Hambone10 Wrote:

erice Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I attended last night's game with some friends, one of whom is a gay female. She made an interesting comment. "A lot of Hillary's supporters are lesbians, and abortion is not a huge issue with us. We care more about gay rights and seeing a woman in office. As long as she's reasonable dealing with gay issues, a lot of us will probably support her."

Well send your friend to Palin's page on Wikipedia, and then she'll return home to Obama.

Quote:Palin has said she has good friends who are gay, but opposes same-sex marriage. She supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny benefits to homosexual couples. Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Nice selective editing. The state passed the amendment before she got in office... but when she was faced with a bill that passed the state legislature banning benefits to "domestic partners", she vetoed it... effectively guaranteeing their rights.

Nice try.

Eh, she vetoed it after much deliberation because she was advised it was unconstitutional, and thus couldn't support it under her gubernatorial oath. She offered no other disagreement to the measure banning such benefits.

Quote:Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legis...9318c.html

Hambone10 Wrote:Then perhaps you should stop reading liberal spin.

She cut property taxes by 60%, created a budget surplus and gave the money back to the people the took it from... she shut down the bridge to nowhere... she has gotten corruption and big oil out of state politics... Please tell me which of these is fiscally liberal. She vetoed a bill to ban benefits to "domestic partners". Personally conservative, but not legislatively so...

I'm not sure how much credit she deserves for 'creating' a budget surplus. This article seems to imply she happened upon unprecedented sales tax revenues. She also did raise taxes on oil companies, which brought in a lot of money thanks to the oil price spike, but I think that would be construed as a more 'fiscally liberal action'?

She also seems to have taken some criticism from conservatives for not cutting enough of the bloated budget, (again, per the article below).

And as for the bridge, you are aware she campaigned in favor of it, and that Alaska still took all of the federal money?

I'm glad to see her property tax cuts, her state tax rebate, and the corruption she got rid of... although I'm not sure how those are fiscally liberal or conservative.

http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

Alaska reminds a lot of Norway, in that it's much easier to be a fiscal success story when you have the great fortune to sit on enormous oil and gas reserves. Now granted, some places (Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.) have managed to squander that position, but the fact of the matter is, there's no prospect of America sending an income tax rebate to all citizens on the strength of royalties. I know very little about her record, but even with no change in policy whatsoever, Alaska's fiscal position would have improved markedly over the last 5 years (as, indeed, Norway's has) simply on the strength of rising oil and gas prices. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, and all that.

A lot of this discussion seems to break along party lines, which is fine but not terribly interesting. I'm wondering, are there any (other) McCain voters who don't like this choice, or any Obama supporters who do, and why?

At Ease Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:

erice Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I attended last night's game with some friends, one of whom is a gay female. She made an interesting comment. "A lot of Hillary's supporters are lesbians, and abortion is not a huge issue with us. We care more about gay rights and seeing a woman in office. As long as she's reasonable dealing with gay issues, a lot of us will probably support her."

Well send your friend to Palin's page on Wikipedia, and then she'll return home to Obama.

Quote:Palin has said she has good friends who are gay, but opposes same-sex marriage. She supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny benefits to homosexual couples. Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Nice selective editing. The state passed the amendment before she got in office... but when she was faced with a bill that passed the state legislature banning benefits to "domestic partners", she vetoed it... effectively guaranteeing their rights.

Nice try.

Eh, she vetoed it after much deliberation because she was advised it was unconstitutional, and thus couldn't support it under her gubernatorial oath. She offered no other disagreement to the measure banning such benefits.

Quote:Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legis...9318c.html

Yes, we all know the press, even in Alaska is 100% objective... c'mon people... don't be so blind, and misleading.

I don't think it has been established by any measure that banning benefits to gay partners in a state that has banned gay marriage is unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure the Federal government can't mandate WHAT benefit a State must offer its employees.... otherwise ALL states would have that law in place... and they don't. It's highly unlikely that one of the first states to ban gay marriage would be one of he first to simply "give in".

Sure she consulted with lawyers... but why bother to veto something you agree with?? Even if it IS Unconstitutional... which is obviously isn't clear that it is. Why wouldn't you at least take the chance?? You think she was plotting to run for National Office?? Veto a bill that her state supports??

Sorry folks... You support something... Your state supports something... they pass a bill that you agree with, but you veto it because you don't think it will pass Constitutional muster... even though passing would at least allow you to make the case??

If Congress had passed the same bill, would Bush have vetoed it?? I mean, this is supposedly 4 more years, right??

I don't buy it, and neither should you. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for candidates... but let's not be sheep.

Obama votes against born alive legislation, but we're supposed to simply accept that he had reasonable rationale, though even NARAL supported it... but a Governor vetoes a bill, and we're supposed to believe that she only did so because.... (still trying to figure out what she would GAIN by vetoing a bill she supposedly supports)

I never said she was pro gay rights... and if that for you outweighs all other positions, then you weren't voting for a Republican anyway... If however, you are like me... and pro gay rights, but its not your most important issue and you can be comfortable with someone who at least seems to not be so adamant about it that they are willing to actually veto a bill that would establish it as a rule of law... then she's a decent choice.

As for Colorado, Wyoming etc. women having NOTHING in common with Alaska women... She's raised 5 kids while working in a state where environment and business have to mix... I think she has more in common with the women of those states than either Obama, Biden OR McCain.

At Ease Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Then perhaps you should stop reading liberal spin.

She cut property taxes by 60%, created a budget surplus and gave the money back to the people the took it from... she shut down the bridge to nowhere... she has gotten corruption and big oil out of state politics... Please tell me which of these is fiscally liberal. She vetoed a bill to ban benefits to "domestic partners". Personally conservative, but not legislatively so...

I'm not sure how much credit she deserves for 'creating' a budget surplus. This article seems to imply she happened upon unprecedented sales tax revenues. She also did raise taxes on oil companies, which brought in a lot of money thanks to the oil price spike, but I think that would be construed as a more 'fiscally liberal action'?

She also seems to have taken some criticism from conservatives for not cutting enough of the bloated budget, (again, per the article below).

And as for the bridge, you are aware she campaigned in favor of it, and that Alaska still took all of the federal money?

I'm glad to see her property tax cuts, her state tax rebate, and the corruption she got rid of... although I'm not sure how those are fiscally liberal or conservative.

http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

Okay, my "created" was an unintended comment... It happened... I didn't mean to imply SHE PERSONALLY did it...
The point I was making was...
When's the last time a politician you know voted to cut taxes and give money back because they HAD a surplus? Republicans cut taxes to spur economic activity... Democrats cut taxes to ease the burden of poor people... NONE of them cut taxes because they don't need the money.

You called her fiscally liberal... I challenged the charge, and now you seem to agree.

She raised taxes on big oil (which Obama supports) she cut property taxes... she gave the surplus back to the people... she fought corruption in BOTH parties, but especially her own...

I'm not trying to characterize her as all one way on ANY issue or topic... Instead, I see her just like most of us...

Personally against certain things on moral grounds, but not willing to use power to legislate morality... More interested in people and families than companies... against corruption, and willing to actually DO something about it.

Not saying we all have the same values... but we're all of two minds about many issues.

As to experience... If a 47yr old man with a dozen or so years of public service is qualified to be President... then a 45yr old woman, mother of 5, with a dozen or so years of public service is qualified to be VP. The age or qualifications of their running mates makes no difference to their own qualifications.

If we're talking about a "team", then you need to look beyond the top two... and at least SHE has had to pick a cabinet before.

amber34 Wrote:Alaska reminds a lot of Norway, in that it's much easier to be a fiscal success story when you have the great fortune to sit on enormous oil and gas reserves. Now granted, some places (Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.) have managed to squander that position, but the fact of the matter is, there's no prospect of America sending an income tax rebate to all citizens on the strength of royalties. I know very little about her record, but even with no change in policy whatsoever, Alaska's fiscal position would have improved markedly over the last 5 years (as, indeed, Norway's has) simply on the strength of rising oil and gas prices. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, and all that.

A lot of this discussion seems to break along party lines, which is fine but not terribly interesting. I'm wondering, are there any (other) McCain voters who don't like this choice, or any Obama supporters who do, and why?

While I don't generally disagree with the economic comment... that can be said about Presidents as well. just 2 years ago (well after oil started rising) she ran against a sitting Republican and won... then the previous democrat governor and won... If it were only about money, they wouldn't have voted those guys out.

You want interesting??

My wife... former insurance defense atty, now Plaintiff's lawyer.... works for people who were at both Clinton inagurations and big donors to Hillary...spars pretty regularly with my father... who was room mates with McCain at the Academy... Doesn't HATE McCain, and doesn't see him as Bush III, but was going to vote for Hillary on family issues.... not from a moral perspective so much, but from a practical standpoint... and perhaps Obama, though she really doesn't care for Biden... VERY against discrimination for sexual orientation (or any other reason, really) .. very pro choice (though like me... thinks abortion is "bad"... She sees Palin as "her"... working mom.. special needs child... got into politics starting in the PTO because of bureacrats... (my wife was HISD volunteer of the year and then was somewhat pushed away because she "pushed" their bureacratic BS pretty hard)

None of the other rumored people swayed her much. Though she disagrees with the general positions, She is much more comfortable with Palin and her positions on abortion and gays than she would be with a man saying the same things... mostly because she doesn't believe that a woman and a mother would LEGISLATE on those issues as easily as a man would.

S.A. Owl Wrote:Yeah, it probably won't amount to much in terms of the race. But if she is going to be painted as a reformer - and it appears she's done a lot to deserve that label - then the whole record is fair game.

I think the whole record should be fair game. If the whole record reflects (as I understand it will) that this official serves at the pleasure of the governor, then it looks to me like a tempest in a teapot. In that case, she did nothing that she does not have the absolute right and power to do.

If there are any facts that I'm not aware of here (and perhaps there are some legal or procedural reasons why this guy doesn't truly serve at the pleasure of the governor), I'd like to know what they are, and I certainly might form a different opinion if I knew them.

Otherwise, I don't see any more abuse of power here than when Harry Truman fired Douglas MacArthur.

Hambone10 Wrote:Though she disagrees with the general positions, She is much more comfortable with Palin and her positions on abortion and gays than she would be with a man saying the same things... mostly because she doesn't believe that a woman and a mother would LEGISLATE on those issues as easily as a man would.

Fair enough--and FWIW, I tend to feel the same way. I suppose only time will tell whether such attitude is wrongheaded.

Hambone10 Wrote:

Brookes Owl Wrote:Palin supports teaching of Creation Science alongside Evolution in schools. I'm not usually a one-issue voter (especially for a VP) but that scares me.

If you are expecting an politician to agree with you 100% on things you're in for a rude awakening.

Well, I'll assume that you were being patronizing to the general "you" and not me. As pointed out in the quote above, I don't find it useful to make a voting decision based on a single view held by a candidate for vice president.

Quote:I'm against abortion... but I'm not going to legislate my morality and I understand why it is necessary. I don't think the government should be in our bedrooms... So, am I a right-wing nut job you can't support??

Not a fair analogy. You want the government out of your bedroom. Me too. This is not a morality issue; it's a classroom issue.

Here's my assessment and my concern: It looks like McCain is attempting to shore up the evangelical republicans with this choice. I think that's probably a good strategy for him. But I'm afraid there are still a lot of folks out there who would like to teach religion in science class, and that does not bode well for our future engineers and scientists.

Quote:However, when voting for school board, I don't ask someone's religion.

I'm not sure if the Kansas school board is elected or appointed, but if I was living in Kansas a few years ago and had the answer to your question it WOULD have affected my vote.

I don't know how I'm voting yet. I'm still convinced that Bob Barr represents my views better than either McCain or Obama. McCain's selection of Palin doesn't make me more likely to vote for him.

Hambone10 Wrote:

jh Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I think she's an excellent choice.

I surprised to hear you say this. From what little I've read, she appears to be a socially conservative, fiscally liberal type entirely too comfortable with spending other people's money (not that I can get all that worked up over a VP nomination).

Then perhaps you should stop reading liberal spin.

She cut property taxes by 60%, created a budget surplus and gave the money back to the people the took it from... she shut down the bridge to nowhere... she has gotten corruption and big oil out of state politics... Please tell me which of these is fiscally liberal. She vetoed a bill to ban benefits to "domestic partners". Personally conservative, but not legislatively so...

Actually, I haven't been reading liberal spin. The first thing I read about her being fiscally liberal were from a conservative Alaskan posting on TexAgs.com. If you believe her position on the Bridge to Nowhere was fiscally conservative, I don't think I'm the one being spun.

She only shut down the Bridge to Nowhere because Congress wouldn't fully fund it & she could use the money elsewhere. She had no problem completing the road to the Bridge to Nowhere since the federal funds would have been returned. While campaigning for govenor, in full support of the bridge, she also complained about people refering to it as Nowhere, saying she understood how insulting that was (something to keep in mind when she calls it the Bridge to Nowhere now).

While mayor of Wasilla, it's true that she reduced property taxes & wound up with a budget surplus. But that's because of an explosive growth in sales tax revenues (thanks to big box stores coming to town) made property taxes irrelevant. She was one of the early proponents for the sales tax, even before being mayor, & also raised the sales tax rate in order to build a hockey arena, an arena which requires over $100,000 per year in operating subsidies. The government was bigger when she left than it had been when she started, though to be fair some of the increases were likely necessary. Again, I don't see anything fiscally conservative here.

Her solution to rising energy costs was to institute a windfall profits tax on oil companies & use the proceeds to send an additional subsidy check to Alaskans. Since most of the oil isn't being used by Alaskans, she actually took money from the rest of us to finance her largess. That's certainly not the position of an economic conservative (in fact, it sounds a lot like Obama).

She also fired the entire Dairy Board in a vain effort to keep a failing state run dairy open (and apparently thought they could sell Alaskan milk at a premium in grocery stores). Not only is this fiscally liberal, it's economically ignorant.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8...1037c.html
http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510447.html

I just watched the Obama-Biden interview on 60 Minutes. It's clear to me (at least for now) that Obama is going to put Biden as much in the spotlight as any presidential candidate has done in recent time. Biden said he wouldn't have taken the position if he didn't think he'd be considered an equal advisor to Obama on the critical domestic and international policies that have to take place. He said he would have been more valuable to Obama as the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee otherwise.

It will be interesting to see if McCain is willing to do the same with Palin (they should get their 60 Minutes interview in a few weeks).

Obama-Biden did a good job with the interview. It's clear to me this race will be just as close in November as the last two elections have been. I thought for awhile it may be 1996 again with the Democrats beating a Dole-Kemp type ticket but now I think it might be a closer version of the 1988 race.

Quote:

Brookes Owl Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:

Brookes Owl Wrote:Palin supports teaching of Creation Science alongside Evolution in schools. I'm not usually a one-issue voter (especially for a VP) but that scares me.

If you are expecting an politician to agree with you 100% on things you're in for a rude awakening.

Well, I'll assume that you were being patronizing to the general "you" and not me. As pointed out in the quote above, I don't find it useful to make a voting decision based on a single view held by a candidate for vice president.

Quote:

I apologize. the proper term should have been "one"... agreeing with you in many ways... Again, the point is that if this is your issue, then you aren;t really in play for the Republicans anyway. Why make a push for a vote you aren;t going to get.

I'm against abortion... but I'm not going to legislate my morality and I understand why it is necessary. I don't think the government should be in our bedrooms... So, am I a right-wing nut job you can't support??

Not a fair analogy. You want the government out of your bedroom. Me too. This is not a morality issue; it's a classroom issue.

Here's my assessment and my concern: It looks like McCain is attempting to shore up the evangelical republicans with this choice. I think that's probably a good strategy for him. But I'm afraid there are still a lot of folks out there who would like to teach religion in science class, and that does not bode well for our future engineers and scientists.

If you believe in something, but won't legislate it, then why does it matter as a political question? I'm a TRUE Republican, meaning I am guided by my morals, but I don't try and make everyone agree with them. My religion teaches me the same thing... lead by example, but you can't make people follow God... even (and in many ways ESPECIALLY) if you have the power to force them. I'm not saying she feels that way... but the evidence suggests that she has a similar slant on at least these few issues.

Quote:

Quote:However, when voting for school board, I don't ask someone's religion.

I'm not sure if the Kansas school board is elected or appointed, but if I was living in Kansas a few years ago and had the answer to your question it WOULD have affected my vote.

not 100% sure what you mean by this... I guess something happened in Kansas I don't know about... and don't remember by question... but... I know "Christians" that I wouldn't let my kids be alone with... and Athiests who have pretty high morals. I'm more interested in what someone does than what they say... and I suspect you are, too.

Brookes Owl Wrote:I don't know how I'm voting yet. I'm still convinced that Bob Barr represents my views better than either McCain or Obama. McCain's selection of Palin doesn't make me more likely to vote for him.

Fair enough... The question would be, was there someone else who WOULD have??

Hambone10 Wrote:

Brookes Owl Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:However, when voting for school board, I don't ask someone's religion.

I'm not sure if the Kansas school board is elected or appointed, but if I was living in Kansas a few years ago and had the answer to your question it WOULD have affected my vote.

not 100% sure what you mean by this... I guess something happened in Kansas I don't know about... and don't remember by question... but... I know "Christians" that I wouldn't let my kids be alone with... and Athiests who have pretty high morals. I'm more interested in what someone does than what they say... and I suspect you are, too.

I hope I got all of the nested quotes right. For those unaware of what is being referenced here, this has to do with the constant see-saw in curriculum definitions in Kansas between the pro-evolution and pro-intelligent design factions. (And Brookes, the positions are elected.)

In 2005, the pro-ID folks got enough members elected to make intelligent design part of the science curriculum. That led to some level of embarrassment in the state, which resulted in the electoral loss of a couple of those members in 2006 and led to a redesign of the curriculum with ID being removed in 2007.

That's the history lesson of the day. Not sure it really adds to the overall discussion, though.

S.A. Owl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:1. How the trooper-gate incident plays out. Although I think if the facts hold up that the guy was beating up her sister and stun-gunning her nephew, probably 90% of Americans would have gone at least as far as she did to get him fired.

Y'know, you're probably right. And that says an awful lot about what Americans really think about ethics and the rule of law.

My understanding is that the guy she fired served at the governor's pleasure. Unless there's some obscure provision of Alaska law with which I am not familiar, that means that the rule of law is that she can fire him any time--with or without cause. That being the case, I'm still failing to see the problem.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:1. How the trooper-gate incident plays out. Although I think if the facts hold up that the guy was beating up her sister and stun-gunning her nephew, probably 90% of Americans would have gone at least as far as she did to get him fired.

Y'know, you're probably right. And that says an awful lot about what Americans really think about ethics and the rule of law.

My understanding is that the guy she fired served at the governor's pleasure. Unless there's some obscure provision of Alaska law with which I am not familiar, that means that the rule of law is that she can fire him any time--with or without cause. That being the case, I'm still failing to see the problem.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right or not a legitimate source of criticism. [Note: I don't know anything about the incident and don't consider it a significant event even if true.]

Old Sammy Wrote:Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right or not a legitimate source of criticism.

Agreed. This is exactly the point I made several months ago re certain politicians who decry certain tax treatments as "tax breaks for the rich" and then use them themselves. If they think the tax breaks are wrong, they shouldn't use them, if they think they are OK, they shouldn't denounce them.

I think 69's point waqs that she could pick someone for the position... and someone who slaps the wrist of a cop who tazes his step son "for fun" isn't what she wants.

If you want the full background on "Troopergate," the stylings of Wikipedia seem to be reasonably balanced. It seems like it went its full route. There was some questionable pressure put on the director after she became governor, but it hardly seems excessive. Nothing goes directly to her, though her husband had put in his 2 cents at one point (it appears). Not sure on the chronology of that one.

If you ask me, that trooper is lucky to still have his job. With that pattern of problems, I'm not sure how he kept his job. But the internal police investigation is done and closed, and there's nothing more that could have been done.

However, I had also performed a thought-experiment on this one, before I found that link. I took the names of the parties involved out and asked the question - if a state trooper had threatened to kill his son during a domestic dispute and had tasered him on another instance, would I be able to trust that trooper and keep him employed? My answer would have been no at the time, no matter who it involved. As I said, I'm surprised he's still employed as a trooper. The Wiki story gives a whole lot more nuance to the situation, it appears. In the end, I think it's still a bit much about nothing.

But the family news gets more salacious now (remember that Palin as grandmother slander?) - turns out their eldest daughter is now pregnant and getting married. Not sure what I think with this news. The family drama is overwhelming here (though a bit normal for many families in this world).

Hambone10 Wrote:I think 69's point was that she could pick someone for the position... and someone who slaps the wrist of a cop who tazes his step son "for fun" isn't what she wants.

Slapping wrists in those situations is how you end up with Drew Peterson and Bobby Cutts.