The Cheapening of the Democratic System via Sarah Palin

What this all comes down to is that if you like the status quo, vote for McCain-Palin. If you want change, vote for Obama-Biden. The people on top of the heap don't want change because they might not be on top any more. The people on the bottom have nothing to lose by any change. The people in the middle have to balance their gains with their losses and will vote, accordingly.
In my opinion, Bush-Cheney will go down as one of the worst administrations in history. McCain backs W most of the time, regardless of what he says he does. He's more a cantankerous, stubborn geezer than a rebel. He wants things his way and is not prone to compromise. He is so completely detached from the American public and their needs and concerns that his decisions might not be the best for Americans who earn less than $5million a year and know that the only have one house. McCain is just another Bush except he's past his prime and still angry at the world.

reply to post by mental modulator

YOU can only slow it down - MY kind get the last laugh ALWAYS - even if it is from the grave.

So it was your kind that got us into these messes. Good. Now I have someone tangible to blame.

I am not upset she is a woman, I am upset because I believe that the RNC is using the fact that she IS a woman for political gain, not because she would be the bet candidate. Country First? Hardly... Should be Politics First.

And..... what did the democrats do basically the same thing, indoctrinating Obama's candidacy on the American people?

The idea of President Palin is just plain scary to me and seems like an impulsive, reckless, and primarily political decision on McCain's part.

Channel that negative energy and point it towards Obama as well.

McCain is not a healthy man

Because he's old?

You know you can just decide to not vote for McCain due to his choice of Palin.

I would rather you not vote for McCain because he is a hack. The thought of him being president makes me cringe as much as the thought of Obama being president.

Obama chose someone who was strong on foreign policy and experience, where he himself was somewhat weak. He chose someone who has a lot of experience and could make a seamless transition should Obama die in office.

He is using Biden for the experience label.

Obama picked a liberal McCain and McCain picked a conservative Obama.

What this all comes down to is that if you like the status quo, vote for McCain-Palin. If you want change, vote for Obama-Biden.

This rhetoric means nothing.... here, let me correct it. "What this all comes down to is that if you like the status quo, vote for McCain-Palin. If you want the status quo, vote for Obama-Biden."

The people on top of the heap don't want change because they might not be on top any more.

Are you implying that the only people on the top of the heap are Republicans? I would beg to differ if this is your intent.

The truth is, there is no real, worthwhile change in our future regardless of who wins. When campaigns take 'the high road' its just an indirect way to do politics as usual. I wish politicians would say what they mean so no one would ever vote for them. Instead they just skate around spinning all of their words as not to offend.

Bipartisan politics is so blatantly rotten to the core. I do not know why any of you here on ATS waste your time. I thought we were the ones who didn't drink the kool-aid.

Peace

My reply,

A Call To Action

New threads in the Campaign 2008 forum must be based on published candidate platform items, either officially, or from recent interviews....

.... New Threads About Any Candidate for the 2008 U.S. elections (national or regional) must be started in the Decision 2008 forum.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Thanks Sheriff, didn't see my sourced material, on a interview? Read ALL THE WAY to the bottom.

Thanks for the recap though.

I didn't mean to hurt so many conservative feelings. I am sorry. I thought you guys were the tough ones?!

This is a legit debate. It is my opinion. I stand by it.

I would have to agree there is some truth to what the OP is saying but he has somewhat of a biased view about it, the choice of Palin energized the conservative base, her pro gun/religion anti gay/abortion ensure the base and in that aspect was clearly a good choice BUT in other aspects it was a bad one. Earmarks, to sum it up in one word.

Its also obvious that the choice of a women was a political move to convert over the unhappy Clinton faithful and it that way it is offensive to some, mainly democratic/independent women. Palin's views are completely 180 from Clintons and those comments at the RNC about the 'cracks in the glass ceiling' were to much. Palin's continued remarks about Clinton and snubbing of Ferraro is proof to me that McPalin are trying to take advantage of the tension from the dem primarys and are trying to split the Democrats.

Dronetek: Palin is more expierenced then Obama?
Maybe its because im from Illinois and i'm more familier with Obama but Palin is from a state bordering Canada and is very close to Russia but she didnt have a Passport until 2007. That shows poorly on here foreign policy expierience, furthermore if I am correct the OP created this thread with the intent of having a discussion about the political motives of choosing Palin, and made no mention of Obama. I see no reason to turn this into a Left/ Right mudslinging thread. It would be nice if I was fortunate enough to have people following me around starring all my posts.

I'll Flag this thread, but I'm not starring it....

Most people seem to be missing a major point. Even from grade school I remember one of the great things about the United State's system of Government is the fact that ANYONE (with FEW minimal requirements such as age) can become president if the PEOPLE want it.

I don't care whether Sarah Palin or Barack Obama is "qualified" in some peoples' eyes because the Presidency is NOT a job where a resume' must be submitted to a "higher power" who is going to determine whether or not they are "hired". That "resume' so to speak is submitted to the people and they get to decide whether or not they are "qualified". Obama will be "qualified" if the people elect him. Sarah Palin will be "qualified" if McCain wins. If Obama wins and wants to appoint Oprah Winfrey to a cabinet position HE CAN, just as McCain can have Sarah Palin as a Vice President....if elected!

I understand some people will argue that this is not really the way it is with electoral colleges and what not. But I think this is intended in the "spirit" of our Constitution.

I don't think this is "cheapening" the Democratic System at all. I think its REKINDLING its original spirit! If you don't think so, please explain peanut farmer Jimmy Carter!

.....or Jesse Ventura, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono.....

[edit on 13-9-2008 by CreeWolf]

NOTE-I am an independent and will not vote for McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden because I think both presidencies are horrifying and am devastated that either one will be in office.

I have, as being non partisan, been able to objectively see how desperate the Democrats have gotten since Palin has been chosen as the VP. They have realized that Obama will easily be pushed aside with Biden if Hillary Clinton does not get off her high horse and decide to campaign for them and is given a major cabinet position fast in the least. If she doesn't, which I doubt she will, because she isn't getting any younger and is vying for the presidential seat in 2012, then they have their work cut out for them more than EVER before.

McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was INGENIUS. McCain's campaign has been dead and this VP has pumped up support from the far right and has made independents look twice at McCain (I should know, I am one of them). And to the contrary of what many people say about her, I have seen her speeches, and she is as eloquent as Obama is and is a viper (which contrasts to McCain).

She will not be able to pull in many Hillary Clinton supporters, but I have around 4 friends who are fervent supporters of Clinton, and they are staying home. This is the threat to Obama. And his choosing of Biden of Hillary is a travesty for his campaign and was...in the least...stupid. It will probably cost him the election.

I think by this point in time it is well nigh impossible to further cheapen the political system, and if you look back for some perspective, Palin frankly pales in comparison to Dan Quayle, who actually was a sitting VP, and hopeless to boot.

George Bush the younger was also a first-term governor with precious little other political experience.

George Wallace was an avowed racist who ran a very loud and devisive presidential campaign.

Geraldine Ferraro's being picked by Dukakis for VP was also broadly criticized for being a political stunt.

So no, it's hard to top some of these past precedents.

reply to post by buddhasystem


And therein lies the principle reason why it no longer looks like a given Obama will be President.

Democrats couldn't TRUST one another.

When HALF of the Democratic electorate wants someone else, and you ignore that demand, what do you expect?

Remember this woman?



Crying foul because McCain did what Obama wouldn't- secure the party's base -seems like sour grapes to me.

For all of the talk of change, which was to include abandoning the divisive politics of the past, I find it amusing hearing the 'purist' arguments made with regard to putting Clinton on the ticket.

*sigh*

In my view, ignoring a base of votes nearly equal to your own *IS* a 'cheapening of the democratic system'.


[edit on 13-9-2008 by loam]

Originally posted by gottago

George Bush the younger was also a first-term governor with precious little other political experience.

He served two terms as governor. The relevant state election occurs in the off years of the national election cycle. Bush was elected in 1994 with 52% of the vote, and again in 1998 with 69% of the vote, they largest majority since the civil war, and the first texas governor in history to be re-elected immediately after his first term(!)

With 22 million people and the second largest land mass after alaska, as well as being a focus for international trade with mexico and the middle east, governing Texas is probably as complicated as any governorship after New York and California. Bush may have done it by appointing competent people to do the actual work, but he performed that task extremely competently.

As inadequate as he may be on the national stage, the fact is that his governorship was one of the most popular in the state's history. Under his guidance, state governance was modernized, and he generally stayed out of the limelight.

He is probably the single best example of the Peter Principle, that every worker rises to the level of his own incompetence.

all the best.

.



[edit on 13-9-2008 by dr_strangecraft]

I just want to respond to some questions here.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Why are the republicans are not free to select any candidate they want? Why do they need approval of non-republicans (you) to go about their business?

You're asking questions based on something the OP didn't say. He didn't say that Republicans aren't free to pick who they want OR that they need anyone's approval. He expressed how he felt about it.

Why is it a cheap stunt? Because they are trying to win???

IMO, it's a cheap stunt because that seems to be their first and only priority. As I said in this post. She adds nothing to the ticket but votes.

Don't you think the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to win??

Democrats are trying to win. But it's not their only priority and they're not selling out. If they ONLY wanted votes, they would have picked Hillary. But that's not what they saw as the best pick for the country. THAT'S their priority, what's best for the country. Even though McCain says "Country First", it's clearly just empty words.

Actions speak louder than words...

Luckily for us, that decision is left up to the voters of the individual states to decide, and not your or me.

Agreed. That is, if the election isn't a sham.

If you google her name, you can (or could a week ago) find old youtube videos of a "write in campaign" that stretches back to april, of republicans wanting her as a VP for whomever won the primaries.

I totally believe that. "The Party" (whoever that is) is running this thing, not John McCain. And that will be how his presidency is run. By the same people who have been running the Bush administration for the past 8 years.

I'm not sure how you insult a group by selecting one of their members as a running mate.

Not all women are insulted. I would be insulted if I were Palin. But it's really none of my concern. I don't let it bother me. However, I do have opinions about it. And I have the opinion that she's been used and doesn't even care because to her, winning is all that matters, too. She doesn't care that she was picked for her "gender appeal". If that gets her the spot, that's great!

I don't think the OP or his wife should waste their energy being insulted.

The democratic process has been cheap since our countries inception. Look at how the 3rd election went between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The mud slinging made even some of todays stuff look like childs play.

The fact is nothing will change no matter who gets elected. I dont know when people will understand these candidates are virtually the same. They both want the big company bailouts, they both want the police state, they both want to go to war with anyone who blinks and eye, they both are for big government one taxes up front the other will put it on the charge card, I mean I can go on and on. You want to talk about the cheapening of the system this is the problem not the mudslinging and Palin picking. At least with Adams and Jefferson you really had a starck difference to choose from one for small central government and big states rights and the other for more power in a centralized government. You dont get this anymore.

CreeWolf, you make great points! You are absolutely right that anyone can be whatever they want in this country.

Originally posted by loam
Democrats couldn't TRUST one another.

I think you have a point, but it's not about trust. It's about the fact that Democrats won't follow a star just because other Democrats are following it. They don't hang together like lemmings. They are individuals with strong opinions. The "D" behind someone's name doesn't necessarily earn their loyalty. It takes more than that. It takes substance. And that fact may cost them this election.

But they'd rather be true to themselves than win an election.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


That's an interesting take, but if true, demonstrates something else I think is true then.

Change is the new meaningless political buzz word.

Assuming your view is correct, it certainly could have never meant reaching across to those you disagree with and finding common ground.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by loam]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



BH, are you saying the Democrats don't have the party unity to "close ranks" to win an election? You are the second person (both Democrats) in this thread to mention that kind of thought. I would be concerned with that if I were you.

reply to post by pavil


I agree. I just don't get that.

Saying that, and even sounding proud about it, blows my mind. At best, it's demonstrative of an unrealistic world view. No one will ever agree with you 100%-- let alone politicians. It's essentially the equivalent to giving up on ANY improvements because you can't have ALL of the ones you want.

I just don't get this political logic.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by loam]

I agree with the OP.

It has been my view that the McCain campaign has made a crucial mistake with their pandering to women in their selection of Sarah Palin. Although I view certain aspects of her 'personal life' to be indicative of the type of leader she is and would be (the silver lining that her teenage daughter is keeping her baby, instead of 'preemptively' being allowed to use a condom or to actually abstain from intercourse for one), I find the process by which she was introduced and the lack of access by the media to be a major red flag.

The women in my life are put off by her and the selection of her. The Hillary supporters smell the sideways politics in the selection, and won't bite, and for the most part seem to be on the Obama bandwagon now. The Obama supporters are not going to be swayed anyway. I have also gotten the feeling that some of the female Independents I know have made their choice because of Palin, but not for her. But more interesting to me, is the negative backlash I have heard from Republicans. Not the Ron Paul-ites, but more mainstream types. Female Republicans who admire what Sarah Palin has accomplished so far, but wonder about all the baggage and lack of experience. My Great Aunt, who shall we say is not fond of 'non-whites', wondered why McCain didn't pick Condoleeza Rice if he wanted a Republican woman. I can't quote her directly, out of respect for everyone, but lets say she said that McCain could have had some Obama supporters and Hillary supporters. She also said, that if McCain really was a 'Maverick' why didn't he just choose Hillary himself? I love her dearly, but she expresses herself in language of a different era... Those are the impressions I have been getting. But then again, I don't spend much time with Evangelical Christians. I do however live in a Republican district in a state with a Democratic Majority.

I have felt that the McCain campaign has been playing catch-up the whole campaign, even though he gained enough convention votes months ago, way before Obama. If McCain were really the maverick he claims to be, he would have chosen Palin way before the convention. Then again, that might have forced Obama to choose Hillary anyway.

What I really don't understand is the party line from the Republicans being, "Obama is going to be sorry he didn't choose Hillary". I would think that unsolicited election campaign from your rivals saying that would mean the opposite. Maybe I am wrong.

Either way, I feel that the process has been cheapened by McCain's reactionary selection. Not only are his chances at election weaker in my opinion, but in his first Executive Decision that could affect all us Citizens, he has shown poor leadership. He has shown that he will make rash decisions based on a skewed perspective of America and her Citizens.

To the Member that claimed that Obama was introduced for months and months via 'puff pieces' I would like to point you to Obama's 'introduction' to America at large, and it was not a 'puff piece', it was his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. After that speech, people wanted him to be their leader. At that point Hillary was starting to be anointed for 2008. It was a foregone conclusion. But Obama supporters drafted him to run in 2008, even though he was inexperienced.

Obama's introduction to America has been a gradual process for four years. McCain and Biden are well known. Palin started to get traction as a potential choice in early June 2008.
One of this kids is not like the other, and it is not because she is a woman.
DocMoreau

Obama's introduction 4 years ago...

Originally posted by pavil
BH, are you saying the Democrats don't have the party unity to "close ranks" to win an election?

I'm not saying that. You said that. I said what I meant.

And I hate "party politics". I'm not sure what "Party Unity" is. I'm not a Democrat. Just because I'm voting for the guy with a D by his name, doesn't mean I have one by mine. I have voted for Republicans, Independents and I think a Libertarian or 2. My observations in this thread about Republicans and Democrats and just that. Observations.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

She adds nothing to the ticket but votes.

Why does she add nothing to the ticket but votes? Because she has no economic experience, foreign policy experience and very little experience in government? Doesn't that sound like somebody else...OBAMA? Never mind, you are right, make jokes about how she was a mayor of a small town before being governor thus making her inexperienced to being a VP. Others who see things with open eyes can ALSO make jokes about how a community organizer and civil rights lawyer before becoming a senator is inexperienced to be president.

Besides, I would rather have somebody be president if they had only two years in a governor's seat than two terms as Senator (a governor's job is closer to being president than a senator's job).

Both do not have the experience to be president. It is that simple. Matt Damon was right when he said he couldn't see Sarah Palin facing down Vladimir Putin but was wrong to not ask the same thing of Obama.



[edit on 13-9-2008 by RetinoidReceptor]

reply to post by TruthWithin


I'm not a Republican. I'm getting sick of being labeled because I'm not a radical on either side. I'm sick of character assassination being passed off as issue related. Were this about Obama, my response would have been the same. Not everyone here is a rabid supporter of either Party. They both have major issues. I did not vote for Palin by the way.

Do you believe the rules only apply to Conservatives by the way???? I noticed some were accusing that bias. Which of these threads are allowed will tell the tale.

This is about a Candidate. It is not in the correct forum.

I'm currently considering writing in "none of the above" personally. Nobody running is worth voting for.