as chauvanistic as my palin post was it brings up some important points: given that the republicans like to paint democrat voters as a bunch of single mother gangbanging crack smoking beggars it's slightly ironic that this woman is running to be 2nd in command for them.

and the point about the job i was making was she has 5 kids, running on the family ticket, what happens to said kids and family when she's working 24/7 all over the world?

i just find it selfish that someone who is really selling the family values ticket is quite willing to put career before hers and yes i know that is chauvanistic but then again ther are plenty of independent career women who not only don't harp on about family values but actually choose not to have kids because it'd be selfish to try and juggle both

Was just reading through this thread and needed to say that it's pathetic that the American Democrats call themselves "liberals". They're certainly no liberals, and Adam Smith is probably turning in his grave at the thought of that.

As for the elections, an era of conservatives is approaching and the US will be part of it, no doubt. John McCain will win, just like David Cameron will win in the UK, just like Merkel will again in in Germany (and form a coalition with the Liberals), just like Sarkozy has already won in France, and just like Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and most of Eastern Europe. Not to mention that even the Sweden and Denamrk are taking a more market-oriented government approach.

Left-wing politics have led to the lowest growth-rates in a century. It's time for a balls-to-the wall laissez-faire era. As Nobel-Prize Winner Milton Friedman put it: "Let the government manage the Sahara Desert and in 2 years there will be no sand". That's what I think about left-wing politics, and Obama's oratory talents don't change anything in that. Lots of big words, very little substance. The usual.

Far be it from me to defend Sarah Palin, but would you ask the same question if the politician with five children was a man? Are you just as 'concerned' for Obama's children?

Yeah, Maria asked a similar question a page ago and I gotta say I'm susprised about Jim's comments. Dunno. Didn't expect it from him.

Oops :oops:

This is sweet. My gut feeling is that Mccain will win, but if he does lose, Palin will be the reason.

New revelations about the Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin — including her membership of a party that wants Alaskans to vote on becoming a separate country — are raising questions about how thoroughly John McCain's campaign vetted her background before adding her to the ticket.

Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence party (AIP) before becoming an elected Republican official, and recorded a video message for the AIP convention this year. The party's chief goal is securing Alaska a vote on seceding from the US, a goal that AIP leaders believe the state was denied before it became part of the US almost 50 years ago.

Yet it is the AIP's motto, "Alaska First, Alaska Always", that may cause the most trouble for McCain. The Republican's campaign slogan this year is "Country First".

At the convention where Palin's video was played, the AIP vice-chairman, George Clark, told the audience that she was an AIP member before getting her first political post as mayor of the small town of Wasilla, Alaska.

"But you get along to go along — she eventually joined the Republican party, where she had all kinds of problems with their ethics, and well, I won't go into that," Clark said. "She also had about an 80% approval rating, and is pretty well sympathetic to her former membership."

Palin suggested in a July interview with CNBC news that she would insist on making Alaskan issues a high priority before agreeing to serve as a vice-presidential candidate. "We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans, and for the things we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the US, before I can even start addressing that question," she said.

Intense media scrutiny of Palin since she became McCain's running mate four days ago has led to speculation that the Republican party failed to fully examine her background. In addition to the pregnancy of Palin's 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, several other disclosures threaten to throw the McCain camp into turmoil.

Palin has promoted her independence from Alaska's powerful senior senator, Ted Stevens, who is facing seven criminal charges in Washington. But she served for two years as a director for one of his political groups that was able to raise unlimited money from corporate patrons.

Palin faced pressure to resign as mayor of Wasilla in 1997 after she fired the city police chief for not fully supporting her agenda, leading to a lawsuit for breach of contract.

In Alaska, Palin faces an ethics investigation into whether she abused her office by firing the public safety commissioner, who refused to intervene in a messy divorce case involving her sister. Palin has hired an attorney to help her handle the case, leading to another round of embarrassing press coverage.

McCain's spokesman, Tucker Eskew, defended the selection: "This legal defence is neither new nor uncommon nor at all political. It is a matter of her job and is not recent and it is not related to her selection on the McCain-Palin ticket."

You know Sarkozy & Merkel dig Obama, right? Sarkozy even endorsed him more or less officially during a joint press conference.

US Democrats are far from "left-wing" compared to european politics.


Ponrauil

I'm a fan of Friedman, but I've not heard that quote before. That's a good one, I'll have to use it.

We have very much similar views. That's cool.

Adrian

You are kiddin' me, right?
First of all, national politics have nothing to do with international politics. There's several reasons why they would "endorse" (that word is waaaaay tooo strong) Obama, and that's because on an international scene you follow your country's best interest, whether left or right. Or how would you explain that a party like Labor is bet friends with a party like the Republicans?

First, both France and Germany have opposed the Iraq war which was sustained by the Republicans, not the democrats. Second, it's always a matter of picking the winner. When Obama was in Europe, he seemed to smash McCain. Sarkozy is not stupid. I am also, convinced that Sarkozy underestimates Obama (who wouldn't) and sees him as an easier partner and a president who wouldn't mind if France gained significantly more political power than any of the Republicans would even imagine. Additionally, Merkel and most of the Christian Democrats opposed Obama's speech in Berlin and if you read German press you see that most of them, especially the more conservative CSU who runs Bavaria, do significantly oppose him. Same is true for large parts of the FDP, pretty much the only LIBERAL party left in Europe, although the views within this party are more polarized.

Your second statement might have been true for the Democrats until Clinton, but with the programmes which Obama or Hillary want to pursuit, you either must be making fun of me, or you have simply not followed their content. Either way, by now the democrats are as social-democratic as any social-democratic party in central Europe. I'd even call LABOUR in the UK to be more right-wing. Definitely.

I agree that an era of conservatism is approaching, but drawing from your first paragraph, that doesn't mean that Obama won't win in the US. I don't think he's much more left wing than the Conservatives under Cameron are in the UK

Labor is not more friends with Republicans than with the Democrats. It's just Blair that was close to Bush.


You have to know that Sarkozy has his head way up the USA's ass on any issue. He knows he'll be able to lick the boots of the US president, wether it's McCain or Obama. If he preferes Obama, it's because he is a symbol of the American Dream and that gives Sarkozy a hard on.

When it comes to policies, the US left is so much to the right than the French left that Sarkozy can pick any US candidate without betraying his ideals. If he was from the French left he could never favor a republican.

Yeah but Labour has slided way towards the right wing under Tony Blair. When he comes to visit French politicians and participate in internal debates, he now visits our right wing, not the left one anymore.
Aside from Obama's call for affordable health care for every US citizen, I don't see what is more social than during the Clinton era.

I also don't see how a government offering (not imposing) a health care progam can be stamped as "not liberal". But that is another debate.


Ponrauil

@BeExcellent

That entire article has already been discussed here I think. She helped put Stevens behind bars, and the comish she fired was a wacko. It is funny though how much information is purposely left out regarding the candidates. I suppose it is due which side the author favors, democrat or republican.

All your points are just some minor explanation for why things are as they are. I could come up with my petite anecdotes which would prove some of your points wrong but that's not what I am trying to say. My main point is that international politics are simply different. Nobody gives a damn about leftist or rightists running one country and this is what you say with your post as well. Yeah, it might hit your ideological ego, but in the end you do what you need to do. And there's plenty of examples even including your French socialists. First name in my mind is Miterrand who was quite good friends with Reagan up until the late 80s when Miterrand had a slightly different view on the collapse of the USSR than the rest.

However, for somebody who is deeply neo-liberal in his thinking, I tend to hope and believe that having governments with a free-market approach, they will bring about some economic improvements, no matter if they like each other or not, for whatever reason some of which you pointed out, and some of which I have.

As regarding the Democrats, there's enough to discuss to fill up a whole new thread (taxation alone is enough actually), but I'll be off to drinking myslelf numb right now. I love CLUJ :D

im fully aware it's chauvanistic but we've been socially programme to regard the female as the lynchpin in the family unit especially with regards to the raising of children. i just don't think it's particularly savvy for a women with 5 non adult children (including a disabled infant) to be going after such a job.

if you're going to preach about family values then you have to put your family 1st even if it means giving up such a big opportunity in order to fulfil your parental duties.

But why is it not 'savvy' for women to do so where no one would complain if we were talking about a man, Jim. Just because you're socially programmed to do so?

Because whatever you would like it to be, the reality is that western women do play a larger role in the upbringing of children than men.

Do you have any sources for this?

This is the first time I hear that anybody in the world opposes Obama and never by anybody in Germany where he has an outrageous level of support.

I'd be interested to read these oppositions.


Unlike McCain, Obama is pro-talk. McCain is pro-war and long live america. It's clear what non-american countries would prefer. However, at the end of the day, Merkel will always be friends with the US leadership - no matter their name, party, or morals.

whow, whow, whow, let's not swing from one extreme to the other!

Palin did NOT help put Stevens behind bars. For one, Stevens is NOT behind bar and has not been convicted. He has been indicted, but not convicted.

Palin has always shown great support for Ted Stevens and still does. She has never publicly critized Stevens for his corruption and to this day speaks highly of him publicly.

It is not known if she will or will not endorse him for the senate race this year. The fact that she has not publicly denounced herself from one of the most corrupt politicians in her state makes me wonder how much of a renegade she truly is and how much of 'one hand washes another' goes on (which is only business as usual in politics).

Btw, Stevens helped her become governor. The same Stevens that has very recently been indicted for corruption and the same Stevens that a year or so ago described the world wide web as a system of tubes!!! Yep.

be excellent covered it.

yes it is mainly because we're socially programmed to think women = child raiser and man = breadwinner.

i'm fully aware that status quo is now defunk but it wasn't that long ago historically speaking that this was still most certainly the case.

That's actually dodging the question, isn't it?

If you *know* that it has -socially- grown in a way that women play that larger role, and thus you *know* men should be able to raise kids as well as women can, then why is it not 'savvy' for the women to have a demanding job, whereas it's still ok for men?

I fail to understand how modern men can still think in such an old-fashioned manner.

you're obviously giving modern man far too much credit :D

Obviously. Which I actually find kinda sad, Jim. Like said: I didn't exactly expect such a comment from you.

or worse, make a public statement on this.

And many women too when you think of it (though certainly less than men).

It's one thing to understand and sincerely believe that men and women are equal when it comes to raising kids. It's another one to draw all the consequences and conclusions from that and make all of these inherent to our natural thinking process.

When Jim made his first statement, I said to myself "dead on". Then you, Spunky, Keeper & Kathleen reacted and I tought "I should have seen this. Good thing I shut up :)".


Ponrauil

Sarah Palin... Governor for two years and now a VP pick. I'm wondering if McCain was out of his mind with this pick. I'm happy there is a woman in the race though. It shakes things up. In this case though, I doubt Palin's experience, especially if something happens to McCain and has to be the commander-in-chief. I'm 100% positive that Biden is going to kill her at the Vice Presidential debate. If foreign policy comes up, which I'm sure it will, there are going to be fireworks!

Ryan

Craig Ferguson from the Late Late Show made this good point that as a mother of 5 kids she knows how to change a diapper, which could come in handy with McCain.


Ponrauil

Hahaha. She is going to be the butt-end of every joke for the rest of her life, just because she's associated with John McCan't... I mean McCain. :D

Ryan

McCain has caused concern by his appalling ignorance of world geography and his tendency to oversimplify complex foreign policy issues. His choice of Palin makes it plain that he is not concerned with the ability of the next vice president to step into the role of commander of chief.

Instead of appointing the running mate he wants, he caved in to the religious right and appointed someone he doesn’t know and barely vetted.

The American people deserve better.

And on the subject of a man not being asked the same family questions as a woman, I love how the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s daughter is, according to McCain’s campaign, “a private family matter.”

That is his stand after the Republican Party has spent 30 years dictating policy on women’s bodies? Why can’t Republicans recognize that reproductive decisions are private for all American women?

Well when you consider that most of the party is made up of bible thumpers and such, it's just the way they think. It almost seems to me that it's how they are supposed to think. I heard Palin as described as a hard-core right wing christian... Weird considering her daughter is pregnant and it's kinda just played off as a "private matter".


Ryan

You're kidding right? You are either kidding, or I am misreading your statement.

*fingers in my ears .... allallalaaalllalalalalaaalla.....*

Palin publicly criticized him for his role in the VECO scandal and called for him to speak out about it. She said something along the lines that he should be trying to prove his innocence, but instead he is saying nothing.

Considering she backed his opponent, I would assume she is not endorsing him for senate.

He continues to show support for her, yes, even though she has obviously distanced herself from him.

But what politician hasn't dealt with corruption?

Look at Obama and that Rezko scandal. There is so much corruption in politics I can't imagine not being involved with someone who is dirty at one point or another.

Honestly, Kathleen, I have to disagree. I ever so often have to remind myself that 70% of this country (the 60% non-voters and 20% Bush voters and now McCain voters) are plain and simple retards. I know it hurts and I know it's terrible cause most people I know aren't like that, but statistics don't lie....

What's worse is that everyone goes along with it (well all the republicans anyway) when truly this does raise issues. It is interesting to note that Palin is against sex education in Alaska public schools and wants abstinence as the only form of birthcontrol teachings in school. Isn't that ironic? If that is her political stance, I must conclude that it is her personal belief also. NOW, her daughter too is a statistics in the fact that no sex ed and abstinence only DOES NOT WORK!

BUT, it's all good, cause the kid is keeping her baby. Therefore, it's all GOOD!!



What gets me is that somehow she is supposed to be the role model on anti abortion rightousness because she has a baby with down syndrome and decided to keep her baby! How is that nothing but her CHOICE in the matter? Nobody asked the baby if that was the right choice (which I don't think could be answered anyway)? How does making the CHOICE to keep a fetus make one a role model on the issue? It's brainwashed hogwash for retards! Pro-choice supporters are exactly that: pro-CHOICE, so that people like Palin can keep her baby even though it might be disputable whether or not that is the right thing to do. Right thing for the family and right thing for the baby.


They are private, as long as they in line with party philosophy - oh and religious fanatic philosophy....

Ok - Ok - then "I" deserve better damnit LOL. I understand what you are saying though.

Read this article from the Washington Post - the woman CUT funding for teenage Mothers.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...l?hpid=artslot

Yeah - and that just sucks. Don't the rest of us deserve privacy in order to make our own choices?

Asking for him to speak out about his innocence isn't exactly critizism in my view. Perhaps she could have voiced an opinion on how wrong it is to have other people pay for his personal real estate remodels? Now, that would be critizism.

where did you get that from? She did not endorse his opponent as of today.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...ed-hometo.html

but she hasn't distanced herself from him. All she did was taking down photos on her website that show the TV commercial Stevens put together for her during her race for governor. In fact, the photos were taken down very recently, hmmmmm guess it wouldn't be in her interest running as VP .... hmmm...

What's more is that she herself collected money in the exact same fundraising campaign that Stevens is also under investigation for.

Please explain. All it is is fingerpointing and hot air. There is nothing there...

Classy! And why exactly isn't she your hero? Afterall you too are woman.....


Classy as this:

Her bridge to nowhere statement: It's insulting and degrading to the endth degree. The very name 'bridge to nowhere' degrades the native people of Ketchikan as it implies they are nothing in nowhere. Ironically, she used to support the bridge until the state received the funding to build, then she realized that nationally this may not have been such an embracable endevour and nixed the building, but kept the funding for the state. Never giving the money to the very people of Ketchikan or providing the fund for their use and development!!

She doesn't believe in global warming. This is just histerical.

She sued the federal government over the listing of the polar bear on the endangered species list. Come again?

She supported the shooting of wolves from airplanes, until the Alaskan voters decided no more.

I could go on, but I have to pick up my son from football practice. God forbid I'd be late and later decide to run for VP and it would all come out .... it would be obvious that I am not capable of running a political office if I was late to pick up my child ...... *sigh*

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...9/1305615.aspx

Stevens is running for re-election to the Senate this year, and he is in a tough race. He survived his primary last week, despite the fact that Palin backed his opponent.

Not endorsing him is distancing herself from him.

An ABC News review of campaign records shows Rezko, and people connected to him, contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation.

"It surprised me that late in the game he [Obama] continued to take contributions from somebody who was under a rather dark cloud in the state," said Cynthia Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a group that has worked closely with Obama and supported his legislative efforts.

Seems like she isn't the only one taking money from shady people!

Rezko had been widely reported to be under investigation by the U.S. attorney and the FBI at the time Obama contacted him and has since been indicted on corruption charges by a federal grand jury in a case that prosecutors say involves bribes, kickbacks and "efforts to illegally obtain millions of dollars."

As I have said, a great deal of politicians have connections with corruption of some sort. Dirty money runs rampant among politicians these days, Obama and Palin included.

What I meant is that first I agreed with Jim, as I've also been living in a world where women do more than men when it comes to kids, where a dad spending his life at work instead of home is way more tolerated than when a mother does the same, etc... And then with Alex, you, Keeper and Kathleen reacting, I realised how wrong that first thought was. It's so obviously wrong to me it even goes against my own life and principles as a dad. Yet my first "reflex" thought was to agree with Jim.

I was taking this example to say that understanding something and imprinting it in your natural thinking process are two different things. And men won't lose their sexist automatism just like that, however sincerely they want to, not after thousands of years of being tought and experiencing the opposite.


Ponrauil

Do you actually know who she supposedly endorsed? The article only claims that she 'backed' the opponent. Not sure if backing equals supporting/endorsing and since there is no name, there isn't a way to check on it.

I did a google search on palin supporting vickers or curry but it found nothing. If there is not one news blurb on her endorsement, I'd suspect she hasn't actually endorsed anyone and backing was a term used to claim who knows what.

I did NOT read this!!!


*lalalaaalallaaala*


at least you came to realize...

What's so shocking about it? Does it never happen to you to have a first automatic thought on something, anything, and then realise the next minute that that tought was totally wrong or irrelevant?


Ponrauil