Palin's speech was....

[Mom to Aly]

Is the title of the thread supposed to be a fill-in-the-blank? Because I thought her speech was nothing more than one long attack ad with zero substance.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/maverick_misleads.html

 

 

:iagree: Completely!!!

[Robin Hood]

But, I just have to say, because it was so darn cute and dh and I couldn't stop laughing at the innocence of it, we loved watching her youngest daughter (Piper?) licking her palm to smooth down her baby brother's hair! So, so precious! LOL!!

 

Dh and I were laughing at the way she was waving to the crowds while she was on stage with the family. Just like her mom.

[Robin Hood]

Yes, a VP candidate traditionally attacks the opposing party. At least that's what the NPR commentator said...

 

I heard this on NPR this morning, too. I asked dh about it and he agreed using examples in the past.

[Robin Hood]

Oh, I disagree. That was the one part of her speech that pulled my heartstrings. I WANT to think that there are people in government, somewhere, that know exactly how scary the future looks to the parents of a special needs kid.

 

And what else are they going to do with Levi? Can't hide him. Can't hide Bristol. Might as well say "Here we are, struggles and all." I think it was the right move. I think it sent a message of acceptance to the unique challenges their family faces.

 

Those things got me too.

[cricket1178]

There were no Muslim leaders condoning 9-11. You got that one way wrong. And the Palestinian conflict is a religious conflict where Muslims do gt branded as terrorists and which many leaders do condone, but those acts are not of the same brand or origin.

 

I agree with this, "Muslims do gt branded as terrorists and which many leaders do condone, but those acts are not of the same brand or origin." Just as those abortion clinic bombings are not the same brand as Christianity. It is a sad affair all the way around. I am sure there were prominent Muslim leaders who came out against the 9-11 attacks.

[PiCO]

I agree. It's the apathy of the latter days -- neither hot nor cold -- but lukewarm. Be ready for some spitting out.

 

This reminds me of the Our Island Story yesterday when we were listening to how Canute, King of the Danes, became Christian and then all his men did as well. I had to ponder that one for a while. Political perhaps? Did true conviction fall upon all of these men? Or, was Christianity just the convenient, better option?

 

I think that's how people are today. I've met so many Christians who have never even read the Bible for themselves.

 

I think it's how people have always been. For the most part, people follow the belief system they were raised in or one that becomes more convenient (through marriage, moving to a different culture, etc.)

 

It always amazes me that I know more about the bible than most Christians I meet, and I'm an atheist.

[PiCO]

She is a skilled public speaker....but I found her to be full of IT.

 

I agree. And I found her no less "canned" than speakers at the DNC.

[Jenny in Atl]

I agree. And I found her no less "canned" than speakers at the DNC.

 

They're all awful. It's all show biz, and little about actually policy/actual plans. And most of the time, campaign promises are rarely kept. I just wish there was a better and shorter way. This thing has gone on for two years now, at least it seems that way. :tongue_smilie:

[CactusPair]

I thought she had a talented speech writer and she delivered with the folksy glamour of a pageant queen.

 

Her tone was hateful and self-congratulatory, though, and the content empty of policy. Her views on the environment and energy strike me as short-sighted, backward-thinking, uneducated and unscientific.

 

Her implicit drive to impose her own religious views on all citizens undermines the freedoms we cherish and upon which **our** diverse country is built.

 

There is nothing pro-life about celebratingwar and denigrating diplomacy or destroying the environment of the planet that is home to us all, those of us who live here now and those who will be born in the future.

 

 

"Drill baby drill"? It might as well be "kill baby kill".

[Osmosis Mom]

I I am sure there were prominent Muslim leaders who came out against the 9-11 attacks.

 

 

There was. All around. But not immediately, yes, because at first everyone was in a daze, then confused as to what to believe and then many were really confused how a person who had come from a respected family could have been the head of this. But then, then most certainly leaders stood up. You can go to any Islamic center here and actively see how the leaders there encourage us to help heal the US people and rebuild our hijacked image.

[Gailmegan]

I thought she had a talented speech writer and she delivered with the folksy glamour of a pageant queen.

 

Her tone was hateful and self-congratulatory, though, and the content empty of policy. Her views on the environment and energy strike me as short-sighted, backward-thinking, uneducated and unscientific.

 

Her implicit drive to impose her own religious views on all citizens undermines the freedoms we cherish and upon which **our** diverse country is built.

 

There is nothing pro-life about celebratingwar and denigrating diplomacy or destroying the environment of the planet that is home to us all, those of us who live here now and those who will be born in the future.

 

 

"Drill baby drill"? It might as well be "kill baby kill".

 

:iagree:

 

And you forgot to mention the appalling kid pimping!

[Jami]

:iagree:

 

And you forgot to mention the appalling kid pimping!

 

Make sure you apply that standard to the Obamas.

[Plucky]

Make sure you apply that standard to the Obamas.

 

That's right. Who trotted their kids out first?

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Warning: strong opinion below

 

I was wondering if I could see anything worse than the display I saw last night. Tonight they showed a video of 9/11 footage. It was very graphic. At the end of the footage they used a phrase that was very similar if not identical to, "We will never let it happen again." I have heard them invoke 9/11 (which happened under Bush's watch, but that's not the point- I think it would have happened regardless) to incite an emotional response before, but this was way over the top IMO.

 

Once again, my opinion alone. I'm just wondering if I am the only one who caught this and had thoughts. I am sure some liked and appreciated it, and that's cool too.

[Jami]

That's right. Who trotted their kids out first?

 

I'm personally happy to see the kids on both sides. :001_smile: It humanizes the candidates. It's hard not to like Obama or Palin (as people, not necessarily their policies) when you see how they adore their children.

[Elaine]

:iagree:

 

And you forgot to mention the appalling kid pimping!

 

Good heavens. Gov.Palin's speech had a few barbs in it, but compared to the comments in this thread they seem innocuous.:confused:

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I think it's pretty normal for the candidates to trot the kids out for a photo op every now and then. As White House kids, they are going to have to get used to it. I know if it were my kids, I would want to have some teachable moments along the way before life in a fishbowl officially begins.

 

I did notice that baby got passed around like a hot potato last night, though. ;)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I think it's pretty normal for the candidates to trot the kids out for a photo op every now and then. As White House kids, they are going to have to get used to it. I know if it were my kids, I would want to have some teachable moments along the way before life in a fishbowl officially begins.

 

I did notice that baby got passed around like a hot potato last night, though. ;)

 

I think everybody just wants to snuggle that baby.

[JudyJudyJudy]

BANKRUPTCY

Oh, this is another great one. My dad filed bankruptcy -- around $40,000 worth. He now owns a Mercedes, had a $7,000 window put in his house, and just bought a BMW off Ebay. I guess he just was not capable of paying back that debt. He has military retirement now and is on social security. He works part time, but not too much because "they won't allow him to." [he'll receive less social security if he works too much. He's perfectly capable of working, but Americans have this retirement entitlement mentality.] SO, yes, let's make sure these people's pensions are protected.

I'm sorry your father chose to take advantage of the system. Just because some people do that doesn't mean that everyone does. The only person I know IRL who filed bankruptcy (I'm sure I know others who haven't told me) is on disability (major health complications) and is living in an apartment (not in a good area) and driving a 1996 vehicle.

[RenayofRohan]

I agree. And I found her no less "canned" than speakers at the DNC.

 

Considering that several liberal CNN commentators made a point to say how authentic they thought she came across. :tongue_smilie:

[CactusPair]

:iagree:

 

My mom, a geriatric specialist RN, told me recently that catastrophic medical debt is the #1 reason for home foreclosures. I wonder home many poeple go bankrupt due to medical bills. Probably quite a few.

 

I don't think most people try to work the system in a dishonest way.

[Laura in VA]

Good heavens. Gov.Palin's speech had a few barbs in it, but compared to the comments in this thread they seem innocuous.:confused:

 

I'd like to rep you but I must it around first.

[RenayofRohan]

:iagree:

 

And you forgot to mention the appalling kid pimping!

 

 

It's very appropriate for the people to be introduced to the families of the candidates. Obama and Palin both have beautiful families. ;)

[Gailmegan]

Good heavens. Gov.Palin's speech had a few barbs in it, but compared to the comments in this thread they seem innocuous.:confused:

 

I sincerely apologize if my comment or wording seemed harsh. I have no problem with children being introduced, but the manner in which Palin did this appeared as if she were more concerned with advancing her agenda than truly caring about the well-being of her children.

 

I am truly baffled by all the Palin love. I just don't understand it. Forgive me if my ignorance of this phenomenon offended anyone.

[Elaine]

Daily Show on the hypocrisy surrounding the Republican VP candidate.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

 

Blech:ack2: Jon Stewart. He's more irritating than the abbreviation DH.;)

 

 

I would never look to him for serious political commentary.

[Elaine]

I'd like to rep you but I must it around first.

 

I tried to rep you before but I have to spread it around again too.:glare:

[MomofSeven]

I sincerely apologize if my comment or wording seemed harsh. I have no problem with children being introduced, but the manner in which Palin did this appeared as if she were more concerned with advancing her agenda than truly caring about the well-being of her children.

 

I am truly baffled by all the Palin love. I just don't understand it. Forgive me if my ignorance of this phenomenon offended anyone.

 

 

They came on stage with her...just like the other candidates' families. She acknowledged them during her speach...just like the other candidates. What did she do, in introducing her family, that offended you so? THe only difference was that unlike Obama, she did not appear on a huge screen and carry on a conversation with her kids during the convention. I'm baffled by your questioning her manner in this regard.:confused:

[Kelli in TN]

I sincerely apologize if my comment or wording seemed harsh. I have no problem with children being introduced, but the manner in which Palin did this appeared as if she were more concerned with advancing her agenda than truly caring about the well-being of her children.

 

I am truly baffled by all the Palin love. I just don't understand it. Forgive me if my ignorance of this phenomenon offended anyone.

 

Why? In what manner did she do this that was different than the way it was handled at the Democratic Convention?

 

Seriously, I'd like to know.

[Elaine]

I sincerely apologize if my comment or wording seemed harsh. I have no problem with children being introduced, but the manner in which Palin did this appeared as if she were more concerned with advancing her agenda than truly caring about the well-being of her children.

 

I am truly baffled by all the Palin love. I just don't understand it. Forgive me if my ignorance of this phenomenon offended anyone.

 

No worries.:001_smile: We're all big girls.

 

I didn't see what you saw, but then again, I am involved in the love-fest.;)

[Erica in PA]

I am truly baffled by all the Palin love. I just don't understand it. Forgive me if my ignorance of this phenomenon offended anyone.

 

Maybe this will help you understand it a bit better, at least from my perspective.... say you felt unrepresented by either of the two major candidates. You didn't vote for either of them in the primaries, and while you are much closer in ideology to your party than the other, your party's candidate doesn't really reflect many of your beliefs. The other party has a potentially history-making, ground breaking nominee, whom you would love to be able to support as well to be able to be part of this momentous time in history, but voting for that person would go against everything that you believe about our country and what is best for it.

 

Then, for the first time in this election, your candidate makes a bold, unexpected, different choice-- he picks a running mate who you actually really agree with! It's someone who reflects your views on many issues, more than the presidential candidate does. It's someone who shares many of your personal values, as well. To top it all off, it's a person who, if elected, will also be a history-making, ground breaking elected official. You have the chance to elect the first female vice president of the United States. You also finally have a female in politics that you both share political views with, and that you can relate to as a person.

 

So many of us conservative women were expecting Hillary Clinton, or someone very like her in politics and demeanor, to be the first woman elected to high office. (There just aren't that many successful conservative female politicians.) One the one hand, it would have been exciting to witness that momentous first, but on the other hand, it would be too bad that I couldn't vote for that woman, to be part of that, because the differences in beliefs and approach would just be too different. It's a big surprise, then, that Sarah Palin would emerge at this point, and allow me to be able to possibly vote for that first woman!! That is why I am excited-- because her candidacy was so unexpected, and it allows me to be part of something I didn't think I would get to be part of.

 

I know that you don't see it the same way, but does that give you some kind of idea why some of us are excited about this nominee? (I don't claim to speak for everyone, by any means. I'm just really explaining how I feel, myself.)

 

Erica

[Angela in TN]

I sincerely apologize if my comment or wording seemed harsh. I have no problem with children being introduced, but the manner in which Palin did this appeared as if she were more concerned with advancing her agenda than truly caring about the well-being of her children.

 

I am truly baffled by all the Palin love. I just don't understand it. Forgive me if my ignorance of this phenomenon offended anyone.

 

Did you feel the same about Obama doing a family interview (including his kids) on Access Hollywood? If we're going to be appalled it should be all around and not just because you don't agree with the candidates policy views. Here's a link to the Access interview.

 

Like others said I think it shows the candidates as human beings and it's the networks that choose the camera shots, so if Palin's kids seemed to be all over the screen last night that was the networks call. It would be weird to me if they weren't there and you didn't see them. :confused:

[Mrs Mungo]

Blech:ack2: Jon Stewart. He's more irritating than the abbreviation DH.;)

 

 

I would never look to him for serious political commentary.

 

Who said it was serious? Of course, not being serious doesn't make it not true and it wasn't so much commentary as a series of clips. The clips speak for themselves.

 

Just ftr-I don't think she was showing off her family any more or less than any other candidate.

[RebeccaC]

Maybe this will help you understand it a bit better, at least from my perspective.... say you felt unrepresented by either of the two major candidates. You didn't vote for either of them in the primaries, and while you are much closer in ideology to your party than the other, your party's candidate doesn't really reflect many of your beliefs. The other party has a potentially history-making, ground breaking nominee, whom you would love to be able to support as well to be able to be part of this momentous time in history, but voting for that person would go against everything that you believe about our country and what is best for it.

 

Then, for the first time in this election, your candidate makes a bold, unexpected, different choice-- he picks a running mate who you actually really agree with! It's someone who reflects your views on many issues, more than the presidential candidate does. It's someone who shares many of your personal values, as well. To top it all off, it's a person who, if elected, will also be a history-making, ground breaking elected official. You have the chance to elect the first female vice president of the United States. You also finally have a female in politics that you both share political views with, and that you can relate to as a person.

 

So many of us conservative women were expecting Hillary Clinton, or someone very like her in politics and demeanor, to be the first woman elected to high office. (There just aren't that many successful conservative female politicians.) One the one hand, it would have been exciting to witness that momentous first, but on the other hand, it would be too bad that I couldn't vote for that woman, to be part of that, because the differences in beliefs and approach would just be too different. It's a big surprise, then, that Sarah Palin would emerge at this point, and allow me to be able to possibly vote for that first woman!! That is why I am excited-- because her candidacy was so unexpected, and it allows me to be part of something I didn't think I would get to be part of.

 

I know that you don't see it the same way, but does that give you some kind of idea why some of us are excited about this nominee? (I don't claim to speak for everyone, by any means. I'm just really explaining how I feel, myself.)

 

Erica

 

 

:iagree: Yep 5 star post

[RenayofRohan]

McCain might have chosen her, but I believe God Himself brought her through the back door. ;)

[Nestof3]

I'd like to rep you but I must it around first.

 

Me too. :)

[Nestof3]

It's very appropriate for the people to be introduced to the families of the candidates. Obama and Palin both have beautiful families. ;)

 

Yes, I agree!

[Beth in SW WA]

McCain might have chosen her, but I believe God Himself brought her through the back door. ;)

 

:iagree:

I believe she is divinely appointed for this season in our country. I'm praying for God's guidance upon her and McCain as they fight the good fight.

[Saille]

You know what bothers me the most? The dig about community organizers.

 

What the heck was that? Community organizing needs denigration because you don't get paid/fired for doing/not doing it? You're kidding me.

 

I found that extraordinarily anti-American, and very characteristic of Republicans since I've been old enough to vote. Espouse democracy out one side of your mouth, make fun of common citizens for exercising it out of the other.

 

When she talked about sticking up for small farmers and common workers last night, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. I bet Teddy Roosevelt rolled over in his grave.

 

As far as education goes, I worked with the most difficult, disturbed and disenfranchised students any school had to offer, and when it comes to who abdicates responsibility, don't kid yourself: nobody's off the chopping block on that one.

 

Also, I think it's really important to note that a big, big culprit when it comes to the sheer lack of material taught is the worship of standardized testing. In the process of breaking each subject down into quantifiable minutiae, much is lost...yet the year is filled. Add to that the two-party polarization of education issues in general and you've got a fine mess. The very fact that Obama's talking about compromising and trying to fix NCLB when every teacher I know has been screaming for it to be thrown out from the get-go is in itself a remarkable act of bipartisanship.

 

One of the first things Bush did was start cutting federal funding for libraries, museums, and public radio and TV. These are the great public levelers, as any homeschooler knows. You could live in a pretty lousy school district and still be relatively well-educated, if you had these resources at your disposal. Why would anyone who purports to want smaller government and a self-sufficient, go-getter population deprive people of these essential tools?

 

I've got a handy answer. It goes like this, "It's not my problem." It's an attitude of privilege, a clear sign of failing to walk in someone else's shoes, and I think it's evidence of two things: being too out of touch with average Americans to represent them, and having a moral compass that is lacking.

 

I don't care what color your stripes are, there is no major religion in the world that does not espouse caring for one's neighbor. I am sick to the gills of "little guy" lip service and lousy community policies. Small government can not ever, ever work in a country with this "Me first" attitude, in the same way that construction merge lanes don't work when everybody hops out of line because they feel entitled to go first. You've seen this, right? Ultimately, somebody has to swing their butt out there and block all the line-jumpers, because they're not going to quit. They'll just keep doing what benefits them while the rest of us follow the rules and get nowhere. We have to stop acting like we live in a nation of benevolent, altruistic plutocrats. The facts do not bear out that assessment.

 

Sarah Palin says that the things I do to actually help my community are not "real responsibilities". I beg to differ. I think it is absolutely possible for someone to become well versed in real issues, work that needs doing and how to go about it by engaging in service to one's community. Part of what attracted me to Obama in the first place was the fact that he did not turn up his nose at such work, that he prioritized it highly even though he had great earning potential. Someone who would make fun of that isn't a public servant, she's a social climber.

 

As far as stories about malingerers and bankruptcy fraud, one bad apple doesn't ruin a bushel. I don't think that argument is sound. Instead of using it to frame a "why should I have to" argument, please consider the question, "why should I not"? If the answer is, "Because I would NEVER have let that happen to me," I've seen that argument blown to shreds an awful lot of times. It might be time for a self-check.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Originally Posted by RenayofRohan

McCain might have chosen her, but I believe God Himself brought her through the back door. ;)

:iagree:I believe she is divinely appointed for this season in our country. I'm praying for God's guidance upon her and McCain as they fight the good fight.

 

These types of comments are what make nonChristians fearful, especially with Palin's questionable connections to Dominionism.

[Aggie]

Saille...

 

I'll say upfront that I disagree with most of what you believe. We can still be friends, though. :)

 

However, one point in particular jumps out. Why do you think the federal government should fund public radio and tv? There are radio and tv stations that prove profitable, so we know it can be done. Why does NPR need federal money to keep it going? People even pay for cable channels that they don't watch (this is the reason we don't have cable...I can't stand the thought of supporting certain cable stations) and yet PBS can't raise enough public funds?

 

Oh, I can't stop with just one point. :) Down deep, my dh and I are very generous. Almost to a fault. But, our generosity is muted by the way the federal government spends OUR hard-earned money. Charity is one thing, but we feel the gov't is allowing some programs to be abused. The gov't clearly can't manage the programs efficiently. So when we hear there are going to be *more* gov't programs, we cringe. We give freely to charities that have a board of directors, accountability, and a financial sheet we can see.

 

Here is one more thing I can't understand. Some of the wealthiest people in the US are supporting Obama and his new programs, right? If he's only going to tax the *rich* and businesses, don't these people have the most to lose? How does Oprah think she is going to fare when her personal and business incomes get taxed more? And....if all those rich hollywood folks are so incredibly generous, why can't they live on $200,000/yr like us middle-income families? Would they support a candidate who *really* believed in the redistribution of wealth? They know that somehow the rich will stay rich, their companies won't go broke, and it will be left to the middle and lower income families to fend for ourselves. If big business gets taxed more to pay for more federal programs, rest assured that they will pass the savings on to us.

 

These are just a few issues I've been pondering lately. I don't mean to attack you and/or your beliefs, but no one has been able to answer these questions for me.

 

Have a great evening,

Aggie

[JudyJudyJudy]

Here is one more thing I can't understand. Some of the wealthiest people in the US are supporting Obama and his new programs, right? If he's only going to tax the *rich* and businesses, don't these people have the most to lose?

For people who care about people, should that really matter? Obviously, my husband and I pay far more taxes than people with low incomes, but that doesn't bother me in the least. I think that's fair, and I'm okay with helping those who are less fortunate.

 

 

How does Oprah think she is going to fare when her personal and business incomes get taxed more?

She already gives a lot to charity, so I doubt she's worried about living on her income after taxes.

 

 

And....if all those rich hollywood folks are so incredibly generous, why can't they live on $200,000/yr like us middle-income families?

Based on the median and average family incomes in the country, $200,000 is far above the middle.

 

 

Would they support a candidate who *really* believed in the redistribution of wealth? They know that somehow the rich will stay rich, their companies won't go broke, and it will be left to the middle and lower income families to fend for ourselves. If big business gets taxed more to pay for more federal programs, rest assured that they will pass the savings on to us.

Sadly, yes, the big cooperations are going to make sure that someone stays poor. That's the nature of the beast and shows that people by nature are selfish, I guess.

[RebeccaC]

You know what bothers me the most? The dig about community organizers.

 

What the heck was that? Community organizing needs denigration because you don't get paid/fired for doing/not doing it? You're kidding me.

 

.

 

 

I am sure that Senator Obama did a fine job as an organizer. I am sure he put his heart into it. He seems like a gentleman, is obviously very smart, and a nice man.

 

For a few years I was on the board of a large medical charity in IL. What I did was lobby to get a medical research bill passed but I also read most of the research papers published in the field and mc-ed a few medical conferences that the researchers spoke at. I took pre-med in college and that is what allowed me to do that. I was up on all the cutting edge research and had a neurologist and a psychologist use me as a support, resource to help the parents of their patients understand their child's illness and treatment, I did the hand holding, putting it in layman's terms, a voice of experience from their point of view, etc.... All of that gave me great experience but it did not make me a medical researcher or a doctor. It is the same with comparing a community organizer with a mayor or a governor.

 

I worked a lot in politics, lobbied to get a medical research bill passed. President Clinton signed that bill into law. I have been around all kinds of politicians and seen how they wheel and deal first hand. Obama and Biden, McCain and Palin do not take any of this personally. They know it is a big game and they are all good players. They know how to attack and counterattack and attack so that it does not look like an attack. For the most part they enjoy it, they don't enjoy it when their family members who are not players are dragged into it, but they themselves like the game.

 

I think all of us liberal or conservative would enjoy the election process if we understood that it is just a big strategy game and not taken personally by the candidates and therefore should not be taken personally by us. I would not be surprised if Obama does not come up with a counter attack on the community service comments. He has to that is the way the game is played by every political party on the planet. He and his staff are brilliant enough, energized enough to play both defense and offense when it comes to election politics.

 

The outcome of the process is a stronger elected official. Obama needs to build that strength because if he gets in office he will be hit all the time. The election process helps these people grow thick skins so they can play the hard ball needed when wielding great power. It is kind of like the butterfly fighting its way out of the cocoon. If the butterfly does not fight it will not live, if it is helped or the process some how made easier it will die. The politics being played now is for the winning candidate the process that gives him or her the strength to fly once they have the prize. It is needed training.

 

 

 

 

:leaving: I wrote this knowing that I might get negative rep due to the fact that this is an emotional subject. I figured that this tho might help some and so I think it is worth the risk. In the light of this is being a very emotional subject any neg rep will be view by me as an emotional response and unless you leave your name not much attention will be given to it.

[Kathleen in VA]

You know what bothers me the most? The dig about community organizers.

 

What the heck was that? Community organizing needs denigration because you don't get paid/fired for doing/not doing it? You're kidding me.

It was not a dig about community organizers. It was a statement meant to point out that community organizer is the kind of experience Obama has to bring to the office of the presidency. That's just not enough imo. Community organizers are great, very much needed, but having been one doesn't make you presidential material. The point is Obama has no executive experience. That's all she meant. If Obama hadn't pointed it out in his speeches she wouldn't have mentioned it at all.

 

I found that extraordinarily anti-American, and very characteristic of Republicans since I've been old enough to vote. Espouse democracy out one side of your mouth, make fun of common citizens for exercising it out of the other.

 

No one's making fun of community organizers. They are making fun of the fact that Obama thinks that by having been one he's all set to make a great President. Oh, and I'm not sure who you mean when you say Republicans espouse democracy out one side of their mouths and make fun of common citizens out of the other. Wasn't that Obama who was making fun of the folks in Scranton, PA?

 

When she talked about sticking up for small farmers and common workers last night, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. I bet Teddy Roosevelt rolled over in his grave.

 

Why? What does Teddy Roosevelt have to do with it?

 

As far as education goes, I worked with the most difficult, disturbed and disenfranchised students any school had to offer, and when it comes to who abdicates responsibility, don't kid yourself: nobody's off the chopping block on that one.

 

Also, I think it's really important to note that a big, big culprit when it comes to the sheer lack of material taught is the worship of standardized testing. In the process of breaking each subject down into quantifiable minutiae, much is lost...yet the year is filled. Add to that the two-party polarization of education issues in general and you've got a fine mess. The very fact that Obama's talking about compromising and trying to fix NCLB when every teacher I know has been screaming for it to be thrown out from the get-go is in itself a remarkable act of bipartisanship.

 

If schools were a free enterprise there would be a huge leap in their quality. With the money the taxpayers save by not having to pay for public schools they could send their child to whatever school suited them best. And like all post-secondary schools, even those who do not take federal money, they could offer scholarships to those who need them.

 

One of the first things Bush did was start cutting federal funding for libraries, museums, and public radio and TV. These are the great public levelers, as any homeschooler knows. You could live in a pretty lousy school district and still be relatively well-educated, if you had these resources at your disposal. Why would anyone who purports to want smaller government and a self-sufficient, go-getter population deprive people of these essential tools?

 

Libraries and museums should be the responsiblity of the local government - not the federal government. Show me in the Constitution that the federal goverment has a responsibility to fund libraries. Again, with the money saved by not having such high taxes, communities could provide their own libraries. It's just not a federal job.

 

I've got a handy answer. It goes like this, "It's not my problem." It's an attitude of privilege, a clear sign of failing to walk in someone else's shoes, and I think it's evidence of two things: being too out of touch with average Americans to represent them, and having a moral compass that is lacking.

 

Oh, yeah, I'm privileged. I'm privileged to have a husband who is willing to work two blue collar jobs for the past 23 years so I can stay home and homeschool my children. My husband is a letter carrier and he cleans doctor's offices, including toilets (a real privilege, let me tell ya), 5 nights a week, 52 weeks a year, so I can stay home. We have had one vacation in our 23 years of marriage - and that was given to us by a relative. We drive ten year old cars, one of which is in the shop as I type because it didn't pass inspection last month. My house is 1000sf and there are seven of us living here. Yes, I am very privileged. Our family income is below average for our county so I almost know what it feels like to be an average American.

 

I don't care what color your stripes are, there is no major religion in the world that does not espouse caring for one's neighbor. I am sick to the gills of "little guy" lip service and lousy community policies. Small government can not ever, ever work in a country with this "Me first" attitude, in the same way that construction merge lanes don't work when everybody hops out of line because they feel entitled to go first. You've seen this, right? Ultimately, somebody has to swing their butt out there and block all the line-jumpers, because they're not going to quit. They'll just keep doing what benefits them while the rest of us follow the rules and get nowhere. We have to stop acting like we live in a nation of benevolent, altruistic plutocrats. The facts do not bear out that assessment.

 

Well, I guess we'll never know if we don't ever give it a try. Maybe your fellow citizens would surprise you. Someone has to set the trend - why not us? Btw, I, for one, always make room for folks stuck in the lane that is ending. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

Sarah Palin says that the things I do to actually help my community are not "real responsibilities". I beg to differ. I think it is absolutely possible for someone to become well versed in real issues, work that needs doing and how to go about it by engaging in service to one's community. Part of what attracted me to Obama in the first place was the fact that he did not turn up his nose at such work, that he prioritized it highly even though he had great earning potential. Someone who would make fun of that isn't a public servant, she's a social climber.

 

She never said that helping your community is not a real responsibility in the sense that you mean it. She meant that it doesn't require one to make executive decisions. I think you're taking her speech a little too personally. Oh, and isn't Obama a social climber as well? Explain to me how he isn't. And what's wrong with being able to climb socially? Isn't that what we all want to do - better ourselves? Is that a bad thing? I think Abraham Lincoln was a social climber now that you mention it.

 

As far as stories about malingerers and bankruptcy fraud, one bad apple doesn't ruin a bushel. I don't think that argument is sound. Instead of using it to frame a "why should I have to" argument, please consider the question, "why should I not"? If the answer is, "Because I would NEVER have let that happen to me," I've seen that argument blown to shreds an awful lot of times. It might be time for a self-check.

 

OK, then, the answer is it is not the federal government's job. The job of the federal government is really a relatively small one. I won't lay it out here - it's all in the Constitution. When this country was first declared independent from Britain it was called the "united States of America." The emphasis is on States - united was not capitalized. After the civil war it was changed to the "United States of America." The emphasis shifted to a strong centralized government. We've been going downhill ever since. The Constitution grants the Federal Government very limited powers and delegates the rest to the States.

 

 

The bottom line is the Constitution allows for a very limited federal government and at the time it was written the States who ratified it expected to retain the majority of the governing power themselves. How will we ever know if this kind of government can truly work if we keep asking the feds to fix all our problems and send us money.

 

I received an email tonight that had this in the signature line:

 

A government big enough to provide everything you need is big enough to take everything you have!

 

Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.

[Kate CA]

What an excellent and thorough post. Thanks so much, Kathleen! :) I tried to rep you but I must like you too much in previous posts to do it again so soon. :D

[Mrs Mungo]

Based on the median and average family incomes in the country, $200,000 is far above the middle.

 

The median income for the US is just over $50,000. Around 20% earn over $100K. Just over the top 6% of earners earn *one third* of the nation's income. eta: agreeing with Judy here and expanding on it.

 

As far comparing his community organizing with her being a mayor? When he was a community organizer she was a beauty queen. When he was serving as president of the Harvard law review she was a sportscaster. When he was leading voter registration drives, teaching Constitutional law and working as a civil rights attorney she was serving on the city council. He was elected to the Illinois state senate (13th district), she was elected mayor. EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND people live in that district compared to 6,500 or so who lived in that small town in Alaska at the time. Obama was sworn into the national Senate in 2005. Over 12,400,000 people live in Illinois. Palin was sworn in as governor in December of 2006, the population of Alaska is around 627,000 people.

 

You want to make comparisons, that's just fine but let's try a little accuracy when making those comparisons. It doesn't exactly play the same in the real world as it does at the RNC.

 

eta because I cannot let this pass:

If schools were a free enterprise there would be a huge leap in their quality. With the money the taxpayers save by not having to pay for public schools they could send their child to whatever school suited them best. And like all post-secondary schools, even those who do not take federal money, they could offer scholarships to those who need them.

 

I'm sure that's true-in the places where parents could pay for the schools. Private schools offer scholarships to high achieving students because it makes them look better. They have no reason to do the same for a low-achieving low-income student. Low-income school districts are in bad shape *now*. Jonathan Kozol has some *excellent* books on this. Those schools are in bad shape but if we're talking free enterprise? They *would not exist*.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I'm sure that's true-in the places where parents could pay for the schools. Private schools offer scholarships to high achieving students because it makes them look better. They have no reason to do the same for a low-achieving low-income student. Low-income school districts are in bad shape *now*. Jonathan Kozol has some *excellent* books on this. Those schools are in bad shape but if we're talking free enterprise? They *would not exist*.

I agree 100%. I am a certified teacher, and I've taught, student taught, and substituted in six different public school systems and eight different schools throughout Georgia. I've taught in one of the richest schools and one of the poorest schools, and I am totally against so-called "school choice." Taking money away from the poor schools would be absolutely devastating to them.

 

Even if I did agree with "choice," I don't think some people realize that transportation and/or distance between schools in some areas make choosing a "better school" impractical at best. Also, with school choice, what happens to students with special needs? What happens to students on the edge (for instance, as I've mentioned before, kids with IQs in the low 70s) who often don't even qualify for special programs? Are they just left to drown in the schools that the "good" students don't choose?

 

What about religious schools? In my county, the only private school requires a statement of faith. Do people seriously think it's okay for public dollars to go to support a school that discriminates based on religion?

[RenayofRohan]

These types of comments are what make nonChristians fearful, especially with Palin's questionable connections to Dominionism.

 

At a recent fundraiser House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Obama "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

 

So are non-Christians afraid of this too?

 

I don't subscribe to dominionism, but as a Christian I believe that God can raise up leaders to bring good into this world and that God cares about the affairs of man. If God wasn't ultimately in charge of this world, I would be very scared indeed.

 

As to Palin and her theology, I'll let her answer for herself. But I don't think she has anything to be ashamed of. ;)

[JudyJudyJudy]

At a recent fundraiser House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Obama "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

 

So are non-Christians afraid of this too?

 

I don't subscribe to dominionism, but as a Christian I believe that God can raise up leaders to bring good into this world and that God cares about the affairs of man. If God wasn't ultimately in charge of this world, I would be very scared indeed.

 

As to Palin and her theology, I'll let her answer for herself. But I don't think she has anything to be ashamed of. ;)

I don't know if other nonChristians are made afraid by that comment (I'm not), but I do think it's an inappropriate comment. If Pelosi or Obama were also linked to Dominionist groups like Palin, though, Pelosi's comment would be scary as well.

[Slartibartfast]

 

BANKRUPTCY

Oh, this is another great one. My dad filed bankruptcy -- around $40,000 worth. He now owns a Mercedes, had a $7,000 window put in his house, and just bought a BMW off Ebay. I guess he just was not capable of paying back that debt. He has military retirement now and is on social security. He works part time, but not too much because "they won't allow him to." [he'll receive less social security if he works too much. He's perfectly capable of working, but Americans have this retirement entitlement mentality.] SO, yes, let's make sure these people's pensions are protected.

 

 

 

He is saying that if a company files bankruptcy that a CEO who has been with the company two years shouldn't be able to walk away from a company with millions while the employees lose their pensions.

 

It happened to my dad.

 

But..I guess that's great YOUR dad worked the system, my dad worked his rear off...and is still working because his pension is gone.

 

"retirement entitlement"

 

That's nice.

 

Are you saying companies shouldn't keep their promises?

 

I suppose personal responsibility isn't required of companies and CEOs.

 

Only people who "fall" into crime and smokers.

 

How inconvenient for them.

[RenayofRohan]

McCain might have chosen her, but I believe God Himself brought her through the back door. ;)

 

I don't know if other nonChristians are made afraid by that comment (I'm not), but I do think it's an inappropriate comment. If Pelosi or Obama were also linked to Dominionist groups like Palin, though, Pelosi's comment would be scary as well.

 

If Sarah Palin was really a kook, I don't think she would have an 80% approval rating in her state of Alaska. ;)