who vetted this woman? answer....NOBODY
while a couple of mc cain supporters wrote in defense of gov. palin, they miss the point. this is not about her, as much as it is about mc cain and his "decision making," and also about who really calls the shots for his campaign, because it ain't johnny boy.
senator mc cain has made much ado about how he is the better man when it comes to making important decisions. (well that, and he was in a prison camp which, though he claimed he didn't want to talk about that fact, he brings it up at every chance). apparently john mc cain wanted tom ridge, joe lieberman or tim pawlenty, but his ADVISORS told him NO, because all three of them were pro-choice, and that wouldn't do. searching the nation over, they found mrs. palin, but according to people in alaska they didn't vet her at all. not a single member of the alaska legislature knew anything at all about her being looked at as vice president. i quote rep. gail phillips, a republican and former speaker of the house in alaska: "i started calling around and asking, and i have not been able to find one person that was called. i called 30 to 40 people: political leaders, business leaders, community leaders. not one of them had heard. alaska is a very small community, we know people all over, but i haven't found anyone who was asked anything."
mc cain met her one time and then offered her the position.
now, all you republicans out there, tell me that you think this is the best choice for vice president on the republican ticket. senator mc cain is in his 70's and has cancer. it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he could die in the next four years and then she would be president. someone who has never been in the national spotlight, has no experience on the federal level, has no foreign policy experience, is involved in an ethics investigation, is against sex education in schools (worked out well for her family), is against abortion, but for drilling in anwar, which even mc cain is against.
yeah, yeah, yeah she is a governor. right, but a child could be gov. of alaska. how hard is it when you have a gigantic surplus every year? go look at every other state and see the difference between them and alaska. she is a "reformer." cool. you know what she was "reforming"? the republican party in alaska which is awash in scandal and graft.
john mc cain has shown by this pick to a.) not be in charge of his own campaign. b.) lack the courage of his own convictions, and c.) be a bullshit artist....he repeatedly told us the ONLY qualification that he looked for in a vice president nominee is that they "be ready to take over the presidency."
sorry, guys but i think that john mc cain just handed the democrats the election.
incidently, senator obama's comment on the teen pregnancy was gracious and polite, with restraint that the republicans have never shown when it comes to family.
and by the way, how many of you are aware of george bush's brother neil? how many of you are aware of george bush's brother marvin? one is a convicted thief and the other is making money in iraq. ahh, the liberal press has just hammered those two. oh, that's right, they haven't. by reading the american press between 2000 and now you wouldn't know georgie boy had any brothers other than jeb. now would you? WOULD YOU?
the party of lincoln and eisenhower is no more. fiscal conservatives. give me a break. your party has been taken over by neo-cons who believe in war as a national policy and have spent our country into a giant hole. i don't see how you can defend them.
senator mc cain has made much ado about how he is the better man when it comes to making important decisions. (well that, and he was in a prison camp which, though he claimed he didn't want to talk about that fact, he brings it up at every chance). apparently john mc cain wanted tom ridge, joe lieberman or tim pawlenty, but his ADVISORS told him NO, because all three of them were pro-choice, and that wouldn't do. searching the nation over, they found mrs. palin, but according to people in alaska they didn't vet her at all. not a single member of the alaska legislature knew anything at all about her being looked at as vice president. i quote rep. gail phillips, a republican and former speaker of the house in alaska: "i started calling around and asking, and i have not been able to find one person that was called. i called 30 to 40 people: political leaders, business leaders, community leaders. not one of them had heard. alaska is a very small community, we know people all over, but i haven't found anyone who was asked anything."
mc cain met her one time and then offered her the position.
now, all you republicans out there, tell me that you think this is the best choice for vice president on the republican ticket. senator mc cain is in his 70's and has cancer. it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he could die in the next four years and then she would be president. someone who has never been in the national spotlight, has no experience on the federal level, has no foreign policy experience, is involved in an ethics investigation, is against sex education in schools (worked out well for her family), is against abortion, but for drilling in anwar, which even mc cain is against.
yeah, yeah, yeah she is a governor. right, but a child could be gov. of alaska. how hard is it when you have a gigantic surplus every year? go look at every other state and see the difference between them and alaska. she is a "reformer." cool. you know what she was "reforming"? the republican party in alaska which is awash in scandal and graft.
john mc cain has shown by this pick to a.) not be in charge of his own campaign. b.) lack the courage of his own convictions, and c.) be a bullshit artist....he repeatedly told us the ONLY qualification that he looked for in a vice president nominee is that they "be ready to take over the presidency."
sorry, guys but i think that john mc cain just handed the democrats the election.
incidently, senator obama's comment on the teen pregnancy was gracious and polite, with restraint that the republicans have never shown when it comes to family.
and by the way, how many of you are aware of george bush's brother neil? how many of you are aware of george bush's brother marvin? one is a convicted thief and the other is making money in iraq. ahh, the liberal press has just hammered those two. oh, that's right, they haven't. by reading the american press between 2000 and now you wouldn't know georgie boy had any brothers other than jeb. now would you? WOULD YOU?
the party of lincoln and eisenhower is no more. fiscal conservatives. give me a break. your party has been taken over by neo-cons who believe in war as a national policy and have spent our country into a giant hole. i don't see how you can defend them.
posted by Ron Shock | 1:44 PM
7 Comments:
This is only my second response to your thoughts. But I'd like to say I appreciate the fact that at least you seem to pay attention to what's going on, unlike a large percentage of Americans...even if you are just eating up the mass-media headlines...
I'll approach this as I did your other comments...one piece at a time.
"also about who really calls the shot for his campaign because it ain't johnny boy."
Actually this seems like more of a McCain move than ANYTHING else he's done. Liberal Republicans were looking for Pawlenty...Conservatives were looking for Romney...and McCain, regardless of where he got the idea, decided to zig instead of zag. If you want to start criticizing people for being hand-puppets of their advisors, maybe you should start asking your own man why he chose Biden over Hillary in this "historic ticket of change."
"(well that, and he was in a prison camp which, though he claimed he didn't want to talk about that he brings it up at every chance)".
Oh....is that anything like how Biden brings up his families hardships at every turn...or maybe how Obama talks about his struggles as a young African American? Give me a break...we are products of our past, and politicians are always going to tout their breakthroughs and acheivements because it illustrates their personality and drive. If you want to start questioning people's hardships, you're going to find Biden and Obama on the short end of the stick very quickly...
"apparently john mc cain wanted tom ridge, joe lierbanman or tim pawlenty but his ADVISORS told him NO because all three of them were pro-choice that wouldn't do."
And did he call you up and tell you that or do you just take whatever you hear from moveon.org? Listen, I don't know how he came to his decision....neither do you. I don't know anymore than I know why Obama chose Biden....at the end of the day, it's their choice. If you're going to make a broad accusation like that, you might want to source where mccain or his advisors said such a thing.
"searching the nation over they found mrs. palin but according to people in alaska they didn't vet her at all."
Isn't it interesting that we rarely hear the word "vet" or "vetting"...but now that the liberal media has it plastered in every headline, liberal pundits are regurgitating it at will...I just find that interesting.
"not a single member of the alaska legislature knew anything at all about her being looked at as vice president."
I'm sorry, is that a requirement for vice president?
"now, all you republicans out there, tell me that you think this is the best choice for vice president on the republican ticket."
Actually, I think it's about 100 times better than ANYTHING he had on the table at the time. Pawlenty is far too liberal, would earn him little votes, and would lose conservatives. Romney is conservative enough but would lose a large amount of votes from the religious right. Lieberman would pose the same problem as Pawlenty, shoring up the liberal vote while losing a conservativebase. If you think someone is more qualified just because they have more experience or because their name is more well known, I suggest you flip through an American history book.
"senator mc cain is in his 70's and has cancer."
Here we go again...firstly he does not have cancer anymore. As much is seen in his latest released medical reports (circa may of this year if you're actually inclined to read). What he had wasn't even serious...it was a benign form of melanoma...The fact that you keep playing it up as if he is on his death bed was kind of funny at first but your reliance on it as an actual point for election is a little concerning.
"it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he could die in the next four years and then she would be president."
Bo it isn't beyond the realm of possibility....that's kind of the purpose of being vice president.
"someone who has never been in the national spotlight,"
I didn't realize you had to be a celebrity to be a president....interesting criteria you have created here.
"has no experience on the federal level,"
Most presidents, traditionally, haven't. As I discussed in an earlier post, even though national congress and the presidency are a federal level, they are completely seperate branches of government that have little if anything in common. that being said, you aren't required to have any experience at all to be president. In fact, I really prefer someone who didn't view politics as a career...something closer to what it used to be in this country. But if you're going to bandolier the experience tag, then look no further than state governership, the highest relevent pre-presidential experience a person can have. Obama serving in congress for 16 months has about as much relevance to being president as being a judge on the federal appeal circuit. If you still don't believe me, history speaks for itself. Look back on past presidencies.
"has no foriegn policy experience,"
Which is conventiently about as much foreign policy experience as Obama has considering congress doesn't set foreign policy...(did I really just have to say that out loud?)
"who is against sex education in schools"
Source?
"(worked out well for her family)"
I'm sorry, were you criticizing her for a decision one of her children made? That's an interesting position to take...I'll remember that.
"is against abortion"
God forbid someone be against the right of a woman to "choose" to murder children. How terrible of her.
"but for drilling in awr which even mc cain is against."
I'll actually give you this one....one of the many reasons I'm not voting for mccain. However, nominees and VPs are always going to disagree on some issues. Just look at Biden and Obama's record.
"yeah, yeah, yeah she is a governor. right, but a child could be gov. of alaska, how hard is it when you have a gigantic surplus every year?"
Wow, did you really just disregard a whole state just because you don't like someone? Was the question how hard is it to govern a state? Well I dunno....there's only 50 of them(contrary to Obama's belief)...if you think it's so easy, go out there and grab it. Apparently just because a state does good business, it must be an easy job...as if the purpose and sole focus of government was to have a surplus. Hell, I'd argue that if you have a surplus, that means your state is over-taxing, and you have some work left to do. That could be a valid criticism of Palin maybe...
"go look at every other state and see the difference between them and alaska."
Go look at every other state and look at ANY other state....every single state is unique and presents its own problems. I can't even believe I'm having this idiotic conversation with somoene (I had to laugh out loud)...."Pfftt....being the governer of Alaska is easy dude...I did it last week." Give me a break.
"she is a "reformer." cool. you know what she was "reforming"? the republican party in alaska which is awash in scandal and graft."
Yup...believe it or not, this is a plus to alot of republicans and conservatives, because unlike the tired, washed out, democratic party, we don't just eat everything we're fed by the belt-insiders.
"he told us the ONLY qualification that he looked for in a vice president nominee is that "be ready to take over the presidency.""
Technically that should eb the only fucking qualification because THAT'S THE FUCKING JOB!!!! When I showed up for my first software development position, I took it there was a high chance that I should probably be ready to program...what the hell are we even talking about here?
"sorry, guys but i think that john mc cain just handed the democrats the election."
If anything cost McCain the election, it's his own nomination. In inside circles, Republicans, I hate to tell you, are wondering why Palin wasn't the nominee. McCain was shot in the foot from the second Romney stepped down....because, like I said, he's famous for giving the bird to the GOP and japping a stick in conservatives' eyes. His conservative report is shaky at best and pretty much solely based on a single issue. Palin, in shark contrast to the fictitious shit-storm that most democratic pundits and the liberal media are trying to create with ferver, actually shored up alot of the conservative base that McCain wouldn't have had otherwise. The only question is, is Palin impressive enough for alot of conservatives to actually vote for McCain. Alot of republicans won't do it, even with a firmer conservative on the ticket.
"incidently, senator obama's comment on the teen pregancy was gracious and polite with restraint that the republicans have never shown when it comes to family."
When the hell did Republicans attack any of Obama's family members? The only people I saw criticized were people who were going to hold titles in an Obama administration. On the flip side of that though, I give Obama alot of credit for his comments. Unlike many of the things I hear from most democrats, I do believe what he said was genuine.
"and by the way, how many of you are aware of george bush's brother neil? how many of you are aware of george bush's brother marvin? one is a convicted thief and the other is making money in iraq." ahh, the liberal press has just hammered those two. oh, that's right, they haven't."
Interesting....plowing into more members of family that have nothing to do with his administration after praising Obama for not bringing ireelevant family members into play? Pretty rich. If the liberal press hasn't hammered away enough on bush for those two issues for you, it's probably because they're two busy creating Iraq War death toll counters, criticizing his response to hurrcane Katrina, blaming him for the price of oil, questioning his ties to Haliburton, questioning the 9-11 story, questioning whether the war is actually for oil, criticizing him for the budget, plowing him for his environmental policies, or decrying our "futile" efforts in Iraq. I'm sure your stories are back there somewhere with the headlines about the good things we're doing in Iraq....you'll just have to wait til they get done with all the important criticism. Or if the media outlet is too slow, you can always persuade Hollywood to make your points in one of the dozen movies that come out every year criticizing his administration. Maybe you could vouch for to put it in that new Oliver Stone movie. Or you could try to get it in one of those Zeitgeist/Michael Moore- like mocku-mentaries. There's only hundreds of those floating around. And if the rest of the media outlets (which constantly decry GWB) don't satisfy your needs, you can maybe get it brought up on the new Kanye West, Dixie Chicks, Green Day, Incubus, Pink, Rage Against the Machine, System of a Down, Black Eyed Peas, or Flobots CD's maybe? If you need more popular anti-bush music in that industry, I'll just start listing the ones that aren't, it will take less time.
"by reading the american press between 2000 and now you wouldn't know georgie boy had any other brothers other than jeb. now would you? WOULD YOU?"
Yeah...you know that damn pro-george bush american press!!! (see above for head-check)
"the party of lincoln and eisenhower is no more."
I agree....and nothing to illustrate that more than the nomination of John McCain.
"fiscal conservatives. give me a break."
I actually agree with this too....Republicans have not lived up to their platform in the last 8 years. Not that I would go voting in someone who wants to actually get more of my money. But nonetheless....
"your party has been taken over by neo-cons who believe in war as a national policy"
Although there is actually a large portion of conservatives who do not support the war, yes...I'd say, by and large, most republicans have always, and continue to dislike foreign assholes who wanted to kill us. I guess I'm supposed to apologize for that, but I'm won't.
"and have spent our country into a giant hole. i don't see how you can defend them."
Now this is the richest piece of anything I've seen you post. The war is spending our country into a giant hole? Have you ever taken a look at how tax revenue is spent? I hate to tell you, but if there's anything spending our country into a hole, it certainly isn't fucking military spending. Even with our military activity today, we only spend about 20% of the federal budget on the military (which is arguably one of the ONLY two functions of the federal government). Even the democratic god of camelot, JFK himself, had 50% of our federal budget devoted to the military...and we weren't even openly at war.
So where is the money going then....well as democrats bitch about spending 500 billion dollars a year on our military, they willfully spend most of the federal budget (60% or over 2 trillion dollars) on "transfer payments." That's right...60% of federal tax revenue is being ripped from our pockets and simply being handed to someone else....through welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security, and corporate subsidies. I hear people like you complain about our federal government spending 20% of the budget on defending our country AND saying it's our fiscal downfall while supporting three times as much as that robbing peter to pay paul? I admit that republicans have spent just as badly as past democrats in the last few years....and I'd even agree they need to be ousted...but if your argument is that military spending is bankrupting us, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Please pardon some of my typos...has been a long day.
crossofcrimson - you better be careful. If you keep posting facts and logic, your time here will be short.
What I find absolutely comical, is how the liberals bring up the point that "McCain is 72 and has cancer". What is the point exactly? His mother is 94 and going strong. Robert KKK Byrd is a 91 year old Democrat that no one questions his age about. Granted, he is not president, but he has McCain by 20 years. Shouldn't he step down?
So their logic - we can't let someone with little experience in office who someday MIGHT be president, so let's elect someone with no experience who WILL instantly become president.
The truth is, Ron Shock is going to try to tear down any conservative. Period. He is ultra left wing. I don't think you'd disagree Ron.
It does seem a bit disturbing that what otherwise appears to be a fairly intelligent man can be so blinded politically.
If Sarah Palin had told her daughter to take the easy way out and have an abortion, she'd be a hero to the left.
Ron, explain how you an criticize the actions of Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter, then defend Bill Clinton and John Edwards?
As for McCain handing you the election. I doubt it. He may lose, no question about that. But this isn't over by a long shot and I think you know it. And when these empty attacks show themselves for being what they are, I think your attack on women, mothers and achievers will backfire.
Interesting read, Joe.
But I think I'm going to stop myself here, and not respond on this blog. I just think out of general respect for Ron, he's been kind enough to let me rip into him once or twice on his own site, I think I should be kind enough to bow out and not use it as a platform against his ideology. At the end of the day, he has his political philosophy, and I have mine.
It just seems frustrating to me at times. I often find myself at odds with Republicans, but, to me, liberals are so far off base with post-Enlightenment western philosophy that I find myself defending even people that I myself do not support (like John McCain) just because the claims are so extraordinary.
That being said, my money is on Obama this election. That is not to say that I support him, obviously, but that I think he's going ot take it. My hope is that maybe we'll slip towards socialism and authoratarianism, as we surely will, under his administration, and that maybe, as Americans, we will start to rediscover what freedom and reason are about and how they play a role in our country.
But all in all, I respect Ron and applaud him for at least being interested in what's going on. I may not agree with his views....I read Friedman....maybe he reads Chomsky. But we're both Americans, and that's something I'd like to think we're both proud of.
Good luck to you, Ron.
Joe, you wrote,
"If Sarah Palin had told her daughter to take the easy way out and have an abortion, she'd be a hero to the left."
FYI, Some liberals are opposed to abortion. Some of us are just MORE opposed to you deciding it for us.
i sure didn't know that i was attacking women, mothers and achievers. i must slide them by me sometimes.
with one exception, i admire my readers who disagree with me, most of them have well thought out arguments. i believe their arguments are based on false assumptions and therefore the sum of their arguments, so to speak, is wrong in as that it brings to the table a wrong conclusion.
there has been a time when my readers changed my mind on the second admendment so i am not married to any argument. if i can be proved wrong, i can accept that. that being said, yes i am extreme left and believe that "socialist" solutions to societies ills is what is going to advance our country, our society, our economy and our security.
i look at our society as a form of a large family and that we, as family, are all in it together. that those of us who are "more able" (so to speak) have a DUTY to help those in our "family" who need it.
i am not in favor of a managed economy but i feel that the rights and benefits to american workers must be foremost in our policies.
it is this basic difference between left and right that is the basis of our disagreements. history will prove which is right.
i believe in the bill of rights and that they are the result of "leftest" thinking whereas someone on the right would have an entirely different perspective. history will prove which is right.
good men and women can disagree in this country and that is one of the things that make us great.
so, keep writing guys; otherwise i will not be able to show you the error of your ways.
(thanks to all of you)
Ron,
I can't promise to keep posting here (although I'm sure you'd love the chance to "prove me wrong") because I think we're both so far ahead in our ideological paths that it would take a moment of true (god-inspired?...I'm agnostic so I wouldn't know about this) inspiration to pull either of us away from it.
I know it's politically correct to say that we can agree to disagree, and on the surface that may work. But you and I both realize that politics isn't a Friday-night round of 5-card-stud. It has real consequences for me, my friends, and my family (I'm sure you feel the same). So it's easy to get caught up in something that affects us so personally in such a distal way.
That being said, I decided that I would go ahead and respond to this comment since I had a few spare minutes of time.
I'm a neo-libertarian for the most part. I haven't always been. In my early adulthood, I was more of a socialist myself. But a pandora's box was opened at a certain point, and I feel I would be hard-pressed to ever be able to justify socialism ethically or otherwise. So, stubborn as it may be, I'd be willing to bet there aren't many major issues you could change my mind on (outside of foreign affairs possibly)...but not pertaining to socialism or it's role in society. Let me be clear; it has no role.
At the end of the day, you're usurping private responsibility and freedom in exchange for centralizing government control and power...creating a system with no true check. And while I believe the founding fathers were extremely liberal (remember that liberal and conservative are terms relative to the context of the time period and place), I don't think that the same people who support the redistribution of wealth and property, censorship, market controls, and diminishing our second ammendment rights have too much in common with them. If they did, I'm sure they would have implemented such institutions of central power. But unfortunately the dismantling of Smith's invisible hand is an invention of our own time...and I think largely only to the effect that it consolidates federal and corporate power.
To be blunt, a socialist system requires that a government be given enough power as to take property, and curtail free association as they see fit. As it stands right now, I almost have to work through May just to pay off "dues" to the state. The last time a group of people claimed that much ownership of someone's time and labor, we fought a civil war over it. But that's exactly what we're talking about essentially....slavery. The fact that anyone in this country, after looking back on our history, believes that they have the right to take anyone else's time, labor, and property, REGARDLESS of the cause, is pretty astonishing to me. You might as well start handing out shotguns to salvation army workers and allow them to rob people at gunpoint for the sake of charity...it's what the government is doing every day.
Well that's not the way it used to be. And it used to be different for a reason. Our founding fathers knew regardless of the virtious causes we may find for it, letting government step outside of it's enumerated powers to place controls on our lives would lead to the many of the same things that led them to war when they we were just 13 Brittish colonies.
The majority of my family is very much like you. They are pretty left of center, and support most socialist programs. Do I think they are evil? No, I don't. They see that there are people out there who are struggling to get on their feet, and they want to help. I know their hearts are in the right place. But when I ask them if they feel government should have the right to take my house and give it to someone else in need, they say that it wouldn't be right. Well, then I ask, "How is taking 35% of my time, labor, and money any different? That's what bought me the house..." And usually the argument ends for them there, as it does with many socialists. They don't understand that not only is it a literal promostion of slavery, but that it's incredibly dangerous to let government be able to ration production.
In fact, I was talking to my Mother and Step-father about a single-payer system last week and threw them a curve-ball that dropped the conversation. They are huge opponents of GWB and the war in Iraq. I asked them,
"Do you want George Bush in charge of your health care? ...I rest my case."
Post a Comment
<< Home