Romney is an idiot. Discriminating against mormons is the right thing to do.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
You’re wasting your breath. To people who love Sarah Palin and think she’s the female Reagan, policy, or even the minimal appearance of competence, are completely irrelevant. It’s identity politics, as plain as black people voting for Obama. One of the worst features of democracy.
To people who hate Sarah Palin - it is identity politics, only in reverse.
You and jsbrook are the poster boys for hating Palin because she is Palin. Either that or you were told to by Katy Couric.
But you have been anti-conservative since the war started. Single issue voters are pretty much fucking idiots. [/quote]
I don’t hate Palin. She’s a nice lady. I laid out very valid reasons for thinking she’d be a terrible president. You are just too dim to grasp them, but at the same time have been unable to defend either her record or her grasp of national politics and issues.
And I’ve been anti-conservative since the war started? Utter bullshit. This war and certainly the way it’s been executed has hardly been a conservative endeavor anyway.
Here it Is. It’s on par with Thoreau, Hemmingway and possibly Cervantes, but I’ll let you decide.
From her “Sarah Palin for Governor” site (which now routes to McCain’s website, but is still available on the Wayback Machine):
–
?Who?s Your Daddy?? Great question! I see that I got a ?thumbs down? on the Anchorage Daily News Sunday scoreboard with an accompanying insinuation that may not have the appropriate dad to allow me a particular public service role. Maybe the ADN should interview us wanna be?s (or has-beens!) and find out who are our daddies? Binkley?s, Hood?s and Palin?s. It may shed light on how we?ve come to do what we do.
I?ve always said my parents are much too smart and way too nice to be in politics. My dad is not rich or famous or powerful. He?s more than that. My dad is Mr. Heath… schoolteacher extraordinaire. He came north in ?64 to teach in Skagway. Forty years later he still subs in our district because his gift is connecting with Alaska?s young people.
More often than not when people out here in the real world run into me they don?t say, ?Oh, so you?re Alaska?s Oil and Gas Commissioner? Or, ?Oh yeah, you ware that mayor.? Nope. They say, ?So you?re Mr. Heath?s daughter? Cool! He?s my favorite teacher of all time!? I wouldn?t wish it any other way.
My dad is in Zimbabwe today. He and mom are celebrating their 42nd anniversary trekking through some African jungle. They regularly do things like that. They recently returned from their umpteenth season working on an Aleutian island where they ?shoo away? birds from an airstrip so Villagers? airplanes can land safely. Before that they spent their second season on Palm~, volunteering for The Nature Conservancy ?shoeing away? giant rats that have inhabited TNC?s remote, tropical island In between gigs they worked clean up at the site of the World Trade Center rubble.
Their travels arid adventures, always together, never end. But they always make it back by fall so they won?t miss the start up of the school year, ready and rare to go with new found excitement and perspective that they?ve gained from some recent exploration. Anxious to teach about the wonders of nature, especially the nature here in our Great Land.
Sometimes I haven?t a clue, coming from non-political Chuck Heath, why l remain passionate about wanting to change the world through Alaskan politics. But I know without a doubt that my Dad?s love for this state, his Independence, his strong work ethic and right priorities are my foundation and influence for every decision I make. He?s my most loyal supporter. Me, the media-stamped ?bard core conservative Republican?! He?s also the number one fan of one of his best buddies and hunting partners, Dr. Curt Menard, the well known democrat. See, he?s much too smart and way too nice to base relationships on politics.
A Boston marathoner, Chilkoot Trail hiker, cross-country skier, snowmachine traveler and obsessed angler. A lucky escapee of avalanche and bear scares and close calls in duct taped-together airplanes. He?s done it all and he keeps going back for more.
I?m thankful for all my dad taught me and allowed me to do. I?m glad he dragged my butt out of bed early, early autumn mornings to hunt ducks with him before cross-country running practice. He taught me to bag a caribou, fillet a fish, dig buckets of darns, and find the plumpest blueberries. He wouldn?t put up with my wimpy reasons why I couldn?t thaw frozen fish egg bait in my mouth, like he does, when ice fishing. But he did understand when I looked up at him quizzically once upon his request to ?please hold those? while he searched for something to put our freshly butchered moose?s eyeballs in so his students could observe them later that day. He graciously understood, and I didn?t have to hold those ungulate?s warm parts that morning in the alders.
My dad gave me two of the greatest gifts in my life: an upbringing in Alaska and an appreciation for all one can gain from athletics. He was Wasilla High School?s track, cross-country and freshman basketball coach. He never let me quit, no matter how bad it hurt or how the odds ware stacked against his athletes. He taught ?no pain, no gain…, and you reap what you sow,… and there ain?t no such thing as a flee lunch…, and dig deep, push hard and fully rely on your ROCK!?
(In our case, that ROCK would be God.) These are lessons I draw on everyday.
In terms of support for all our activities and ambitions, gender was never an issue in our home and I hope I am perpetuating that mindset with my own daughters now because I want it to be a foreign thought that they can?t do something based on gender.
Dad raised four healthy, happy kids who are now, with our spouses, all happily doing our thing serving Alaskans as: school teacher, state trooper, nurse, dental hygienist, commercial fisherman, oil production operator, community volunteer and coach. And one unlikely (or has been!) politician!
Aging athletes all, I might add.
Mr. Heath is grandpa to 12 fortunate young Alaskans, having an especially unique bond with his autistic eight-year-old grandson. From the first born, Track, on down, to Bristol, Willow, Piper lndi, McKinely, Happy, Karcher, Lauden, Payton, Keir, Heath (just 12 days old!) and Tico (who will enter this world and meet his Grandpa in September), our kids will grow up having the privilege of being positively influenced daily by their very own resident school teacher. (Starting kindergarten I remember feeling sorry for classmates who weren?t Teachers? Kids. TK?s had a jump on other students, I felt, who may not have been taught via casual dinner table conversation the difference between a crocodile and an alligator, or a grizzly and a brown bear, or told clever acronyms for remembering planet alignments and chemical compounds… and all that other good stuff that elementary school science teachers just know we need to know.)
No doubt dad will give these grandkids all the sage advice he gave me. Like, ?Money isn?t everything. In fact it?s nothing in terms of happiness, but remember you can fall in love with someone rich as easily as with someone poor.?
And his not-so-subtle advice to ?Turn off the TV! Read! Get outdoors!?
And my favorite, ?Life?s too short to be stuck in a rut so do what you enjoy doing.?
Recalling that particular bit of advice today has me contemplating what it is I?m doing now. My dad believes in paying your dues as you progress because nothing comes free, but you?d better be challenged and happy and energized in what you are doing or it?s just not worth it.
It?s good contemplation material.
So seeing the ?thumbs down? on the newspaper editorial scoreboard with the suggestion that my dad may not be the right dad to allow me to progress towards some political position that probably isn?t in the cards for me right now anyway… well, I got to think about just who my dad is today. I thank the ADN for that.
?Who?s Your Daddy?? In my book he is rich because he continues to share the wealth. I?m proud of him and thankful for his humble, adventuresome spirit and energy and compassion. And especially for his love far Alaska and for teaching others about this Great Land. In fact, the next time my name is in that newspaper, they should go ahead and use my maiden name. Sarah Heath Palin. Because my dad is Mr. Heath, and he?s a teacher.
I like her more for that speech. It’s sweet.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I don’t hate Palin. She’s a nice lady. I laid out very valid reasons for thinking she’d be a terrible president. You are just too dim to grasp them, but at the same time have been unable to defend either her record or her grasp of national politics and issues. [/quote]
You gave your opinion. I think your opinion is wrong. You admit that you are not a conservative. That says all that needs to be said about the validity of your input about the future of the conservative movement.
You want to base her entire future on three months of being in the public eye. You would be wrong to do so.
That was directed at GDollars. You have admitted you are not a conservative. Why be defensive about it now?
I agree with Damici and others with my dissatisfaction of the Republicans. I am a fiscal conservative: lower taxes and free markets all the way. The private sector should handle environmental issues (I was interested to read T. Boone Picken’s views on this matter). But I consider myself a social libertarian (notice I didn’t say liberal). People, not the government, should be able to define marriage, and the government has no business in reproductive or end-of-life decisions.
So, what does that leave as my choice? On another note, I noticed that several ballot initiatives regarding abortion were voted down. The Colorado “personhood” amendment was defeated by a resounding 75-25. I feel that the majority of people agree with me that while abortion is a tragedy, it’s none of the government’s damn business. The Republicans need to seriously consider these views when choosing their next candidate.
I like Newt - he’s come out as being very pro-science and doesn’t completely ignore environmental issues. I like Guilliani. Romney is okay. Palin is probably smarter than she comes across as being, but she may not be ready for 2012. She’d make another good running mate for the socially liberal Guilliani or even Newt.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I don’t hate Palin. She’s a nice lady. I laid out very valid reasons for thinking she’d be a terrible president. You are just too dim to grasp them, but at the same time have been unable to defend either her record or her grasp of national politics and issues.
You gave your opinion. I think your opinion is wrong. You admit that you are not a conservative. That says all that needs to be said about the validity of your input about the future of the conservative movement.
You want to base her entire future on three months of being in the public eye. You would be wrong to do so.
And I’ve been anti-conservative since the war started? Utter bullshit. This war and certainly the way it’s been executed has hardly been a conservative endeavor anyway.
That was directed at GDollars. You have admitted you are not a conservative. Why be defensive about it now?
[/quote]
Because I’m not ANTI-conservative either. I and many others want a viable alternative to the Democrat party. And Palin and the approach you’d like to see the Republican party take ain’t it.
And if you think I’m basing my opinion of Palin on three months of interviews you’re sorely mistaken and missed the majority of what I’ve said. 75% of my opinion of Palin is based on her performance in Wasilla and Alaska. As well as the dichotomy between what she says and what she does.
You may disagree with my assessment, but you’ve don’t nothing to refute it beyond blanket denials. You’ve failed to defend her numerous failings and poor performance. Understandably. There is no basis to do so.
But there’s no reason to argue this. Time to let sleeping dogs lie. I’m am very glad Palin is nowhere near the Presidency and hope it remains that way.
Oh, an about Ron Paul. Definitely has libertarian leanings. I like a lot of what he says.
Here’s a total longshot match up but one that may have a chance at beating Obama/Biden in '12: Sarah Palin and Colin Powell.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Because I’m not ANTI-conservative either. I and many others want a viable alternative to the Democrat party. And Palin and the approach you’d like to see the Republican party take ain’t it.
[/quote]
I agree: we need a viable alternative to the Democrats. Perhaps we should form a third party and call it the Moderate Party, or the Common Sense Party. I don’t know. I’m waiting for the Republicans to splinter but I don’t think they will. Perhaps the religious right doesn’t have as strong a hold on the Republicans as we think it does. I’m sure most business owners could give a rat’s ass about gay marriage, but are very interested in taxes and employment laws.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
You’re wasting your breath. To people who love Sarah Palin and think she’s the female Reagan, policy, or even the minimal appearance of competence, are completely irrelevant. It’s identity politics, as plain as black people voting for Obama. One of the worst features of democracy.
To people who hate Sarah Palin - it is identity politics, only in reverse.
You and jsbrook are the poster boys for hating Palin because she is Palin. Either that or you were told to by Katy Couric.
I don’t “hate” Palin at all. I don’t hate anyone in US politics. I’m a Christian from a small state, she appealed to me initially, as I said on here at the time. But I think she’s completely unprepared, and probably always will be, for the White House. How anyone could come to any other conclusion after watching her debating and being interviewed is completely beyond me.
But you have been anti-conservative since the war started. Single issue voters are pretty much fucking idiots.
There are plenty of conservatives who think Iraq was a bad idea. Too many to list. Read beyond National Review and the Wall Street Journal.
Palin was a one game special teams play.
I doubt she will go much further on the national stage, but wouldn’t swear to it.
BTW, I don’t read opinion magazines or watch TV for my views on Iraq or anything else. History, applied to today,s world has taught me that waiting for a threat to turn imminent before acting is a naive recipe for disaster.[/quote]
What history taught you that preventive (as opposed to preemptive) war was strategically wise? If you use the words “Munich” or “1938” you haven’t read much, or very thoroughly.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
There are plenty of conservatives who think Iraq was a bad idea. Too many to list. Read beyond National Review and the Wall Street Journal.
I don’t read the National Review.
You have been vehemently against Iraq since the beginning. That is hardly the same thing as thinking it is a bad idea.
[/quote]
Sadly, no. I voted for Bush twice, and cheerleaded for the war in my college paper in 2003 and 2004. I came around as I got a little older, read more, and realized that Saddam was never a real threat to us, and that the reasons for going to war were varied and flawed. If you haven’t read them, I would highly recommend taking a week or two and reading The Assassin’s Gate and Fiasco, probably the definitive accounts of the war thus far.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Because I’m not ANTI-conservative either. I and many others want a viable alternative to the Democrat party. And Palin and the approach you’d like to see the Republican party take ain’t it.
I agree: we need a viable alternative to the Democrats. Perhaps we should form a third party and call it the Moderate Party, or the Common Sense Party. I don’t know. I’m waiting for the Republicans to splinter but I don’t think they will. Perhaps the religious right doesn’t have as strong a hold on the Republicans as we think it does. I’m sure most business owners could give a rat’s ass about gay marriage, but are very interested in taxes and employment laws.[/quote]
Well, I’m hoping that the Republicans learned something from this election and will shake the stranglehold of the religious right and the arch-conservatives.
Thousands of people are longing for real fiscal responsibility and an alternative to waste and excessive liberalism and will flock to the Republican party if they can deliver without being extreme and ridiculous either fiscally (complete anti-government approach) or socially.
Odogg, I’m going to link to your post and video clip here:
Don’t anyone ever try to tell me Sarah Palin is not a fucking moron when the McCain campaign’s own staffers were having problems with her all along because . . . she was a fucking moron.
Sure she’s not the brightest, and I’m definitely not a fan of her, but not understanding that Africa is a continent? That sounds really hard to believe. Seriously?? Everything else in that clip is believable though.
Oh, speaking of all this “40 years of history” regarding Republicans’ (so-called) electoral successes (using fuzzy math), let’s all remember THIS:
The Democratic presidential nominee has won the popular vote four out of the last five elections.
Um . . . yeah, changes seem to be a-brewing.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I am not really sure what your point is.
My point is that if we support morons for office, that’s what we’re going to get.
It’s very fucking sad that if someone needs a doctor for their kids, they’ll try to find the best one (a smart, “elite” doctor - the best in his field will do just fine.); or if you need a mechanic for your car, you also want one who knows what the Hell he’s talking about and not just throwing mechanical terms around while he blindly changes parts until he stumbles on the right one. In most areas of life, we much prefer to deal with smart, competent people.
But to run the country? God forbid that someone smarter than the average Joe should end up in office. It’s not like there are any complex issues to deal with, or any repercussions down the line when massive blunders are made. No, the big litmus test for eligibility is “Would I like to have a beer with that guy/girl?”
Now, I don’t know how well Obama will fare as a president, but one thing’s for sure, he’s never spouted incoherent crap like Palin does. He might not be right about many issues, but he still can argue his side and do more than repeat coached arguments and catchy slogans.
Obama hasn’t spouted incoherent crap? Are you serious? Does anyone pay attention anymore?
Did you see O’Reilly put him on the spot? Obama is as big a moron as the rest of them.[/quote]
And O’Reilly himself following the interview referred to Obama as “very smart” and “highly intelligent.” Your partisanship blinds you.
[quote]Gael wrote:
…
And O’Reilly himself following the interview referred to Obama as “very smart” and “highly intelligent.” Your partisanship blinds you.[/quote]
O’Reilly has kissed the mans ass for quite some time now. That is how the game is played.
[quote]Damici wrote:
Oh, speaking of all this “40 years of history” regarding Republicans’ (so-called) electoral successes (using fuzzy math), let’s all remember THIS:
The Democratic presidential nominee has won the popular vote four out of the last five elections.
Um . . . yeah, changes seem to be a-brewing.[/quote]
Maybe so. I certainly think it’s time for a party realignment and time that the parties get in touch with the centrist views of most of the public. I am sick to death of the excessive liberalism of the Democrats and the way the Republican party caters to religious zealots and uncompromising social conservatives.
But I’m not sure how much stock to put in your statement. That’s simply the way the electoral college works. I don’t have any statistics to back it up, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral college in many elections throughout history. And alternatively, soundly held both the popular vote and the electoral college in many others only to have support shift back to the opposition party.
2000 was the only year where a candidate won the electoral college while losing the popular vote. *(EDIT: Apart from 1876 and 1888.) 
The reason why this recent record of the Republican party losing popular votes is important is that it points to a demographic change in the country, as I mentioned earlier. The hispanic population is growing vastly (2/3 of whom just voted for Obama), immigrants of all kinds are increasing their numbers here, and perhaps most importantly of all, the older, more conservative generation is constantly dying off and a younger generation is constantly coming of voting age. This is a big part of why a black man was able to be elected President in 2008. The under-45 crowd, for the most part, doesn’t have the same racial hangups that a lot of the over-45 crowd does. It also doesn’t have the same hangups about gays, which is why California will probably be able to overturn Prop 8 in the next 5 to 10 years.
I also have to believe that they (the younger generation) won’t have the same religious hangups – or at least not to the same degree – and sooner or later those who believed that people were riding dinosaurs with saddles on their backs, like in the Flintstones, will die off as well. Kind of like evolution at work, in a weird sort of way!
But putting the popular vote aside for a sec, let’s not forget that Obama just COMPLETELY redrew the electoral map, breaking all previous molds. He captured a number of states that were long-, long-time red states.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Damici wrote:
Oh, speaking of all this “40 years of history” regarding Republicans’ (so-called) electoral successes (using fuzzy math), let’s all remember THIS:
The Democratic presidential nominee has won the popular vote four out of the last five elections.
Um . . . yeah, changes seem to be a-brewing.
Maybe so. I certainly think it’s time for a party realignment and time that the parties get in touch with the centrist views of most of the public. I am sick to death of the excessive liberalism of the Democrats and the way the Republican party caters to religious zealots and uncompromising social conservatives.
But I’m not sure how much stock to put in your statement. That’s simply the way the electoral college works. I don’t have any statistics to back it up, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral college in many elections throughout history. And alternatively, soundly held both the popular vote and the electoral college in many others only to have support shift back to the opposition party. [/quote]
[quote]Damici wrote:
2000 was the only year where a candidate won the electoral college while losing the popular vote.
[/quote]
Except for Hayes, 1876, Harrison, 1888.