CARROLL: Palin puzzler
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published September 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
A thought experiment: What if Hillary Clinton had defeated Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries and then, with no need to choose an old hand like Joe Biden as her running mate, picked a fresh-faced Western governor in order to boost her appeal in several critical swing states.
A governor such as Bill Ritter, for example, from what may be the most closely contested swing state of all.
Would critics have leaped to denounce Ritter's lack of experience and foreign policy expertise with the same gusto that they initially brought to bear on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin?
Maybe, but somehow I doubt it, even though Ritter is at exactly the same point in his first term as Palin is and his previous public service was also at the local level.
No, Ritter would have been portrayed by many of Palin's critics as a leading example of a new breed of Democrat, someone who bucked long odds to secure his party's nomination. Someone who has since pushed a popular green agenda in his attempt to fashion a New Energy Economy. How refreshing, they'd say.
For the record, Ritter himself dismissed his chances for vice president early last month precisely because he'd been governor for "just 18 months." But he was thinking of himself as a teammate for the relatively inexperienced Obama, not Clinton.
I'm not suggesting Palin has the ideal resume for a vice president. Far from it. We don't even know, for example, if she's ever paid much attention to foreign affairs - or whether the subject actually interests her.
Still, for whatever reason (Colorado rather than remote Alaska? Man instead of woman? Liberal rather than conservative?), it's hard to believe Ritter would have endured the same degree of skepticism and even derision as Palin if he'd been plucked without warning for a national ticket.
Creative thinking
When you hear the words "Colorado Farm Bureau" or "Colorado Cattlemen's Assocation," you don't necessarily think of innovative approaches to protecting wildlife.
And yet agricultural interests in this state, facing the current effort by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to rewrite rules governing energy production, have in fact come up with a great alternative to some of the more disturbing draft rules.
As it is, the commission is poised to encroach on agreements reached between private landowners and energy companies - despite the law's clear statement that revised rules provide for the "consent of the affected surface owner."
In short, if the state didn't like where a property owner and company had agreed to site a gas well (because it adversely affected wildlife habitat), officials could thwart drilling there - or quash it for part of the year.
That might sound reasonable if your only goal is to preserve habitat, but the state should be interested in preserving property rights, too.
Maybe there's a way to protect both. The ag coalition thinks there is.
They're proposing that rather than try to dictate the location of wells on private land, the state create an incentive-based system for improving wildlife habitat.
A company could compensate for the loss of habitat, for example, by enhancing it elsewhere on the property. If that isn't possible, it could enhance habitat off-site, on someone else's property.
Failing that, the coalition explains in documents it submitted to the commission, "innovative tools such as conservation land banks could also be considered as part of the larger discussion. . . . In the case of oil and gas development, land banks could be established where wildlife benefits are most likely to occur. For example, a company that disturbs 100 acres of sagebrush could provide incentives to private landowners or federal permittees to improve wildlife habitat on corresponding acreage."
This sort of banking system already exists for wetlands, by the way.
The Oil and Gas Conservation Commission resumes its deliberations on the proposed rules today. Let's hope they recognize a better mousetrap when they see it.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
September 10, 2008
3 a.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
Dems are flummoxed and angry that the coronation of The One may not be as easy as they thought. I mean, of course EVERYBODY hates Republicans these days and this election will once and for all let the "true" nature of America shine through the "national tragedy" of the "selected, not elected" George W. Bush.
But wait, could it be, could it really happen again, the Republicans "steal" another election away from the obvious will of the people?
What Dems never get is that THEY are the problem every bit as much as Reps. America is a center-right nation that values gun rights and God. And national pride is heartfelt, not "jingoistic" and dependent on who occupies the White House. It is eternal in the majority of America, an America that Dems like Barack Hussein Obama, DailyKos, MoveOn and the many haters who will post in response to Vince's (or my) words just "don't get".
If Dems had nominated a candidate with their heads instead of their hearts they would have won in a landslide. But once again they've misjudged the core of the American voter's values. Barack's campaign message is fatally flawed: "Hope" is not a strategy and "change" is not a destination, as was stated at the RNC.
Obama's flailing away at the R's #2, Sarah Palin, as "inexperienced" is a desperate and undisciplined response by an inexperienced D #1 to events he did not foresee and could not control. And it comes across as chauvinistic and condescending. Obama's attempt to morph McCain into GWB is a preposterous preposition. For political attacks to stick there has to be a basis of truth. The public knows McCain as the maverick he truly is, not as a clone of GWB and every dime Obama spends trying to "re-educate" voters is wasted, flushed down the toilet.
And, most importantly, Obama sold himself as a "new kind of politician", someone who would "unite us" and end the kind of "negative campaigning brought to us by GWB and Karl Rove". Every moment he engages in the same old kind of politics of division and negative campaigning he exposes the folly of the entire premise of his campaign message up till now.
Obama painted himself in a box. Dems were cocky and went for it all in nominating the most leftist candidate they had to chose from. And now they'll end up losing an election that was nearly impossible for them to lose. Don't look for them to point the fingers back at themselves, though; the message on October 5th they'll be howling is "another election stolen", even though the facts won't back them up.
September 10, 2008
6:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
The double-standard being applied to Sarah Palin in so many ways is clear for all to see. The Left has had one of their cherished stances, i.e., "women's empowerment", co-opted and tossed right back in their face. While the Left gives lip service to empowering women in high office, the Republican's historically have actually done it. The Democrats seem be congenitally incapable of admitting that their agenda is not supported by the majority of American's. If they don't start running against John McCain instead of running against Sarah Palin and George Bush, this election isn't going to be nearly as close as the mainstream media would have one think. And remarks about putting lipstick on a pig, whether meant to be a slam or not, just sent a few more thousand women to vote Republican. Hide and watch. Nice job, Vince. Mike
September 10, 2008
7:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
Nice try Vince - Your comparison between Ritter and Palin is not valid and the biggest and most consequential difference is that pointed out by Juan Cole at http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/...
What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick
A theocrat is a theocrat, whether Muslim or Christian.
Sept. 9, 2008 | "John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick."
September 10, 2008
7:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Of course the Republicans would have been eager to rip into Governor Ritter. At least he openly admits that he would like to have more experience before excepting that kind of offer. He also understands the law and how laws are made and upheld.
People had/have no idea who Sarah Palin is, that is the reason for the extreme interest in her history and temperment. Honesty about one's record is important. Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a 'fiscal conservative' but during her 6 years as Mayor of a small town she increased government expenditures by over 33%. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million.
In a town without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system she instead spent $15 million plus for construction of a sports complex on a piece of property that the city didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 years later.
Did McCain pick her solely to help him win this election? Does he honestly believe that she is the most qualified person to guide this country? So, Condoleeza Rice lacks the necessary experience?
Mind boggling.
September 10, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
JYP3500 writes:
Vincent, you are exactly right, but will never get any liberals to agree (their aversion to common sense & honesty).
Mikeyg, excellent post, I would only add to your final sentence, they will play the race card as well.
September 10, 2008
7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
During her 6 years as Mayor of a small town she increased government expenditures by over 33%. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million.
This is typical of the neocons. Because they think money comes from a collection plate. Did anybody notice that the government got $500 Billion dollars bigger just last weekend? The biggest, most indebted government in history - under a "conservative" administration.
Sarah Palin is an extremist Pentecostal. I think she needs to make full disclosure and tell us all what exactly that means. One of the things that means is that her extreme religious views take precedence over everything else. Things like the 'rapture', the second coming, things that involve Israel and preparing the way for the second coming. Come on don't be shy let's hear all about it.
Sorry John if the GOP hadn't over-ruled you on VP choice I would have voted for you. Can't support another religious nut case however.
September 10, 2008
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
oma writes:
must have been a slow news day for vincent to delve into the hypothetical. but, i agree w/ him. ritter would have been a bad choice. the difference is that hillary would not have been as cynical to have picked an unknown who only ran a town of a few thousand, who thinks she talks to god and is a liar to boot. a christian liar at that. he makes a good point that he doesn't even know if she has an interest in foreign policy, er, besides being from a state that is nearest state to russia. wow, some credentials. we will never know how much she knew about anything in the international world because the mccain handlers haven't even let her talk to the press until she gets to talk to repub lackey charlie gibson which gives them a chance to coach her until she meets charlie. sorry right wing nut jobs, your hypocrisy is showing since vince is right for once, you guys would be hootin and hollerin if a person as inexperienced as ritter were chosen.
September 10, 2008
8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
ColoradoDave writes:
Vincent Carroll asks: "What if Hillary Clinton had defeated Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries...."
McCain and his team chose Palin for two reasons. First to placate the Christian wing of the GOP. McCain wanted either Senator Joe Lieberman or former Governor Tom Ridge. Since both are pro-choice the Dobson wing balked and threatened a floor fight. Now a Maverick politician would have trusted his own instincts and chosen the Veep he wanted. We all know, of course, that John McCain is no Maverick but simply a party hack. He caved and discarded his first choice.
After caving to the anti-choicers McCain chose Palin not because she is qualified, or because he liked and admired her, but because he thought a woman would siphon some Hillary votes from Obama. Apparently the McCain team feel Democratic women think only with their reproductive organs. To the GOP pro-choice, pro-equality women will flock to a candidate who opposes choice and equality simply because they both have two X chromosomes. Talk about pandering.
So to answer Carroll's question: "What if Hillary Clinton had defeated Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries...."
In that case John McCain would likely have chosen J. C. Watts, an African-American and former Republican representative from Oklahoma. As a shameless ploy to keep African-Americans from voting for Hillary.
September 10, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
TeFrey writes:
The only people I ever saw taking Ritter seriously as a vice presidential pick were people in the Colorado media who pretend our politicians have way more clout than they do, either to sell papers or to feed your own sense of self-importance. I like Ritter ok and have high hopes for him, but the idea of him as a serious candidate vice presidential candidate never existed outside the Colorado media's narcissistic fantasy. If you must compare the media's reception of Sarah Palin to someone, why not choose an inexperienced vice presidential candidate who actually existed, such as Dan Quayle?
September 10, 2008
8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
>>Would critics have leaped to denounce Ritter's lack of experience and foreign policy expertise with the same gusto that they initially brought to bear on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin?
Maybe, but somehow I doubt it, even though Ritter is at exactly the same point in his first term as Palin is and his previous public service was also at the local level.<<
I doubt it as well.
Interestingly, Vince doesn't ask the other side of the question - would the same people who are now defending Palin and try making a point of supposed, hypothetical hypocrisy and double standards as Vince does here and Rosen did last week (is that a trend?) "denounce Ritter's lack of experience and foreign policy expertise"??
I don't doubt for a moment that they would.
Double standards and hypocrisy abound in politics and are commonly used yet decried by pundits like Rosen, that's to be expected.
I would expect better from an editorial page editor like Vince though, his pundit stripes are showing quite clearly.
September 10, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
McCain is no maverick. If he was he would have gone with Lieberman or Ridge. He voted with Bush 90% of the time and has flipped on the tax breaks for the rich and other issues that he first stood up for. I supported him in 2000 but wouldn't even consider him today.
Sarah Palin won the 1999 mayoral election with a turnout in the town of a total of 1,233 voters. She was forced to hire an administrator to run the town because she had gotten into trouble for some firings that gave rise to a recall campaign.
Let's not even get into the Dairy Board. I'm sure that will come up later. She supported the bridge to no where and then when the Feds cut out the funding for it she made political hay out of saying that she was against it.
She glories in her reputation as a baracuda or pit bull. We need a vice president who can step into the office on day one. I sure don't want someone with a mean, nasty, aggressive attitude answering the phone at 3:00 in the morning.
Senator McCain, it doesn't look like you made a very wise choice for our country.
September 10, 2008
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
ColoradoDave writes:
"it's hard to believe Ritter would have endured the same degree of skepticism and even derision as Palin if he'd been plucked without warning for a national ticket."
Prior to being Governor of a state with a population of 4,753,377 Ritter was the District Attorney for a city of 566,974.
Which of course is the exact same as being mayor of a town of 5,469 before becoming Governor of a state with 670,053.
Or as Karl Rove put it: "Will all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years. He's been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. "[Kaine] was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa, or Gilbert, Arizona; North Las Vegas, or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town."
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.ap...
September 10, 2008
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Mike846,
Nancy Pelosi is a good example of a woman that has been recognized for her experience. The Dems also were the first to pick a woman to run as VP. (Geraldine Ferraro)
Did you ever consider that perhaps Hillary didn't win the nomination because there were doubts about Bill's involvement? Or perhaps because her campaign was running into debt while Barack Obama was mobilizing millions of Americans to contribute to his? Those people and the 80,000 plus that packed the stadiium where he gave his acceptance speech believe that he has leadership qualities that will unite this country. After watching the Republican Convention it seems that the party is more interested in exploiting the differences to better push forward their own agenda.
Sorry Dave, I was writing my comments while yours were being posted. Do not want to step on your point about Lieberman and Ridge, but certainly do agree with you.
September 10, 2008
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
TeFrey
Good point. I thought G.H.W.B. was a good conservative president. I miss hearing "That wouldn't be prudent." You know, like in the context of a ground war in Baghdad for example. I would vote for him again. I always wondered what G.H.W.B. saw in Dan. But doesn't Dan remind you a lot of W? Dan might have been W's bastard brother.
September 10, 2008
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
oma writes:
mikeyg: just curious, how are the dems every bit a part of the problem as reps (i assume repubs). please impress us w/ your intelligent response.
September 10, 2008
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
Lobbyists own both parties. Pelosi and Reid have been lapdogs to the neocons and their puppet, Bush the second. This capitulation is the reason Congress has approval ratings lower than Bush.
Both candidates are members of the globalist CFR. Notice that neither candidate has ever tread near the third rail like immigration reform question. Dissolving national sovereignty is the goal, one world government awaits, and neither candidate will slow it's arrival.
So long as the mice elect the cats, nothing will change.
September 10, 2008
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
I have to believe everyone would have said the same thing. WHO THE H$LL IS HE? But hopefully they wouldn't also claimed what a great choice it was not knowing anything about him. It really amazes me how many republicans do so much research on every governor in the country and know what they have done in the past and voting records. Because all I have heard from the cons is about what a great choice she was. When in reality they said the same thing that I said. WHO THE F$$K IS SHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 10, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
HiHo writes:
Another puzzler. What if one of Obama's daughters, if she were of age, was pregnant out of wedlock?
September 10, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
Excellant point Vince. If Ritter the media would have been as silent about inexperience as they are about Obama's inexperience, lack of accomplishment and thinnest resume of any presidential candidate in history. I just do not think American (including Colorado) voters will accept that level of incompetence.
September 10, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
How about this one...what if Cheney had a lesbian daughter.
September 10, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
oma writes:
the fact that palin's daughter is prego is only an issue because: 1) she is such a strident family values promoter who wants to foist the unworkable abstinence programs on everyone else when it didn't work for her. 2) you have to question her motherhood credentials of bringing the international spotlight onto her daughter to either use her for political purposes or in spite of her political ambition.
September 10, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
HiHIt would be like if Clinton would have done what Bush as done the last 8 years. They would have riped his skin off..
September 10, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
"how are the dems every bit a part of the problem as reps" - oma:
Unlike the fanatical remarks posted by most Dems on this (and most) threads I don't hate those who disagree with my political orientation. Yes, some Reps who post express irrational rage directed at their foes, but by percentage it's less than half, while for Dems it's nearly 90%.
In fact, I like and work with many Dems on issues we both care about and I know that on the issues where we disagree it is not because I think their motives are villainous. The "problem" with Dems is they too often direct their attacks at Reps along evil-intent lines. Their "no blood for oil" chants convey that Reps like war for profit, rather than for national defense and to spread freedom. That's an attack that says "Reps are evil". Their "they want arsenic in our water" chants convey that Reps are evil. Their attacks on Palin equating her to the Taliban are vile and personal.
Reps have their problems, too. When they focus on our families in areas their religiosity inspires them instead of focusing on good governance and leadership in areas their constitutional duties require they become a problem. And when their individual hypocrisy is exposed in their religious beliefs while they ignore the reason they were elected in the first place, to reduce the size and scope of government, the public rejects them. That's why they lost in 2006. And why they were headed for a major thumpin' in 2008.
What the Reps have done with McCain/Palin is pick candidates who's records are those of leaders who have stuck to their constitutional duties while in office and not led any kind of religious crusade in public policy. Yes, the haters are trying to make Palin into just that kind of pol. But her record in ten years of elected office doesn't bear that out. Again, for political attacks to stick there has to be a basis of truth and the Dems are swinging at air with that one.
Dems will lose because they never concede that Reps understand and have better solutions for any public policy issues. Never. Far too many of them believe Reps are evil and always wrong because they are evil. Bi-partisanship is a one-way street to Dems - Reps only come towards Dems. Obama's "unity" is Reps joining him on a journey towards socialism - not an evil thing, just wrong for American values (fine in Europe, though).
September 10, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Here's a thought experiment. What if the media actually pushed hard for the opportunity to interview Ms Palin about her positions on Afganistan, Pakistan, Korea, trade, immigration, Georgia, the economy, the Middle East, etc. She doesn't stray far from the talking points that she has been given, and when proven that she lied or exagerated about her record the media has pretty much given her a pass. I should be jumping for joy that another 'sport mom' has the opportunity to be VP, but I don't believe that she has earned the right and so far have not heard any facts that are going to change my mind. After years of war most of us have formed an opinion on what we should do about Iraq, but all she says is that she hopes there is a plan. That's not a good enough answer. I want to hear her say that she'll fight like hell to get our troops home. The sooner the better. What does she think about veteran's rights? Does she agree with McCain's most recent vote to deny certain benefits? I'm just a mom but I have lots of questions and they are not being answered by McCain or his running mate.
We have a right to know if she believes her daughter should be the last female in America to be able to 'choose' her own reproductive rights. I bet you'd be singing a different tune if she believed that every third male in America should have a vasectomy to solve the abstinence problem. She might want to nip it in the bud, so to speak...But of course we don't really know where she stands on many issues, so we do our own research and form our own opinions.
September 10, 2008
2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
oma writes:
thanks for responding with a well-reasoned argument, mikeyg. however, i find most of what you say totally wrong. first, regarding the fanatical remarks, go check out the "debate" on obama's lipstick remark. it is the repubs who are screaming victimhood in vitriolic terms. most of the comments on this topic by dems seem more fact based than histrionic from some of your collegues (sp?). second, i urge you to read U.S. vs Them regarding your evil perception. it is the conservatives who have equated liberalism w/ evil going back to the cold war and beyond. i don't think bush is evil. cheney, maybe. but if that is the type of conservatism you want to support then it is misguided. don't know where you are on the iraq war but it is clear it was deception and it is the worst thing this country has done. yeah, yeah, we brought freedom to iraqis blah, blah, but at what cost. and if bush had stated that is what he wanted to do b4 he got into office there is no way people would have rallied around him. i might have supported mccain before he started pandering and now i don't know where in the world he stands on any issue. he was against the tax cut, now he's for it. he was against religious intolerance, now he's for it. he was for roe v wade, now he's against it. and it is disingenous to think palin is some squeaky clean conservative. she is a fraud and hasn't shown she is different from any other corrupt pol. i appreciate some of what conservatism has brought, in theory. but in practice, it has been disasterous.
September 10, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Hey taoistblockhead, we know you read Salon.com. We know you like the joke about Palin and the Muslim fundamentalist.
You say that in every single post you make to this site.
And speaking of Salon.com, you might try reading this article:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2...
Let us know if you have any trouble with the big words.
September 10, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
Oma, we'll have to agree to disagree on who's hurled more emotional invectives at their opponents over the last eight years.
And, no, I don't think Cheney is evil an any respect, despite how he's been characterized by his opponents. And I don't believe for a second that the Iraq war was a deception. Poorly executed up until Patreus, yes. Poorly communicated by GWB, yes. But the world is a better place, America is safer and Iraqis are better off without Saddam in power. He tried to assassinate a president. He gave $25k to terrorists murderer families every time they took out wedding parties, school bus children and disco partiers in our ally's streets. He had a WMD program capability that was MORE dangerous to us and the world than GWB told us and the UN according to official independent reports DESPITE the failure to find actual WMD's.
GWB no more misled or "lied" to the public about the Iraq threat than Clinton did about the "millions of people feared dead through ethnic cleansing in mass graves" in Bosnia as he ordered military action without UN approval. When they found fewer than 10,000 (tragic though they were) no one pointed out the exaggeration as deception.
On McCain, I'll agree he's had to run a more conservative campaign in the general election than we've seen in recent memory. Conventional wisdom has that you run to you base in the primary and to the center in a general. His candidacy is unusual in that he did not have his base sewn up when he won his primary. He comes from the center of the political spectrum in America (which is to the right of most of the world). McCain did not have the full support of the far-right political base of his party because of that.
In contrast, Obama comes from the far-left political base of his party. His candidacy was fueled and launched by Moveon and Dailykos extemists and he won his primary because he was preferred by the far-left. He's been able to campaign as a centrist in the general because of the implicit wink he gives to his base as he panders to the center. They know he's got his fingers crossed behind his back as he speaks in centrists tongues to try to win the general. They know he is of them, one of them, shares their hearts and minds like no other and give him a pass when "he does what politicians do" as Rev. Wright explained.
This tells me much about the core of these two men: McCain's core is centrist, Obama's core is leftist. Sure, McCain has had to pander to his base and this has caused some Democrats who used to like him to dislike him. But his core has not changed any more than Obama's has by pandering to the center in the minds of Dailykos and Moveon activists.
And while Palin is a strong social conservative she has never governed that way. To have 80% approval in her state means even Democrats in her state know that she's governed as a capable, principled leader, not a religious fanatic.
September 10, 2008
2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Even now, the Democrats still are desperate to rip Palin, just by some of the posts here. Bitter people without substance they are!
September 10, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Truthfully, I haven't argued about/against Palin's experience level. I was actually taken by the first impression we were all given of her, and think Americans in general find any instance of a meteoric rise in politics to be a compelling story.
Now I'm discovering Sarah Palin Version 1.0 literally was just a story, chock full of glaring lies and misrepresentations.
September 10, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Censorship. Before Ms Palin took office in Oct. 1996 she approached the town librarian who was also the president of the Alaska Library Association and asked her what she would do if Palin asked for a book to be removed. Besides heading the Wasilla City Library, Emmons was also president of the Alaska Library Association. Palin questioned her again about the subject on Oct. 28th although previously as a council person she was briefed on the subject of the library's book challenge policies. Palin asked if it would take a group of people circling the library to cause her to back down. Ms Emmons held her ground and with the support of the town's residents held her job. it appears that the threat of involvement by the ACLU and the state library association's Intellectual Freedom Committee and the National Freedom to Read Foundation could also have been factors that caused Palin to withdraw the termination letter.
September 10, 2008
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
oma writes:
don't know, mikeyg, about the invectives. when bush was pursuing this war i seem to remember anyone who was trying to prevent him from rushing into it was called treasonous and their patriotism was questioned. i think that is pretty stridently lowdown. i can't agree with this: "He had a WMD program capability that was MORE dangerous to us and the world than GWB told us and the UN according to official independent reports DESPITE the failure to find actual WMD's." if he had we would have found them. we had the weapons inspectors on the ground and we could have tied them up even until today. just what was the rush to go to war in iraq? even if he had them, they were no threat to us. there was a policy in the conservative movement to have these preemptive strikes to any country THESE GUYS deemed dangerous. these guys had a jones to take out saddam since the mid-90's. i don't think it is even arguable that this whole fiasco has made america weaker, politically and economically. i gotta go. would like to discuss the lefty/right issue further. good honest debate is needed.
September 10, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
simple writes:
Life is simple. People want God. People want to be treated with respect. People want less government. People want the right to work and make money. People don't like welfare or illegal immigrants. Nothing is free. If you paid into social security you get it, if you didn't pay you don't receive. White collar crimes deserve the same punishment as the 7-11 criminal. Liberals like people in a box, which can be called upon to suite their purposes. Liberals don't like Gays, Mexicans, or Afro-Americans they just want your vote. The bill will come later. Final everyone is a Maverick. We may not say it the same way, but we all have a common interest.
September 10, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
It is laughable how, suddenly, the Angry Left doesn't feel that a sitting Governor is qualified to be VP! They didn't have a problem with Governors back when it was Clinton or Carter.
A month ago is was humanly impossible for the democrats to lose this election. Now, through the absolute ineptitude of Obama and his liberal handlers - he's on the verge of doing just that. Remember all the talk about a 65-35 margin of victory? How's that working out for you these days?
Better Obama's jaw-dropping incompetence be revealed (and defeated) now, rather than when he would actually be in charge of something (for the first time in his political life).
September 10, 2008
4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
JeffcoGOP writes:
Ritter was a district attorney in the biggest city in the state for many years. He certainly had more experience than Palin. They would both be ripped for lack of foreign policy experience, but otherwise you can't compare the two.
September 10, 2008
4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
oma writes:
simple: "Liberals don't like Gays, Mexicans, or Afro-Americans they just want your vote." Really??? you are simple. no, you are a simpleton.
September 10, 2008
4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
mikeyg, I realize it was 3am when you wrote this;
mikeyg - "Don't look for them to point the fingers back at themselves, though; the message on October 5th they'll be howling is "another election stolen", even though the facts won't back them up."
If you want the Republicans to steal the election - you may want to wait for the right month or be really confused on Saturday, Oct 4th.
September 10, 2008
4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Soldier7 writes:
How is it "soccermom" that you can be against Palin for her stand
on abortion?
I am a male, and I really am soldier in the US Army (Eight years). I value life. I value animal life, but I really value human life. How can you scream at me for killing animals when YOU kill the most valuable life of all, human life.
I have heard the left slam Palin for allowing hunters to kill wolves
out of helicopters. How can you all say that with a straight face?
How can you care more about the life of a wolf than a human child?
How can any of you possibly sleep at night knowing that you support this crap. You care soooo much about animals....What
about humans? What about the defenseless who cannot protect
themselves.
I have spent Eight years fighting to defend your right to believe
what you want and to speak your mind. Deep down, it greives my heart that people in the country (that I have placed my life on the line for) could possibly not value life.
Call me a right-wing religious freak if you want....But I challenge
you to look inside yourself and tell me that I am wrong.
Life yes. Palin and McCain yes.
September 10, 2008
5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Got to love an avowed right winger who speculates that he and his fellow zealots would have been much nicer to a hypothetical democratic nominee than the "evil" left wing are to Palin. This is just Carroll's thinly disguised pat on his own back about how fair he is and how superior those who think like him are. The self righteousness just oozes.
The bottom line is that Ritter is not qualified to be VP and never got serious consideration for the post. Palin is even less qualified and got the nomination. That speaks volumes about the decision making of the two presidential candidates.
September 10, 2008
5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Soldier7
Thank you for your service. My brother is buried in Arlington National Cemetery and my father is in Punch Bowl National Cemetery so I think you are jumping the gun when you assume where I stand on human rights and support of our troops. I feel like our country has let down our veterans and that would be my top priority if I was running for office.
First of all I never mentioned shooting wolves from helicopters. Not once. Nadda. Second of all, we have probably 5 or 6 guns in the house so obviously I'm not against the Second Amendment.
Third of all, I hold all life as sacred, especially the troops that are put in harm's way unnecessarily.
I believe that the Republican Party is more interested in keeping government out of big business and is more interested in controlling people's personal civil liberties. Since when is it okay to tell someone else who they should love and marry, whether they should have a family or terminate their own life if pain becomes unbearable and they don't want their family to go into bankruptcy to keep them alive? Tricky sensitive questions, and quite frankly none of the government's business. I have faced these questions and as a survivor of cancer and living with heart disease wonder how I can spare my family pain if and when the time comes that decision might have to be faced.
I don't scream. Except at football games.
September 10, 2008
6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
coarizona writes:
Ritter? You have to be joking?
September 11, 2008
midnight
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
I too have a thought experiment. Suppose Hilklary is the Dem Vp and makes the hockey mom-lipstick joke. Now sippose McCain gos out on the campaign trail and makes the Obama joke about puttin lipstick on a pig. The media would absolutley excoriate him. "Senator McCain how can you make such a comment?" Well Katie, it was really a a slip of the tongue." "Really Senator? After all, that was one of the biggest lines in your opponents' convention? Didn't your alarm bells go off?" "Katie, I would never say such a thing perposefully. And, to suggest that I would, shows how low my opponenet will sink." My qustion the the Dems out thereis this: If McCain had made that lipstick on a pig joke would the media give him the benefit of the doubt as they now do Obama? Perhaps. Do you think the Obama campaign would? Not a chance. The feminazis in your party would DEMAND blood and justice, not necessarily in that order.
September 11, 2008
12:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
I actually do think Obama's coments were a slip. But, after the frenzy the Dems would be beholden to whip up, would they really give McCain the benefit of the doubt? Especially if Palin is still the nominee. "They're calling Hillary a pig because she's not attractive." You Dems are asking the country to extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama. You can bet the Obama camp wouldn't. They'd be fools to. And you can bet McCain will use this. He'd be a fool not to. Enormous gaffe. I'd give it an 8.
September 11, 2008
8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mtnsjohn writes:
Soccermom writes,
"He (Ritter) also understands the law and how laws are made and upheld."
He wouldn't survive the vetting process, given his record of inappropriate plea bargains, and his failure to enforce State mandated illegal immigration laws applicable to employers. The concept of "will of the people" is foreign to him.
Ritter has very little chance of a second term. He mouths too much the democratic party line.
September 11, 2008
8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Thank you ssqured.
Okay thought experiment for the day.
What if journalists took the time to do more in-depth reporting on issues rather than writing about lipstick on pigs and moose stew. Or who is being meaner to who. Remember who the meanest people were in the 2000 primaries, it was the Republicans swiftboating Senator McCain on his war record and accusing him of having a child of color out of wedlock. Insane accusations but they made them anyway. Then they went after Jim Webb's war record. I think that Sarah Palin can take a little scrutiny, she would even admit that if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
Pro-life. What exactly is the definition of that one? If you kill the bugs and eat the spinach you are destroying life. We destroy life by the simple act of living. What we really are doing is preserving our idea of 'quality of life'. Supposedly we went to war in Iraq to protect our 'interests' and quality of life. We no doubt will do it again somewhere else there are resources that we desire. So what is the difference between killing innocent civilians to protect our way of life and a family (because the decision is usually made by the husband, parents or boyfriend as well as the woman/teenager) who want to protect the quality of life of their family?
And who should have the right to make that decision?
September 11, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Mtnsjohn,
"Ever since I heard about the ConocoPhillips purchase of the former StorageTek property up on the Boulder Turnpike, I can't keep it out of my mind. I have been covering economic development in Colorado for more than 30 years, and this one ranks up higher than anything I have seen in my experience.
It makes me curious, too, not just for what is being said but also what isn't being said. I am going out on a limb here, reading between the lines, but I happen to think this deal is potentially the greatest boon to the Colorado economy in, well, forever." quoted from BNET Business Network
The Danish wind company, Vesta, is bringing 2450 jobs to Colorado. Governor Ritter is making good on his promise to make Colorado the New Energy Capital. Renewable energy. Jobs. Economic security.
Of course maybe you would like the past Governor Owens' approach to supporting the tourism industry, remember "the whole state is burning!" :)
Who said, "it's the economy, stupid"? Perhaps that is something we should keep in mind.
September 11, 2008
4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
One big difference between Palin and Ritter is that one knows about the importance of affordable, reliable energy and one is Bill Ritter.