in a worse position than at the end of the Clinton years. We attempted to start talks with Syria.
I give Bush credit for realizing the mistakes of his earlier policies and attempting other methods which have been more successful.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 7:51 pm
The election is over, next round is in 2010, get over it and fight for that, the historical data predict a win for us then, 2 years, not that long, maybe 1 or 2 new 60sts SPCOUS judges maybe, relax this will be Carter over again.
The Republicans need a renewal, the dems have not had one since Carter.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Neither Obama nor Biden believed the surge could possibly work. They were wrong. Palin and McCain believed that it would work, and they were right, because their judgement was so much better than Biden adn Obama. It will be the same thing going forward.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 8:59 pm
And you know what Obama's really like because . . . of a YouTube video?
The guy was off-book for three debates. Don't fool yourself, he's a well-controlled, articulate speaker. Harvard lawyer, law professor. He's precise and careful with words.
He is green, but he's not an empty suit. Unlike Bush, he's not a scion of an old political family. He came from nowhere and climbed up through Chicago politics. Very ambitious and very shrewd. He's as savvy as Bill Clinton in knowing how to present himself to people. And his campaign was very much a reflection of who he is and how he operates.
One of the things that makes Sarah Palin's sneer about "community organizers" so dense is the Obama campaign was all about grassroots organization.
No, it's really not Carter all over again. Carter ran against a president who was never elected president and pardoned Nixon. Even then, it wasn't a blow-out.
This is much more a wholesale rejection of the politics of the last 20 years. Obama, after all, wasn't the candidate of the Democratic bureaucracy either.
I think the Republicans will be out of power for a while. They'll make some gains in 2010 because that's what happens, but it won't be enough to flip things. Obama, meanwhile, has that kind of star quality that will keep him in office for eight years. That's a lot of SCOTUS appointments in a court where the average age is 68. Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Scalia. All very real possibilities, though Scalia will resist, kicking and fighting. Alito, Thomas and Roberts are the only ones I'd rule out, though there's something about Thomas that makes me think he might not make it as long as some of the other justices--the anger, perhaps.
Breyer might hold on. Souter, I think, will have to be rolled out. I expect him to be like Stevens, hanging on and on.
Posted by about time, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I have it on good authority that Souter is ready to get out of Dodge.
I am on the GOP email list and here's what they sent me today:
NEW: YOU CAN KEEP "THE CHANGE" PALIN * 2012 Bumper Stickers!
I'll keep my guns, freedom, and money. You can keep "the change!" Vote Sarah Palin for President in 2012! The Liberal Media wants you to think that Sarah Palin held John McCain back. We all know that John McCain's campaign surged ahead because of Sarah. She's a rising star in the GOP and could easily defeat Barack Obama in 2012! The Palin Revolution is about to break out and you can be on the cutting edge with this clever new bumper sticker! This 2-PACK includes one for each of your vehicles, whether it's your gas guzzlin' SUV, pick-up truck, or "hockey mom" minivan!
ONLY $9.86 FOR 2-PACK WITH FREE SHIPPING! ORDER 2-PACK NOW! • IN STOCK FRIDAY, NOV. 14TH!
Almost seems like a self-parody, doesn't it? At this rate we'll be down to a single party by 2012. Don't let the screen door hit ya!
Posted by T, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 pm
What an interesting comment. In my home, we all agree that Sarah Palin strikes us as the "mean cheerleader" from high school. I didn't realize other people felt the same way. I agree that her (apparent) cattiness is probably the biggest reason why she rubbed so many women wrong. Allegations that she abused the power of her position, multiple times, only helped perpetuate this image. In counterbalance, however, I observe that the women who don't hate Sarah Palin absolutely love her. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground here, women seem to either adore her or despise her.
To her credit, she was a good sport on the Saturday Night Live t.v. show. Made her seem like a nicer person, somehow, maybe because she was making fun of herself rather than someone else.
Her father reports that she is a quick study. If that is true, I expect we'll be seeing her again. My prediction is running for higher office as opposed to hosting a talk show.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2008 at 11:18 pm
The thing about Palin, though, is that she became less and less liked as time went on. Yes, she is a new fresh face for the Republican party, but I don't see the chops for her to guide it in its next phase. I think she's got some street smarts on presenting herself, but her intelligence seems to have no depth to it. And, frankly, quick studies don't need to attend five or six colleges to graduate with a degree in journalism.
Higher office? Maybe. On the other hand, the corruption in Alaska doesn't look good--though it also seems like business-as-usual there. Despite talk of the Senate, I don't really see her doing well in that environment. She's not informed enough and I don't think she's interested in being so.
She really, really seems to like being in the spotlight and sort of the more glamorous side of politics. She was a weather girl and majored in broadcast journalism--that's why I see some sort of television career as a possibility. I think politics was the closest thing to show business she could come to in Alaska.
2012? I suppose it's possible given the GOP's previous taste in candidates, but I don't see her being elected president. I think her brand of social no-nothing conservatism is going to be out of style for a while.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 2:39 am Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Talk about sizzle vs steak!
A bunch of playground babble while the trans-Canada pipeline proceeds to promise more energy to the lower 48, [48, that's 57 in Obamatalk].
The MSM openly brags about their success in trivializing Palin's views, and the people who accept Teddy Boy as a serious thinker give Palin the treatment that use to relegate women's views to the woman's page.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 8:29 am
Gary says (with a straight face):
"Sarah Palin would destroy him in a spontaneous, unscripted debate. Why? Because, with Obama, there is no there, there."
Get over it Gary, Obama won--he destroyed McCain in all 3 debates--look at the poll results post-debate. Why would Obama waste his time debating a no-nothing governor? We have seen Palin unscripted and even with massive preparation and she has that deer in the headlights look (albeit with lipstick smeared all over her face).
The people have seen through her facade. I am surprised that someone like you, who claims to be intelligent, has not seen it also.
What is really sad is that rather than hoping for a better overall situation in the US in the next 4 years, you want things to be worse so that you can sy "I told you so" about Obama.
Posted by Moderate, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 10:29 am
problem with the Democrats is the whole " holier than thou", "smarter than you", "self-rightous" mentality.
Face it, if you all didn't actually believe that Palin has merit you wouldn't be wasting your time here. and for the record, countless women, including myself support her. unless of course, you are totally left wing liberal, in which case gender does not play a part.
Dems drank the koolaid and rode the cult movement of Obamamania. what's done is done and the next four years will be the proof- it'll likely take you that long get off your high horses.
and by the way, I understood this message of "Change" Barrack promised to be about change in the government. How did it become "Black Power"?
Posted by telemarkskier, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 10:44 am
Bobby Jindal, agree with his views or not, would be a really strong opponent to Obama in 2012. It seems to be that you need a bit more than just the base to win. Palin may get the base out to vote but she did not come across as someone who would be a bipartisan. Jindal is thoughtful, introspective and educated.
Posted by LeslieMystc, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 12:11 pm
The Republican party, my party by the way, needs to realize that Sarah Palin is a disgrace not an asset.We can hardly understand what she is trying to say, can't get the point across,it is the worse usage of the English language I've ever experience in my live.She is just annoying and obviously doesn't want to find the time to educate herself in anything!If getting read of her in the GOP,there will be a better chance that we will respect our Party again!!!!
Posted by LeslieMysic, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I just need to add something because I just can't stand ignorance and stupidity!I specially loved the part where Sarah Palin tells everyone "How much she love America " and her husband is a secessionist!She loves the the country so much she wants to split from it. You morons!
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 12:40 pm
The idolatry and hagiography being expressed by the Obamites is amusing. You will end up being very disappointed, becasue the guy does not deal with harsh realities. He can no longer remain above the fray, and vote "present". He has never been an executive of anything, including his own campaign (that would be Axelrod).
If Obama had Palin's experience (PTA, town council, mayor, state commission, governor), then he might be able to begin to handle the job. Unfortunately, he is empty, and he will be handled by his handlers. Expect some good scripted speeches, though.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 1:42 pm
"If Obama had Palin's experience (PTA..."
Experience!!? What the Sam Hill happened to the good old conservatives' reverence for the fresh outsider who takes on the experienced establishment? Obama fills that description perfectly; Palin's experience totally disqualifies her.
The true conservatives have gone away. I miss them. They had principles. What calls itself conservative today is a rehash of the 1960s liberal situational ethics that real conservatives used to warn about. Its "principles" flip-flop instantly according to the feel-good whim of the moment.
So I predict that, if Palin goes against Obama in 2012, this same crowd will tout her relative inexperience against the experienced Obama establishment. You heard it here first.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 1:43 pm
The Tennessee student accused of breaching Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's e-mail account is seeking to have a felony charge against him thrown out and also wants a federal court to bar prosecutors from referring to him as a ''hacker.''
Wade Davies, an attorney for David Kernell, a 20-year-old student at the University of Tennessee and son of Rep. Mike Kernell (D-Tennessee), filed a motion to dismiss the felony charge
If convicted of the charge as it currently stands, Kernell faces a maximum of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and a three-year term of supervised release.Web Link
But under federal sentencing guidelines, he's likely looking at a sentence ranging from probation to six months confinement if he's convicted of a felony, assuming he has no criminal history and losses are tallied at $5,000 or less.
If the judge finds he employed "sophisticated means" in hacking Palin's e-mail account, his exposure increases to six to 12 months in custody. A guilty plea would reduce that.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Gary, I agree. I am waiting for Obama to realize that either
1) He keeps pleasing his base with his rhetoric and hard-line appointments, but keeps driving the economy down
2) He does what he said he was going to do..look at the data..and starts backing off his Chavez rhetoric and appointments to watch the economy improve. ( at the expense of his base, Pelosi and Reid).
He will have to decide what kind of legacy he wants to leave. One of driving our economy ( and security) into the ground, or one of restoring our economy and continuing our security. Bush has left behind a legacy of no more attacks on Americans, lessening terrorism world-wide, and an economic engine which brought about the most real dollars into the Federal treasury in the history of the USA, even after the devastation to our economy of 9/11.
I fault the Repubs for not banding together to stop the CRA-powered subprime mortgage meltdown,.....but I fault the Dems more for starting the flames then fanning them, and I fault Obama for now not doing a damn thing to pour water on the flames. It would be very easy for him to do. Sometimes I wonder if he WANTS to destroy the economy the most he can before he takes office so the only way out is up once he takes office.All he would have to do is tell the nation "NO NEW TAXES" and "NO NEW PROGRAMS" and the hemorrhaging would stop. He has the power to open his mouth and reassure the markets, and isn't taking it.
As we continue the deepest and longest post-election slide downward ever in the history of the USA.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 2:34 pm
"reverence for the fresh outsider who takes on the experienced establishment? Obama fills that description perfectly;"
Palin took on Frank Murkowski, head on, and defeated him. She quit the state commisssion, when she saw that the ususal corruption would not be addressed. She is the epitomy of an outsider taking on the establishment. Obama, on the other hand, simply joined the Chicage political machine, and kept his head down, especially including Rev. Wright, William Ayers and Mayor Daley.
Palin has FAR more qualifications, compared to Obama. She still needs more experience, but she is not an empty suit, like Obama.
Posted by narnia, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Obama hasn't even taken office yet and he is already blamed? George Bush is the president of the United States and this economic situation is happening under his watch. It's fine if you dislike the president-elect but you shouldn't be dishonest . Obama doesn't "...... but "keep" driving the economy down" as you say. The republican president is the president until Jan 20 and the one in charge. I guess that's difficult to admit for you.
Posted by Gary's got it, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Gary has it right. Sarah Palin taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and edited their law review. She's just too modest to show off her brains so she just acts like a celebrity tart so as not to brag about her intellect. Right.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Gary--give it up--your continued negative comments about Obama are meaningless now.
The Ayers issue has been dealt with--it was investigated and shown that Obama had no serious ties with Ayers--you are beating a dead horse. Obama admitted his mistake with Wright and quit the church.
McCain,meanwhile, associated with Cuban-American terrorists, but Obama was too much of a gentleman to bring it up. Palin lied about the "bridge to nowhere" funds. She abused her position as Governor in the troopergate issue. Her and husband have been linked to the separatist movement. Much of this did not come out in the campaign because Obama took the high road and did not wallow in the gutter like Palin.
What qualifications does Palin have??? Mayor of wasilla? Governor of Alaska? She demonstrated her complete and total lack of knowledge about foreign affairs etc. She demonstrated her complete and total lack of how our federal government operates and the role of the Veep in it. She was clearly out of her league in her interviews with Couric and during the debate with Biden. The american people saw through her facade very quickly. Palin is an empty pantssuit.
My prediction--in 3-4 she will be walking the streets of Alaska--homeless and unwanted.
Posted by Raymond R.White, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I think we Republicans would very much rather have had Condoleeza Rice on the ticket---providing depth of experience and minority status that helped Mr. Obama. I think she was smart enough to see that her close identification with the Bush administration would have been a drag on the ticket, and she didn't want the job.
My problems with Palin involve her having 5 children (2 is plenty), becoming pregnant when her eggs were too old to go through meiosis successfully, and then intentionally bringing a guaranteed retarded child into the world. I'd like all of the child-entitlements limited to the first 1 or 2 children of a parent. Lack of executive experience is also a real deficit -- shared by anyone who has not been governor of a largish state for a reasonable length of time or head of a large company.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 3:49 pm
"Palin has FAR more qualifications, compared to Obama."
Qualifications?? You sound like a Democrat, Gary. They're the ones that have qualifications (and delivered them, but that's another story).
Like I said earlier, Repubs flip-flop their "principles" on a nickel to suit their fantasy du jour. Right now, Repubs hope people forget how they used to front the inexperience of their "outsider" candidates. That will flip-flop again when convenient.
Repubs practice the same situational ethics as the 1960s liberal elite did: Do what feels good at the moment. And they're really good at it.
But the country didn't buy it. You can't fool enough of the people enough of the time anymore.
Posted by Demographics, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 4:13 pm
The only age group McCain/Palin won are voters over 65. Pretty much describes their supporters on this forum as well. Unless the Grand Ole Party reinvents itself, time is against it. Judging by the comments here, the over 65 Republicans are pretty set in their ways so it might take awhile for the GOP to recover and find a new direction. The GOP definitely isn't going to find any new ideas on these forums...
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 4:44 pm
"Repubs practice the same situational ethics as the 1960s liberal elite did"
You have a point, to a point. RINOs jumped off the Reublican ship when Reagan took over. Pete McCloskey and some other former "Reublicans" are local examples. Go talk to them about it.
Back in the world of reality, Reagan won the cold war. This really burns you lefties (and RINOs). Reagan understood the evil that collectivism causes.
We are now entering another collectivist period. It will be over in four years, guaranteed.
"Jindal/Palin '12" (thanks, Perspective) sound good to me, at this time. However, I will keep my powder dry.
It will be enjoyable watching the Obamites trying to keep up with their guy. The old saying, "Fool me once, shame on him, fool me twice, shame on me" comes to mind.
Empty suits are not always unintelligent. It's just that they cannot connect with reality. They can put on a convincing act. Jim Jones was empty, but his intense commitment to Marxist dogma, and his cynical use of the Christian church, to achieve Marxist goals, led to mass suicide. Nevertheless, Jones was intelligent.
Obama is not Jones, but his followers remind me of the his followers. True believers are always seeking a messiah.
Obama was quite willing to throw his own grandmother under the bus, in order to defend his realtionship with his racist minister. In fact, he will do anything to avoid consequences. He is an empty suit, period.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 5:18 pm
You just can't seem to get it, Gary. I've tried politely twice, so here it is in plain English.
The point is the Repubs will say anything to win, which means whatever they say is a priori meaningless. The Central Red Committee illuminati don't believe it themselves, nor do sophisticated Repubs (neither of them), but their hapless minions just can't let go of the mantra du jour.
Problem is, this time the electorate didn't buy it. There's a smarter bunch voting out there now. Get used to it.
Posted by stretch, a resident of another community, on Nov 14, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I think that Gary is just pulling our leg(s). No one could believe the rhetoric he is spouting, and it reminds me of McCain and his repetition of "my friends" and all the droning on about "terrorist friends", "elitist views", etc. Over and over, the same old tired lines without substance. Tell us you're kidding, Gary!
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2008 at 6:26 pm
"No other candidate can show a like contribution to our future energy needs."
'Agreed. But she pretty much had no choice but to deal with the pipeline. I would imagine that if any other candidate were the governor of Alaska, they would be instrumental in the pipeline as well.
The real question is to find out her entire energy policy. Perhaps that will also be visionary, but I have to admit that I don't know what it is.
Posted by Not clear, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, 7 hours ago'
Not sharp, either, Barron boy. The alternative was LNG, but the resistance to tanker traffic and infrastructure for LNG made a pipeline an easier go. I don't know why the Borking of Palin has occupied so much energy for so little light, but obviously her penchant for doing instead of feeling has threatened the umbra of the elite.
Posted by Kelly Parker, a resident of another community, on Nov 14, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I'm with those who don't believe "The Surge" did much of anything. If you consider the small percentage of troops in Iraq involved in actual combat vs the number of troops in support positions, it's not likely the small increase in the number of troops made much of a dent. The reduction in violence was more likely a coincidence. But it sure makes good press, don't it! However... it would not have been wise for Obama to keep up the argument. He knows to back down and give a little ground. He is as much a demagogue as Bush, Palin, McCain and the rest of the lot. We will NEVER in our life times see a politician tell the real truth. For example, when you think about it, don't you think Obama at least ONCE laid in bed next to his wife... with nobody else around... late at night... and whispered, "Jesus H Keee REIST, Sarah Palin is an idiot!" Then he and Michelle totally bust up laughing then GET IT ON!
I would LOVE to hear a politician say what he really thinks about Palin, on the record, and... TELL THE TRUTH. Or... is GOD not telling anyone to do that?
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2008 at 9:41 am
It is easy to detect those who crave messianic leaders. They start by being extremely gullible to rumors. For example, they might believe that Sarah Palin's son is actually her grandson. They might believe that Palin's oldest son joined the army, in order to get out of a scrape with the law, for vandalizing school buses (no basis for this charge). They might believe that Palin has a dysfunctional family, especially because she decides to keep her defective child, and dares to have more than two kids and a husband that she still loves. They might even believe that their own messiah wrote his own autobiography. Above all, they might believe that their leader actually has government experience, when it is clear that he pales in comparison to Palin.
In the end, almost all messiahs get shown to be less than miracle makers, but that does not stop the need of their followers to seek yet another messiah, or at least another set of miracles.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2008 at 11:02 am
Sarah Palin *does* have a dysfunctional family. That pregnant teenager situation reeks of crummy family dynamics. So does rushing out onto the national campaign trail when you have a special-needs four-month-old infant.
As Obama writing his own autobiography. I'd say *your* gullibility regarding the Ayers-wrote-it rumor shows that the shoe's on the other foot on this one.
You know a couple of Republicans approached a British professor who'd created an effective program to determine authorship regarding the Ayers/Barack business.
The professor looked over the supposed similarities and didn't think there was much there. He agreed, though, to run the tests *if* he was allowed to release the results no matter what they were.
At which point, the Republicans dropped the plan.
I told you before that the questions about Obama's authorship showed a lack of knowledge about publishing--editing, in particular.
And Obama has more, not less, government experience than Palin. He's been a U.S. senator longer than she's been governor and he was a state legislator before that. He's also a constitutional-law scholar.
Palin has been governor for still less than two years. Before that she was mayor of a small town. That's a part-time job, by the way, with very, very limited responsibilities.
You need to get your news from other places besides Fox.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2008 at 11:41 am
None of Obama's experience was at an executive level. He could always, and conveniently, vote "present", or just avoid the issue. Governors, even mayors are not allowed to duck and cover, like Obama did. But you already know that.
On the autobiography, there is no amount of simple or serious editing that allows a very untalented author (to put it mildly) to suddenly find the means to produce what Time Magazine called "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." I have little doubt that someone, other than Obama, ghosted his autobiograpy. There is no proof that Ayers did it, but the circumstantial evidence is compelling.
Obama keeps distancing himself from Ayers, in a milquetoast manner ("I was only 8 years old"), even as he keeps his avenues open to him. Ayers, for his part, refuses to address the issue. Since Ayers clearly supports Obama (having donated to his campaign, both money and his living room), why would he avoid clearly stating that he and Obama have no ties, other than being on the same board? When I smell oxidized fatty acids, that remind me of rancid fish, I begin to suspect that there is a rotten fish wrpped in that old newspaper. This entire Ayers/Obama thing has that smell to it.
The problem for Obama, and his followers, is that it is suddenly reality time. Just one example: What will happen when the green alternative stuff (solar and wind) does NOT produce enough electricity to keep up with future demand? It is easy to promise the acoytes that the impossible is possible, but not all of us are acolytes.
Posted by Kelly Parker, a resident of another community, on Nov 15, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I can't believe people are still twisting the Bill Ayers issue. Obama was in his living room. SO WHAT? It was a "meet the candidate" function, of which there were probably TWENTY in the neighborhood THAT DAY. The candidate visited ALL of them, and ALL of them collected donations for the candidate. This is a COMMON campaign event in many parts of the country. IT'S NO BIG DEAL!
"Bill Ayers is unrepentant... he said they should have done MORE!" Yes... and he's correct. If you don't take his comment out of context, he was saying "We should have done more to protest the Vietnam War", and the rest of his comments CLARIFIED that, and he was not specifically talking about BOMBING. But... thanks to the press (which is by NO MEANS Liberal), we only hear the out-of-context portion of his diatribe.
Obama voted "present" in the Illinois State Legislature under 150 times... out of over FOUR THOUSAND VOTES. The majority of the time he was taking a stand with his party because of an objection to part of a bill. GET OVER IT. It's darn near MEANINGLESS.
How about this:
"Obama MASTICATED at every meal while he was young, and HIS MOTHER ENCOURAGED HIM TO DO SO!!" The slut...
Learn to be objective and stop doing what these politicians are all guilty of.... TWISTING the reality to make it look as bad as possible. If you BUY IN, you're just as bad as the pundits who spread the rumors in the first place.
Posted by Kelly Parker, a resident of another community, on Nov 15, 2008 at 12:09 pm
To answer the question about what will happen if solar and wind [green] does not produce enough energy to keep up with demand; I assume what you are driving at is "What will happen if those LIBERALS don't drill for enough oil, in the tundra, offshore, and in our backyards... everywhere but under our churches?"
Well let's be honest... take it a step further: If humans can't keep up with demand, people will eventually start starving to death, there will be wars, riots, and perhaps nuclear war. It will be like a bad sci-fi with Chuck Heston screaming out "Soylent Green is PEOPLE!" then what's left of the human race will survive, evolve, and maybe burn all the Christian literature ever written and the new world will be a better place for all, perhaps with folks who worship MANY Gods instead of just two; Money and that other guy.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Like most good acolytes, you have your talking points down, especially on the gravitas (not) of Obama, and his realtionship with Ayers. Reality will not, even in the end, set you straight, becasue you are a true believer, and refuse to look the facts in the face.
I do appreciate your statement about "If humans can't keep up with demand, people will eventually start starving to death...". Funny, I always thought it was about providing resources so that they meet human demands, not the other way around. Yours is another trait of the messianic complex: Only us true believer will survive the apopaclypse, becasue we are in the know.
Solar and wind, offered as a major contributor to electrical generation, will indeed lead to mass human suffering. Drilling off the coasts, along with nuclear development is the only serious bridge to the future, in the next few decades. Sarah Palin understands this; Barack Obama does not. That is just one more example of how much smarter she is, compared to him.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2008 at 4:50 pm
BTW, Gary--McCain has no executive experience either.
Palin smarter than Obama--give me a break--I think Palin was exposed as an empty headed liar--that is why her numbers dropped like a stone--of course her greed with her $150000 shopping spree for herself and her dysfunctional, separatist family did not help either. Her attempts to smear Obama fell flat and unfortunately McCain was not man enough to put her in her place early on--so much for the straight talk express.
If you want to continue to beat the Ayers dead horse--go for it--it will give you something to do for the next 4 years. Unfortunately you are part of the Limbaugh/Hannity gang that want the nation to fail in the next 4 years so that you can say "we told you so"--some american you are.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2008 at 5:31 pm
McCain led a military flight wing, then he served in the Hanoi Hilton for five years, followed by his many U.S. Senate years, including some bruising attacks, and some adverse stuff agaisnt his own party. You cannot be serious, if you are suggesting that Obama is in his league. Obama is an empty suit, period. He is a stylist, and nothing more. If he was white, we would never have heard of him. He is less talented than Edwards, with the same basic politics.
Obmama has captured his sychophants' souls, but that is meaningless. He is faced with a reality that he does not understand. He is as thin as it gets, even worse than Kennedy.
Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I guess Gary thinks that things are much better as a result of the Shrub administration's stewardship of our country these last 8 years.
Gary clearly is not of the same mind as the voters who elected Obama.
Shrub himself said that how he is viewed by historians makes no difference to him since we all will be dead. Those among the living when history judges the Shrub tenure will largely view it as the worst or one of the worst Presidencies of the country.
But I digress, this thread is about Gov. Sarah Palin, who has more in common with this lame duck President than I care to mention again.
Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Care to parse the rest of my comments?
I am fascinated that someone who purports to be an intellectual finds Gov. Palin to have the gravitas for national office. This thread is about her, not our next President, and your comments in her defense are disingeuous in light of the evidence she herself has presented.
The Republican Party needs to find its voice. I nominate Gary to create the voice and be the voice. Mazel Tov Gary.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2008 at 6:56 pm
By "vapid", I mean dull, undiscerning, without judgement.
There is no there, there with Obama (and his acolytes). If he was just a dumb empty suit, that would be one thing, but he is a smart empty suit, and that is much more dangerous. One can only imagine what he will do if Putin tests him...will we be back to the Kennedy era, and possible nuclear annihilation? There is no way that Putin would test McCain. Ask Biden.
BTW, Putin would NEVER test Palin...she is too tough, and too smart, and he understands her (it takes a real man to undertand a real woman). Obama is a pushover for Putin, as Kennedy was for Nikita K. Sad that we are about to retest the nuclear showdown...it was not necessary.
Posted by T, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Okay Gary, I'll bite. Please share your definitions for "real men" and "real women". This is pertinent since you are stating quite clearly that Sarah Palin is a "real woman". What exactly does that mean and how can you tell her apart from all the (apparently) fake women who are walking the face of this planet?
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2008 at 11:03 pm
But Gary, Obama's not an untalented writer--as is quite clear from how clearly and cogently he speaks.
You're not a writer and you've not been edited at that kind of level.
But this is an ongoing problem with you--you assume an expertise that you don't possess. The Cambridge expert saw no reason to think that Ayers had ghosted Obama's memoir (and, honestly, when has *Ayers* shown that kind of ability or insight? Why would *Ayers* be able to write about growing up mixed race in Hawaii and Indonesia?) there was no compelling evidence to him.
No, it's only convincing to people like you who are looking for scraps.
It's like your "executive" claim. Obama's the executive of his campaign and did that well. Part-time mayor of a town of 7,000 just doesn't count for much, Gary. And what executive experience did Abe Lincoln have, by the way, before winning the presidency?
I don't rule out some sort of future for Palin--she's telegenic and ambitious. But she's provincial and wasn't ready for prime-time.
"And it takes a real man to understand a real woman." Gary, you're a fool. Palin's a fairly ordinary pretty woman who knows how to play on men. Michelle Obama could have her for lunch. (Hillary Clinton could outsmart and argue Palin, but she's never had that pretty-woman confidence--Michelle Obama on the other hand . . . )
Glad to see you admit Obama's smart. Now that you've admitted that--you really think anyone that visibly smart is "empty"? Kind of contradictory.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2008 at 8:17 am
Sarah Palin is a real woman that has a full female life, including a large family, a loving relationship with her husband, a career and a vigor for life (especially including moose hunting). She mixes with men well, and is quite comforatable among them, without giving up her principles. Many men find her attractive. Putin would immediately recognize her vitality and purpose of mind, and he would not be tempted to mess with her, like he will with Obama.
All the smears and hatreds thrown at Palin by women ("Barbie bitch", son as grandson, stupid, etc.) are the products of bitter women, who are dissatified with their womanhood. It has been remarkable to watch women become so incensed about Palin...it goes far beyond a disagreement on policy. Palin is a real woman in full, and there is a lot of jealousy about that fact.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2008 at 8:31 am
How would you know how talented Obama is as a writer? What has he indesputedly written? He was given a contract to write his autobiography, and came up with next to nothing for five years, then the contract was cancelled. Only when he moved to Hyde Park did he suddenly find an ability to write a book. The question remains, whose ability? My guess is that he told his story to his friend, Ayers, and Ayers put pen to paper.
It is remarkable that you would sugggest that a scripted, smooth speaker would, necessarily, be a good writer.
I have always said that Obama is smart...but just empty. He will be manipulated by his handlers.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Yes, Gary--but McCain still has no executive experience. How many planes did he personally lose while "head of a flight wing". Bottom line--he has no executive experience.
Regardless of whose league Obama is or is not in--he is the president-elect. Obama is a better man than McCain--Obama took the high road during the election campaign--McCain chose to wallow in the gutter with Palin and it cost him the election.
You can call Obama and empty suit all you want--fact is the majority of the people rejected McCain--how many Bush states voted for Obama this year??? Some empty suit!!! McCain has an empty ethics gas tank and Palin has an empty head.
Walter--you are comparing Obama's non-relationship with Ayers (which the press has repeatedly reported) with Trent Lott's comments regarding a racist senator??? Get real, walter. You are sad and pathetic.
Sad that people like walter and Gary do not seem to care about our country, but would rather spend years tearing down are new president, rather than wishing him well on his difficult task ahead. Gary likes to use the term hatriots--I think that is a good description of people like Gary and Walter
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Gary, you can tell a great deal about someone's writing ability by how they talk. In Obama's case, he speaks in full thought-out phrases. He's extremely specific in his choice and use of words. He uses language well and has a strong understanding of metaphor. He shows an attention to nuance and (surprising for a politician) to ambiguity.
So, yes, all traits of someone who would be a good writer. In contrast, I can tell you that Biden, Palin and Bush don't have that kind of precision in how they speak.
And *lots* of writers have writer's block, Gary. It's endemic to the trade. Ralph Ellison wrote *Invisible Man* (or are you disputing that?) and that's pretty much it. Labored for decades on a second novel. And died leaving behind a very long mess.
Your "indesputedly" (sic) issue is a non-issue because Obama's opponents are looking for anything. (I mean, the birth-certificate thing--yeesh--the State of Hawaii actually has a Web page on this now.)
You don't a have *reason* to dispute Obama's authorship of his early book, just a wish. There's a difference between the two.
As for Sarah Palin. You're not a woman, Gary. You see women through a filter and Palin knows how to play on that. As do other women men find attractive. She has an image that fits a fantasy of yours (as well as guys like Bill Kristol who pushed her for VP). The very male GOP cadre were so taken with this image that they didn't bother to figure out whether Palin could stand up to basic national scrutiny.
Fact is, she couldn't. And women saw through her first for the very simple reason that she's not acting out some Hemingwayesque/Bond fantasy for them. They saw a politician with a very narrow frame of reference who was willing to shove her pregnant daughter into the spotlight because she didn't like the rumor that her youngest son was actually her daughter's. Why Palin couldn't have, say, shown a birth certificate (speaking of birth certificates . . . ) is beyond me.
In some ways, maybe, you have to be a mother to see just how out of line Palin's behavior was. A lot of it was kind of jaw-dropping. I mean, flying eight hours in labor when you know you have a vulnerable Downs baby. Yeah, you may be tough, but the baby sure isn't.
Talk to some real women--hey, find some pregnant ones--ask them if they'd do that.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2008 at 2:30 pm
You are one of the very few lefties with intelligence on this forum, and even though I ususally diagree with you, I have some respect for you. I want to ask you a simple question: Do you believe Barck Obama actually wrote that book ("Dreams From My Father")? I mean, to be clear, with his own pen. I will follow up that question with: Did JFK write "Profiles in Courage", with his own pen?
Some women have a real issue with Palin. For example: Web Link
You can see some of the jealous (cheerleader) stuff in this very thread.
You are part of it, actually. Pioneer women give birth then get back to work. They don't need maternity leave, if there are no serious health issues to the birth mother. Sarah Palin comes out of this ethic, thus it was of no particular concern that she might give birth on a plane or at a conference. This may be shocking to you, but it is the way it was for eons of human history.
Sarah Palin is much tougher than Barack Obama. He has not been tested, while Palin has been tested for most of her life. Putin would not mess with her, but he fully intends to mess with Obama.
Palin accepted her own daughter's pregnancy, and supported her, even in difficult times. Why? Because she has a grounding in reality. Obama, on the other hand, tossed his (late) grandmother under the bus when it was convenient to do so, as he defended his racist minister. Theew is no comparision, in terms of judgement and character, between Palin and Obama...Palin has it, and Obama is a desperate wannabe.
Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Gary's bombast is laughable.
What did the Russian President say the other day? He looks forward to better relations with the US when Obama becomes President.
How did Sarah Palin do in her coming out party press conferences and media interactions this past week? She could not provide any specifics to Wolf Blitzer of CNN when he threw her some lob balls but did follow up with questions. Her press conference in Miami was cut off by her handlers after 4 questions. Reports in the press since then are that the other GOP governnors on the dais with her were uncomfortable with her comments and general representations.
Gary thinks this recently part time mayor of a tiny suburb who now if governor of a state with a profile that has little in common with the rest of the country would leave in the dust a Harvard Law Review editor, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, someone who ran a campaign that attracted millions of new voters, and who took flak every step along the way and stayed above the fray?
I am delighted that Gary is hanging is hat on another mediocre oil state governor who exhibits little or no curiosity, is uninformed, but has a very likeable persona. I commend him for his consistency. What I fail to understand is why he likes such politicians, given what the state of the country is in after 8 years of the Shrub Administration.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2008 at 5:23 pm
A boomer: Yes, I am so happy that a nation heading back into tyranny is looking forward to "better relations" with the USA now..as is Chavez, and Ahmadinijad etc.
I, personally, am scared to death that the likes of these 3 are happy that Obama is the President-elect. Why do you think they are so happy? Try to use your neurons, boomer. Why would tyrants be happy with a newly elected "leader of the free world". What do they believe about him?
Good posts, Gary. You are completely right on about Palin. She scares the crap out of the left because she has never cried victim, has worked hard, and keeps moving. She is well-loved in her home state, defends life and the weak, goes after the corrupt, and doesn't back off. She has faith in God, not government, and in herself, not welfare.
She IS the kind of woman who made America great. She is the one I am voting for at the next possible opportunity.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2008 at 5:34 pm
So, let's see if this is correct. Gary say that Palin would be better at relations with Putin than Obama. Bu Putin says he is looking forward to better relations now that Obama will be president. And Perspective says that just shows what a wimp Obama is and that of course Putin is lookingforward to Obama because Putin is a tyrant.
You people will just say anything, no?
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on a car this weekend: "Republicans for Voldemort." Really, you would argue on behalf of ANYONE the Republicans pu up as a candidate. Well, you certainly are loyal.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2008 at 5:53 pm
My concern is that Obama will be another Kennedy. I'm not sure you were alive back then, but JFK put us all on the brink of nuclear annihilation, becasue he was so inexperienced. I can only imagine that Putin is licking his chops, as he thinks about Obama entering office. Obama is so empty that he probably thinks Putin is passing him a compliment, and he is likely to eagerly pursue his own imaginations about himself (hope and change)...then comes the real price to pay.
I don't think Obama is a bad guy. I also think he is intelligent. But he is an empty suit. We would be safer with Palin as president, compared to Obama. She has some gravitas, and he does not. Punahou does not provide gravitas...it only provides a pipeline to the Ivy League.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I should hope Obama used a computer. But, yes, I believe he wrote it. He wasn't really in a situation where he would be supplied with a ghost writer, nor would he have had the dough to hire one. He wasn't a senator when he wrote it.
So, yes, I think he wrote it and I think he was edited. I think you don't have an idea what editing is like on that kind of level. Your average newspaper articles will go through a couple of quick edits. A magazine article can easily go through five editors--more for the big stories. Books are an investment for the publishing company. They are edited. Repeatedly.
But let's compare Obama to JFK. Couple of critical differences here. JFK was the scion of a rich, ambitious man. There was money to hire a ghost writer for Profiles in Courage. Obama is no one's scion and he wasn't rich at the time--his book made his money. One of the reasons ghost writers are used is because the big name doesn't have the time nor inclination to sit there and write. As you point out, Obama had writer's block. People with ghost writers don't have writer's block. The ghost writer interviews them for several hours and that's the bulk of the work.
Obama's self-made in a way that Kennedy never was. I'd be happier if he had more experience, but he's not an empty suit.
As for Palin. Look again at what I wrote about her pregnancy--she may have been tough enough to fly eight hours after her water broke--but she put her baby at risk.
And I know plenty about pioneer women. And their high infant and maternal mortality rates. Spare me the sentimentality. I am descended from the real thing--and there's a big difference between toughness and risking your newborn's health because doing the right thing is *inconvenient*.
As for accepting her daughter's pregnancy--yeah, she shoved a vulnerable teenager into the national spotlight. During the campaign, she'd bring out her other kids and leave Bristol babysitting Trig on the bus.
Let me translate the mother/daughter dynamic for you here--Palin is as pissed as hell that her daughter got pregnant and got in the way of her moment in the limelight. Part of her wanted her daughter humiliated as payback. Thus, the exposing the daughter's pregnancy in as public a way as possible instead of simply producing Trig's birth certificate and then literally exiling her to the bus. Well, except when she offered Bristol Palin's babysitting services to Tina Fey on Bristol's *birthday*.
I suspect Gary that you're someone who's pretty protective of his own kids. Really think about the behavior here. Is it really how you'd want the mother of your kids to behave?
Or are you making excuses for Palin because she fits an image you like?
Posted by T, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 12:42 am
Gary, there is a weakness in your system. You have cast anyone who dislikes Sarah Palin for Vice Presidential candidate as either:
1) a woman who is insecure about her own femininity, and consequently jealous of Sarah's, and therefore not able to offer a rational argument, or
2) a man who is not "manly" enough to really understand Sarah and therefore not able to offer a knowledgeable or reasoned argument.
Because you always have this fallback position, your ideas need never stand up to scrutiny. That's unfortunate because I always perceived you as a man who values thoughtful dialogue.
I am certain there are some women who are jealous of Sarah Palin, just as you say. But the women that I hear making complaints are offering articulate, well-reasoned statements... and they are saying those things despite the fact that they are women who actually DO meet your criteria for being "real". So I know firsthand that there are exceptions to your rule, even if there may be plenty of people in this country (just not people with whom I am acquainted) who act the way you describe.
Your suggestion that the "cheerleader" comments in this thread refer to the aforementioned jealousy is amusing. What I thought I was communicating is a statement that, in my home, Sarah Palin is perceived as acting like the MEAN (emphasis added) cheerleader everyone remembers from school. Most every school seems to have (or have had) one of them and most people recognize the behavior. My family's statement is not meant to be a reflection on cheerleaders themselves, most of whom are quite nice and personable. (Heck, one of my own daughters was a cheerleader and is currently head of the spirit squad at her college. Even *she* thinks Sarah Palin acts like the mean cheerleader everyone remembers from school!) So you'll just have to take my word that there is no underlying jealousy hidden in the cheerleader statement that I wrote earlier.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 9:33 am
Sarah Palin is not ashamed of her family, including whatever warts it has. She welcomed her pregnant daughter (and her boyfirend) to center stage. It is you, OP, who is projecting some nasty female cattiness into the situation.
Obama DID have the opportunity for a ghost writer. His name was William Ayers. What do you think all the fuss is about? He may have had many personal conversations with his good friend, perhaps made some stilited attempts, then handed them off to Ayers. The proof is not there, but the circumstances fit.
There are policy reasons to be against Palin (guns, pro-life, pro-oil, etc.), however, the level of hatred goes well beyond that. As the link I provided suggests, jealous girls typically define the pretty cheerleader as a mean girl. Here is the link, again, in case you missed it: Web Link
Perhaps some self reflection is in order for both you and your daughters?
There are policy reasons to be against Palin (guns, pro-life, pro-oil, etc.), however, the level of hatred goes well beyond that.
Kind of sad how people like you are not willing to put politics aside and hope that Obama can do something to turn our nation around (yes, gary, the majority of americans are unhappy with the way things are going under Bush)
Posted by T, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 10:55 am
No self reflection is needed on my part, nor on the part of my daughters. First off, if you look at my posts, I have never expressed a hatred of Sarah Palin. I am keenly aware that other people may feel that way, but I don't. So let me clarify my position. I believe that she was underqualified for the role of Vice President at the time she was selected as a running mate by John McCain. In addition, I believe her speeches were peppered with belittling remarks and gestures, which is why she was given the nicknames you mentioned earlier.
I still disagree with your assertion that the mean cheerleader is disliked for being pretty. Think about it, most cheerleaders are quite pretty; why aren't they disliked as well? It is the actions and behaviors of the mean cheerleader that cause her to be so disliked, not her looks. As I said before, there will always be some women who are jealous of Sarah Palin because of her good looks. But to label every female who does not support her as "jealous" is simply taking the easy path and it does not allow the real issues to be addressed. I did read the Times article you referenced. It applies only to a subset of women, the less mature women who are easily threatened by another woman's looks or power. Big deal.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I fully accept that Barack Obama won the elction. I will support him on domestic issues where I can. For example, if he violates his pledge to raise capital gains taxes, he will get an attaboy from from me. I will criticize him when I think his policies are bad for this country. If he sends troops to fight overseas, even in a war I do not approve of, you will NOT hear me criticizing him (I will remain silent)... I am NOT a hatriot, like some of Bush's critics.
The Ayers issue will not go away. Why should it? The MSM avoided a deep investigation of the issue, because they were in the tank for Obama.
I do not hate Obama. I did not vote for him, and I think he is naive and empty, but I wish him well. If he had as much experiecne and gravitas as Palin, I would feel more confident about him, though.
What "belittling remarks and gestures" are you talking about? I must have missed them. She did her job as a VP candidate to take on the opposition (e.g. white flag in Iraq, actual role of a VP in the Senate, connection to Ayers, etc.). That is not belittling...that is doing her job. Being a pit bull with lipstick is exactly what the job requires (for a woman; forget the lipstick if it is a man).
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Gary--the Ayers issue has gone away--it is only people like you who continue to beat the dead horse. the majority of voters did not care about it--they saw thorough it that it was a non-issue, generated by candidates with no ethics or moral standing.
regarding your Palin comments--one small example of her "belittling remarks" was her comments regarding Obama's work as a community organizer--that cost McCain/palin plenty of votes--they made fun of people doing good work. Another is the Ayers example you cited--she ignored reality and of course this goes along with her inability to know what the truth is. there are more examples of her lies available.
You are still a hatriot--you support Palin and she is a separatist--they must hate america very much.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Both Ayers and the CRAs are legit issues, even more so now with the financial meltdown tied to the CRAs. The Ayers issue is alive and well...be patient!
Your venom for Bush is an example of irrationality. You remind me of the types that wished for a defeat in Iraq, so that Bush would go down (hatriots). Guess what? Iraq was liberated by GWB. The positive implications of this liberation are huge. Obama will need to go back on his promise to cut and run (as I have long predicted).
Neither Sarah Palin nor her husband are separatists. Todd Palin joined the AIP for a while, as do many Alaskans, when they want to protest various things. Walter Hickel is an example, and he was elected governor from that party.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Gary--you are getting deperate. What "venom for Bush"? What "example of irrationality"?? I am talking about Palin, McCain and your unnatural fascination with Ayres. I did mention that the majority of people are unhappy with the way things are going under Bush--but that is a fact.
What does that have to do with Iraq and Bush? What is irrational is your continued beating of the Ayers deadhorse. It is only alive and well for people like yourself and the other Limbaugh/Hannitys of the world
Do you have a patent/copyright on use of the word hatriot? Let me know. otherwise I will use it to describe people, like yourself, who wish Obama ill will and support separatists like the Palin family.
You are getting more and more desperate--looks like you are swinging blindly (ie. your venom for bush comment) and are running out of ammo keeping the ayers issue going).
Forget it, Gary. You backed the wrong lipstick smeared woman,
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 3:45 pm
"JFK put us all on the brink of nuclear annihilation, becasue he was so inexperienced."
Wrong as usual. Khrushchev way underestimated Kennedy and brought to world to the brink with his bumbling. Thought he had another Eishenhower but was very wrong. Don't mess with those Yankees. Comrade K learned his lesson, blinked, and got cashiered for it. They put in Brezhnev, as inept a leader as Bush, and the Rooskies were never a credible threat of world dominance again. They eventually collapsed and stayed down until Bush let them start a comeback when he wimped out in Georgia.
Now, Palin would launch the rockets to bring on the Latter Days. Great show for her, too, cuz she can see inta Russia.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Like a lot of weak men, JFK got desperate, and felt he needed to make the big play. He reminds me of a guy with a small man complex, with a .45 pistol suddenly thrust into his hand (guess who is boss now?).
The point is that we did not need to get to that point. Khrushchev correctly read JFK as a weak man, based on the Bay of Pigs disaster, and the ass-kicking of Kennedy in Vienna (Kennedy's own words). Khrushchev saw an opening, and he took it.
Bobby Kennedy orchestrated the propaganda to the American people about this affair. He made sure that the Soviets would not reveal that Kennedy agreed on a one-to-one removal of missles from both Cuba (Soviet) and Turkey (American).
Paul, you have swallowed the myth, not the reality. Hmmm...similar to the Obama idolaters. Go figure.
Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 5:55 pm
This is a thread about Sarah Palin.
How do you think she would have done had she faced the situations Kennedy did?
You and a handful of others in this post seem to think that there are some really nasty people and countries out there. You are right about that to a degree, but you are extremely naive and vapid if you think that any President, be it Shrub, Obama or another one should feel threatened by such States--America is much stonger--let alone should cowtow to such people.
I think Obama is suggesting some "come to Jesus" meetings with the likes of Chavez. None of these clowns present the sort of threat the we faced when Kruschev and Kennedy faced each other down 45 years ago.
Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Ever read "Essence of Decision" by Graham Allison at the Kennedy School at Harvard, which dissects better than any book before or after what happened during the Cuban Missle Crisis. You give Palin, and just about anyone else, way too much credit to assert that her personal level of self awareness is all that is needed to deal with the complexities presented in matters of world affairs.
I am starting to realize that you think it all comes down to an individual, and your perception of a particular individual's gravitas. While I disagree with your perception of Gov. Palin's gravitas, I take even stronger exception to the notion that it starts and ends with an individual. Admnittedly, a bad one like Shrub can do a great deal of damage, but events very quickly are beyond the grasp of any one person, no matter what office he/she holds.
True leadership is about getting disparate interests to come together and agree to something that is not perfect for any of them, but fits the collective best interests, and then maintaining that attitude through thick and thin. That requires subtelty and stamina, not bluster or bombast. Or mean cheerleading.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 9:46 pm
You don't know what Sarah Palin feels. You've also never been a mother. It's for that reason I cut you a little slack--you don't get on a very visceral level how inappropriate Palin's behavior has been.
Or maybe you do--you don't defend Palin's actual behavior. You just fling out accusations about the motivations of people who disagree with you. You think she's hot, so you assume that women care about and are jealous of Palin's looks. Use your noggin, Gary--there are tons of more beautiful women in the public eye than Palin. It's a requirement for working onscreen. There are a lot of very attractive actresses Gary who stay in business because women like and identify with them.
Palin falls into the pretty-for-politics category. And she lacks the one attribute that truly does incite envy in 35+ women--toned post-baby abs.
The Ayers allegation would require that Ayers be a better writer than he is and have the time and interest in writing some guys' memoir. Like I said, you don't know much about publishing. Ghost writers are writers, not professors. They do it for the money. Ayers didn't and doesn't need the money.
And there's no sign that they were "good friends"--that's you.
But you couldn't counter what I've said about why I think Obama wrote his own work. You're not even responding to it. You're just rehashing an accusation for which you've no proof.
I mean at this point, you're just flinging out accusations. When you're countered, you just go fling out some other tired accusation.
It's funny you talk about small, weak men--because that's very much how I see George W. Bush and all his blustering.
Obama's very different--unlike Bush or Clinton, he's reported to be very, very cool under pressure. Also pragmatic.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Like a lot of weak men, Bush got desperate, and felt he needed to make the big play. He reminds me of a guy with a small man complex, with a .45 pistol suddenly thrust into his hand (guess who is boss now?). Problem was, nobody could tell him which end was which - that if you have to push the trigger you're holding it backwards - he was just too dumb and stubborn and stubbornly dumb.
But I digress, we were talking about JFK. The rockets he gave up in Turkey were old obsolete Redstones, cryo-liquid fueled clunkers that needed days of pampered preparation to launch. Khrushchev knew that, but he needed the trade to save face with his own less than sophisticated Red base, and who needed that kind of yapping from below at a time like that? Kennedy didn't publicize it because he knew the local Republicans would use it to whip up their less than sophisticated Red base, and who needed that kind of yapping from below at a time like that?
True, Comrade K outblustered our Mr K at Vienna. Like your man Bush he was real good at bluster. Unfortunately for the Comrade, bluster wasn't enough when the chips were down, as your man Bush still hasn't learned and neither has the lipsticky pit bull with all that northern exposure.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 8:09 am
While I do find Sarah Palin pretty, I do not find her "hot". I think of her as a younger version of Margaret Thatcher, but with good looks. Thatcher is a good example of an individual changing history, both in the domestic and foreign policy realms. Both Thatcher and Palin have iron in their spines. Frank Murkowski could probably give testimony to this fact, regarding Palin.
The cirumstantial evidence that Ayers ghosted Obama's book is pretty good:
1. Obama, we are led to believe, suddenly found his writing voice, once he moved into Hyde Park, a few blocks from William Ayers.
2. Obama's good friend, the radical, Rashid Khalidi, acknowledges William Ayers for substantial help with his own 2004 book ("Resurrecting Empire"). It is reasonable to connect the dots, with Rashid telling Barack that Ayers has been very helpful....
3. Ayers wrote a book, ("Fugitive Days"), which is generally considered to be well written. Ayers does, indeed, have some writing talent. There is no evidence that Obama did or does.
4. A number of phrases in the Ayers and Obama book are quite similar, and there is a certain stylistic similarity.
5. Obama was appointed as head of the Harvard Law Review, largely a popularity contest, however it is very unusual that he never wrote anything to contirbute. This should be no big surprise, because he is an empty suit. Nice guy, great smile, smooth, non-confrontational, etc., but no gravitas (zippo).
It will take some time, but Ayers will probably finally admit that he was to Obama what Sorenson was to Kennedy.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 8:39 am
So, Gary, do you have a point??? I had a good laugh when I read your comment that the circumstantial evidence is good that Ayers ghosted Obama's book.
Your "evidence" does not even fall into the realm of circumstantial evidence. By definition (from wikipedia) circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.
You are providing "facts", "opinions" and insults (as usual when you speak of Obama) , but they really do not infer any kind of conclusion regarding Obama's book (unless you are an Obama hater who can not let go of the Ayers deadhorse). All your "evidence" shows is that you are living in a fantasy world. Maybe you can spend the next few years proving your "theory".
Also, a good chuckle was had over your comments comparing Palin to Thatcher. Sorry, I did not like Thatcher, but Palin is so far out of Thatcher's league that your comment comes across as laughable and ridiculous.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 10:09 am
The Ayers ghostrwriting is a non-starter. Otherwise the Republicans who had every motivation to prove it if it were true would not have declined the offer to assess the truthof the matter provided that they would release the results regardless of outcome.
Psychology Today has a fascinating article on the power of rumors. Worth a read, though you seem to have mastered all the techniques they mention for successfully spreading a completely untrue rumor. It is much more juicy to keep saying this and assume that eventually a segment of the population will believe it as fervently as Gary and his cohorts in fantasy than to put it to the test and let the results stand for themselves.
The *reality* is that if Ayers had written the book for Obama and there were actual corroboration (eg scientific analysis of writing style, words, etc) we would have seen it by now.
As as far as Palin being lie Thatcher, other than the fact that they are both in politics and female, it is to laugh.
Posted by plain truth, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 18, 2008 at 10:52 am
The real reason that the Democrats don't like Palin is simple. She takes no crap from them, she speaks the hard truth they don't want to hear and makes no apologies for it and she's too smart for them.
And yes, women tend to be very competative with each other and they typically hate beautiful, successful, intelligent and strong women.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 11:21 am
Ah, but seriously, my posting on the letter "e" was a spoof. I thought Gary would add it to his list of "proofs," and maybe with your endorsement he will. I'll get the Psych Today. Wonder what it says about the unintended consequences of humor. Glad I didn't do a War of the Worlds.
"The real reason that the Democrats don't like Palin is simple. She takes no crap from them, she speaks the hard truth they don't want to hear and makes no apologies for it and she's too smart for them."
Palin truth, plain truth - cute anagram, but you're only fooling yourself and the Republican Base, and that's not enough anymore. Just ask Karl.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 11:22 am
Plain Truth---boy where did you ever get that analysis of Palin?
She sure knew how to spread the crap during the campaign--lies about her actions as governor, lies about Obama, lies about almost everything. Palin would not know the truth if it hit her on the head.
She showed to all her extreme lack of knowledge regarding our federal government and how it works, she showed her lack of knowledge on foreign affairs and she showed her lack of knowledge on the role of the VEEP. Bottom line---she was an empty pantsuit with lipstick smeared on her face.
Perspective--what you and others do not understand is millions and millions of voters (more than the millions that were "shocked" in your link) thought that Obama is a decent person and would do a better job leading this country than an ethically challeneged senator and an empty-pantsuit governor with absolutely no experience.
I think you will find that the public was very informed--that is why they chose Obama.
the fact that you can find right-wing websites run by hatriots who cannot accept the fact that the people have spoken and Obama was elected is a rather sad statement about the true intentions of these hatriots and their acolytes like Perspective and Gary
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 11:28 am
"you can find right-wing websites run by hatriots who cannot accept the fact that the people have spoken and Obama was elected is a rather sad statement about the true intentions of these hatriots and their acolytes like Perspective and Gary"
You really gotta feel sorry for these types. Everybody's let them down. They can't even count on the Supreme Court anymore - even after Bush loaded two more "conservatives" on it, it just stood by and let McCain surrender to a Democrat.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 11:48 am
Even I can appreciate your sense of humor. That wasn't too bad.
I should say, though, that the circumstantial evdidence on the autobiography is deeper than what I presented. It has also to do with use of metaphor, similar stories, patterns of word useage, etc.
You might want to check out the site of the main proponent of this charge, Jack Cashill. I am not a fan of his, but his argument seems to be fairly solid, although it is not proven. The most compelling evidence, to me, is the timeline and proximity and opportunity and motive. Also, I don't believe in the virgin birth, or writers suddenly finding their voice, without substantial real life experience, as is claimed for Obama, by his acolytes.
As to why any of this is important, it goes to credibility. For example, how many people really think Hillary Clinton really made all those concistently perfect calls on cattle futures? Or that Bill Clinton did not have sexual realtions with "that woman"? Or that Obama never, once, heard racist trash being spewed from the pulpit of his minister of 20 years?
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Gary--it goes to credibility in your mind and in the mind of the other hatriots that have emerged since the election of Obama. This is a non-issue. It has been investigated and it has been shown to be nothing.Bottom line, neither you nor Cashill nor the other Obama-bashers have any real proof to back up your claims--it is all supposition and the imaginations of people who will not let go of the fact that Obama crushed McCain at the polls a few weeks back, so they are grasping at any straw to start the attack on Obama (and we can look forwrad to 4 years of non-stop attacks from these hatriots).
People knew about Ayers (or they knew it was a non-issue) and they knew about Rev. Wright--and they rejected that as reasons to not vote for Obama.
On the other hand, if you want to look at credibility--check out some of Palin's statements and actions when she was governor. Check out McCain's hobnobbing with Cuban-American terrorists and then attacking Obama about his associations.
Posted by Good For A Laugh !, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 12:26 pm
You mean Karl, the spoiled rich kid who never worked a day in his life? The one who's foolish ideology led to the oppression and murder of millions of innocent people worldwide. All in the name of "fairness" and "redistributing the wealth"?
Karl is your god Paul and the god of silly, selfish liberals everywhere.
Yes, and now the "useful idiots" have spoken again - Obama for President! Enjoy your delusions while they last.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 12:43 pm
"You mean Karl, the spoiled rich kid who never worked a day in his life? The one who's foolish ideology led to the oppression and murder of millions of innocent people worldwide"
No, that would be George, Bush 43. I meant Karl Rove. But you got the rest right.
"For example, how many people really think Hillary Clinton really made all those concistently perfect calls on cattle futures? Or that Bill Clinton did not have sexual realtions with "that woman"? Or that Obama never, once, heard racist trash being spewed from the pulpit of his minister of 20 years?"
Or that we'd get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive? Or that Iraq had WMD, with smoking guns turning into mushroom clouds? Or that the war would cost $60b, fully paid for by oil revenues?
I'll take the cattle futures and sex and the Rev Mr Wright to those whoppers any day. After all, neither Hillary nor Monica nor Wright ever harmed anybody, or wasted taxpayer money (although Repubs did lots of that with their fruitless losing Whitewater investigations and their drooling public voyeurism over Monica).
Take a clue, Gary. You've chosen the losing side, the (your favorite Trotskyist phrase) dustbin of history.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Since I was one of the first to introduce the term "hatriot" to this forum (at least that's how I remember it), let me reiterate how I have consistently defined the term (you won't find it in the dictionary...yet).
A hatriot is one who would rather see his/her country go down, instead of a political leader go up. For example, hatriots desired a defeat in Iraq, so that it made GWB look bad. Said another way, a victory in Iraq would make GWB look good, so no good news is good news from Iraq. A nuanced version of hatriotism is the current examples of those who say the surge did not work...it was just coincidental...anything but to face reality, and rejoice in the liberatiion of the Iraqi people, with all due credit to George Bush.
Now, I am not a hatriot. Why? Because I will not wish for this country to go down, just because I think it will make Obama look bad. On the contraty, if this country does well, I will gladly give an attaboy to Obama.
BTW, I want to give yet another attaboy to GWB for his steadfast leadership during the war to liberate Iraq and defeat al quaeda in the process.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Paul -- I knew you were kidding -- I was responding back to Gary, who conveniently and repeatedly forgets that th Republicans declined an offer form an expert to evaluate once and for all (and to publicize the findings for all to see) whether this Ayers ghostwriter thing had any basis in fact.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Righto, but seriously. The proximity of your post to mine and its lack of direct address led me to my conclusion.
"BTW, I want to give yet another attaboy to GWB for his steadfast leadership during the war to liberate Iraq and defeat al quaeda in the process."
You mean for charting a losing strategy and stubbornly sticking to it for years, don't you? What relatively positive news we've got came after Bush tossed his mess over the fence to the professional military, who should have been handling the conduct of the war all along, but had been sidelined by Cheney, Rummy, Bremer, and Bush. Bush flip-flopped hoping to pin the debacle on the generals, and he may yet succeed. Now there's a hatriot for you.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I don't want to re-argue the successful, low cost war to liberate Iraq and defeat al qaeda. Strategies and tactics change in most wars. GWB uderstood the need to eliminate Saddam, liberate Iraq and deal a fundamental blow to al qaeda. He succeeded. Surely you can join me in hoping that Obama will continue this success, and not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Right?
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm
"I see Paul, so Karl Rove is your god and the god of silly, selfish liberals everywhere."
Didn't know he was a mole of ours, did you? Mister Permanent Majority. They called him The Architect; our payroll listed him as The Wrecker. He was good. He was very good. And Sarah Palin was his final firecracker that brought down the tottering ruin of the once-grand ol' party.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I would love to find some right wing websites that are run by "hatriots"..please find them and tell me which ones they are.
the only right wingers, people or sites, that I know accept Obama as our President and hope that he and his one party rule will do what is good for America.
You see, "right wingers" believe in DEMOCRACY and accept the outcome of an election..we won't try to destroy our country in order to destroy our President. We wish for sucess against terrorism and despotism world wide and at home, and for economic prosperity for all..regardless of who the President is.
Do we believe that collectivism will attain these goals? No.
Will we state the factual consequences of political choices? Yes.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I tend to agree with you about the real hatriots...those who would throw this country down the toilet, especially about issues beyond the water's edge, in order to attempt to disgrace a president, like the leftists did to GWB.
However, I think you should consider what Paul has said, here. I would hate to see conservatives joining the leftists in hatriotism. We should hold the high ground, unlike the lefties. If Obama sends troops to, for example, Congo or Darfur, to save humanity, we should not attack him/them, even if we think it would be a big mistake. We should only hope that he/they are as successful as GWB was in Iraq.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 5:22 pm
"If Obama sends troops to, for example, Congo or Darfur, to save humanity, we should not attack him/them, even if we think it would be a big mistake."
Your support for Obama is commendable, Gary, but why would you think it's a big mistake to save humanity in Congo or Darfur? Do you not believe in saving humanity in general, or is it because these humans are Congoans or Darfurians?
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Nothing wrong with the U.S. saving humanity, as long as it has a strategic U.S. national interest. After all, if the U.S. wanted to stave off famine in southern Africa, for purely humanitarian reasons, we could insist that the white farmers become the rulers of the region (again), but that would not be in our national interests at this point.
We clearly had an interest in Iraq, with Saddams's threat to the region that exports so much oil to us, and the threat to our allies in the region, and his WMD threat. I don't see such a constellation of strategic interests in Congo and Darfur. Do You?
An interesting sidebar on this basic issue is the current pirate issue. Since most of the world claims to be powerless, especially Europe and the Middle East and Asia, should the U.S. automatically step up? I would say no, until it reaches a stage where it actually affects our national interest. It might reach the stage of the Barbary pirates (Jefferson finally decided that he had had enough), but various countires and regions more affected, have the resources to project power against a realatively little thing...please tell me why the U.S. should step up, unless the other countries agree to pay for our navy in region. I am all ears.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Gary, putting aside the point of view quoted by Paul, please tell me you did not mean to include existence of WMD in Iraq as a valid reason for invading. Please. If you believe they existed, if you believe the Bushies believed at the time that they existed, you are the only one who still does; even the Bushies admit there were none and that the justification was a cynical pretext. If you do believe it, are you a member of the Flat Earth Society too?
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Of course WMD was a major issue. After all, Saddam not only had them, but he used them. There was no rational reason to believe Hans Blix or his Mickey Mouse team (remember the nuclear weapons farce he led in Iraq?). The only way to be sure was to invade.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 6:51 am
Gary, as usual, is trying to muddy the water by introducing other variables into the equation--we are discussing the US government staving off famine in Africa--Gary introduces the "return of white rule issue" to try to make the poster look bad by suggesting that he would prefer famine over white rule.
We could play this game in many ways, Gary. The issue is the US saving humanity--period. This little game is typical Gary--look at his other posts and you will see this pattern--digression, diversion and unrelated issues are always introduced by him to try to discredit the valid points raised by the original poster.
What is amusing is that you still buy the Bush line about WMD in Iraq, even though the administration knew they were lying to the public about it.
BTW, since this thread is about Palin, I can confidently say that Palin would not know where Africa is.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 10:32 am
Gary, your point is well taken. Though I would never support us spending lives and money in a situation that was going to do absolutely nothing to help our nation AND had absolutely no hope of having the root cause of the problems resolved ( such as Darfur..we can't do a thing to change that area)..I WOULD shut up once we went in until we were out. And pray all would end well.
As for you wondering where nonsensical statements come from, please see the percentages of uninformed Barack supporters as documented by Zogby and illustrated in the link below. When you think Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey impersonation of Palin is "factual news", you really have no hope of being an informed person.
comments like this make me want to institute a rule that every vote must qualify before voting by getting even 60% correct on exams on "facts" - such as who the current VP/Secretary of State/House Majority is, as well as a few "facts" about who said what in a campaign. At least that much should be required to vote!
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 10:48 am
Perspective--your suggestions for a test before being allowed to vote sounds pretty much like the "requirements" for voting in the old south. Anyway, what would probably happen is that a vast majority of republican voters would not be able to cast their ballot.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 11:26 am
Sarah Palin never said she could see Russia from her house. That was Tina Fey. At a certain point you Palin haters need to get your facts right. For example:
1. Sarah Palin's son is NOT her grandson. This is STILL believed by some of the haters.
2. Her older son did not get into trouble with the law, regarding vandalism of buses. He was not forced to join the army.
3. Sarah Palin did not try to cover up her pregnant daughter. Palin is probably not all that happy about it (although, who knows?), but she stood strong with her daughter and the boyfriend who did the deed.
4. Palin never called Africa a country.
5. There never was a serious "troopergate" issue...it was a hatched up job by a handful of Dems, who happened to have leadership of a hack committee during summer recess.
6. Neither Sarah Palin, nor her husband, have ever supported Alaska seperation from the United States.
6. Palin was called very nasty things ("barbie bitch", "cunt", "stupid", "mean cheerleader"), yet she did not respond in kind. Some of this shows its ugly face on this very thread.
Regarding southern Africa, it was, indeed, the white farmer who provided the agricultural surpluses that fended off famine in drought periods. As the white farmer is pressured (e.g. Zimbabwe), there is, and will continue to be, a decline in food production...and famine during droughts.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 11:42 am
Gary--nice list--not entirely factual, but facts have never been your strong suit (i.e Web Link). Of course one could make up a similar list with innuendo, lies and false charges spread against Obama, by hatriots like yourself and Palin.
Plus another blow for Palin today--Stevens has lost the Senate race, so her plan for Stevens to resign his post and have Palina ppointe dto it are gone. The lipstick lobby is very disappointed.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Plain truth---You need to read posts more carefully. Anyway all the comedy about Palin came about because of her general cluelessness about most things that people see as important in a VEEP.
Gary--you play fast and loose with the "facts". From my post: "An Alaska state legislative investigator on Friday found that Governor Sarah Palin abused her executive power when she and her husband engaged in a campaign to oust her former brother-in-law from the state police force. " You and her can claim whatever you want (and she has claimed plenty). While she may not have done anything unethical, she did abuse her power as governor.
Your "facts" will be tested whenever the situation arises.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Yeah, yeah, Gary. Some people even claim Jimmy Carter never used the word "malaise" that came to define his presidency.
But gosh, if you're right about needing white farmers to save africans, then logically there should be no africans to save because they would have all starved to death long before the whites came along to save them.
There is life other than white life, Gary. I bet you can even see it from your house.
Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I think the suggestion by perspective that people should have to pass a civics test before they are allowed to vote is brilliant. Let me take it a step further and suggest that it should also be a requirement for a candidate for national office.
Palin's interview with Couric demonstrated that she knew little or nothing about important Supreme Court decisions, and she was incapable of citing a single one beyond Roe v. Wade that she diagreed with.
She also exhibited in that interview a complete lack of foreign policy understanding.
Maybe under perspective's plan she would not be eligible to vote for herself.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 12:49 pm
"But gosh, if you're right about needing white farmers to save africans, then logically there should be no africans to save because they would have all starved to death long before the whites came along to save them."
OK, this is the kind of ideological discussion that I like.
Africa, before European (white) colonialism took hold, was often desribed as a sea of elephants, with islands of people. After colonialism was fully established, the (black) people increased immensely, and the elephants were suppressed. Why were there so few people, before colonialism, Paul? Because they starved to death in drought periods, and they were subject endemic diseases, which the whites, especially the British, helped to control.
So, indeed, Paul, most current black Africans owe their existence to the white man. I should say, though, that current white men/women tend to want to decrease the black population in Africa, by denying DDT and protecting elephants.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Gary, careful, your arrogance is showing. My comment was a *joke.* Ya know, playing off of the fact that she DID say she knew foreign affairs and Russian affairs and relations because Russia is so close to Alaska. Yes, Fey did a brilliant send-up of the Couric interview, and much of it she simply quoted Palin verbatim.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 12:54 pm
After reading Gary's comments I am wondering if anyone knows how many Afrcans were wiped out as a result of the "white" diseases. Anyone know? Was it like the Native Americans or were Africans more resistant?
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Yes, Gary, we have heard that "obama is an empty suit" comment from you over and over--you do not provide any proof--you just regurgitate the same claim over and over (and as we know from the Palin regurgitation of the Obama/ayers issue ad nauseum, repetition of a lie does not make it true).
You are in the minority in not seeing the "problem" with Plain. She made it very clear and obvious during the campaign and the issues have been listed by many in this and other threads
Meanwhile, the vast majority of people in the US trusted Obama with the future of our country as opposed to a vindictive, small town mayor. I guess the ability to apply lipstick is not seen by many as a qualification to be president.
AS for your "arrogance" and "intelligence", I think your posts speak for themselves
Posted by plain truth, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 19, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Yes Sharon, the "informed" Democrat voters seem to think that one of the most important things about Sarah Palin, is how much her wardrobe cost.
Even more alarming however, is how ignorant these same voters are about their own candidate, Obama. According to the Zogby polls, all his supporters really know about Obama is that they are gaga over him.
And Boomer, I love the idea of some test of basic knowledge to qualify one to vote. It would definitely eliminate large numbers of Democrats. - Remember those Florida Democrats who said they couldn't even figure out their voting ballots in the Presidential election of 2000?
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Plain truth--Maybe you should read on how Palin was portraying herself to the public and why the wardrobe issue mattered. The informed democratic and moderate voters saw through Palin from the start--then as the campaign progressed, even republicans started to see that Palin was a no-nothing, empty pantsuit. All of Palins "wounds" were self-inflicted.
BTW, did they also do a poll to see what republican voters knew about McCain.
Get over it, Obama crushed McCaina nd is now president-elect
Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I challenge Gary's two assertions:
1. Obama is an empty suit
2. Palin has "gravitas."
On point #1: Obama has a very interesting background growing up, was chosen by his peers to be Harvard Law Review editor, most importantly ran an incredibly organized campaign that led to him becoming our next President. He had made some extremely thoughtful speeches on difficult issues such as race in the US. There is plenty of other stuff I could cite, but I think the point is made. I fail to understand how someone who has achieved such things can be derided in such a way
On poinr #2: Much has been offered in this thread about Palin being superficial on many measures. That is not to say she does not have some compelling qualities as a politician. My hat is off to her for taking Mukowski down and becoming governor. But she demonstrated when she was actually in a situation where she had to think, respond and not just read a bunch of talking pionts absolutely no gravitas. She instead presented naivete, ignorance, and no insight whatsoever.
I have vollied with Gary about Shrub over the last few years, but his assertions of Obama emtpy suit and Palin gravitas, while oft repeated in his comments on this thread, do not ring any more true as a consequence of the constant repetition.
Posted by T, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Gary, I am just returning to this thread after a few day's absence. I see that you asked me to provide some examples of Sarah Palin's belittling remarks and gestures. Although I recall noticing at the time that there were lots of them, I did not write them all down. So now I can only tell you the ones that were most memorable because they mattered most to me then. In telling you all this, I will share my answer for what is the "problem" with Sarah Palin, since you asked for that also.
The most important belittling remark I recall is when Sarah Palin said with a sneer, "What is a community organizer?" (Or something similar... I do not have a transcript of her speech at the RNC.) I understand that as VP candidate her role is to point out flaws or deficiencies in the opponent. However, from my perspective, the way she did it was poorly done. Here's why. After listening to her very invigorating speech, I found myself feeling surprisingly unsettled and I had to consider why. Was it a difference in political ideologies? Well, maybe a bit -- I do not agree with all of her positions. But the same is true for any other politician, even Obama. After some thought, I realized the one thing I really couldn't get past was her community organizer sneer. While I knew she was only trying to criticize Obama's credentials, the remark came across to me as an insult to the many wonderful people in this country who work so hard to keep our country great and make the world a better place. In essence, she had spoken disparagingly about me and many of my friends and colleagues. That just rubbed me wrong.
Another comment and gesture that I remember is when Sarah Palin talked about Obama shifting with the wind and she made a gesture by twirling her index finger around. Later, during other speeches and interviews, I saw that gesture repeated, but without her saying the words anymore. In this case, at least she directed her criticism at the real target and I appreciated the improvement. However, by this time I had come to see that she had a habit of making certain faces or gestures to express a mocking disapproval of Obama. This way of presenting herself struck me as immature. It reminded me of high school behavior, where a person might try to look cool by mocking another (whether fairly or not) so that, with luck, he or she could move up in pecking order. For me, it would have been so much more effective if she had presented logical, well-articulated arguments about Obama's deficiencies... which he does have, of course. If she had done that, I could have felt respect for her and her words. Instead, I saw her as someone who uses the separate-us-from-them technique to accomplish her goals. It is this manner of speaking, I believe, that brought about the "mean cheerleader" comments. For me personally, the reason it was so problematic is because I have seen organizations with leaders who operate that way and, while they do get things done, morale tends to suffer and the organization's work often isn't done as well as it was when there was a more respectful and comfortable setting. Our country is facing some significant problems right now and I believe our best chance of success is having a leader who can get all of us (or at least a majority of us)working together toward common, well-chosen goals. Sarah Palin's methods appear to me to be too divisive to accomplish what I believe is most important. Rightly or wrongly -- obviously I do not know her personally -- that's the conclusion I came to.
I appreciate that you respectfully asked me for clarification after my last post and I hope this sufficiently answers the question you put forth.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 8:40 am
You don't seem to have such thin skin when it comes to Obama. For example, after mocking McCain, he says to an appreciateve audience, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig". The crowd erupted, knowing that it was a reference to Sarah Palin.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 8:52 am
Gary--give us a break--everyone knows that is an expression that has been used by many,many politicians including John McCain. While McCain/Palin whined for an apology, everyone knew that it had nothing to do with Palin.
Speaking of Palin stooping low--besides her constant lies about Obama and Ayers, and her lies about the Bridge to Nowhere money, and her abuse of power as governor, and her ridicule of Obama's work as a community organizer (as well as insulting all community organizers)--what about her comments that she likes to visit parts of the country where real americans live. Her impugning the patriotism of some people is not considered stooping low by you??
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 9:37 am
I have said this before, in other threads, but here goes, again:
As a former leftist, the mere notion of patriotism was considered one of the lowest, and most destructive, of human emotions. It was common to refer the Samuel Johnson'r quote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels"). Now we see leftist politicians, like Obama, and their supporters suddenly claiming their "deep and abiding love for this country". Since I don't think leopards change their spots, I conclude that this is a cynical political strategy. Thus we see Obama starting to wear an American flag lapel pin. After his wife told a truthful statement (that her husband's candidacy had "for the first time" made her feel proud of her country) her handlers told her to keep her mouth shut about that subject, going forward, and she did.
Save the crocodile tears about patriotism, RS, I don't buy it. The left in this country is about what it has always been about: The spread of socialism. It comes under various names, like "econcomic justice" or "social justice", but it always rejects the power and dignity and freedom of the individaul person. The "real Americans" that Palin referred to understand the fundmental American right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property). The left rejects such an indivdual pursuit...that is one reason why it always wants to tax the rich.
BTW, Obama either knew exactly what he was saying (lipstick on a pig), or he is not nearly as smart as I think he is. His supporters clearly knew what he meant. Context matters.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 9:58 am
Gary--nice diatribe--but totally irrelevant. The "patriotism" issue has been misused by Republicans for years--trying to brand people, especially democrats, that disagree with them as unopatriotic and unamerican. You are continuing this divisive issue by trying to label left-wingers, and Obama, as unpatriotic.
Also you are making excuses for the low road that Palin chose to take during the campaign. It was rejected by the vast majority of voters.
You are displaying the hatriot tendedncies that I mentioned in previous posts.
When you have solid proof that Obama and others are unamerican and unpatriotic, then come back with it. Otherwise your comments and those of governor Sarah "stoop low" Palin are just more of the Limbaugh-like blather the comes from you and other hatriot slike you.
Posted by plain truth, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 20, 2008 at 10:59 am
I have witnessed over forty years of Democrat hate speach and incivility against anyone who holds an opposing view. But, in the last eight years, this hatered has become a wildfire of shrill hysteria.
The Democrats are unhinged. Their venom has even included outright racist attacks against Ms. Rice.
The sheer volume of poisonous slander leveled at President Bush (a mild and generous man who has NEVER responded in kind) is absolutely stunning.
Now you Democrats are whining that Sarah Palin is a "mean cheerleader" because she twirled her finger in the air or questioned whether Obama's community organizing experience was enough to qualify him to be President? Get real!
Above the constant roar of your complaining, name calling and accusations, it is your hypocricy that screams the loudest.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 11:08 am
A patriot cannot be a hatriot, becasue a patriot does not criticize the Commander in Chief, beyond the waters' edge in time of war. A hatriot, on the other hand, eargerly attacks the C in C, especially if he/she hates him to begin with. I am a patriot, not a hatriot (as I define the term...and as I have defined it, since the time I introduced it to this forum). You are free to define the term in any way you want (you can call day night, if you want to), but there should be no confusion about how I use it.
Back to Sarah Palin. She was savaged by the Obama camp, yet she was relatively gentle vs. Obama, compared to what she could have tossed at him (Rev. Wright, cocaine use, etc.).
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 11:27 am
Gary--interesting definition of a hatriot--restated it sounds like your definition is a manner in which to stifle dissent and to prevent people from exercising their right to free speech. If you dare to criticize or find fault with the C in C--then you are a hatriot--and since this war against terrorism is endless--the C in C will be above any criticism by real americans. I hope you, remember this Gary, when Obama takes over in January.
Poor Sarah, was "savaged" by the Obama camp??? I find it amusing that you think Palin actually was nothing more than an empty pantssuit. her wounds were self-inflicted--her lies about the bridge to nowhere funds, her lack of basic knowledge, her abouse of power as governor, her hobnobbing with separatists, her $150,000 shopping spree, her travel billing as governor and on and on. Yes, she could have tossed those things at Obama, but people who live in glass houses.....
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I have consistently defined "hatriot" this way. Go check out my previous posts in several other threads. Dissent is one thing, but purposeful tearing down of this country, while we are at war, in order to undermine a politician you hate, is another. For example, to say that GWB and Tony Blair lied about WMD (they didn't), just to get at Bush, undermines our trooops, who sacrficed, and are sacrifcing to liberate Iraq. You will not see me doing such a thing to Obama, once he is C in C.
Palin: Yes, she was savaged by the Obama camp. The daily kos was one of the main perveyors of nasty and untrue rumors about Palin. It was fed by Obama insiders, then the NYT, in the tank for Obama, ran with the (untrue) rumors. I have already listed a number of these untrue rumors.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Gary--interesting revisionist history on your part, both about Bush and Palin. Did not expect anything else really from you. You can define "hatriot" anyway you see fit--bottom line sounds like you are trying to stifle dissent and group anyone that dares to criticize Bush into a neat definition that suggests they are unamerican/unpatriotic.
We actually should have a violin playing softly in the background as you describe the trials and tribulations of Bush/palin
Posted by plain truth, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 20, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Please Sharon, I know that you would proudly report that you never listen to shows like Limbaugh's, Hannity's or etc. All you know are the lies and distortions that others report about them that fit what you want to believe.
I've listened to BOTH sides for myself for many years and there is simply no comparison to be made here. The screeching, carping, venomous hatred spewed by Democrats is extreme, unrelenting and far beyond anything ever heard from any other political group.
You will go on believing what you want and you will continue to carry on. No doubt about it. But the ears you have deafened over the years are no longer hearing you.
Think their is any correlation between the overwhelming vote for McCain and the chant??
Nice writing style and use of adjectives--however that does not make it true. Clearly you are an extremely partisan republican who thinks any comment by a democrat is "screeching, carping, venomous hatred" being "spewed" and is "extreme, unrelenting and far beyond anything ever heard". At least we know where you stand. Enjoy Limbaugh and Hannity today, I am sure they will have many pearls of wisdom for you to listen to.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 12:53 pm
If you are going with assassination threats, you can find plenty on the Internet...aimed at Bush. There have even been television productions (by the left) about it.
'Plain truth' seems to have you figured out. Your venom against Palin is something you should talk to your therapist about...very disturbing. Consuming hatred is bad for the digestive system, and the soul.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 1:59 pm
"if you criticize the president you are a hatriot, unamerican and not patriotic"
Only if you do so, beyond the waters' edge, in time of war, for the purpose of expressing your hatred for the president, even if it undermines our country. This is what so many leftists did to GWB. A patriot would not do this. For example, there were many people who hated FDR during WWII, but they kept their mouths shut, and even joined the war effort. Those who decided that it was worth losing WWII, in order to defeat FDR, were hatriots.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 2:17 pm
The problem with your definition of hatriot is that you have defined any and all criticism of Bush as an expression of hatred for the president. Clearly it is simpler for you and the Limbaughs of the world to label everyone who does not adhere strictly to the Bush doctrine as being a hatriot and then you do not have to deal with dissent or address individual concerns.
For example, and without getting into the specific claim, would a person who claimed that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq be a hatriot?
Doesn't our constitution guarantee the right to express dislike for the president regardless of if we are at war or not?
Sounds to me like this is a typical republican end-around basic rights by trying to cloak it in "patriotism".
Posted by T, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Gary, your response to me was, "You don't seem to have such thin skin when it comes to Obama." On what basis do you make that claim? Is it because you've seen no criticisms of Obama from me on this thread? Remember, this thread is about perceived problems with Sarah Palin and that's the subject I've addressed. Now if there were a thread about perceived problems with Obama, then perhaps you would see comments more to your liking. But you're not going to see them here.
Plain Truth, if your statement about whining Democrats refers to my post -- which appears to be the case -- then let me inform you that I am not a Democrat. Never have been; never will be. I do listen to commentary by both sides (yes, including Rush and Hannity and the SussMan)and then I make up my own mind. Always have; always will.
It's amazing how quickly people in these forums jump to conclusions about the nature of other people based on scanty information. And it's funny how tightly people will cling to their erroneous impressions. I made a point to say earlier that my opinion of Sarah Palin may be mistaken, seeing as I have never met her. I don't believe anyone can be expert at determining the nature of someone they've never met. Thus I am highly amused that total strangers on this forum can speak so confidently about me. But, hey, a little levity in one's day is always a good thing!
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Let me put it another way. Why are you so critical of Sarah Palin, when it is clear that she was the target of vicious attacks, and she did not respond in kind? A mean cheerleader would have talked about Barack's cocaine use, and his 20 years with Rev. Wright, and his unappreciative (and chubby) wife. Palin kept her criticisms to issues that are obvious (surge in Iraq, association with the terrorist Ayers, community organizer as experience, etc.).
Any fair reading of the Palin issue would judge her the victim, not the perp.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Gary--couldn't help being a little nasty could we, with the comment about Michelle Obama????
Palin dug her own grave--she denigrated everyone that ever worked as a community organizer, she beat the Ayers dead horse, she questioned Obama's patriotism and his abilities, meanwhile she had a trunk load of dirty laundry herself. As I said people who live in glass houses.....
She may be the victim in your world, but she came across as a mean-spirited, vindictive hypocrite to everyone else.
Posted by T, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Gary, I agree that she was the target of some vicious attacks and I do not condone or support any unfair statements that were made about her. I did put some effort into trying to determine fact from fiction so that I could make a fair judgment. Still the bottom line is that by the end of the campaign I simply did not see in her the leadership style and qualities I thought were necessary. Perhaps she has them, I'm not saying she doesn't, but it was not apparent (at least not to my satisfaction) before election day. Others may disagree; I'm sure everyone has differing opinions as to which leadership qualities are most important and necessary. That's only right and natural. But please keep in mind that my opinion will not be swayed unless I hear a compelling, well-laid-out argument that makes a point I haven't already considered.
I did perceive Obama's campaign getting nastier toward the end and I consciously thought that if the decline continued much longer, I might have to reverse my position about who was more annoying. So don't worry, Obama's negative behaviors generated negative reviews from me also. In contrast, toward the end of the campaign, Sarah Palin actually seemed to tone things down. My suspicion was that the McCain camp might have figured out that lots of people, especially independents like me, were turned off by her initial behavior. If so, then bravo to them. The more seasoned Sarah Palin I saw at the end might have had a chance with me if it were my first impression of her. But it wasn't and she had a lot of damage to overcome. Continuing in a similar direction, I might have been persuaded to view her differently over time if there had been an opportunity to demonstrate that she was indeed growing into the position. But that's not how things worked. There simply wasn't enough time. Perhaps she'll have another chance in four or eight years, or perhaps she'll have decided that presidential campaigns aren't all they've cracked up to be. Time will tell.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Plain truth--who is being mean spirited and vindictive? Reading your last post, i can imagine the venom dripping from your keyboard, but that aside, the topic of this forum is "The Real Problem with sarah palin"--which I think we are discussing in a rather civilized manner ( and that discussion includes the reasons about what we feel arethe problems with Palin, especially given that she may be priming herself for a run in 2012). I am not sure why you feel the need to chime in every few hours with some insulting commentary about people who are posting on this forum--you have yet to contribute anything meaningful to this discussion amd instead of arguing what is okay about palin you have chosen to take the Palin-like low road. BTW who is "everyone else" that I come across to as a come across as a "mean-spirited, vindictive hypocrite"?
On a another note, it is interesting that many of the usual posters on this forum are suddenly missing in action. I was wondering if this had anything to do with the new policy of deleting posts made under different identities from the same IP address. in other words some of these postres were actually one and the same person. What a surprise!!!!
Posted by plain truth, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 20, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Sharon, I'm curious now. Who are the "usual posters" on this forum that are " suddenly missing in action"? Do you possibly think that "Paul" and "OhlonePar" are one in the same? Or maybe "Boomer", "but seriously" and "plain fail"? They all seem to have disappeared too.
As to the topic; "The Real Problem With Sarah Palin" - there IS no problem with Sara Palin.
The real problem is with the Democrats and their hatred and incivility towards their opponents (and indeed any one who disagrees with them).
Isn't it interesting that when your own words about Palin are reflected back to you, they suddenly become objectionable? "What a surprise!!!!"
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 2:57 am
Plain Truth: I am not any of the other posters. I just decided that the conversation was all talked out for me -- the best one can hope for is to agree to disagree because the gulf between the perspectives is too wide. I am not angry, jealous etc. about Sarah Palin. I find she provides the Bush style hominess without intelligence and for myself I do not care for the anti-intellectual attitude that has pervaded politics for the past eight years. I want a change to someone who can formulate a complete, coherent sentence. I find Obama has potential and gravitas. His best quality, for me, is his thoughtfulness. And I disagree about Bush or Palin's gravitas. All that having been said, the rest is just rehash.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 8:21 am
Plain truth--if you would stop the Venom Express for a while and look at this thread you will notice that Paul, OhlonePar, Boomer, but seriously and plain fail have all posted on this thread--therefore they cannot be multiple names used by the same poster.
I was referring to the more right-wing posters who have disappeared like Sharon and Mary, as two examples. Cler now?
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 12:16 pm
"Gary, I agree that she [Palin] was the target of some vicious attacks"
Surely you mean David Brooks' reference to Palin as a "fatal cancer to the Republican party."
Bottom line: the Party of Rove turns out to be totally thin-skinned, a party of whiners, pitiful helpless once-giants now pygmies. Wanna know why I've been MIA from this thread: I'm tired of all the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth.
Posted by plain truth, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 21, 2008 at 1:29 pm
The public perception of President Bush and his administration as anti-intellectual, is simply a media creation. Although Mr. Bush is more humble and down to earth than most politicians (a good thing in my opinion), that does not mean he is anti-intellectual or unintelligent.
The treatment he received from the press has been shameful. Mr. Bush is certainly no smooth talker, but neither is he the "incompetent bumbler" or "idiot" that the media made him out to be.
The press obsessed on every verbal misstep of his, magnifying, exaggerating and repeating them as often as possible. Interestingly, the media ignored similar mistakes made by others in high office, especially when they came from those on the other side of the political aisle.
Most of the media, including television news networks and newspaper/magazine publications are highly biased poltically to the left. They have been for some time. For instance, in the mid 1990's independent surveys showed that 98% of journalists and TV news producers, anchors and staff, voted for Bill Clinton twice. Other data looked at the types of news stories that got coverage and how they were portrayed. The data revealed a deep liberal bias in the reporting.
I have a close friend who worked for some years with one of the major TV news stations. He saw firsthand, that news which didn't "fit" the liberal template was either discarded or altered so that it "sent the right message" to the public. This changed his perspective (once liberal) forever.
The media has packaged Sarah Palin as a snotty, ignorant, spendthrift. They even bragged about the fact that they did this. The media has also packaged Obama as the answer to everything that ails our world.
I will grant you that Obama is a smooth talker. "Change" sounds great but I had to look up his voting record to know where he really stands on the issues. (His record shows he is as far left as they come, yet many people think he is a moderate).
He is the perfect politician - he says nothing but says it really well. People can project anything they want to believe onto him. Packaging sells!
I am more interested in the product than the packaging. I will take an inarticulate President over one who is a great speaker any day, if I like what he stands for and where he will take our country.
I am sorry to say that I don't think most of Obama's supporters really know what he stands for - or where he will take us.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 2:32 pm
An example of smooth, but empty suit politicians, is that Bush pronounces "nuclear" as "nucular". Obama prounounces the word correctly. However, Bush supports nucler power, and Obama does not. Obama is style over substance. BTW, Palin also supports nucler power.
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Spare us the sob story about how badly George Bush was treated. The man was a drug addict alcoholic in his heyday, couldn't fly striaght and went AWOL. Those topics were hardly pursued with a vengeance during his run for election. The press was asleep at the switch for much of Bush's presidency, when he conducted illegal wiretaps, when he was riding roughshod over the military top brass who should have been leading the strategic sessions before the invasion of Iraq, etc. etc. etc. He is widely regarded as the Bushes' progeny who was least likely to succeed, and he ran for office instead of his brother (who went down for his S&L shenanigans). That is another topic that barely got a peep during the campaigns. Halliburton -- a few murmurs, hardly the firestorm of indignance it deserved. The amount of time he took off for vacation was also laughable. The paralysis he displayed in responding to 9/11 was also notable.
And as far as style over substance, how about Bush's declaration "I am the Decider?" Uttered when he was anything but -- a puppet of his VP and top people with no moral compass of his own.
Posted by plain fail, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 4:27 pm
With Tyler Hanley and her IS dept as my witness, I’ve only posted on this thread once before. Therefore I made an appearance, not a disappearance. I follow these political threads for comic relief. You’re darn tootin’ funny, Gary. (Wink-wink to but seriously.)
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Real Sharon says "...look at this thread you will notice that Paul, OhlonePar, Boomer, but seriously and plain fail have all posted on this thread--therefore they cannot be multiple names used by the same poster." ( because the editors now delete multiple names from the same address)
Editors: Is it true you are now deleting posts from multiple names of same IP address? If so, how do you differentiate from "schizophrenics" and those who have multiple users of one computer?
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Sorry conspiracy theorists, but I just post as OhlonePar, which is why I have what is frankly a not totally appropriate moniker for non-school threads.
I left the thread because, frankly, I was a little bored. Obama's president and he has a lot of very important decisions to make. I'm more interested in what those decisions are and what might happen as a result than I am in old campaign rumors. (Gary, repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it more true.)
George W. Bush will have to go the route of other poorly rated presidents--Taft, Hoover, Carter--and try to redeem himself with a good second act. Or not--Coolidge. As a president, his legacy is trashed--no amount of griping about unfairness will change that. A good second act might. But that's not interesting to me yet. Right now, he's one of the lamest ducks I've ever seen. He's kind of vanished from the national dialogue.
Sarah Palin is a sort of freak show--the Lindsey Lohan of politicians. But the grim outlook on the economy means I'm not real interested in gossiping right now. Some other time--when there's been a respite from the economic grimness or I need a respite from the economic grimness.
But, anyway, there are lots of other liberals and Democrats in the Forum besides myself. Given Palo Alto's voting record, why wouldn't you think this is the case?
Posted by plain truth, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 21, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Yes Ohlonepar, the economy is grim and it promises to get much, much more grim over the next four years. The stock market started bottoming out the minute Obama was elected. It seems to understand what the Democrats do not, namely that Obama's policies spell disaster for the economy. So enjoy the packaging that you've bought. Too bad the rest of us have to suffer along with you.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 22, 2008 at 6:40 am
Plain Truth: Give it up. I have met people over the last month who REALLY BELIEVE that this is the worst economic crisis since the Depression, and they are 60 to 80 years old. As if they didn't live through Carter and Johnson before.
When I ask them to remember the late 70s/early 80s, and tell me what unemployment etc was, they don't remember.
When you have such complete and utter denial of the reality of one's OWN EXPERIENCE, it is easy to become Stalin's famous "useful idiots". They have no clue they are being manipulated, and are part of manipulating others.
There is no hope but to allow them ( and unfortunately us and all the silly younger people who don't know historical reality) to suffer the consequences of their choices.
The ones I really can't understand are those who have moved FROM more socialist countries to ours, then are all excited about our country becoming more like "home", which is so much "better". And they moved here because there wasn't enough work at home. Hello?
Again, I pray every day I am wrong, and that this Elect-Admin is going to do a great job improving our economy and security, even though it is trying to do so with the same ol' re-tread socialist ideas which fail every time...
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 22, 2008 at 6:44 am
OP: "Right-wingers" like me know that the economy doesn't listen to a lame duck. They/we listen to the promises of the Elect, the appointments the Elect is making, what the appointees are saying, and what a Dem congress with absolutely no controls on it whatsoever are promising to do.
We know which way the wind is blowing and are reacting. Some of us have seen this ( and remember it) before, and are preparing.
Why do you think the markets keep dumping every time there is a "new" Clinton era appointee? Or a "new" bad policy proposed by Congress (Dems)?
Enjoy. Too bad we couldn't just divide the country up into a Blue side and a Red side, so that those of us who want freedom can live in Red states, and those of you who want Socialism can live in the Blue, but we can't, and now we are stuck being dragged down the drain with you.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 22, 2008 at 6:51 am
One more thing: I heard 2 people say "But this is a NEW ERA, it will be DIFFERENT". When I asked why they thought so, they both said, "Because we have our first African American president".
They didn't understand when I told them that this is a re-tread wheel of the 70s..they are so racist, they really believe that somehow the color of skin of the president ( or gender, I suppose) actually affects what makes good policy and policy outcomes.
I am appalled at the racism rampant in this country, especially here in a supposedly liberal area. MLK who inspired me in my youth with his "content of character not color of skin" idea must be rolling over in his grave.
If you pray, pray that the Elect receives a great deal of wisdom and courage, and FAST.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 22, 2008 at 12:48 pm
You guys are funny.
Racism? Perspective, look up the definition of the word. Then use it correctly. I don't know who you're talking to, but your simplistic rendition of what Obama represents to his supporters isn't what I've seen on most of the Forum or the people I've talked to.
Red and Blue. Well, yes, I could go for dropping the red states--economically, we'd be in better shape. The strongest states economically are blue.
Which is probably, Perspective, why you're here instead of a more politically compatible clime.
70s and 80s v. now. I don't recall the collapse of the credit markets during that period or the Dow losing 11 years of economic expansion in the space of two months. What I remember was inflation and high gas prices (oh, yeah we had that, too.) during the 70s and then a widening disparity between the rich and everybody else under Reagan in the 80s.
Around here, I remember the growth of the PC industry in 70s and the adaptation of the chip industry to competition from Japan in the 80s.
In the mid-80s, housing prices rose around here.
What's different between now and then and which makes this go-round so scary is that the credit market collapse means that the problems reaching across all the sectors. It's hitting conservative and careful investors as well as risk-takers.
In the early '80s, there was an easy place to put your money--money market funds and CDs--very high interest rates relatively low risk. Not the case now.
Part of what's holding back any sort of recovery is that it's unclear *where* to put your money. That is, of course, if you still have any.
Remember the big crash of '87? The market lost 20 percent of its value in a day. Remember, though, that the market recovered and, indeed, showed an overall gain by year-end.
Compare that to what's happened now where it's been days and weeks of falling averages interspersed by the occasional rapid one or two-day climb followed by another fall. If you can't see the difference, you're not paying attention.
Oh, and if George W. Bush were seen as a competent leader, people would follow him. As it is, he can no longer even count on his own party.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 22, 2008 at 1:33 pm
The '87 crash was more of a psychological thing, not systemic, like today. The infectious agent now is the subprime loan market. This subprime mess was created by the Dems, through the GSEs and CRAs. The private markets amplified the problem, but they did not create it.
Obama was very much at the heart of the problem, as he advised and trained the CRAs in Saul Alinsky pressure tactics to force the banks to give crazy loans.
Sarah Palin would never had pressured the banks to give crazy loans. Why? Becasue she has so much more judgement and experience an gravitas, compared to Obama.
Now that the damage is done, it will be up to Obama to try to figure a way out of the mess he helped to create. In another thread, I tried to give him some sage advice: LOWER the capital gains tax rate to 5%, immediately! This would mean that he has to break his promise to RAISE the rate, but that's the way it goes with empty suits.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 22, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Actually, there was a systemic issue involved in the '87 crash. Do you remember what it was and what was changed as a result?
One of the reasons that it's not more interesting to argue with you is that you tend to work on a closed loop. You know what my views are on the credit mess--that the repackaging of debt and moral hazard were huge issues here. You've even said you agreed with much of what I've said.
But then time goes back and you're back to blame-everything-on-Democrats. It lacks nuance, to put it mildly and it begs the issue of what the Republicans were doing for the past 12 years when they were in power.
Fannie and Freddie were a small part of the mess--the huge bulk of subprime loans were generated and held by other lenders. The ugly predatory lending practices can pretty much all be put on the separation of risk from decision-making--the moral hazard issue.
Sarah Palin couldn't even correctly identify what Fannie and Freddie were. It's idiotic to pretend she even had any philosophy on the subject. You claim you're very intelligent, but that was a stupid comment. Please tell me that it was a put on.
I love the way you're trying to blame this on Obama before he's in office. But that the Republicans who have actually been in charge had NOTHING to do with this. Come on, kiddo.
Damn you invest Democrats with awe-inspiring clout. Why do you even bother to vote since we Dems seem to be running the show no matter who's in office?
As for your capital gains tax cut--that's awesomely besides the point. What capital gains? Everybody's losing money. People aren't holding back on investing, Gary--they're losing their retirements and pensions.
Banks aren't giving loans, Gary. That's got *nothing* to do with capital gains. Consumer confidence and spending, which run the U.S. economic engine, are way down. That's got nothing to with capital gains.
You have to be making money off your investments to pay a capital gains tax. That's not happening right now, so the cut's a moot point. If people thought there was an investment where they'd make money instead of losing it, they'd be all over it pretty much regardless of the tax rate.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 22, 2008 at 4:21 pm
"Actually, there was a systemic issue involved in the '87 crash. Do you remember what it was and what was changed as a result?"
If you can figure out the '87 crash, you are smarter than any economist who has looked at it since. There have been a number of theories, but no sane investor would buy into those theories. If you are about to say "programmed trading", then I will lose respect for your analytical capabilities.
The current crisis, unlike the '87 crash, is clearly understood as a subprime mortgage issue. It is NOT, primarlily, a housing bubble. Toxic stews of subprime mortgages pass throughs by Fannie and Freddie brought us this thing, and brought us all down. Fannie and Freddie are a Dem issue, period. Sarah Palin understands this, and you do not...go figure who is smarter.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 23, 2008 at 8:11 am
The 1987 crash started in Hong Kong, where programmed trading was not used. Dick Roll, the guru of market dynamics, rejected the programmed trading theory as a causal factor years ago.
The '87 market got ahead of itself (speculation) then crashed (psychology) then grew steadily for years. It did not have a systemic problem, unless you want to describe human psychology as a systemic problem.
The current market does have a systemic problem (subprime toxicity). Sarah Palin understands this. Barack Obama does not appear to understand this disease, as he helped to create it.
Posted by The System is the Problem, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 23, 2008 at 8:42 am
"The current crisis ... is clearly understood as a subprime mortgage issue."
What is clear is that you do not understand finance. Have you read any analysis recently? The current crisis is the result of a credit bubble that has been building for years. The bubble extends across the spectrum. The crisis will not end until the whole bubble has burst (following housing, wait for credit cards, auto loans and all the rest of it).
The bubble was inflated by a lack of regulation. It is the definition of systemic.
(The current crisis has almost nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie. Subprimes are only a part of the problem.)
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 23, 2008 at 10:20 am
OP and System is Problem:
Keep enjoying your Orwellian Newspeak and the consequences.
Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it ( unfortunately bringing the rest of us along with them.)
OP your comment that the Blue States are much better off economically really does say it all. You are living in opposite land. Check out which states are in the red right now and spiraling downward the fastest. Start with Michigan, work your way through NY and California..keep moving until you start hitting states that have been run by fiscal conservatives for the last 10 years. That means R after the name of the Governor AND the majority legislators in the govt.
Even those with balance between the R and the D, with Ds in charge, are doing better than the full Ds.
System: Uh..the "bubble was inflated by LACK of regulation?""" You are being brainwashed. Try reading stuff by opposing points of view which actually honestly examine ALL the causes of problems once in a while then make up your own mind.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 23, 2008 at 11:54 am
Your simplification doesn't work unless you factor in the deregulation which allowed the issue with derivatives and the fact that mortgage lenders made high-risk loans because they knew they wouldn't be left holding them.
As for the '87 crash. Doesn't matter about Hong Kong--the market plunged into free fall--over corrected--because of the large automated trades. Without that, you'd have another down day, but not a plunge.
You have a real issue with not being able to account for multiple factors.
You need to take a look at the size of the state economies. We care about Michigan, in part, because it's such a large chunk of the economy.
As for fiscal conservatives--Republicans seem to love big government as long as it's paying off pet businesses and defense.
And we have a Republican governer, my dear. Or hadn't you noticed? Though I don't blame him for the fiscal mess--you really can look at the destabilization brought on by Prop. 13 and crime laws that lock up nonviolent offenders for life. (What a waste of money that is.) You're so busy being horrified by liberals that you don't know the Republican history of this state and its longterm effects on the state.
You complain that system doesn't read opposing viewpoints when it's clear that you, more than once, don't know basic things because you don't read opposing viewpoints. Pot and kettle in your case.
And, of course, there was a credit bubble--it's what made Lehmann and most of Wall St. burst. They got permission to exceed previously mandated leveraging ratios a couple of years back--people got nervous and *boom* no credit.
This was posted here by another poster and it came from Barron's.
Again, "conservatives" have been in charge for several years--they instituted policies that backfired.
Obama, by the way, seems to be hiring pragmatists. Geithner is already on the floor with this anc will hit the ground running. I find that reassuring. The real question is how bad will things get before Obama gets into office.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 23, 2008 at 12:05 pm
OP says "Your simplification doesn't work unless you factor in the deregulation which allowed the issue with derivatives and the fact that mortgage lenders made high-risk loans because they knew they wouldn't be left holding them."
Umm..how is it exactly that they knew they wouldn't be holding them? How is it that derivatives came to be managed the way they were?
You are on the right track..keep following the footsteps back to the source and you will be there.
Posted by The System is the Problem, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 23, 2008 at 12:15 pm
It's hard to follow what you are saying because of your use of terms. You equate fiscal conservatives with Republicans, which indicates an ignorance of the last 40 years of fiscal recklessness by Republicans. You are unaware, I assume, that the deficit always mushrooms under Republicans and contracts under democrats. The Democrats are now the party of fiscal conservatives.
Thanks for the ad hominem. At this stage, the "brainwashed" (those who think a lack of regulation allowed the bubble to inflate) include all serious economists, even the majority of regulators and most investors. The only opposing viewpoints I am aware of derive from extreme rightist websites that are full of conspiracy theories.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm
OP : Because someone studies and comes to different conclusions from you doesn't mean that person hasn't read, or even lived, opposing views.
There is a reason I matured from being a Socialist in my 20s to being a Conservative. I studied, learned, developed core values which have at their heart the highest goal of doing what is best for our society/people in the long run and over generations, then connected the dots to which policies result in generations of damage and which don't.
Can you point to the policies you supported that have actually helped improve anything in our nation? Can you admit it when you err'd?
Guess what, I suspect you didn't even know about the CRA when it came back in the late 90s ( 98 I think it was). I did. I supported it ( albeit, I didn't know that it was going to be implemented the way it was). AND: I fully admit I was wrong to support it. In my naivete I never dreamed that it would be used to lend money to people ON DIFFERENT TERMS from other people just on the basis of color. I never dreamed that people would be enticed into such a horrible decision as buying a house they had no hope of paying for, nor that taxes would bail out businesses that made such bad choices.
Oh well, my fault for not being vigilant enough. Not that it would have mattered. We had a weak Republican Congress which allowed it to continue, in spite of being warned.
I supported the ideas of, and voted for, every expansion of Aid to Dependent Children and Welfare..every new tax for every new program "for the poor"..What have I seen? People being enticed into the moral hazards of having babies for money, not working because they make as much on welfare after you put together all the benefits, not finishing school because they believe there is no price to pay for not finishing, the destruction of the family, starting with the blacks, moving into the hispanics now. The incentives are backwards. We are killing them with kindness. I have learned.
Ok, your turn..name one thing you supported that you regret supporting because of the bad outcome. Do you have the integrity and honesty to admit any mistakes?
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 23, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I'm not talking about different conclusions. I'm talking about the fact that you're unfamiliar with basic facts at times.
You went from being a socialist to a conservative. Ideologue to ideologue. And it shows. While I call myself a liberal, I was never a socialist because I could see there were problems--practical problems with it. I am philosophically moderate--always have been, always will be.
So, no, actually I haven't made out-and-out mistakes on political decisions simply because I'm cautious from the get-go. I have moderated my views as I've gained information. It's only within the last couple of years that I've become concerned about the health and safety risks of nuclear power. During the big anti-nuclear heyday I felt that was not informed enough to make a good decision about it.
I also had some concerns about Obama and didn't support him in the primaries. He has grown on me, though. Interestingly, an early Obama supporter I know says that Obama became a better candidate over time.
As it happens, one of my two most influential professors in college was a neocon. I don't think he changed my politics on any one thing, but he did cause me to really think through my beliefs. It's a good and interesting thing to have one's assumptions challenged by someone you respect. In my case, my views didn't change, but deepened.
For professional reasons, it became very important that I was able to understand both sides of many issues. It also fits with my personality. The result is that I'm not an early adopter spearheading the new age, but when I arrive at a decision it tends to be a thought-out and informed one.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 23, 2008 at 2:16 pm
"the credit crisis is not a product or result of subprime loans."
I like to duel back and forth with OhlonePar because he/she is intelligent. He/she is usually wrong, and I am usully right, but that is an onging argument between the two of us. As a respectful courtesy, I will toss your statement over to OP, just to see if that makes sense to OP. OP?
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 23, 2008 at 9:58 pm
You are jumping to conclusions again. Since I have moderate views of politicians--I neither idolize them nor think they're worthless, I don't have swings. Most of them vote the way I expect them to vote. I expect them to compromise. It's the nature of the job.
I think you don't understand the generation younger than yours--by the way. By and large, it's a more temperate, less idealistic group. Watergate as a formative experience will do that.
One of the big issues I have with the '60s crew is their solipsism. Never trust anyone over 30 now becomes no one can really understand anything under 40. Same old solipsism.
And the two presidents from that generation--Bush and Clinton--are both bedeviled with narcissism. It's not an accident, it's endemic.
Posted by Really, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Nov 25, 2008 at 6:17 pm
OhlonePar, I am astounded that you would try to pass yourself off as a moderate! All anyone has to do to disabuse themselves of that notion, is to look at the numerous comments you have made on topics all over Town Square. You are, to put it mildly, left of left on the political spectrum.
You and I can agree that in general, the Baby Boomers (the "ME" generation, as they are sometimes called), are classic narcissists.
Bill Clinton is indeed a stellar example of the self absorbed, self important, attention seeking, narcissistic ego. He takes credit for everything, admits to no mistakes in anything and is very thin skinned when criticized. He is driven by the need to be publicly adored and approved of, instead of being guided by principles. And he obsesses endlessly on his "Legacy".
President Bush, on the other hand, does what he thinks is right regardless of the personal consequences for him, either with his party or with public opinion. He does not bristle at criticism or even lash out at those who vilify him in the nastiest possible ways. He is a well balanced person who is sincere in his praise of others and generous with his political opponents, instead of constantly focusing all attention on himself. I may not agree with many of his policies, but he is no narcissist.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 26, 2008 at 1:07 am
I said I call myself a "liberal" politically. I am moderate philosophically, which is a little different. I don't veer toward extremes in my judgments and I like to know both sides of any topic before taking a position.
For example, your castigation of Clinton and your praise of Bush misses the mark. Clinton has, in fact, admitted to mistakes--Rwanda as well as more personal ones. Bush has difficulty acknowledging mistakes and does not take in alternative views when making decisions. He's been described as lacking in curiosity. His mind is made up.
While Clinton has been called a narcissist, I actually think Bush is a more textbook example of the disorder.
But here's an example of my moderation and your lack of it--I don't see the need to paint one president as all-white and the other as all-black. I do think Bush was a very poor fit for the presidency, but now that he's leaving office, I don't expect to be ranting about him online eight years from now.
To me, Clinton was both very gifted and very flawed. But so are a lot of historical figures. Bush's intellect, I think, was fatally limited. He was very much a product of his environment in Texas and he couldn't or didn't want to get past it. There was a lack of perspective--he couldn't see that one of the things we needed to do was gain some independence from oil, not simply try to control overseas sources. Bush was never able to act against the interests of the energy industry or even see that it might be necessary for the longterm health of the country. It's not even a case of corruption--Bush is an oil industry guy. (And, yes, Sarah Palin would have been Bush in a skirt in that Alaska would have remained her frame of reference instead of something larger.)
In other words, I don't spend a lot of energy hating Bush, but in trying to figure out why he did what he did and why he didn't make better choices at various points. That's what I mean by moderate.
Posted by plain truth, a resident of Stanford, on Nov 26, 2008 at 12:17 pm
OhlonePar, you and others on the left, keep making the assertion that President Bush has an inferior intellect. To quote you directly, his intellect was "fatally limited".
This often repeated notion is never backed up by any real data. It seems to be based entirely on the fact that Bush differs with you politically, and that he is an inarticulate communicator.
It is a mistake to equate intelligence with speaking ability. They are not the same. I know some very brilliant people who mix up their words and make very poor speakers. To the careless (or arrogant) observer they appear less intelligent than they are.
Again, packaging does not equal substance.
In fact, it is documented in military records that George Bush actually has a high I.Q., higher than John Kerry's or Obama's. It is a fact that is never mentioned by most of the media.
I am sure that if President Bush had regularly quoted and/or espoused the world view of The New York Times, he would have been hailed as a genius by the left. Then any missteps he might have made in communication would have gone unnoticed or unreported.
One last thought, OlohnePar, perhaps you would have a better understanding of what was behind Bush's decisions if you expanded the media sources you rely upon to include those from the other side of the political spectrum. They take more digging to find, but that should be no problem for someone as intellectually gifted as yourself.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 26, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Please don't distort what I said. I said Bush lacked curiosity. This is backed up by reporting by Bob Woodward who interviewed Bush repeatedly for his books on the Bush Administration. The flattering way to describe is that Bush is "intuitive" and "decisive".
Inferior? Inferior to what, precisely? I said nothing about Bush's speaking abilities. So why are *you* bringing it up?
I do read a range--which is why I'm familiar with Bush's views. Please actually read what I said--since I like to understand why people do what they do, I will learn both sides of an argument.
I think it's interesting that you say nothing that disputes what I said above--that Bush's views were very much in keeping with those of the oil industry. Do you have anything that disputes that? Because that's substance, not form. And, of course, it has nothing to do with how well he delivers a speech.
The Bush presidency is a failure. We all know that--now the question is who can we blame and what can we do about the mess. I haven't noticed anyone rushing forward to take credit for anything.