Sarah Palin Calls Out FightinIrish!

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Can you stump her? =:)

"GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (CNN) – Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin took questions with her running mate Wednesday night, offering at one point to play “stump the candidate” with a mostly friendly Michigan crowd.

1 of 3 Asked for “specific skills” she could cite to rebut critics who question her grasp of international affairs, she replied, “I am prepared.”

“I have that confidence. I have that readiness,” Palin said. “And if you want specifics with specific policies or countries, you can go ahead and ask me. You can play ‘stump the candidate’ if you want to. But we are ready to serve.”

GOP presidential nominee John McCain stepped in, pointing out that as governor of a state that is oil and gas plentiful, Palin was familiar with energy. She knows it to be “one of our great national security challenges,” he said.

He also cited her nearly two years as commander of Alaska’s National Guard. “I believe she is absolutely, totally qualified to address every challenge as the next vice president of the United States,” McCain said."

I’m calling you out, FightinIrish!
signed: The Mighty Sarah LOL!!

2

I would be much more self-assured if I could see some bikini shots of this alleged “Commander of the Alaska National Guard.”

Did you know she can see Russia from her house? Apparently she has been standing watch over the US her entire life.

3

Any argument that can be leveled against Palin’s “readiness” to be VP is instantly applicable (maybe even moreso) to Obama’s “readiness” to be Commander-in-Chief. It is pointless for the Obamaniacs to keep harping on Palin the way they have since she’s NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Until the Obama/Biden ticket stops being upside-down in the experience category, these arguments are instant losers for the Dems.

That said, if the definition of “experience” has to include years and years spent inside Washington D.C. then I’d frankly rather vote for someone with no experience at all.

4

Joe Biden is going to eat this woman alive.

5

You guys need to read the Combat Sports Forum once in a while. :slight_smile:

Mighty Quinn, where’d you go?

6

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
Any argument that can be leveled against Palin’s “readiness” to be VP is instantly applicable (maybe even moreso) to Obama’s “readiness” to be Commander-in-Chief. It is pointless for the Obamaniacs to keep harping on Palin the way they have since she’s NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Until the Obama/Biden ticket stops being upside-down in the experience category, these arguments are instant losers for the Dems.

That said, if the definition of “experience” has to include years and years spent inside Washington D.C. then I’d frankly rather vote for someone with no experience at all.[/quote]

The argument is a winner. I am not saying that Obama is as experienced as he should be. But Obama has been defending his experience. And it will continued to be attacked whether he goes after Palin or not. The experience of the VP is certainly relevant. And Palin is sadly lacking. And it is a smart thing to harp on. While Palin has revitalized the conservative base and is also doing pretty well with many more moderate men, many moderates and independent swing-voters are deeply disturbed by the choice.

And as much because of their view that that she is unqualified and inexperience as because of her social policies. I have had several moderates who have been struggling to make a decision tell me they don’t think they can vote for McCain with Palin on the ticket.

7

The Pork Queen is Earmarked.

lol

8

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
That said, if the definition of “experience” has to include years and years spent inside Washington D.C. then I’d frankly rather vote for someone with no experience at all.[/quote]

OK, fair enough point but do you honestly believe this woman should be inside the White House?

The more I hear her speak the less I hate GWB.

I am really glad she was able to get certain measures changed in AK but I must ask what does that have to do with her possible role as VP – if we are in fact supposed only to judge her in that light? She effectively will just serve as an ambassador to the executive office and once in a while will cast a tie breaker vote in the Senate. No harm could possible come from that, right?

Well, then reality kicks me in the face when I see McCain’s trembling old body on TV and realize this guy is dead soon. Being president does not exactly reverse the aging process. It is a legitimate question to ask if Palin is ready to become president. Not that I care if she does or doesn’t because in the end it doesn’t matter.

There is no supremely virtuous politician that can change the way this country’s government essentially works so everyone is fucked in the end.

9

The whole outsider-insider dichotomy is bullshit. Of course, I’d like someone with the experience of an insider with the ideals and lack of corruption of an ‘outsider.’ But that’s a fallacy. An unreality. Everyone who makes it to Washington is every bit as ruthless and politically driven and possibly as corrupt as anyone who’s been there for 30 years. It just hasn’t become public knowledge or evident yet. So, I’ll take someone qualified who’s spent time in Washington dealing with the issues they’ll need to deal with than someone who’s supposedly pure and principled.

10

I guess I have a different view here. You guys are arguing that Palin is inexperienced because the highest office she’s ever held is as Governor of Alaska. How many Governors have we had as President? Clinton? Reagan? Bush? I don’t see why we should consider Palin too inexperienced to make it as VP if those guys were good enough to make the Pres. If it’s a matter of time, where is the line? 4 years? 6 years? Does it matter?

With regard to the corrupting influence of Power in Washington, do we believe that Obama is above such influences? I don’t. Obama himself has admitted that his “tax the rich” policy might have to be delayed under current economic situation. If it’s bad when we’re in recession, why would it be good when we’re not? How much of Obama’s money came from his buddies at Freddie and Fannie? Why does he want to delay the withdrawl of troops from Iraq until after the election? As far as I can tell, the guy is already “corrupted”, I don’t want to see what will happen to him when he’s got real power.

11

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Joe Biden is going to eat this woman alive.[/quote]

You’re kidding, right? Biden has no chance against her. The best he can do to save face will be to insist on a table format where they sit and discuss the issues. If he tries to take her on standing at podiums, it will be a massacre.

12

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
I guess I have a different view here. You guys are arguing that Palin is inexperienced because the highest office she’s ever held is as Governor of Alaska. How many Governors have we had as President? Clinton? Reagan? Bush? I don’t see why we should consider Palin too inexperienced to make it as VP if those guys were good enough to make the Pres. If it’s a matter of time, where is the line? 4 years? 6 years? Does it matter?

With regard to the corrupting influence of Power in Washington, do we believe that Obama is above such influences? I don’t. Obama himself has admitted that his “tax the rich” policy might have to be delayed under current economic situation. If it’s bad when we’re in recession, why would it be good when we’re not? How much of Obama’s money came from his buddies at Freddie and Fannie? Why does he want to delay the withdrawl of troops from Iraq until after the election? As far as I can tell, the guy is already “corrupted”, I don’t want to see what will happen to him when he’s got real power.[/quote]

Palin was governor of Alaska for two short years. And before that she was a small time mayor. But that matters little to me. I’m mostly basing my view of her experience based on her speeches and public comments, particulary in the area of foreign policy. Not simply a sparse resume. I don’t think Obama is above corrupting influences by any means. But nor do I think this is a particularly convincing selling point for Palin. As far as policy goes, the cornerstone of Obama’s tax policy is not tax hikes for the rich but tax cuts for 95% of the country. Whether a tax hike is justified in times of prosperity is a more difficult issues. But, clearly there are good reasons not to raise taxes even on those with a good amount of money if they are struggling and in financial distress themselves.

13

Understood. What has she said about foriegn policy in particular that worries you?

And is it even remotely feasible for Obama to cut taxes for 95% of the population when roughly the lowest 40% of earners pay no taxes at all? It sounds to me like he’s not promising to cut taxes at all, but he is promising a handout. I’m pretty damn poor myself, so I would be tempted by such language. But where does that money come from? Mostly from people like my boss, who owns the company that allows me to have a job. I’m all for the government allowing me to keep more of the money that I earn, but I don’t want the government’s pity. I don’t need someone to play Robin Hood on my behalf, at the expense of the people who create wealth and jobs in this country. Once tax rates get so high on the rich, they’ve gone beyond fair, and have entered into the realm of punishment. I wouldn’t condone that any more than I would rob you at gunpoint just because you were doing well and I was not.

14

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
Understood. What has she said about foriegn policy in particular that worries you?

And is it even remotely feasible for Obama to cut taxes for 95% of the population when roughly the lowest 40% of earners pay no taxes at all? It sounds to me like he’s not promising to cut taxes at all, but he is promising a handout. I’m pretty damn poor myself, so I would be tempted by such language. But where does that money come from? Mostly from people like my boss, who owns the company that allows me to have a job. I’m all for the government allowing me to keep more of the money that I earn, but I don’t want the government’s pity. I don’t need someone to play Robin Hood on my behalf, at the expense of the people who create wealth and jobs in this country. Once tax rates get so high on the rich, they’ve gone beyond fair, and have entered into the realm of punishment. I wouldn’t condone that any more than I would rob you at gunpoint just because you were doing well and I was not.[/quote]

She’s said very little of substance. But she doesn’t know what the Bush doctrine is, has stated that she doesn’t really understand Iraq even though her son is going there (and has spoke of an Iraq-911 attack link that has no basis in fact), put forth a plane stopover in Ireland as some sort of foreign policy experience (the campaign retracted it). I haven’t gotten a chance yet to watch the Gibson interview in full, but I’m expecting many cringeworthy statements.

As a fairly rich person, I can tell you a tax hike doesn’t change my behavior when it’s not exorbitant. It doesn’t stop me from spending and ‘creating wealth’. Of course, it can get excessive. And I don’t like my money being pissed away. But no one is talking about going back to a welfare state or unreasonable taxes. I don’t mind doing my part. To a degree. There are exponentially more middle-class people than rich people and it stimulates the economy when they have more money to spend. I am not yet in the bracket that gets hit by the Obama tax plan anyway. He has professed no tax increase for those earning under $250,000.

15

[quote]on edge wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
Joe Biden is going to eat this woman alive.

You’re kidding, right? Biden has no chance against her. The best he can do to save face will be to insist on a table format where they sit and discuss the issues. If he tries to take her on standing at podiums, it will be a massacre.[/quote]

I agree. I think that Biden may have the upper hand in subjects like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East, but other than that I really don’t see Biden looking good in any debate with Palin.

16

[quote]on edge wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
Joe Biden is going to eat this woman alive.

You’re kidding, right? Biden has no chance against her. The best he can do to save face will be to insist on a table format where they sit and discuss the issues. If he tries to take her on standing at podiums, it will be a massacre.[/quote]

Seriously? Did you see the Charlie Gibson interview? She had a complete deer in headlights look for most of it. None of those questions would stump Biden in the least.

All we have learned is that she can memorize answers that her right wing handlers feed her, but she doesn’t understand them in the least. I agree that Biden can’t directly attack her, but all he has to do is answer the questions and attack McCain during the debates and he will be light years ahead.

Unless Biden develops a severe case of diareha of the mouth this debate is going to be a masacre.

17

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
on edge wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
Joe Biden is going to eat this woman alive.

You’re kidding, right? Biden has no chance against her. The best he can do to save face will be to insist on a table format where they sit and discuss the issues. If he tries to take her on standing at podiums, it will be a massacre.

Seriously? Did you see the Charlie Gibson interview? She had a complete deer in headlights look for most of it. None of those questions would stump Biden in the least.

All we have learned is that she can memorize answers that her right wing handlers feed her, but she doesn’t understand them in the least. I agree that Biden can’t directly attack her, but all he has to do is answer the questions and attack McCain during the debates and he will be light years ahead.

Unless Biden develops a severe case of diareha of the mouth this debate is going to be a masacre.[/quote]

Biden’s his own worst enemy. He can easily rub people the wrong way. He should do very well and more than hold his own if he can curb his tendencies. On substance, he winds hands down.

18

This lady doesnt know shit from Shilo. She was so flustered during her interview with Charlie Gibson. As someone seeking a seat in the White House of all places, I would like to think our potential commanders in chief would be prepared for just about anything coming our way.

She looked like she studied for a quiz, which she failed anyway.

19

I think Palin has taken too much flak for the “Bush Doctrine” question, as I detailed in another thread. Gibson could just have easily asked her for an opinion regarding “pre-emptive war” and left less room for subjective misunderstanding.

Furthermore, Gibson’s interview used deliberately-butchered quotes in order to make her look bad, I personally have no respect whatsoever for Gibson at this point.

Regarding the tax situation, I’m pretty sure that Clinto also promised a “middle-class tax cut” before he got in office as well. Didn’t happen because the deficit was too high. Investors Business Daily has this to say about Obama’s tax plan:

[quote]Using data from the Brookings Institution’s and Urban Institute’s joint Tax Policy Center, Brill and Viard considered the Obama plan’s effect on a two-earner couple with one child in college and another age 12 or younger.

Their marginal tax rates are between 34% and 39% in the $31,000 to $45,000 income range �?? a 13 percentage point or more increase from current rates.

The increase happens because Obama phases out the child and dependent-care credit for one-child families in the $30,000-to-$58,000 income range. According to Brill and Viard, the effective tax rate increases by 3 percentage points, while making certain credits refundable triggers a tax penalty of up to 15%.

The same family earning $110,000 to $120,000 would suffer “a staggering 45% effective marginal rate . . . 11 percentage points higher than under current law,” the AEI scholars say, because of changes planned for Bill Clinton’s Hope Scholarship Tax Credit.[/quote]
Source:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=304297643560219

As far as I’m concerned all this talk of tax cuts and raises misses the point. What is really needed is for Washington to reduce their spending, and right now I don’t see either party trying to do that.

20

I will give you that. There is a good chance that Biden will totally go off the handle, but if they can keep this thing on the issues–Bidden will take her down.