Female Mccain''s VP pick

[luckystar112]

lol miracles. This is another one that makes me CRY.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9WmKre5O2I

 

[miraclesrule]

OMG, that''s hysterical. This is why I love kids so much.

I love how he keeps yelling at his Dad...NOT FUNNY...BLOOD. Oh...I just love kids.
Thanks for sharing. I have to send that one to my friends and family.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/11/2008 10:42:52 PM
Author: luckystar112
Thanks goobear. I''m in Houston, and it looks like it''s coming right for us. Luckily I live pretty far north. Watching the news right now and it looks like we''ll get rain and 68 mph winds. Kind of scary, but I think we''ll be okay. We have this closet under our stairwell that is right smack in the middle of our house, so I think we''re going to make a mini shelter in there just in case.

Good luck, luckystar. If you are thrown off-line, we will assume that you just lost power and are OK. Is there anyone from Pricescope with whom you can stay in touch by phone or, if lines are down, cell phone? (When a hurricane hit Virginia the other day it knocked out the power and telephone lines at our house, but my husband was able to call out from there by cell phone and reach me in Connecticut. I realize that in very bad conditions that this may not be possible!!!)

I have a friend outside of Houston who lives on a farm. They have no shelter at all. Apparently the land is flat there and there is water beneath the surface so that people cannot dig shelters? This may be on the news, but I have not been watching it, so I just have the reports of my friend. Unlike you, she is very frightened, particularly of a tornado. She also has animals she keeps as pets, a horse and around 20 dogs.

I wish everyone in Texas well! Stay in touch as much as you can, luckystar!

Hugs,
Deb

 

[ladypirate]

Be safe, Luckystar! I''ll keep you in my prayers tonight.

 

[luckystar112]

Thanks AGBF and LP!
We are lucky because I really think that we are in the best spot we can be in. If you click on the link below, our zip code isn''t even listed (no idea why). We are located in that little pocket of space at about 11 o''clock (shaped like a diamond). All the green zip codes have been evacuated, as they are coastal....so we''re really pretty far from all the action. I just hope we don''t lose power!

http://www.houstonhidefromthewind.org/

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Please be safe lucky, you''re in my prayers! ((Hugs))

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

This opinion piece was in the Boston Globe this morning...it's pretty good.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/12/a_great_moment_for_women/

 

[MoonWater]

James Fallows (the Atlantic) on the Palin interview

 

[luckystar112]

Interesting interview with Mark Penn

HH, very interesting outlook in that link. I agree with a lot of it.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 9/12/2008 10:35:49 AM
Author: MoonWater
James Fallows (the Atlantic) on the Palin interview

Thanks for the quote, MW. You have been expressing my thoughts and feelings so well that I don''t have to

My response to the Pallin speech:

"If you can''t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull..."--W.C. Fields

 

[ladypirate]

I''d still like someone to explain to me how knowing about energy has anything to do with national security. It seems the republican party line whenever anyone questions her national security credentials has become "well, she knows a lot about energy." While the two may be related, they are not the same thing. In yesterday''s interview, she spent more time dodging questions than she did answering them.

Also, good for Charlie Gibson for not telling her what the Bush Doctrine was outright. He seemed just as shocked as the rest of us that she didn''t know.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 9/12/2008 10:35:49 AM
Author: MoonWater
James Fallows (the Atlantic) on the Palin interview

I don''t want it to appear like I''m grasping for air here, but I agree and disagree with James Fallows. I agree particularly with this part:

Two details in Charles Gibson''s posing of the question were particularly telling. One was the potentially confusing way in which he first asked it. On the page, "the Bush Doctrine" looks different from "the Bush doctrine." But when hearing the question Palin might not have known whether Gibson was referring to the general sweep of Administration policy -- doctrine with small d -- or the rationale that connected 9/11 with the need to invade Iraq, the capital-D Doctrine.http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php

That is what I think happened during that interview. Here is the transcript of that part:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that''s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php

So I can see where she was initially confused. But then she goes on to answer the question in a very general and "safe" way that could be mistaken for ignorance (this, of course, is giving her the benefit of the doubt that she knew what Gibson was asking). In his next line where he explains that he understands the BD to mean that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us---well that''s just one part of it. So that makes me wonder if when she asked "in what respect", if maybe she wasn''t confused and she just wanted him to be more specific. He finally did ask if she agreed with preemptive strikes, and she answered the question--although "enough" intelligence is subjective.

So her stumbling on the question, in my opinion, doesn''t necessarily mean that she was confused (though I''m not ruling it out). There really isn''t enough there to be 100% certain. I definitely do think the media as waiting for her to fumble. But I agree with James Fallows that we were waiting for a flash of recognition that we never got. I even did a facepalm while watching it.

But I still can''t 100% commit to the idea that she hadn''t at least been informed of the BD before the interview.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/12/2008 11:52:28 AM
Author: ladypirate
I''d still like someone to explain to me how knowing about energy has anything to do with national security. It seems the republican party line whenever anyone questions her national security credentials has become ''well, she knows a lot about energy.'' While the two may be related, they are not the same thing.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/qsecure.asp#security

"The United States consumes 25 percent of all the oil produced in the world, yet we control just 3 percent of the world''s oil reserves. As a result of this imbalance, we''ve become heavily reliant on foreign oil, much of which comes from the conflict-ridden Middle East. In 1974, our country imported one million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf; today, that figure tops 2.5 million. This dependence means our economy is highly vulnerable to wild swings in the price and supply of oil -- a fact that''s become all the more unsettling since the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks in New York and Washington."

We can pretty much be controlled by Middle Eastern countries who have control over our energy sources if we convey weakness IMHO. The site has other information on the link as well.

 

[Anna0499]

I agree luckystar. Maybe it wasn''t the most eloquent or even best answer she could''ve given, but MOST political leaders would probably need clarification if asked so generally about the "Bush Doctrine." The Doctrine has several components and has come to encompass different administrative measures over time, so I don''t think it was unreasonable for Palin to initially ask for clarification. Just MHO, but it does support the point that many people who want Palin to do more interviews as just waiting to pounce on her. I don''t care & in fact believe they should, but I think these people often use false reasoning for their motives on wanting to see more of her by saying they want to know more about her. The vast majority of people have decided on Obama or McCain by now & Palin had little to do with their decision.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 9/12/2008 12:32:02 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/12/2008 11:52:28 AM
Author: ladypirate
I''d still like someone to explain to me how knowing about energy has anything to do with national security. It seems the republican party line whenever anyone questions her national security credentials has become ''well, she knows a lot about energy.'' While the two may be related, they are not the same thing.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/qsecure.asp#security

''The United States consumes 25 percent of all the oil produced in the world, yet we control just 3 percent of the world''s oil reserves. As a result of this imbalance, we''ve become heavily reliant on foreign oil, much of which comes from the conflict-ridden Middle East. In 1974, our country imported one million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf; today, that figure tops 2.5 million. This dependence means our economy is highly vulnerable to wild swings in the price and supply of oil -- a fact that''s become all the more unsettling since the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.''

We can pretty much be controlled by Middle Eastern countries who have control over our energy sources if we convey weakness IMHO. The site has other information on the link as well.

Yes. Everytime we get gas we are putting more money in Saudi Arabia''s pocket that can then be used to fund terrorist organizations...directly or indirectly. Palin has extensive knowledge of the ANWR and has been working on getting those sources tapped in order to make America more self-reliant instead helping to fund our enemies and letting the middle east practically run our economy.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 9/12/2008 12:40:28 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 9/12/2008 12:32:02 PM

Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/12/2008 11:52:28 AM

Author: ladypirate

I''d still like someone to explain to me how knowing about energy has anything to do with national security. It seems the republican party line whenever anyone questions her national security credentials has become ''well, she knows a lot about energy.'' While the two may be related, they are not the same thing.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/qsecure.asp#security


''The United States consumes 25 percent of all the oil produced in the world, yet we control just 3 percent of the world''s oil reserves. As a result of this imbalance, we''ve become heavily reliant on foreign oil, much of which comes from the conflict-ridden Middle East. In 1974, our country imported one million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf; today, that figure tops 2.5 million. This dependence means our economy is highly vulnerable to wild swings in the price and supply of oil -- a fact that''s become all the more unsettling since the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.''


We can pretty much be controlled by Middle Eastern countries who have control over our energy sources if we convey weakness IMHO. The site has other information on the link as well.

Yes. Everytime we get gas we are putting more money in Saudi Arabia''s pocket that can then be used to fund terrorist organizations...directly or indirectly. Palin has extensive knowledge of the ANWR and has been working on getting those sources tapped in order to make America more self-reliant instead helping to fund our enemies and letting the middle east practically run our economy.

OK, yes our energy policy is RELATED to national security. Still doesn''t explain why McCain''s people are acting like her experience with domestic energy can be substituted for foreign policy experience. Also, saying that she has experience in foreign affairs because "Alaska is close to Russia". Really? She admitted during the interview that until last year she''d never been outside North America and has never met a foreign head of state. That''s a little scary to me, personally.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I highly doubt that Bush knows what the Bush Doctrine is.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Date: 9/12/2008 12:53:20 PM
Author: ladypirate

Date: 9/12/2008 12:40:28 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 9/12/2008 12:32:02 PM

Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/12/2008 11:52:28 AM

Author: ladypirate

I''d still like someone to explain to me how knowing about energy has anything to do with national security. It seems the republican party line whenever anyone questions her national security credentials has become ''well, she knows a lot about energy.'' While the two may be related, they are not the same thing.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/qsecure.asp#security


''The United States consumes 25 percent of all the oil produced in the world, yet we control just 3 percent of the world''s oil reserves. As a result of this imbalance, we''ve become heavily reliant on foreign oil, much of which comes from the conflict-ridden Middle East. In 1974, our country imported one million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf; today, that figure tops 2.5 million. This dependence means our economy is highly vulnerable to wild swings in the price and supply of oil -- a fact that''s become all the more unsettling since the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.''


We can pretty much be controlled by Middle Eastern countries who have control over our energy sources if we convey weakness IMHO. The site has other information on the link as well.

Yes. Everytime we get gas we are putting more money in Saudi Arabia''s pocket that can then be used to fund terrorist organizations...directly or indirectly. Palin has extensive knowledge of the ANWR and has been working on getting those sources tapped in order to make America more self-reliant instead helping to fund our enemies and letting the middle east practically run our economy.

OK, yes our energy policy is RELATED to national security. Still doesn''t explain why McCain''s people are acting like her experience with domestic energy can be substituted for foreign policy experience. Also, saying that she has experience in foreign affairs because ''Alaska is close to Russia''. Really? She admitted during the interview that until last year she''d never been outside North America and has never met a foreign head of state. That''s a little scary to me, personally.

I believe she mentioned her travel in the interview. She''s been to Kuwait and Germany. Who cares when it was, she''s been thre and she went there to learn about the current situation. That''s showing an effort and willingess to learn which I think is more valuable in an executive figure than someone who refuses to accept that they don''t know everything.

 

[goobear78]

I''m sorry, but a VP candidate should know the Bush Doctrine especially since it was used in part to go to war with Iraq. And she didn''t. She flat out didn''t know it. That''s what happened, they can''t spin it, it''s on video but I''m sure going forward she will make sure she does know it. Does that make it any better? In my opinion no, but I''m still looking forward to hearing the rest of her interview and watching it in its entirety tonight.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/12/2008 1:10:18 PM
Author: goobear78
I''m sorry, but a VP candidate should know the Bush Doctrine especially since it was used in part to go to war with Iraq. And she didn''t. She flat out didn''t know it. That''s what happened, they can''t spin it, it''s on video but I''m sure going forward she will make sure she does know it. Does that make it any better? In my opinion no, but I''m still looking forward to hearing the rest of her interview and watching it in its entirety tonight.

I concur. FI hasn''t seen the interview yet but I was filling him in and he immediate said "How is she a Governor of a state without knowing what the Bush Doctrine is?" He knew straight off the bat what Gibson was talking about without me filing in those details. So if he knows, an average (er history and politics obsessed sure but not an elected official) citizen knows, how does she not?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/12/2008 11:46:59 AM
Author: risingsun

Date: 9/12/2008 10:35:49 AM
Author: MoonWater
James Fallows (the Atlantic) on the Palin interview

Thanks for the quote, MW. You have been expressing my thoughts and feelings so well that I don't have to

My response to the Pallin speech:

'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull...'--W.C. Fields

No problem Marian!

ETA (not to you specifically Marian): I don't think she completely failed in the interview. She did a pretty good job keeping her cool. Frankly, I would have pissed my pants being interviewed by Gibson. However, she screwed up not only due to ignorance, there were cases where *I* came up with responses that I thought would have worked well for her. I mean, not after thinking about it, but immediately when she was asked. I was staring, waiting for her to say what was in my brain, even though I completely disagreed with it. The question about whether she thought they were fighting a holy war. She could have easily said that she believes all things are apart of God's plan and that yes, that includes the war. Instead she fumbled with...heck, I still don't know what she was saying. Someone find the Lincoln quote she was trying to claim she used. I'm curious.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 9/12/2008 1:17:06 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/12/2008 11:46:59 AM

Author: risingsun

Date: 9/12/2008 10:35:49 AM

Author: MoonWater

James Fallows (the Atlantic) on the Palin interview

Thanks for the quote, MW. You have been expressing my thoughts and feelings so well that I don''t have to

My response to the Pallin speech:


''If you can''t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull...''--W.C. Fields

No problem Marian!


ETA (not to you specifically Marian): I don''t think she completely failed in the interview. She did a pretty good job keeping her cool. Frankly, I would have pissed my pants being interviewed by Gibson. However, she screwed up not only due to ignorance, there were cases where *I* came up with responses that I thought would have worked well for her. I mean, not after thinking about it, but immediately when she was asked. I was staring, waiting for her to say what was in my brain, even though I completely disagreed with it. The question about whether she thought they were fighting a holy war. She could have easily said that she believes all things are apart of God''s plan and that yes, that includes the war. Instead she fumbled with...heck, I still don''t know what she was saying. Someone find the Lincoln quote she was trying to claim she used. I''m curious.

“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God''s side, for God is always right”

Not really what she originally said...I think she''s trying to downplay her religiousness.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/12/2008 1:29:16 PM
Author: ladypirate

Date: 9/12/2008 1:17:06 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/12/2008 11:46:59 AM

Author: risingsun

Date: 9/12/2008 10:35:49 AM

Author: MoonWater

James Fallows (the Atlantic) on the Palin interview

Thanks for the quote, MW. You have been expressing my thoughts and feelings so well that I don''t have to

My response to the Pallin speech:


''If you can''t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull...''--W.C. Fields

No problem Marian!


ETA (not to you specifically Marian): I don''t think she completely failed in the interview. She did a pretty good job keeping her cool. Frankly, I would have pissed my pants being interviewed by Gibson. However, she screwed up not only due to ignorance, there were cases where *I* came up with responses that I thought would have worked well for her. I mean, not after thinking about it, but immediately when she was asked. I was staring, waiting for her to say what was in my brain, even though I completely disagreed with it. The question about whether she thought they were fighting a holy war. She could have easily said that she believes all things are apart of God''s plan and that yes, that includes the war. Instead she fumbled with...heck, I still don''t know what she was saying. Someone find the Lincoln quote she was trying to claim she used. I''m curious.

“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God''s side, for God is always right”

Not really what she originally said...I think she''s trying to downplay her religiousness.

Yeah, really. Saying that the US is sending soilders out on a "task that is from God" is not at all what Lincoln said here.

 

[zhuzhu]

Sure, if God is always right for her then why would she shy away from her active church involvement during her time of building a political career? If you truly believe your religion you would not disassociate yourself with your church in the time you think it works AGAINST you, and then come back to sell religion when it serves you.

Personally, I have doubt about her judgment partly because of the fact that she decided to get pregnant at the age of mid-40th (especially when she already has several children). While it is her "right" the get pregnant, the health risk to the baby is well-established in the medical literature and significant. It is like feeding your baby an expire can of baby food - knowing the high risk to baby's health but still do it anyways for your own pleasure.

The issue is not that her keeps a baby with Dawn syndrome, the issue is that she did not have the sound judgment to decide against "getting pregnant" (does she not believe in birth control? are we going to have a pregnant VP in the next few years if she got elected? scary though) when she already has a large family.

 

[Anna0499]

If she had been campaigning for President all of her political life I''m sure she would''ve hopped on those jets to travel the world in anticipation of questions about foreign policy. Do I think she''s the most experienced person to handle foreign policy issues? NO. Do I think she knows enough to be a VP for a President/cabinet who DOES have foreign policy experience? YES. (Reverse of Obama/Biden ticket here). I think she did well in her interview if you consider her role in the election. She did well enough for McCain supporters and not poorly enough to be ruled out by fence-sitters. Obama supporters aren''t part of her demographic.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/12/2008 1:41:58 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Sure, if God is always right for her then why would she shy away from her active church involvement during her time of building a political career? If you truly believe your religion you would not disassociate yourself with your church in the time you think it works AGAINST you, and then come back to sell religion when it serves you.

Personally, I have doubt about her judgment partly because of the fact that she decided to get pregnant at the age of mid-40th (especially when she already has several children). While it is her ''right'' the get pregnant, the health risk to the baby is well-established in the medical literature and significant. It is like feeding your baby an expire can of baby food - knowing the high risk to baby''s health but still do it anyways for your own pleasure.

The issue is not that her keeps a baby with Dawn syndrome, the issue is that she did not have the sound judgment to decide against ''getting pregnant'' (does she not believe in birth control? are we going to have a pregnant VP in the next few years if she got elected? scary though) when she already has a large family.

I would be careful judging mothers who become pregnant after 40, as I think some PSers are in that boat and wouldn''t want to be compared to "feeding your baby an expire(d) can of baby food."

Halle Berry & Nicole Kidman did it & they''re just fine.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 9/12/2008 1:43:35 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
If she had been campaigning for President all of her political life I''m sure she would''ve hopped on those jets to travel the world in anticipation of questions about foreign policy. Do I think she''s the most experienced person to handle foreign policy issues? NO. Do I think she knows enough to be a VP for a President/cabinet who DOES have foreign policy experience? YES. (Reverse of Obama/Biden ticket here). I think she did well in her interview if you consider her role in the election. She did well enough for McCain supporters and not poorly enough to be ruled out by fence-sitters. Obama supporters aren''t part of her demographic.

The issue isn''t whether she''s qualified to do the VP job (for me, at least). It''s whether she''s qualified to be Commander in Chief if the need should arise. And no, I don''t believe she is. The McCain campaign keeps saying that she''s more qualified than Obama. I don''t believe that''s true, especially in terms of foreign policy.

In any case, yesterday''s interview definitely focused on her weak points and it showed. I will be interested to see the rest of the interview tonight, when she''s more in her element.

 

[luckystar112]

I don''t know how

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That''s what we have to make sure that we''re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God''s plan."

translates into the Iraq war being our task from God. To me, she is clearly asking them to pray that they are doing the right thing by going to war...pray that they are on God''s side, per the Lincoln quote which basically is the same idea.

“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God''s side, for God is always right”.

In the televised interview that we watched, they switched to video of her saying the FULL quote, which is what is highlighted above. In the REAL interview, which is part of the transcript on ABC''s own website, it went down like this:


GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don''t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.


Did he leave anything out there? How about the WHOLE LAST (highlighted above) part! He was spinning it to make her fumble, so she had to spend a large portion of her answer clarifying her words. If he had used the WHOLE quote, he wouldn''t have even had a question to ask.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/12/2008 1:48:52 PM
Author: ladypirate

The issue isn't whether she's qualified to do the VP job (for me, at least). It's whether she's qualified to be Commander in Chief if the need should arise. And no, I don't believe she is. The McCain campaign keeps saying that she's more qualified than Obama. I don't believe that's true, especially in terms of foreign policy.

In any case, yesterday's interview definitely focused on her weak points and it showed. I will be interested to see the rest of the interview tonight, when she's more in her element.

I see what you're saying but to many people, Obama isn't qualified to be CIC, so it goes both ways depending on which side of the fence you're on. Visits to foreign countries also don't automatically = foreign policy experience IMHO (not saying you feel this way; other people do, though). Do I want Joe Biden to be President? NO WAY...I'd rather have a president who needs/seeks advice about foreign policy than a prejudiced individual with that much power. I guess those are some of the reasons I will not be voting for Obama.

 

[Efe]

Date: 9/12/2008 1:41:58 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Sure, if God is always right for her then why would she shy away from her active church involvement during her time of building a political career? If you truly believe your religion you would not disassociate yourself with your church in the time you think it works AGAINST you, and then come back to sell religion when it serves you.

Personally, I have doubt about her judgment partly because of the fact that she decided to get pregnant at the age of mid-40th (especially when she already has several children). While it is her ''right'' the get pregnant, the health risk to the baby is well-established in the medical literature and significant. It is like feeding your baby an expire can of baby food - knowing the high risk to baby''s health but still do it anyways for your own pleasure.

The issue is not that her keeps a baby with Dawn syndrome, the issue is that she did not have the sound judgment to decide against ''getting pregnant'' (does she not believe in birth control? are we going to have a pregnant VP in the next few years if she got elected? scary though) when she already has a large family.

This is just completely outrageous and offensive.