What I would add to this is that the interviewing of US politicians remains much, much more tame than that in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
What I would add to this is that the interviewing of US politicians remains much, much more tame than that in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
From an interview on ABC, here are Palin's views on abortion:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Quote:
Palin took a harder line than McCain on those social issues, but called her sentiments "personal opinion[s]" that could potentially differ from official policy in a McCain White House.
McCain supports abortion in instances of rape or incest, but Palin, a mother of a 5-month-old infant with Down syndrome, said she would advocate abortion only if a mother's life was in danger. <emphasis added by poster>
"My personal opinion is that abortion should be allowed if the life of the mother is endangered. Please understand me on this. I do understand McCain's position on this. I do understand others who are very passionate about this issue who have a differing opinion," she said.
Here is data from the Knights of Colombus (hardly a liberal or pro-choice group) website:
You've singled out one portion of what I actually posted, which was: "I'll never support Sarah as long as she represents the Evangelical, neoconservative wing of the GOP."Quote:
The poll was conducted for the Knights of Columbus by the Marist College Institute of Public Opinion between Sept. 24 and Oct. 3, 2008, and was designed to enable comparisons of the views of Catholic voters with those of the general electorate.
The poll asked respondents to state which of six statements came closest to describing their opinion on abortion.
• 8 percent of U.S. residents chose option 1, that abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy;
• 8 percent chose option 2, that abortion should be allowed only during the first 6 months of pregnancy;
• 24 percent chose option 3, that abortion should be allowed only during the first 3 months of pregnancy;
• 32 percent chose option 4, that abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother;
• 15 percent chose option 5, that abortion should be allowed only to save the life of the mother; <note emphasis above showing Palin claims this is also her position>
• 13 percent chose option 6, that abortion should never be permitted under any circumstance.
It's not a make or break issue for me but I am generally not in favor of abortion. My personal view on the subject is closer to that of John McCain - though I would also include girls under the age of 15 or 16, when accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. But Palin's position is not in line with half of America. If you combine her position with the respondents who are not in favor of abortion under any circumstances, at most, you get 28%.
But again, it's the wing of the party that Palin represents that would prevent me from ever supporting her: the so called "loyal base" that remains within the GOP is mostly Evangelicals and neocons. I'm not sure where you get that I am demonizing anyone for wanting families to stay together, or that abortions should be freely available. There is now, and will be for the next few years, a war of sorts within the GOP, to see what philosophy leads going forward. There are many camps. Not all Evangelicals are neocons, but they began to make camp together in the mid 90's. So the social conservatives and New World order types won. And the fiscal conservatives and social libertarians began to lose seats at the table about the same time. I'd like to see that change.
Palin likes to refer to herself as a "fiscal conservative." But her spending increases and embrace of a windfall profits taxes violates a key principle of fiscal conservatism. I believe that's one reason that Pat Buchanan was so wishy-washy when asked what he thought of Palin. He has the same disdain for neocons that I do... even more so. But where I'm more of an independent social libertarian with some conservative positions, especially on fiscal issues, he is mostly a social conservative... and a hater of neocons. As Sarah continues to evolve and define her actual positions, rather than just offering conflicting talking points, people like Buchanan will either support her or reject her. If she begins walking like a neocon and talking like a neocon, Buchanan, and the paleoconservatives like him, will put the same blade in Palin that's being used on other neocons as I type.
After where the Evangelicals and the national socialist neocons have taken us for the past decade, I voted for a Democrat for President for the first time in my life. I was joined by a great many other independents, fiscal conservatives and social libertarians. The GOP might want to work on something more than a Confederate States of America strategy and fix that before 2012.
And hey, yesterday, someone being described as an "African-American centrist", Michael Steele, was elected Chairman of the RNC. I don't know much about this guy. But I do know that he was not the choice of the hard social conservatives (he believes in affirmative action and won't give straight answers about his position on abortion with any clarity, that I've seen). While the neocons apparently saw him as a good enough pawn to help them build a coalition with the party moderates and to help with the bad PR the GOP has been getting lately.
Like I've been saying, the battle is on within the GOP! So does anyone know which side Sarah is on? Maybe a better question, does Sarah know which side she is on?
Jag...I just know that you voted for a guy with NO actual experience governing anything and voting present a lot who is likely the most left of center candidate to ever win the presidency since Jimmy Carter. You REALLY must be scared of "neo-cons".....( I am still trying to figure out what a Neo-con actually is in reality. It is mainly a term of derision for most of the Dubya crowd. I usually just call them wing nuts)
Sarah needs to stop whining about the treatment the media gives her, put on her big girl pants and either go for it or step aside. When faced with pressure, Caroline Kennedy folded up and stepped aside. If Sarah winds up on the wrong side of Karl Rove in the "Where the Right Went Wrong" GOP war, she's going to think of Katie Couric as her best friend. To Karl Rove's people, kids and families are fair game. Is Sarah ready for that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Rove aint that nasty....Hillary and Bill Clinton maybe are...but Rove just let eveyrone THINK he is that nasty....
You are right tho, Palin dodged some of the media she should have dealt with. Bill O'Reilly could have made her bones if she had gone on with him and looked intelligent because he wouldn't give her softball questions but he would have drawn out who she really was. IF she had anything, he would have gotten to it. The problem is those doofuses running the McCain campaign were scared to death that people might find out McCain and Palin didn't have a lot in common...I think. 5 months later I am still trying to figure out what McCain stands for....
Yeah, counting two times for Perot, that makes at least the third time I've done that. The last time I voted for someone with "actual experience governing anything", I voted for George W. Bush. I'm not real happy with how that turned out, so I don't use that as a deciding criteria anymore. Beating in years and claiming that "experience" makes for a good President doesn't seem to wash. I mean, Sarah Palin had the most "executive experience" of the entire bunch... and she didn't know what the duties of the Vice President were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
My vote for Bush taught me that just because someone claims to have a similar philosophical view as my own, it's more important that they be able to execute, whatever their views. A well executed plan, that I don't completely agree with, is preferable to a poorly executed plan that I might agree with. The way I saw it when I cast my vote for Obama over McCain... if I need an operation, I'm going to pick Dr. Mengele over Stan the Butcher, if those are my two choices.
Some of you seem to think that Obama has a bad plan. And that may be so. But you'd have to be quite creative to convince me that McCain had any plan at all. IMO, he would right now be driving the country into a ditch, just as effectively as he drove his campaign into a ditch.
John and Cindy McCain (circa 2000) might disagree with you there. Kay Hagan would probably also feel differently - but in her case, it backfired on her opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
My guess is, John McCain is also still trying to figure out what he stands for. I rather liked the McCain of 2000. But Perot ripped him a new one for flip-flopping on the Vietnam POW issue. I continue to think of him as a decent man, but one who was overwhelmed by events outside of his control, as well as one who created events that were within his control.Quote:
You are right tho, Palin dodged some of the media she should have dealt with. Bill O'Reilly could have made her bones if she had gone on with him and looked intelligent because he wouldn't give her softball questions but he would have drawn out who she really was. IF she had anything, he would have gotten to it. The problem is those doofuses running the McCain campaign were scared to death that people might find out McCain and Palin didn't have a lot in common...I think. 5 months later I am still trying to figure out what McCain stands for....
The first VP that actually knew ahead of time what his duties were would be the first Jag. AS for McCain..ya...in retrospect I wonder what he would have done. I thought about mid October that maybe winning this election would not be a good thing for anyone...and I also think that the RNC ended up with the worst possible candidate...
As far as any additional duties that the President might assign, that is true. But I mean the basic duties, as spelled out in the Constitution. It's very clear. Rather than reading the Constitution, it seemed that Sarah Palin may have asked Dick Cheney what the duties were, and maybe that's why her answer seemed sort of flakey.
All of us have probably interviewed for jobs and we weren't really sure of the duties. You know, from company to company, the same title might have different duties. But Vice President of the U.S.? Those duties have been available for all to read for over 200 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
"Caroline well, uh, like u know, i wuz, sort of like thinkin alittle bit, maybe, i should, u know like err maybe, i should say uncleTeddy's err health or maybe not, so if he does not want, uh, err, like pick err me i could like say it was, a personal err reason, that may be I should you know like do a withdraw, maybe Kennedy" did not step aside, it was more like:
"well Ms. Kennedy, I am set on appointing someone else, and before anouncing, I am giving you an opportunity to do whatever announcement you would like to make" and after several phone calls back and forth, she finally figured out that he was not giving her the job.....so we get the "personal family reasons" withdrawal :rolleyes: