Interviews with Palin

[CANADIEN]

I think your response identifies the point at which our opinions diverge.

I do not disagree that Obama is perhaps the least "experienced" person the Dems have nominated, certainly in chronological terms, but I think any attempt to compare Palin's kind of experience and Obama's is a false comparison. I honestly don't think you can point to two individuals, even with identical terms of service, and say that they are equally experienced. I don't think you can even point to someone who has been in a job for 20 years and say he's more experienced than someone who's been there for 10. One could have been killing time while the other was absorbing detail, nuance, developing ideas, etc.

I'm not saying Palin was killing time, but I think in the rough and tumble world of Chicago and Illinois politics and then a few years in the Senate and on Senate committees followed up with a masterful race against the biggest brand name in US politics, Obama has a much higher experience level. In addition, he has been exposed to politics and policy on a much broader spectrum and has shown not only a greater mastery of them but an infintely greater interest in them. She has not. (She only knew about the surge by hearing about it on the news and when asked her opinion, she offered an opinion directly opposite that of McCain's.) His experience level (and certainly the quality of his experience in those areas) is greater than hers by leaps and bounds. You can't even compare the two.

(As an aside, let's face it, Alaska is a podunk state and she was governor for 18 months when selected. Her greatest accomplishment was "standing up to the old boys' network" and taking credit for a gas pipeline that was largely in the bag of voter support by the time she was sworn in. And, contrary to her campaign trail "claims" (euphemism for "lies") that her work on the pipeline is making America more energy independent, the pipeline has not even been submitted to the federal government for environmental approval yet. Yes, her biggest accomplishment hasn't even entered the application phase.)

I would submit, and again this is purely my opinion, that Obama's experiences have shown that he has developed a greater depth of certain qualities needed in leaders and that he has honed greater skills that make him the better choice. Miles ahead of Palin. And nothing I've said about the relative experience levels of Obama and Palin diminishes my criticism of McCain's terrible and reckless lack of judgment.

Apart of the unwarranted insult at Alaska, right on.

[CANADIEN]

To those who believe that the US health care system is the top, a few facts:

- in 2003, the US rare of death of children below the age of five was higher than in Canada, Japan, S. Korea, Malaysia, Brunei, Australia, N. Zealand, Cuba, and all European countries except former communist countries (link)

- in the WHO statitistics on life expectency published in 2007, the USA ranked 32nd, both for men and women. Canada was in the top ten (link)

- a WHO study a few years back (sorry, can't find the link) ranked the Canadian health care system as the 30th best in the wrold; the US system was ranked 36th.

There is place for serious improvement in the Canadian health care system; the US model is definitely not the one to adopt..

[bush_cheney2004]

...There is place for serious improvement in the Canadian health care system; the US model is definitely not the one to adopt..

No kidding.....just today Canada's health care system, which has universal access and care as a goal, was reported to really suck compared to other systems with like minded objectives.

TORONTO -- Universal health care is something many Canadians cherish and want to fiercely protect, but a new study finds it lags far behind the standard of care that is commonplace in Western Europe.

The study, called Euro-Canada Health Care Index, looked at health care in Canada from the consumers' perspective at the provincial level and compared it with that of 29 European countries.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...80917/20080917/

Comparisons to the US system, which does not have universal access as a goal, will not hide the fact that Canada has problems, often solved by sending patients to the United States or abroad.

[WIP]

Your racist observation about Barack Obama's "achievement" as a "black" did not go unnoticed.

you are full of crap up to your eyeballs! Observing Barack Obama's milestone achievement that none of the other candidates can make a similar claim to is racism according to your doublespeak! But supporting a political party that tailored drug laws and penalties (crack cocaine vs. powdered cocaine) to specifically target minorities and fill prisons with young black men incarcerated for drug offenses is not racist according to Republican morality! Defunding school lunch programs and affirmative action programs is also not racist! But mentioning an historic first, reported by many news sources in their biographies of Barack Obama is a racist comment -- Right! Your hypocrisy has sunk to an alltime low!

[bush_cheney2004]

you are full of crap up to your eyeballs! Observing Barack Obama's milestone achievement that none of the other candidates can make a similar claim to is racism according to your doublespeak! But supporting a political party that tailored drug laws and penalties (crack cocaine vs. powdered cocaine) to specifically target minorities and fill prisons with young black men incarcerated for drug offenses is not racist according to Republican morality! Defunding school lunch programs and affirmative action programs is also not racist! But mentioning an historic first, reported by many news sources in their biographies of Barack Obama is a racist comment -- Right! Your hypocrisy has sunk to an alltime low!

Since I am not a Republican, I don't understand how your assertions apply or are even relevant to your not so cleverly coded racism about "black" achievement, particularly when the man in question is hardly "black". You are offensive on several levels:

1) If you insist on communicating in racial terms, you discount the true multiracial heritage of Obama in favor of tired old stereotypes.

2) You imply that achievement at the Harvard Law Review is remarkable for an "intelligent" black man, which smacks of Joe Biden's ill chosen comments about the same man.

3) You obviously take great pains to measure the advancements of non-whites in this political context, but perhaps in a larger context as well. No doubt Senator Obama is a "credit to his race", right?

Edited September 18, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

But supporting a political party that tailored drug laws and penalties (crack cocaine vs. powdered cocaine) to specifically target minorities and fill prisons with young black men incarcerated for drug offenses is not racist according to Republican morality!

No they target drug offenders..the race is irrelevent...just ask my friend in Florida whose father is a repulican....my friend stands to go to jail for possion of crack, meth and heroin....she's white by the way...

[Liam]

A nobody from nowhere? So is Obama.

I love Palin's line: "Here's a guy who has written TWO memoirs and not a sinlge major piece of legislation."

By the way, don't look now but...if that's their strategy, it's working.

Don't get too far ahead of yourself -- the election is still seven weeks away and, if the past few days have been any indication about the state of the race and which team is better positioned to address the issues, McCain and Palin may find themselves with plenty of free time to field dressing moose starting November 5th.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110473/Gallup-D...-McCain-44.aspx

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't get too far ahead of yourself -- the election is still seven weeks away and, if the past few days have been any indication about the state of the race and which team is better positioned to address the issues, McCain and Palin may find themselves with plenty of free time to field dressing moose starting November 5th.

Perhaps, but it wasn't suppose to be this close. Obama running against President Bush's "third term" has not produced the desired advantage. If t remains this close until November, McCain will win. And Obama doesn't have a clue about how to field dress a moose.

[JerrySeinfeld]

How's that for irrelevant? Since you have such a hard time understanding the concept, I'll explain. No one says the left doesn't dabble in identity politics. But to suggest as you have that it is the exclusive domain of the left is just plain wrong. Identity politics is a staple of the "us versus them" political culture of the right.

It's obviously you who's having a hard time understanding the concept. Certainly most party politics is ideological and carries with it a certain "us versus them" attitude. The question is whether you dabble in it on a refined subtle basis from time to time, or on a (to use your word) CRASS basis.

Given your level of - and ability during - discourse, let me exlpain.

From "dictionary.com":

Crass:

1. without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity

Identity politics as an end game, such as overtly expressing identity politics in your party's position statement (example: having an equal representation of men and women in the house of commons), as per the NDP, is crass.

Please tell me where any conservative party has overtly used identity politics in it's official party policy, as has the NDP in such a crass fashion.

Crass. Your ass is crass. haha

Edited September 18, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[Black Dog]

It's obviously you who's having a hard time understanding the concept. Certainly most party politics is ideological and carries with it a certain "us versus them" attitude. The question is whether you dabble in it on a refined subtle basis from time to time, or on a (to use your word) CRASS basis.

Given your level of - and ability during - discourse, let me exlpain.

From "dictionary.com":

Crass:

1. without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity

Identity politics as an end game, such as overtly expressing identity politics in your party's position statement (example: having an equal representation of men and women in the house of commons), as per the NDP, is crass.

Please tell me where any conservative party has overtly used identity politics in it's official party policy, as has the NDP in such a crass fashion.

Crass. Your ass is crass. haha laugh.gif

I love it when you pretend to be smart. It's like watching a chimp try and do calculus. The simple rebuttal here is that there's nothing refined or subtle about the Republican/right-wing brand of identity politics. We see it here in right wing demands for balance on CBC, we see it in the states when right-wingers demand educational institutions full quotas of ideologically acceptable hires. We see it in the ridiculous positioning of candidates like George W Bush and Sarah Palin as "jus' folks". It doesn't have to be a part of a platform to be crude and transparent.

[WIP]

No they target drug offenders..the race is irrelevent...just ask my friend in Florida whose father is a repulican....my friend stands to go to jail for possion of crack, meth and heroin....she's white by the way...

I'm not generally partial to conspiracy theories, and the lines of distinction may be blurring now that more whites are smoking crack; but 20 years ago, crack cocaine was almost exclusively an urban ghetto phenomena every bit as much as drinking malt liquor! So, what logical reasons are there for excessively penalizing one version of a drug more than other forms? There's also the side issue of why the courts are more lenient with drug offenders from middleclass and wealthier families -- sending offenders off to drug treatment centers instead of prison, as is usually the case if they come from a more modest background.

Looking at the big picture, the whole War On Drugs is as big a travesty as the War On Terror, and drug abuse should have been treated as a health crisis rather than a crime problem right from the start. Your unfortunate friend in Florida may be a dealer, if she had that many different types of drugs in her possession. But even so, many addicts are forced to deal on the side or steal and burglarize homes to pay for the exorbitant cost of street drugs created by a policy that tries to cut down on supplies and make the drugs even more expensive and a more lucrative business for organized crime.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I love it when you pretend to be smart. It's like watching a chimp try and do calculus. The simple rebuttal here is that there's nothing refined or subtle about the Republican/right-wing brand of identity politics. We see it here in right wing demands for balance on CBC, we see it in the states when right-wingers demand educational institutions full quotas of ideologically acceptable hires. We see it in the ridiculous positioning of candidates like George W Bush and Sarah Palin as "jus' folks". It doesn't have to be a part of a platform to be crude and transparent.

Asking for balanced reporting from a taxpayer funded news agency is "crude and transparent"?

Identity politics as an overt, official party doctrine isn't?

Sounds like chimp calculus to me.

[WIP]

Since I am not a Republican,

I've heard this one before, but since you always line up on the line of scrimmage with the Republicans on every issue (point out one thing where you don't), and you named yourself after the two men who have destroyed the Republican brand and may have done irreparable harm to the nation as well, I can't accept you as anything other than a kneejerk, doctrinaire Republican apologist.

There are a few others here claiming to be something other than their arguments would indicate, and it shouldn't make any difference what people claim to believe when they don't appear to apply them in public.

I don't understand how your assertions apply or are even relevant to your not so cleverly coded racism about "black" achievement, particularly when the man in question is hardly "black". You are offensive on several levels:

1) If you insist on communicating in racial terms, you discount the true multiracial heritage of Obama in favor of tired old stereotypes.

More Republican drivel! Republicans claim to be colour blind, so they can ignore the real life misery their policies create. No surprise that won't address any of them either, and try to turn appreciation into one man's achievements into "cleverly coded racism." Maybe you can explain to me then why Barack Obama's bio page also contains this "cleverly coded racism": He went on to earn his law degree from Harvard in 1991, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review

2) You imply that achievement at the Harvard Law Review is remarkable for an "intelligent" black man, which smacks of Joe Biden's ill chosen comments about the same man.

I used "intelligent" in comparision with "unintelligent" for example: George Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin etc., not in the context that an intelligent black man is an anomaly as you are trying to imply by twisting my words around. It was also remarkable that he rose to the top from very humble beginnings, since his father left when he was young, and the family was on food stamps for some time. And considering all that, it's amazing that the Republican propaganda machine has the gall to call him an "elitist" even though their candidate has a rich trophy wife who made it possible for him to have a private jet and NINE homes scattered across the country. The real "cleverly coded racism" comes from the charges that a black man (and don't give me the crap about being bi-racial, you know very well that the majority consider him to be black regardless) is an elitist for aspirations of reaching for the top in academia -- there's your real racism!

3) You obviously take great pains to measure the advancements of non-whites in this political context, but perhaps in a larger context as well. No doubt Senator Obama is a "credit to his race", right?

Thanks for dropping your mask a little to reveal the sordid inner workings of your mind! I'm old enough to remember where that disparaging term comes from, and it wasn't for academic achievement -- they were called uppity --------'s. It seems that term has resurfaced in Republican backrooms lately also.

No, the "credit to his race term," likely first used about Joe Louis, was exclusively used to apply to black athletes, since that was the only form of achievement that was considered acceptable.

[JerrySeinfeld]

And considering all that, it's amazing that the Republican propaganda machine has the gall to call him an "elitist" even though their candidate has a rich trophy wife who made it possible for him to have a private jet and NINE homes scattered across the country.

That's the most common misconception I hear from the left: how can YOU call ME elitist? You're rich!

Let me explain. I'm not being condescending here. I truly think leftists don't understand, so this is a genuine attempt at understanding.

Elitism, as it's used by most conservatives, and myself, is not used in the monetary sense. Many left wingers are obsessed with the almighty dollar and need to look past personal finances for a moment.

When many conservatives say the word "elitist" it refers to that person's attitudes about himself and his ideas visavis policy and politics, which is generally: "I am smarter, more educated and more well read than you about the issues, and I'm the one who is smart enough to fix the problems we all face. Listen to me - you're too dumb to figure it all out."

Conservatives generally believe that money in the hands of government is money wasted, or that could be better used in private hands. They look at alot of ivory tower new york times blow hard types as people who want to run the country for them and "fix" all their problems using government "solutions". In reality, conservatives see people with the gall and delusional mindset to think "if those stupid commoners just elected me, smart, educated me, we'd have a utopia" as elitists.

It really has nothing to do with money, and the irony is, many socialist government control we-can-use-your-money-better-than-you-can elitist thinker types actually don't have any real of their own money. But they're still "elitist" in their way of thinking, from a conservative perspective.

Another way to look at it is the granola-eating, corn-row wearing tie-dye shirt wearing peacnik down at your local march. Because he's "making the world a better place" (in his mind) with his "activism", he automatically can believe that he is a "better person" than those stupid, uninformed schlepps down at the farm in Nebraska, who actually work for a living. That's another example of an "elitist" who actually doesn't have any money.

[bush_cheney2004]

I've heard this one before, but since you always line up on the line of scrimmage with the Republicans on every issue (point out one thing where you don't), and you named yourself after the two men who have destroyed the Republican brand and may have done irreparable harm to the nation as well, I can't accept you as anything other than a kneejerk, doctrinaire Republican apologist.

I can name several issues where I depart from Republicans (same gender marriage, abortions and fiscal policy), and by your own admission, Bush_Cheney are alleged to have destroyed the Republican brand. I hope you don't play chess this poorly too.

... Republicans claim to be colour blind, so they can ignore the real life misery their policies create. No surprise that won't address any of them either, and try to turn appreciation into one man's achievements into "cleverly coded racism."

You chose to post the racial qualifier, not I. Would his "achievement" been less had he not been "black", or translating into Canuck, a different "visible minority" (whatever the hell that means)?

I used "intelligent" in comparision with "unintelligent" for example: George Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin etc., not in the context that an intelligent black man is an anomaly as you are trying to imply by twisting my words around. It was also remarkable that he rose to the top from very humble beginnings, since his father left when he was young, and the family was on food stamps for some time.

You are digging an even deeper hole....clearly Barack Obama can be "intelligent" without rising above anything of the sort. At least you are being consistent in your racial stereotypes!

The real "cleverly coded racism" comes from the charges that a black man (and don't give me the crap about being bi-racial, you know very well that the majority consider him to be black regardless) is an elitist for aspirations of reaching for the top in academia -- there's your real racism!

Well, we know that you certainly do...and that is jolly well enough, right? Staying somewhat on topic, maybe Sarah Palin is black too...better check for the "One Drop Rule".

No, the "credit to his race term," likely first used about Joe Louis, was exclusively used to apply to black athletes, since that was the only form of achievement that was considered acceptable.

Surely you must be joking...or guilty of wholesale ignorance on such things. Down here, you would be sentenced to 50 hours of Black History Month seminars for such blatant stupidity. But in the end, you get a pass...how could you possibly know?

[WIP]

I can name several issues where I depart from Republicans (same gender marriage, abortions and fiscal policy), and by your own admission, Bush_Cheney are alleged to have destroyed the Republican brand. I hope you don't play chess this poorly too.

You chose to post the racial qualifier, not I. Would his "achievement" been less had he not been "black", or translating into Canuck, a different "visible minority" (whatever the hell that means)?

You are digging an even deeper hole....clearly Barack Obama can be "intelligent" without rising above anything of the sort. At least you are being consistent in your racial stereotypes!

Well, we know that you certainly do...and that is jolly well enough, right? Staying somewhat on topic, maybe Sarah Palin is black too...better check for the "One Drop Rule".

Surely you must be joking...or guilty of wholesale ignorance on such things. Down here, you would be sentenced to 50 hours of Black History Month seminars for such blatant stupidity. But in the end, you get a pass...how could you possibly know?

More meaningless, mindless drivel that isn't worth intelligent commentary! But feel free to present your evidence for your last claim!

[bush_cheney2004]

More meaningless, mindless drivel that isn't worth intelligent commentary! But feel free to present your evidence for your last claim!

I am done playing with you for now....but know that if Senator Obama is elected president, it will be because he gets more votes in certain states, not because he is an "intelligent black". And I am sure he wouldn't have it any other way.

[Liam]

That's the most common misconception I hear from the left: how can YOU call ME elitist? You're rich!

Let me explain. I'm not being condescending here. I truly think leftists don't understand, so this is a genuine attempt at understanding.

Elitism, as it's used by most conservatives, and myself, is not used in the monetary sense. Many left wingers are obsessed with the almighty dollar and need to look past personal finances for a moment.

When many conservatives say the word "elitist" it refers to that person's attitudes about himself and his ideas visavis policy and politics, which is generally: "I am smarter, more educated and more well read than you about the issues, and I'm the one who is smart enough to fix the problems we all face. Listen to me - you're too dumb to figure it all out."

Conservatives generally believe that money in the hands of government is money wasted, or that could be better used in private hands. They look at alot of ivory tower new york times blow hard types as people who want to run the country for them and "fix" all their problems using government "solutions". In reality, conservatives see people with the gall and delusional mindset to think "if those stupid commoners just elected me, smart, educated me, we'd have a utopia" as elitists.

It really has nothing to do with money, and the irony is, many socialist government control we-can-use-your-money-better-than-you-can elitist thinker types actually don't have any real of their own money. But they're still "elitist" in their way of thinking, from a conservative perspective.

Another way to look at it is the granola-eating, corn-row wearing tie-dye shirt wearing peacnik down at your local march. Because he's "making the world a better place" (in his mind) with his "activism", he automatically can believe that he is a "better person" than those stupid, uninformed schlepps down at the farm in Nebraska, who actually work for a living. That's another example of an "elitist" who actually doesn't have any money.

Your point is clear, but what you fail to understand is that there is an equally high degree of elitism on the right: the prevailing belief (especially so among the icons of the right, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, Graham, Buchanan, etc.) that those on the right are not only intellectually superior but also morally superior to everyone else. They march with God, afterall. How much more elitist and exclusionary could you get?? I have never heard anyone on the left say that someone who votes a certain way is a moral defective (in the theological sense). I have never heard anyone on the left call for Catholic priests to deny Rudy Giuliani communion at Catholic masses.

The elitism of the right is of the Larry the Cable Guy variety. It puts on a down-home accent before it starts dishing out the put-downs. Just listen to talk radio for two minutes and tell me this isn't true. It's as condescending and insulting as anything the left can conjure up.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Liam

[JerrySeinfeld]

Your point is clear, but what you fail to understand is that there is an equally high degree of elitism on the right: the prevailing belief (especially so among the icons of the right, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, Graham, Buchanan, etc.) that those on the right are not only intellectually superior but also morally superior to everyone else. They march with God, afterall. How much more elitist and exclusionary could you get?? I have never heard anyone on the left say that someone who votes a certain way is a moral defective (in the theological sense). I have never heard anyone on the left call for Catholic priests to deny Rudy Giuliani communion at Catholic masses.

The elitism of the right is of the Larry the Cable Guy variety. It puts on a down-home accent before it starts dishing out the put-downs. Just listen to talk radio for two minutes and tell me this isn't true. It's as condescending and insulting as anything the left can conjure up.

Maybe, but with the exception of some of the hugely annoying (giving the rest of us a bad name) conservative commentators you named above, I would argue most conservatives don't see themselves as "better" or "elitist". Rather many of us see ourselves as people watching the floodwaters rise around our homestead. New "progressivism" is everywhere. People want to embrace everything BUT the values that built our country. Which we find strange, because the rest of the world is pretty much a cesspool compared to the Anglo world. The rest of the world is "worried" about globalization, as in... McDonalds on the Champs Elysee (heaven forbid!). We're worried about globalisation too reverse globalization...as in burqas at the mall and mandatory gender-specific swim classes to appease mulsims in suburban Denver, or a hardcore version or islam, hot for decapitation, setting up down the block, or an Australian police handbook instructing officers to ignore wife-beating Muslim men on the grounds of "cultural sensitivity", or a 60-year sentence handed down to a group of young Lebanese men in Australia who gang raped a girl and, while diong so announced that she was about to be - and I quote - "f*cked leb style" - a 60 year sentence greeted by the Muslim community with outrage and protest.

These things are actually happening. We see this as an erosion. We believe that there are "good" values and "bad" ones. That acceptance for the sake of acceptance, tolerance for the sake of tolerance, as a goal in and of itself, can be dangerous if it is blind to these erosions.

That's not elitism in my view. That's just knowing the difference between right and wrong. We, as conservatives, see the fundamental problem and danger with the left as "moral relativism" or "moral equivalency" - ie. no one is wrong, there are just different points of view. This lack of ability to make a judgement on evil acts is at the root of our criticism of the left - and it is not elitist in our view, it's just not being afraid to say "you are wrong".

[Black Dog]

Maybe, but with the exception of some of the hugely annoying (giving the rest of us a bad name) conservative commentators you named above, I would argue most conservatives don't see themselves as "better" or "elitist". Rather many of us see ourselves as people watching the floodwaters rise around our homestead. New "progressivism" is everywhere. People want to embrace everything BUT the values that built our country.

Actually, pluralism, individual rights and equality under the law are the values upon which this country was built. Sorry that's not your value system.

We're worried about globalisation too reverse globalization...as in burqas at the mall and mandatory gender-specific swim classes to appease mulsims in suburban Denver, or a hardcore version or islam, hot for decapitation, setting up down the block, or an Australian police handbook instructing officers to ignore wife-beating Muslim men on the grounds of "cultural sensitivity", or a 60-year sentence handed down to a group of young Lebanese men in Australia who gang raped a girl and, while diong so announced that she was about to be - and I quote - "f*cked leb style" - a 60 year sentence greeted by the Muslim community with outrage and protest.

ONOZ Teh Muzlams r coming to takes our wimmin!

These things are actually happening. We see this as an erosion. We believe that there are "good" values and "bad" ones. That acceptance for the sake of acceptance, tolerance for the sake of tolerance, as a goal in and of itself, can be dangerous if it is blind to these erosions.

That's not elitism in my view. That's just knowing the difference between right and wrong. We, as conservatives, see the fundamental problem and danger with the left as "moral relativism" or "moral equivalency" - ie. no one is wrong, there are just different points of view. This lack of ability to make a judgement on evil acts is at the root of our criticism of the left - and it is not elitist in our view, it's just not being afraid to say "you are wrong".

Funny: the only time I have ever heard the concept of moral relativism articulated, it's been by a right winger telling me what liberals believe. Never once have I heard the idea that "no one is wrong, there are just different points of view" come from a self0described left winger. Something tells me you haven't either. It's just another straw man.