?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Sep. 3rd, 2008

I am very impressed with Sarah Palin. She is a wonderful speaker, and her wit is very charming. She's aggressive, she's knowledgeable, she cares for her country. She will be an asset to McCain's campaign-- he picked VERY well. There were a few parts of her speech I didn't care for. The lies, mainly. Saying that Obama intended to raise taxes. Where'd she get that?

Her personal life doesn't matter, her character seems worthy. On policy we differ by a long shot-- and that's important - but I'm confident that she would make a decent Vice President.

HOWEVER, her running mate is not with me on policy, and he isn't with me on wit, speaking, intelligence, charm, or otherwise. He used to be hot, so there's one point for him. Against approximately infinity for Obama (minus the issue of taxes-- not that I don't believe that he won't cut them, I am just waiting for a candidate to endorse FairTax).

Obama FTW.

Comments

( 27 comments — Leave a comment )
ellie_kay
Sep. 4th, 2008 04:42 am (UTC)
Windfall profits tax, for one. :-)

SHE HAD THE PERFECT PLACE TO ENDORSE THE FAIRTAX. I almost screamed at her to JUST SAY IT! Just the ONE word!! Hahaha...we've still got a long road on that one. BTW, are you in favor or against the FT? Just curious, I don't think I've ever seen you mention it before.

I was never never a huge fan (or really a fan at all) of McCain. I wanted to vote for Thompson but he had already dropped out by our primary, and even then I think I went with Romney. I don't even remember because I just didn't really care that much by that point. I wanted Thompson, dammit.

I think that's why this pick is so genius. McCain is a more moderate conservative, and Palin is more right-wing. Between both of them, there's pretty much something for everyone. What a way to unite the party and make people who were dreading this election, such as myself, become excited about it again.

November is still a loooong way away though. I hate this part.
ellie_kay
Sep. 4th, 2008 04:52 am (UTC)
p.s. why did you say hollie was hardcore?
thebohomama
Sep. 4th, 2008 11:00 am (UTC)
Fairtax doesn't seem particularly fair to me, seeing as lower income individuals tend to spend all their money when they get it (paycheck to paycheck) and high income individuals tend to save their money to spend later. I'd rather get their tax dollars first since it hurts them less to do more good for our economy.
ellie_kay
Sep. 4th, 2008 01:00 pm (UTC)
that's why there's a prebate.
thisgirliknow
Sep. 4th, 2008 01:34 pm (UTC)
There's a prebate :) Read up on it. basically, anyone up to the poverty line (13kish) wouldn't have to pay any taxes, ever, because before each month each person/family would receive 23% of the poverty line-- which would be the fair tax rate.
thisgirliknow
Sep. 5th, 2008 12:16 am (UTC)
I've mentioned FairTax briefly, and I'm definitely not as vocal about it as you are. Basically I'm more of the position that America needs a major tax reform, and I didn't get the point of income tax in the first place. On the whole I am VERY much in favor of fairtax but I'm worried about:

- FairTax makes a big point to say that they are cutting down on the amount of paper from tax returns, and yet they intend to send out monthly checks to every person/family. They probably should ditch the argument, it's not going to get them anywhere.

- Many more used goods, less demand for newly manufactured goods, and other less legal ways of evading taxes.

- Home, health, food. I'm grateful and happy that education would not be taxed, but paying that much more for a home purchase seems scary for most Americans. I see some sort of big uproar for people buying homes right around the time of the change.

- Jobs lost. IRS jobs, accounting jobs, tax preparers, support staff.

Depsite the issues I have with it, I still maintain that no form of taxation could be completely perfect and that FairTax is awfully close. If there was a way to better solve some of my issues, I'd probably be much more vocal about it.
negativeneve
Sep. 4th, 2008 05:38 am (UTC)
Didn't Palin want Alaska to be separate from the Union?
teenonfire4lord
Sep. 4th, 2008 05:48 am (UTC)
Palin was, by all accounts for a short time, a member of a GROUP that counts among its beliefs a desire to separate Alaska from the Union.

I get the impression she just as a LOT of state pride and wanted to see change.
thisgirliknow
Sep. 4th, 2008 01:36 pm (UTC)
People in the KKK were (are) just members of a group, too. I'm not equating this by any means, but generally if you join a group, you believe in it's ideals.
thisgirliknow
Sep. 4th, 2008 12:05 pm (UTC)
Her husband is quite big on it.
teenonfire4lord
Sep. 4th, 2008 06:04 am (UTC)
Palin is a knockout pick. Man alive, she nailed it tonight. I think the issue of taxes may be more the Democratic Congress than Obama directly, though Charlie Gibson did say it was a question Obama had to answer. It seems to be more Obama's ambitious government programs which are quietly funded by raising taxes. And it's like Thompson put it. The Dems may say they will only raise taxes on businesses, so that means we won't be affected unless we buy something from a business.

Palin hit the main point about Obama tonight. The presidency is not an internship or on-the-job training. It's true that the only one of these 4 with any executive experience is in fact Sarah Palin, but McCain still has much more Washington experience than Obama. Obama is a 1-term Senator with most of THAT spent running for President. Biden doesn't help that, it's OBAMA we're electing president, not Biden. I want that experience in the big chair.

A point to posit to you for consideration: I think the Democrats popped the cork on Obama 4 years too early. They got really excited about his speech at the DNC, weren't excited that Hillary was the other strong contender, didn't see her as electable. Obama is a strong candidate, but he'd be stronger with 4 more years of senatorial experience. That's my only non-partisan issue with him, but it's a big one.

Here's an exciting final thought: Even if McCain wins, I'm not sure he'd run again in 2012. Obama would probably take one more shot. If Obama wins, McCain probably won't run again, and Palin is the Republican Obama. So either way, I think we're headed for a very young, dynamic, historic election in 2012; Palin vs. Obama.
chapstickqueen
Sep. 4th, 2008 04:26 pm (UTC)
Aren't you contradicting yourself in the 2nd paragraph...we're not electing Palin to president either....

I totally agree that Obama should have waited another 4 years though...for some actual senate experience...just like Palin shouldn't have been chosen for another 4 year....for some actual gubernatorial experience.
lizblizz
Sep. 4th, 2008 06:09 am (UTC)
I'm surprised that you enjoyed her speech. I found her incredibly annoying (ugh - that accent nearly killed me), and I thought it was really obvious that the wit from her speech came from a speech writer, not from her own creativity.

Not that Obama and McCain don't use speech-writers as well, but they at least are convincing while delivering their speeches. Sarah Palin just seemed like a robot who was given a script to perform, much like how I feel when Dubya speaks (which I have tried to avoid watching for the past eight years, because it just absolutely infuriates me that anyone would elect such an idiot).

Anyway - regardless of her character, she is still extremely inexperienced and McCain is old. If he croaks, I REALLY don't want to think about what would happen with her as VP.

I'm hoping that enough of the swing voters will agree with me and put their vote toward Obama.

I really, really have a huge amount of faith in Obama - I've just had a great feeling about him since the first time I saw him speak, long before the campaigns began. I just really hope that enough others are inspired enough to actually VOTE.
negativeneve
Sep. 4th, 2008 06:31 am (UTC)
Many foreign countries believe Obama isn't strong enough to stand against another countries when a conflict arises. They think he is weak in comparison to the other ministries.
lizblizz
Sep. 4th, 2008 06:40 am (UTC)
I'm sure there are just as many who would find reasons to not elect McCain as well.

The bottom line is that we're electing someone that WE want running the country, not what the rest of the world wants.

Although I get your argument, because I was using the same argument against Sarah Palin recently.
negativeneve
Sep. 4th, 2008 07:04 am (UTC)
Just as many foreign countries? Pft. I'm pretty sure ALL of them are rooting for Obama.
lizblizz
Sep. 5th, 2008 01:22 am (UTC)
I am very confused here. What did your first comment mean then?
negativeneve
Sep. 5th, 2008 06:09 am (UTC)
It's just what they think, but he's still the one everyone is looking at to be the next president.
thebohomama
Sep. 4th, 2008 10:53 am (UTC)
Such as? The media over here, as far as I've seen, would suggest otherwise. They just instead see McCain as a continuing of warmongering, not that Obama is weak. Is that a bad thing?
negativeneve
Sep. 4th, 2008 11:25 am (UTC)
The Dutch media is saying that about Obama. As far as what countries they're talking about, well I'm not exactly sure. I assume Holland is one of them.

It's not promised foreign policy they were talking about. It has to deal more with what happens if conflict arises between a minister and Obama during talks. The feeling is that he'll let them walk all over him when it comes down to it.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last question. Is what a bad thing?
thebohomama
Sep. 4th, 2008 12:06 pm (UTC)
I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I think Obama would be more diplomatic than McCain, and more willing to compromise-- which I don't think is a bad thing.
negativeneve
Sep. 4th, 2008 12:39 pm (UTC)
I think so too. I guess they're afraid he'll be too lenient? I personally don't think so. I loved how he laid the smack-down on Clinton when she was trying to trash talk him during one of their debates.
thisgirliknow
Sep. 4th, 2008 01:35 pm (UTC)
I love how they criticize Obama for wanting to communicate with other countries, like that's a bad thing. It's almost as funny as when they use "he wants to separate church and state"
thebohomama
Sep. 4th, 2008 10:14 am (UTC)
"The lies, mainly" LOL
pandora48sch
Sep. 4th, 2008 10:59 am (UTC)
I couldn't sit through it. I didn't watch, I listened, and I didn't hear anything but what everyone's been saying about her in the first half-ish of the speech.
tevarin
Sep. 5th, 2008 02:52 pm (UTC)
I couldn't sit through it either. Her voice irritates me. You can google the text online though.
subjectivity
Sep. 4th, 2008 01:06 pm (UTC)
I watched some. I'd say the jury is still out on her character. She lies (the "bridge to nowhere" for example; yes, she DID support federal money for it) and she's in the middle of an ethics scandal for possibly improperly having her ex-brother-in-law fired.

But yes, she's charming, tougher than she looks, and funny.

The mommy debate is really interesting to me, (should a woman with 5 kids and as much family issues as she has be running? and would we even ask that question if it was a man?) and if nothing else I'm glad her candidacy is bringing up some issues about working mothers, and special needs kids.

I think as a VP she won't do much, but I'm VERY worried about having someone that socially conservative and anti-environment as president. It would be Bush all over again.

ellie_kay's comment on top is what worries me the most -- this pick really has republicans fired up and excited. Democrats seem to have lost some momentum because there is some Obama fatigue. Here's hoping we get it back.
( 27 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

botticelli
thisgirliknow
Much like pineapples, I am hardcore.

Latest Month

April 2016
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel