VPILF

[Mulu]

So are there actually any facts in the article?

Obviously yes. Who she hired and fired is not anecdotal, it's part of the record. Emails are part of the record. Her presence or absence from the capital is part of the record. That's about 80% of what I quoted right there. As for the eyewitnesses, if your position is simply that anytime anyone says anything negative about Palin they must be lying, well I can't help you.

It is instructive though that any fan of hers will simply ignore the facts, much as she appears to do when governing or campaigning. And yes, in the last 19 months Obama has been analyzed more than avian flu.

[ç i p h é r]

And it's instinctive that anyone with an objective political view (rather than one colored by party loyalty) would doubt information published by a nonobjective "news" source. That the NY Times supports Obama in this election is not something a reasonable person would discount. They are no longer in the business of just reporting the news. They are now also in the business of electing Presidents and policy makers. No small thing. You better read this stuff with a grain of salt unless you want media moguls telling you how to vote.

I haven't read the article (and can't anymore w/o registering), but none of the quotes you provided included supporting records or references. Furthermore, there's no context whatsoever, and that's an immediate red flag. Anything can be portrayed as good or bad without a frame of reference. You know that. You do it all the time.

Let's look at one of the issues you raise: Cronyism. That she hired people she knew is not in and of itself evidence of cronyism. Is it unnatural to appoint people that you trust to positions of responsibility? What if you believe that the system you're part of and the people in it are corrupt?

If you want to make an honest case for cronyism, then you also try to answer questions like these: How many positions are there in total? How many people did she appoint? How many of them did she know? What were their credentials? What reason did the Gov give for hiring them? How have they performed? Were there any alternatives? Who were they? What were their credentials? What were their track records? Was this part of a campaign pledge to reform Alaskan politics? Who are the people the article cites? Who did they vote for? Do they have a relationship with the Gov? Do they have a relationship with someone the Gov crossed swords with? Etc.

And if you were really interested in reporting fairly, you don't give the other guy a total pass. You dig into his background and you contrast the two candidates.

Oh sure, it's easy to cherry pick information and jump to some conclusion you're predisposed to believing. But if you're really an investigative journalist trying to uncover the truth, you don't stop digging at the first sign of a controversy. This isn't journalism. It's election rigging.

[White Warlock]

Hi Cipher, i would tend to agree with you regarding the New York Times, but I think you should give this "5 page" article a read (you're just getting snippets here).

At least one of its "three" authors is firmly middle-ground. Peter S. Goodman was with the Washington Post just a year ago, and prior to that the Sacramento Bee and the Anchorage Daily News. He's primarily an economic correspondent and has historically bitten both parties butts.

Jo Becker, as well, is nobody to dismiss offhandedly. She won the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting and has worked with the Washington Post before working with the New York Times.

I have yet to finish the article, and will likely do some fact-checking of my own, but i don't feel this is an article to be dismissed merely because it is printed in the New York Times.

[Veilan]

i don't feel this is an article to be dismissed merely because it is printed in the New York Times.

Indeed! At least dismiss it for the proper reason, like, being printed in any american newspaper.

Jus' kidding... I wuv you guys.

[NickD]

So what does the Vice President actually do, anyway? The only time I remember hearing about Cheney ever doing anything was when he shot some guy on a turkey shoot.

[ç i p h é r]

Well if you've got more experience than the president, probably set policy.

I'm sure you realize that the only reason Democrats are going after the Republican VP so aggressively is because she's changing the election dynamics here. It's a last resort tactic, usually an act of desperation, but more importantly, this is politics as usual. If you can't win by selling yourself, then tear down your opponent. Obama's initial appeal to independents and moderates was that he was above this stuff.

As much as Democrats are trying to make an issue of the VP pick, the problem isn't who's in the #2 spot but rather who's in the #1 spot.

Is VP nominee Palin experienced enough to be President, particularly on the international front? I don't think so, but the better question is, is Presidential nominee Obama? If you believe he is, please explain. I think we all know now that he isn't, but I'd love to hear a well reasoned explanation from someone to the contrary.

[oldgrayrogue]

I'm sure you realize that the only reason Democrats are going after the Republican VP so aggressively is because she's changing the election dynamics here. It's a last resort tactic, usually an act of desperation, but more importantly, this is politics as usual. If you can't win by selling yourself, then tear down your opponent. Obama's initial appeal to independents and moderates was that he was above this stuff.

It is ironic that this is exactly the reason Palin was selected and exactly the republican stratagy vis a vis Obama since he won the nomination. The fact that McCain received such a bounce from his clear desperation move shows, unfortunately, that these underhanded tactics work quite well. People decry politics as usual, but it seems that is what a large number of the voting public respond to.

In terms of qualifications, I think Obama's CV, when compared to Palin's wins out hands down. He has also exhibited the ability to inspire millions in this country and abroad with his message, (rather than alienate them) something this country has been sorely lacking in a president for the last eight years. The republicans certainly want to make this election about personalities, not issues, because anyone reading the newspapers (yes even the liberal biased ones) recognizes that the republicans lose on the issues.

The simple fact is that you don't elect a candidate only. You elect that candidate's party platform along with them. McCain/Palin are doing their damndest to deny the fact that they are republicans, and with good reason. When you examine their platform however, I hate to say it, but it really is just more of the same. Mortgage crisis, energy crisis, financial crisis (Bear Sterns, Lehman, Merril, Fannie and Freddie Mac, and now maybe AIG!), unjust war in Iraq, Al Qaeda still on the loose 8 years later, record trade deficits, record budget deficits when they inherited a surplus -- the list goes on and on. Honestly, if the issues are looked at rather than who called who a pig is there really any question that the republican party needs to be ousted?

[Veilan]

So what does the Vice President actually do, anyway? The only time I remember hearing about Cheney ever doing anything was when he shot some guy on a turkey shoot.

...

Casts the tie-breaking vote in the senate, protects the space-time-continuum. Read the constitution.

[Mulu]

I haven't read the article

But that won't stop you from criticizing it.

but none of the quotes you provided included supporting records or references.

Governmental decisions are part of the public record, kiddo.

Let's look at one of the issues you raise: Cronyism. That she hired people she knew is not in and of itself evidence of cronyism. Is it unnatural to appoint people that you trust to positions of responsibility? What if you believe that the system you're part of and the people in it are corrupt?

Hiring people based on knowing them rather than their qualifications (and they were not qualified for their positions) is basically the definition of cronyism.

If you want to make an honest case for cronyism, then you also try to answer questions like these: How many positions are there in total? How many people did she appoint? How many of them did she know? What were their credentials? What reason did the Gov give for hiring them? How have they performed? Were there any alternatives? Who were they? What were their credentials? What were their track records? Was this part of a campaign pledge to reform Alaskan politics? Who are the people the article cites? Who did they vote for? Do they have a relationship with the Gov? Do they have a relationship with someone the Gov crossed swords with? Etc.

No, you only need answer one question, did she hire based on familiarity over qualifications? That is the essence of cronyism, and she obviously engaged in it at least some.

And if you were really interested in reporting fairly, you don't give the other guy a total pass. You dig into his background and you contrast the two candidates.

If you think Obama has gotten a free pass, you have been totally ignoring the news for nearly two years.

Oh sure, it's easy to cherry pick information and jump to some conclusion you're predisposed to believing. But if you're really an investigative journalist trying to uncover the truth, you don't stop digging at the first sign of a controversy. This isn't journalism. It's election rigging.

I think they're actually doing a pretty good job. The media has been quite serious lately at digging into everyone's past.

I'm sure you realize that the only reason Democrats are going after the Republican VP so aggressively is because she's changing the election dynamics here. It's a last resort tactic, usually an act of desperation, but more importantly, this is politics as usual. If you can't win by selling yourself, then tear down your opponent. Obama's initial appeal to independents and moderates was that he was above this stuff.

There is some truth to the notion that once McCain went negative with wedge issues, the Dems felt the need to follow. But as to Palin herself, I think a lot of us truly think she would be disastrous in governance. I've said many times before that I could accept a McCain presidency, I think he's a highly qualified individual, and old enough to not give a sh*t about the right wing once he's in office. But Palin is the anti-christ.

Is VP nominee Palin experienced enough to be President, particularly on the international front? I don't think so, but the better question is, is Presidential nominee Obama? If you believe he is, please explain. I think we all know now that he isn't, but I'd love to hear a well reasoned explanation from someone to the contrary.

Ridiculous. Simply by virtue of being a Constitutional Law professor he understands the purpose of government and the rights of the people better than McCain and Palin put together. Our government is a system of laws, you know. Education and knowledge of the law matters. Palin's education consists of a BS in journalism. She was a sports reporter prior to running for city council. She was mayor of a town of 7000, governor of a state of 670,000 (that's a small city in California). She's Not Ready.

“Do you believe in the Bush doctrine?” Mr. Gibson asked during the interview. Ms. Palin looked like an unprepared student who wanted nothing so much as to escape this encounter with the school principal.

Clueless, she asked, “In what respect, Charlie?”

“Well, what do you interpret it to be?” said Mr. Gibson.

“His worldview?” asked Ms. Palin.

Well, his worldview, as implemented into a policy of pre-emption. She was at least on the right track....

Later, in the spin zones of cable TV, commentators repeatedly made the point that there are probably very few voters — some specifically mentioned “hockey moms” — who could explain the Bush doctrine.

Yeah, they shouldn't be leading the country either.

The Bush doctrine, which flung open the doors to the catastrophe in Iraq, was such a fundamental aspect of the administration’s foreign policy that it staggers the imagination that we could have someone no further than a whisper away from the White House who doesn’t even know what it is.

Oh, I can imagine it pretty easily. I remember Dan Quayle.

You can’t imagine that John McCain or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman would not know what the Bush doctrine is. But Sarah Palin? Absolutely clueless.

Ms. Palin’s problem is not that she was mayor of a small town or has only been in the Alaska governor’s office a short while. Her problem (and now ours) is that she is not well versed on the critical matters confronting the country at one of the most crucial turning points in its history.

True. I know this stuff, and I have no political office.

The economy is in a tailspin. The financial sector is lurching about on rubbery legs. We’re mired in self-defeating energy policies. We’re at war. And we are still vulnerable to the very real threat of international terrorism.

With all of that and more being the case, how can it be a good idea to set in motion the possibility that Americans might wake up one morning to find that Sarah Palin is president?

I feel for Ms. Palin’s son who has been shipped off to the war in Iraq. But at his deployment ceremony, which was on the same day as the Charlie Gibson interview, Sept. 11, she told the audience of soldiers that they would be fighting “the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”

Was she deliberately falsifying history, or does she still not know that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?

To burnish the foreign policy credentials of a vice presidential candidate who never even had a passport until last year, the Republicans have been touting Alaska’s proximity to Russia. (Imagine the derisive laughter in conservative circles if the Democrats had tried such nonsense.) So Mr. Gibson asked Ms. Palin, “What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?”

She said, “They’re our next-door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska. From an island in Alaska.”

Mr. Gibson tried again. “But what insight does that give you,” he asked, “into what they’re doing in Georgia?”

John McCain, who is shameless about promoting himself as America’s ultimate patriot, put the best interests of the nation aside in making his incredibly reckless choice of a running mate. But there is a profound double standard in this country. The likes of John McCain and George W. Bush can do the craziest, most irresponsible things imaginable, and it only seems to help them politically.

That's because Republican voters are uninformed Bob.

[Mulu]

Well, the media has finally figured it out. What waits to be seen is if the independant voters can figure it out. The Republican voters would vote the ticket no matter what, of course.

Making America Stupid
Oh, as if it needs any help.

Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on breathing life into a 19th-century technology — fossil fuels — rather than giving birth to a 21st-century technology — renewable energy? As I have argued before, it reminds me of someone who, on the eve of the I.T. revolution — on the eve of PCs and the Internet — is pounding the table for America to make more I.B.M. typewriters and carbon paper. “Typewriters, baby, typewriters.”

Of course, we’re going to need oil for many years, but instead of exalting that — with “drill, baby, drill” — why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power with the mantra “invent, baby, invent?” That is what a party committed to “change” would really be doing. As they say in Texas: “If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, then all you’ll ever get is all you ever got.”

I dwell on this issue because it is symbolic of the campaign that John McCain has decided to run. It’s a campaign now built on turning everything possible into a cultural wedge issue — including even energy policy, no matter how stupid it makes the voters and no matter how much it might weaken America.

I respected McCain’s willingness to support the troop surge in Iraq, even if it was going to cost him the Republican nomination. Now the same guy, who would not sell his soul to win his party’s nomination, is ready to sell every piece of his soul to win the presidency.

In order to disguise the fact that the core of his campaign is to continue the same Bush policies that have led 80 percent of the country to conclude we’re on the wrong track, McCain has decided to play the culture-war card. Obama may be a bit professorial, but at least he is trying to unite the country to face the real issues rather than divide us over cultural differences.

A Washington Post editorial on Thursday put it well: “On a day when the Congressional Budget Office warned of looming deficits and a grim economic outlook, when the stock market faltered even in the wake of the government’s rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when President Bush discussed the road ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, on what did the campaign of Senator John McCain spend its energy? A conference call to denounce Senator Barack Obama for using the phrase ‘lipstick on a pig’ and a new television ad accusing the Democrat of wanting to teach kindergartners about sex before they learn to read.”

Some McCain supporters criticize Obama for not having the steel in his belly to use force in the dangerous world we live in today. Well I know this: In order to use force, you have to have force. In order to exercise leverage, you have to have leverage.

I don’t know how much steel is in Obama’s belly, but I do know that the issues he is focusing on in this campaign — improving education and health care, dealing with the deficit and forging a real energy policy based on building a whole new energy infrastructure — are the only way we can put steel back into America’s spine. McCain, alas, has abandoned those issues for the culture-war strategy.

Who cares how much steel John McCain has in his gut when the steel that today holds up our bridges, railroads, nuclear reactors and other infrastructure is rusting? McCain talks about how he would build dozens of nuclear power plants. Oh, really? They go for $10 billion a pop. Where is the money going to come from? From lowering taxes? From banning abortions? From borrowing more from China? From having Sarah Palin “reform” Washington — as if she has any more clue how to do that than the first 100 names in the D.C. phonebook?

Sorry, but there is no sustainable political/military power without economic power, and talking about one without the other is nonsense. Unless we make America the country most able to innovate, compete and win in the age of globalization, our leverage in the world will continue to slowly erode. Those are the issues this election needs to be about, because that is what the next four years need to be about.

There is no strong leader without a strong country. And posing as one, to use the current vernacular, is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.

[Mayhem]

So what does the Vice President actually do, anyway? The only time I remember hearing about Cheney ever doing anything was when he shot some guy on a turkey shoot.

Don't ask Palin - she doesn't know either.

[fluffmonster]

I don't necessarily require much experience if I believe that the candidate has the intellectual chops to "learn on the job", as it were. Obama does, Palin most certainly does not. I wouldn't accept an ignorant doctor or an ignorant engineer, I see no need to tolerate an ignorant VP. At best, that ignorance means you may be voting for McCain/Palin, but what you'd get is someone else calling the shots behind the stage, just like it's been under Bush.

Add to that Palin's record of cronyism in government, and you get a continuation of the politicisation of government...things like scientific evidence being suppressed from policy formation, people being appointed to offices based on personal relationships above competence, etc...

Greatly puzzling how supposedly die-hard republicans can support a ticket that points so clearly toward just poor governance...more of, in fact.

[Veilan]

I'm sure you realize that the only reason Democrats are going after the Republican VP so aggressively is because she's changing the election dynamics here.

I fully share this assessment (even though "realise" is spelt with an "s" ). If the Dems still manage to lose, you can just hear the howls about yet another stolen election. They seem frustrated and helpless in the face of the excitement and motivation this person brought to their opponents.

The G.O.P. is better at fighting elections.

[Mulu]

The G.O.P. is better at fighting elections.

If only they could govern competently.

[Veilan]

If only they could govern competently.

Why would they? Even though they state it more or less indirect only, the G.O.P.s disdain for government is quite apparent.