You don’t have to be a Republican to feel the internal strife between the McCain people and the Palin people. Many blogs around the nation are commenting on the rising tensions between the 2 encampments.
The McCainites feel Palin is a loose cannon and want to rein her in. The Palinites feel that she was sabotaged at every turn, from her initial introduction to the shopping spree that she had nothing to do with, according to her.
From the Washington Post (E. J. Dionne’ Blog):
It’s hard to believe that the infighting in the Republican camp is so fierce with a week still left to go until Election Day. The battle between the camps of John McCain and Sarah Palin is something to behold. McCain’s loyalists are clearly trying to shift some of the blame for the ticket’s troubles to Palin, and Palin’s people are fighting back. In today’s Post, Dana Milbank cites this astonishing quotation that a McCain adviser offered CNN: “She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party.” The McCain adviser also described Palin as “a diva.” Palin in the meantime is reported to be furious about how the McCain campaign botched the roll-out of her candidacy. She feels a need to defend herself, particularly against charges stemming from the Republican National Committee’s high-end shopping spree on her behalf. Since I thought from the beginning that the choice of Palin was a mistake I’m not surprised that it’s all come to grief for both of them. Palin is certainly right that the McCain campaign’s too obvious fear of letting her off on her own did her image no good….
Now it’s your turn. Who is to blame? Has Palin been short-changed or is she a prima donna? Has McCain been set back by Palin? Has she hurt or helped the ticket?
What do the folks on Anti think?
I feel that Palin was an unwise choice, but also that she has been mishandled. I believe that choosing her was a political Hail Mary pass of sorts…definitely a risk, but not an extremely well calculated one.
Here is the problem…I feel like the McCain campaign has been learning about her strengths and weaknesses with the rest of the American public. They say she was properly vetted, but this appears to be wholly untrue based on how they have hidden her away, and based on the in-fighting we are seeing now.
We all learned together that she has a hard time in interviews (such as misstating the role of the VP based on a third grader’s question), so the strategy seemed to be to keep her away from the media, or sitting beside McCain. This is understandable but also very demeaning to Sarah Palin. The strategy may have avoided more gaffes than were already made, but pointed out a glaring lack of confidence in the VP candidate by her own party, and made it seem like the woman wasn’t good enough to stand on her own.
Had John McCain and Sarah Palin actually known each other before this, they might have known the bed they were jumping into. What seemed like a great idea and refreshing chance to take at the time, has fizzled into regret behind the scenes for both of them. They both believe so much of their own maverick hype now, that they seem to think it is OK to not show unity to the public at this point; it’s all in the name of being a maverick, right?
I am pretty scared that there are people who think Palin would make a good president..you know, the ones that shout Palin-McCain. I don’t understand how they could think that, based on her educational background and ability to answer knowledge questions on an array of government topics. I think her dogged supporters seem to back her conservative ideals more than her intelligence and national leadership qualities. There were people on some blogs saying they wish she could be president ON THE DAY SHE WAS CHOSEN AS VP CANDIDATE.
I find it extremely interesting that the public is encouraged not to trust Barack Obama when he has been in the national public eye for quite awhile. However, so many were ready to jump on the Palin bandwagon on day one. I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that she is a diva or prima donna, though…just the anonymous claims of McCain aides. However, what do we REALLY know about Sarah Palin (hee hee)?
Yes, I agree. It looks like her people see her as the future of the party and a definite presidential candidate in 4 years. They are not going to let John McCain get in the way. If McCain loses, his chance at the presidency is finished. But Sarah Palin, considering the spontaneous and heartfelt embrace by the public, stands a good chance of wresting the presidency away from Obama in 4 years after he has destroyed the economy and presided over the greatest depression.
Or maybe the old Maverick made a pass at her and was turned down flat?
Lot’s of bluster, fuss, and fanfare from the media to try to divert a spoon-fed public’s attention from some very socialist comments made by Obama not too long ago.
Par for the course. Support the stump speeches until it’s too late to do anything about it.
Mando,
I have plenty to say about your socialism comment, but that will have to wait until I get home from work. Stay tuned…
Sniff sniff! Do I smell a good fight brewing this afternoon?
Mando, isn’t Barr a social conservative?
I’ve thought from the beginning that Sarah Palin was similar to Corey Stewart – they each have ambitions that extend far beyond their qualifications.
Although I prefer Obama to McCain, I think McCain is qualified for the position for which he’s running – too hotheaded and “mavericky” for my taste, but qualified. Palin is a totally different story IMO. I don’t want a small town, right-wing extremist as second-in-command. But aside from her politics, I don’t want a person of average intelligence as President either. I want someone much, much smarter than I am. I don’t want “Joe the Plumber” meeting with world leaders or negotiating treaties. I might hire “Joe” to replumb my bathroom, but I don’t want him making decision which impact my life. I want his influence to be limited to his vote in the voting booth and not in a position to become Prez. Yes, I think Sarah Palin is an average Joe/Jane Blow who doesn’t have the brain power it takes to become Prez – now or in four years. And I think the McCain camp has figured out that she’s a drag on the ticket. But it’s too late.
“Mando,
I have plenty to say about your socialism comment, but that will have to wait until I get home from work. Stay tuned…”
Some quotes that concern me:
“I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts”.
“One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”
“when you spread the wealth around it’s a good thing for everybody”
@DiversityGal
Are you going to allay my fears of Obama’s version of “change”?
I’m SO tired of that word “socialism” being thrown around. No one knows what the heck it means anyway, it’s so distorted.
IMHO, Palin was no WAY qualified for this position. Besides that, she is EMBARRASSING!!!!!! She was the deciding factor on whether or not I voted for McCain.
“Socialism” = boogeyman for the right. They want you to equate it to Communism. Just don’t look too closely at the subsidies for large corporations. That’s the direction in which the right wants to redistribute the wealth.
Mando, what do you think about raising the ceiling on FICA taxes? The 2008 rate is as follows:
2008
FICA Tax Rate = 7.65%
Social Security Limit = $102,000
Maximum Social Security Contribution = $6,324.00
2007
FICA Tax Rate = 7.65%
Social Security Limit = $97,500
Maximum Social Security Contribution = $6,045.00
““Socialism” = boogeyman for the right.”
No. Socialism = income redistribution.
“But Sarah Palin, considering the spontaneous and heartfelt embrace by the public, stands a good chance of wresting the presidency away from Obama in 4 years after he has destroyed the economy and presided over the greatest depression”
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Thanks for that laugh. I needed that. If Elmer Fudd … I mean McCain is elected, I’ll be sure to invest in that lead-lined fallout shelter I’ve been putting off. There is a 20% actuarial likelyhood he will die in office. I’ll place my bets on lead-lining if SP rises to that slot.
Mando:
FYI – what do you call what our government did in the past few weeks with the banks?
Hint – they weren’t capitalized….they were (nationalized). Our banking is now socialist. wake up and smell the reality. Your fear is like a fart that won’t go away. It’s been dealt – all can smell it…but you’re still shivering in fear in case someone pulls the trigger. Newsflash – it’s already happened. So quit screaming like a little girl about “socialism” and thank your JP Morgan overlords (Paulson, Bernake) who were appointed by BUSH (Rethug) who approved the bank handout.
Some people just need to keep up….
Socialism and communism are such 80’s words.
Reagan was the first to issue tax credits. Was he a socialist? There are a bunch of people who would be extremely pissed off to learn that.
I think Palin’s the Best thing to happen to our party in a long time, I Have nothing but good things to say about Her, However Her handlers hurt her by restricting her media access and not forcing Her big time interviews to run live and unedited.
“FYI – what do you call what our government did in the past few weeks with the banks?”
A travesty.
“I think Palin’s the Best thing to happen to our party in a long time, I Have nothing but good things to say about Her, However Her handlers hurt her by restricting her media access and not forcing Her big time interviews to run live and unedited.”
PWC: I couldn’t agree more. Her nomination has shown the depravity and insanity that is/was the rethuglican base. Let her speak freely. Let her speak unscripted. Let her be herself! She does a far better job of doing the “conservative” movement in than any “liberal media” ever could.
For once we agree! ROTFLMAO
““I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts”.”
Yeah I know Drudge is touting this, but this has been so thoroughly debunked already. Obama’s statement was part of a legal/constitutional discussion and had nothing to do with redistributing money to anyone.
If you’re really as concerned about the comment as you claim, I’d recommend reading what people smarter than Drudge have to say about it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-suggests.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_advisor_pushes_back_on_redistribution.html
“What the critics are missing is that the term ‘redistribution’ didn’t mean in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer,” Sunstein said. “What he’s saying – this is the irony of it – he’s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals.”
PW Conservative,
I think many conservatives feel the same way about her. “Breath of fresh air’ seems to be what all the conservatives are saying. You do understand though that many people decided not to vote for McCain based on her being on the ticket.
I actually think she is energetic and likeable, but she is too conservative for me. I also have concerns over lack of knowledge about all things government when she is pulled away from her script.
Actually, all of them scare me. But, if I can survive Bush I can survive anything.
I’ve never even been on Drudge’s site.
“What the critics are missing is that the term ‘redistribution’ didn’t mean in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer,”
Obama’s reply:
“when you spread the wealth around it’s a good thing for everybody”
Pony Boy!!! Anyone here remember Hinton’s “The Outsiders”? How about “Rumble Fish”?
Thanks Pony Boy for the great screen name!
Mando:
Sarah “Mavericky” Palin has made some similar statements about sharing the wealth and collectivization. Is she a socialist too?
From a column on the New Yorker Web site (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg):
“Breath of fresh air’ seems to be what all the conservatives are saying. ”
LOL…that is if you consider being downwind of a sewage treatment plant and open garbage dump that is the current GOP….to be FRESH AIR. LOL
Isn’t it en-vogue to stick it to the oil companies?
Not sure why you assume I’m for either party.
About the “retristribution of wealth”… the thing that scares me is that Obama first said $250k, then $200k, now Biden is saying $150k, where does it stop? Tomorrow is it going to be people making over $100k an so on?
Also, I dont’ think that many people will agree with me but I feel that Biden is just as bad a VP pick as Palin. Biden makes some of the stupidest comments, some times it makes you wonder if he is still running against Obama or not. Plus I don’t really care for a guy that does a 180 on most of the stuff he said when he was running in the primaries. Sure, I can understand that since your now a VP pick you change a few things but this guy changed a ton.
Turn PW Blue, So good to see you! You have been missed. Thank you for that most interesting contribution. I did not realize how that Alaska system works. She is sure one to talk!
Hello, I think that Obama has been consistent stating the $250k ceiling . I heard him reiterate it today. I believe Biden, while chewing on feet some, has far more knowledge needed to run a country than does Sarah Palin. She might even be more likable than Joe Biden, but his knowledge base about foreign policy and how to get around Washington are just vastly more qualifying than hers.
On socialism (sorry this will be VERY LONG)…
I love what Turn PW Blue said. So true, if Sarah Palin makes a comment about the collective ownership of resources, which sounds like the collectivist tenet of socioeconomic theories on the socialism – communism spectrum, then why is the world not picking it apart over and over again? Why is she not suspected of being a socialist?…because that would be ridiculous, just as it is ridiculous to take the Obama redistribution statement and run with it.
I have seen some people now trying to find similarities in Karl Marx quotes and the redistribution comment. For that matter, John McCain once said, “They will fight for two human conditions of even greater value than peace: liberty and justice,” which is similar to the following historical quote, “As a Christian…I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice,” delivered by Adolph Hitler. They have other similar quotes. While Hitler once said, “Obstacles do not exist to be surrendered to, but only to be broken,” McCain similarly said, “We’re Americans, and we’ll never surrender. They will.”
Should we now say that McCain shares beliefs with the father of the National Socialist Movement? Is he to be suspected of being a secret Nazi who will take America in that direction should he win the presidency? Before everyone jumps off the deep end in outrage, I think it would be total lunacy and irresponsible to suggest such things about John McCain. It just points out that if you really want to smear someone by linking unrelated statements, it ain’t hard to do.
Oh no…it just occurred to me that Marxists might appreciate the free and public education system existing in all 50 United States; seeks to level the playing field, right? They would probably love how PTAs/PTOs let parents and teachers get together to make decisions for their schools as equal stakeholders. They must jump for joy when schools seek to be student-centered. Egads…the US has embraced socialist education principles for years upon years!! We are all evil socialists and we must be stopped (hee hee).
I know that American socialists and communists support Obama, which is damning in a lot of people’s eyes. However, the Socialist Party USA says that Obama is nowhere near being a socialist. According to consulted professors interviewed in the Chicago Tribune, an American socialist advocates for total government control of all basic industries such as transportation, communication, and energy while also calling for government regulation of much private industry. Obama is not calling for those things. Indeed, Darrell West of the Brookings Institute pointed out that it is difficult to call Obama a socialist with Bush currently nationalizing banks.
The blog owner on 2parse.com pointed out that a study of the Obama tax plan shows that it actually draws from the policies of Alexander Hamilton, Teddy Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln, in that it provides incentives for industry and investment in infrastructure. America has a history of some presidents taking measures to protect the country when it starts to cycle toward extreme capitalism and get itself in trouble. This would be one of those times, no?
Also (from 2parse.com), Obama’s use of the phrase “economic justice” is not socialist in origin. It actually comes from Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler, 1950s American economists who wrote The Capitalist Manifesto. They wholeheartedly believed that capitalism was the best system, but sought ways to make it more just.
Heck, Hitler was an evil bastard to say the very least, but he did say something to the effect of “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” If you call Barack Obama a socialist long enough, a lot of Americans will believe it. Let’s not fall for that crap. Really. Enough already.
Mando…I don’t actually expect this will change your mind. I’m just so tired of all this crazy socialism talk, like some big bandwagon that some Republicans were all too ready to hop on. Maybe you’ll be less afraid, or maybe not. Sometimes fear is a choice…especially when it is being used a political strategy.
Re. telling lies enough times that you get some fools to believe it. The folly of the McCain/Palin (or Palin/McCain) lie campaign is that the same 20 percent of America keeps believing each new lie, and NO ONE NEW is added!!!
The Freedom Fry Voter who thinks Obama is an Arab, also thinks he is a socialist, and not born in American, and raised in a madrassa, and wants to redistribute wealth, and is a Muslim, and pals around with terrorists. All of these lies, if true, would disqualify Barack Obama in the eyes of the same 20 percent of the country who still calls french fries “Freedom Fries.”. But those same idiots were already not voting for Obama because he’s not Caucasian.
When McCain realized that American women are not as stupid as he had hoped (when Palin’s numbers tanked), he realized that he had only two choices: go for the moderates and independents, or go for the Freedom Fry Voters. He was stuck with Palin by this point, so Freedom Fry Voters was his choice.
Bad choice if you ask me. He already HAD those people!!!!!!
Today Obama said he is now being called a socialist because he shared his toys in kindergarten. And that is about how ridiculous it is.
I don’t like this swift boat mentality. I am an independent. Each and ever election it seems that I go with the Democratic candidate because the Republican candidates and their followers act like such pukes. Happened last time and the time before that.
And by the way, the swiftboating of Kerry was simply inexcusable.
I have evolved into supporting Obama. I am very comfortable with it now. It was not a light decision.
For those who want to check out the tax break:
(The Obama-merical was fabulous.)
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/
Agreed, Moonhowler. Loved all 30 genius minutes of it. The campaign filmmakers are going to get lotsa love from their colleagues tonight.
Palin is a religious fanatic, pandering to a shrinking number of “remaining” people in the Republican Party who are also religious fanatics. She and they (the fanatical religious right) will soon isolate themselves into a minorty party, that McCain has never belonged to. He is actually a member of a party of Republicans that are shifting party loyalties to the left and actually joining the Democratic party platform. This shift to the other party will essentialy marginalize the power of “liberal” and “militant” socialist fanatics in the democratic party, change the Democratic Party priorities to be more fiscally conservative, more mainstream and overall better for the country, than being run by fanatical religious people in government who hate others not like themselves.
McCain would have done better to choose a more liberal minded person in the Republican party. If he had, the current “rift” in the party would not have developed so wide. Obama will win because the religious fanatics of the Republican party understimated (because if arrogance) how many non-fanatical religious people there are in both parties who want the country better taken care of by someone smart enough to be a great leader rather than a great idiot.
Obama has the ability and CHARACTER to be a superior President of the same caliber as Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Ronald Reagan. All you have to do is look at his life history, his intellect and his BIO to see he is far superior to either McCain or
Palin (who is a radical religious political animal looking out only for her own political and religious interests and future political and religious group agenda). She could care less about the rest of us “majority” people.
Diversity Gal your analysis of Obama’s similarity with Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln is spot on. I watched a Teddy Roosevelt life and campain series and I couldn’t believe how much Obama’s speeches sound just like Teddy Roosevelts views, who also as an unknown politician of great youth and vigor turned out to be one of the greatest free thinkers and un-doers of corruption and criminal politicians of the Century. I too think Obama will rise to equally great thinking and execution of superior leadership style we have not seen since FDR and TR.
For a presidential election I hear allot about McCain, Palin and Obama. Nobody ever talks about the old, grump, yes man Biden. I actually liked Biden in the primaries, he spoke his own thoughts and I agreed with allot of them. He came off as a guy telling it how it was. However, I lost respect for the guy seeing what he has become. I think he is somewhat of a drag for Obama’s campaign.
Hello, I have always liked Biden also. He tells it like it is and puts his foot in his mouth without hesitation. What do you think he has become? I see him playing the role of #2 on the totem pole.
He offers what people might see Obama as lacking: long term exerience and a boat load of foreign policy under his belt.
Michael, I actually agree with you on about 98% of what you said.
I do see the parties realigning and the extremes of each party becoming more marginalized. Are we saying 3 parties?
Hi Moon-howler, he has become a mean shadow of himself. The only thing he does these days is gets flustered when asked tough (maybe even harsh) questions, ban them from ever doing another interview again and when he isn’t saying something stupid (I mean really stupid) he turns into the Obama campaign robot. No mind of his own, no beliefs of his own, just a puppet that comes out to play every now and then but then gets into trouble and has to have a time out like what’s happening now.
I think “socialism and “wealth redistribution” are different concepts. To make the point let’s look at the term “wealth distribution”.
Let’s look at two nations:
1. The top 2% of the nation holds 95% of the wealth, known as an excessively compensated nation. Average annual income of the 2% is 1.5 Billion dollars. They live in a $500 million dollar mansion, have two yachts, massive land, and owns 5-10 cars.
The lower 10% makes less than $1.50 a day or a little over 450 dollars a year. They have no car, and live in a cardboard shack they do not own but rent, and have no land. The average middle class person makes 10,000 per year, lives in a small home, has plenty to eat, owns a small farm, and has one car they have kept for 25 years.
2. The top 2% of the nation holds 20% of the wealth, known as an “adequately compensated nation”. Average annual income of the 2% is 1.5 Million dollars. The lower 10% makes less than $30,000 per year, owns a car and rents a small apartment. The average middle class person makes $60-100,000 per year more if both couples work. They live in a home values at 300-600K and own 2-4 cars.
Which nation would you want to live in?
In the first nation wealth was NEVER redistributed, Business people believed they had the divine right of God to keep their wealth, as good stewards of local church wealth, child labor was rampant, people worked 7 days a week, most politicians and the excessively rich were members of criminal mafias, all politicians were bought off, the police were bought off, business people were extorted, ethnic groups dominated political parties, child labor factories were legal, immigrants were legal, but exploited by business, and when you drove through the community, you were not allowed in rich communities, and you got mugged when you drove through poor communities, and when you drove through middle income communities, the coal, smoke and dirt was so thick on the houses and the streets so dirty and overcrowded you thought you were in a slum.
This is the nation Teddy Roosevelt took over as President. Teddy Roosevelt Redistributed the wealth of the excessively rich by passing a law mandating a 6 day work week (Who did 5?). He abolished child labor, set up National parks systems so “people” could own the most beautiful land, preserving it fpor all generations to use and enjoy, not just a few excessively wealthy individuals, he created “union and manaement concessions in mining towns, for an increase in wages for all (10-20%). He was the first president to leave the nation to establish international trade and goodwill. He freed Panama, Cuba and built the Panama canel to increase trade and decrease shipping costs. He advocated for women’s rights to vote. Many, many other things as part of his “square deal”, he did to increase education of all, and opportunities for wealth for all, primarily an advocacy for increase in wages for all Americans so they can live better. Woodrow Wilson came into office, attempted to reverse many of his forward thinking policies and caused/setup the beginning of the collapse into the great depression.
Many many later presidents such as FDR, put workers to work, increasing job opportunities by creating government incentivized wealth, small business growth and free market labor. FDR recovered us from a World War, and a great Depression, and set up the first form of govenment pension plan for the very poor, the initial social security act signed in 1935 as part of the “NEW DEAL”.
The second nation is our nation today (some numbers are estimates), And we are known as the “richest” nation in the world, a nation everyone wants to come to. Why? because we have “laws” that re-distribute wealth from the very excessively rich by preventing them from extorting, and slaving/serfdoming all of us back into minimum wage neighborhoods. This is the great “evil” of wealth distribution that religious fanatics are so afread of. They think that if we let the excessively rich get even more excessively rich, then the middle class will be rich. NOT TRUE, NEVER BEEN TRUE IN HISTORY!!! WE have great middle class, nice clean neighborhoods because we all insist on equitable living wages and laws that protect individuals from wealth exploitation, that protect small business, let individuals create adequate, but not excessive wealth and pay people what they are worth in termsof education, skills and ability, not by what rich, criminal politician they know. We are getting worse, rather than better, the corporations and excessively rich are getting richer at the cost of the middle class.
Obama is the only candidate that will truely promote free market forces, reduce crime in politics and political cronyism and corruption, while taking care of every individual (especially catastrophic health care, that can make any middle class person poor overnight)
If you study history, you will know why the religious fanatics are wrong about Re-distribution of wealth, and wrong that this is “communism or socialism”, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR were the most patriotic Americans we have ever had, they “fought” both socialism, communism, aristocracy and “autocracy” and put the POWER in the hands of the PEOPLE by ensuring DEMOCRACY and GOVERNMENT run by the people, for the people, and Freedom for all from tyrany of any and all forms, including political and criminal tyranny of the fanatical religious elite.
exhibit A: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1854640,00.html
Communisim is created and run by politcal cronyism (and dictatorship) that puts the power over people’s lives into the hands of the state.
Socialism is created and run by political cronyism (and ethnic group dictatorship) that puts the power over people’s lives in the hands of an ethnic “ideology” that unionizes ethnic, religious, gender and racial groups to force distributed wealth (not in the form of wages but in the form of state-run subsidy) from one “social” group or social “class” to another social class, with no incentive to work, compete, create wealth or small business growth, except for the ethnic, racial, gender or religious group in political power.
Aristocrachy is the re-distribution of wealth from the labor of slaves or serfs to the very richest social elites or class, that run the nation from a religious “divine” right or religious back claim to the leadership of the aristocracy being the closest to God, inspired by God or ordained by God. This includes the periods of “church wealth” creatdd by use of the same aristocratic organization and claim to divine wealth rights.
Autocracy is the redistribution of wealth to a single member of a political party and to the members of that party as a consequence of cronyism, and political vfavoritism. This is often through use of the criminal political structure or criminal mafia. In extreme form it is a dictatorship maintained by fear of death to all who oppose.
Democracy is the redistribution of wealth to all individuals based on the individual right to vote on what is best for the common good, common law and best for the “majority of all people”. It is a re-distribution based on protective laws that protect wages and ownership “liberties” of all “individuals” equally (by square deal, free market, or new deal concepts) from oppression by all tyrannical , ethnic, gender, racial or religious political groups in power who appoint only their own political group cronies to power.
What form of re-distribution of wealth do you want to live under?
I am so glad we are actually delving into what these words mean instead of throwing them around carelessly. Very thought provoking, Michael! I like how you are exploring what redistribution means under various forms of government models.
Hello, I am not so sure that both in the VP positionj haven’t been told to ‘rebo up.’ When you think about it, they are there to serve numero uno, not to be their own person.
I agree with Biden about cutting that woman off and refusing to answer her question. It was insulting and divisive. The McCain campaign has also cut off certain news groups from interviewing them. I think the bottom line is ‘why waste our time.’
I am sick of knowing who news people support. Back in the day, the earmark of a good jouralist was their objectivity. You had no idea who the good ones supported. I guess that is another good thing about the past that has gone by the way-side.
Moon-howler, my point about banning the interviews is that you would think that Biden would want those questions and be prepared to answer them. People always talk about McCain calling Obama this or Palin calling him that… okay, here is your opportunity on a silver platter to shoot back. And what does he do… he cries foul and then bans them from further interviews.
If that is his reaction to a local news reporter from Orlando FL, then, instead of being prepared for this after the first experience… ya do it again??!? Come on… at least say something witty. Nope, he just puts his tail between his legs and runs to Obama for protection from the nasty local news reporters. It just makes me wonder what’s going to happen when he is grilled on foreign policy matters as a VP? Stomp his feet and tell on the big mean local reporter to Obama?
The first sign (and there are a few) that Obama should not have picked Biden as VP is when Biden got less votes for the Democratic nomination for president of the entire U.S. than Palin got votes for governor of the itty bitty state of Alaska.
I don’t think that is a fair comparison. Look at the number of people running in that primary. I find it hard to believe that Biden got fewer than 700,000 votes in all which is the maximum number Palin could have gotten even if children voted. Is there any print material on those numbers?
I think Joe did the right thing to laugh in that woman’s face. I don’t think Biden or Obama should be having to defend themselves against communism. When you do that, you have let the enemy define the issues. Joe Biden laughed in her face. That is what he should have done, in my opinion.
We need to get past these labels that are being put on people. The communism label was just the last straw. That isn’t even an issue in my opinion, yet millions of people are hanging their hats on it. Plus, I know what is being said behind the scenes, those things that aren’t being said out in the open.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagee.
Michael, thank you for your interesting comments. Very good!
I suppose so Moon-howler, I think the primaries Biden would have taken those questions head on, you know, to show he can hang. Instead he did a (nervous) laugh in her face, then banned them (two and counting before he got put into time-out).
I’m sorry, but if you can’t stand up to local (not network, local) news reporters than what does that tell you. What’s going to happen when “Obama is challenged as soon as he takes office”, what is old Joe going to do? Ban the challenge because it offended him.
Moonhowler, I like yours too, on many points we agree.
Thank you Michael.
Hello, I think he chose not to respond to such a stupid insulting question. Biden hasn’t gone senile. Does it bother anyone else that a presidential candidate or VP would be accused this many times of being a socialist or communist? I don’t think either one of them should even address something that ridiculous.
Biden is still sharp as a tack. Now, you may not like him. I can accept that. but he is not a communist nor is Obama. (nor is Palin or McCain)
Moonhowler, it certainly bothers me. When people start calling you names like socialist, terrorist, and labeling you in other ways they KNOW are incorrect, at some point, you have to stop dignifying their rude, purposeful ignorance.
I believe the purpose of the McCain-Palin Campaign starting to imply that Obama was a socialist or terrorist sympathizer, or any of a dozen other things, was to back Obama-Biden into a corner. If they FORCED them to discuss it, no matter what intelligent defense could be uttered would be moot. Having to use the very words that others used against you in the press is a time-honored tactic that will only hurt a candidate, and the McCain-Palin campaign knew that all too well.