RoR: Forum

Here is a comment made by a woman responding to McCain's choice: Personally, I find McCain's condescension toward Clinton supporters absolutely brathtaking. "Here, sweeties, here's somebody else with a uterus, we all know that's all you care about, here, come vote for her!

In another story, the latest Rasmussen poll reports that the 'undecided' voters don't like Palin.

The favorable comments were about her being an outsider - not part of the Washington clique - "a breath of fresh air" and a maverick. And that as a governor she has had some executive experience.

Post 21

Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 7:24pm

It's undeniable that McCain's choice is unexpected, and that Palin is unvetted. That's far from saying that she's a stooge like Quayle. She does not even come close to my idead of an ideal candidate. But she does come across as a genuine person and only secondly as a politician. I think much of people's reaction at this point reveals more about them than her. We just don't have the evidence yet. Wait till the first debate. There's little sense in panicking now.

Post 22

Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 8:30pm

Ted, I'm not panicking :-) Remember, I'm voting Libertarian.

I agree that she comes across as genuine (in the one video I saw) - and it seems to be real. And I really like it that she isn't a good team player for the Republican party and seems to be fiercely opposed to corruption. She isn't politically correct and that is refreshing. She hunts and likes moose burgers - cool. If it is true that she argues for Creationism, that tells me a lot about her intellectual weight.

The debate will be interesting - Biden can be tough and he is polished.

Post 23

Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 11:29pm

The feminist quote that Luke posted was very telling. The femininazis who supported Hillary are never going to support a woman like this.

This woman is about as un-DC as you can find. She also comes from the state which easily has the most significant secessionist movement of all 50 states. She supported Buchanan in 2000--that says a lot about her foreign policy views. That's outstanding!

Post 24

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 5:12am

Jerry Pournelle had this to say about Mrs. Palin -

Everyone seems to be talking about Sarah Palin, which is probably all to the good. As to Alaska and Delaware, they both have three (3) electoral votes, making them politically equivalent states. I am aware that Delaware was the first state to join the Union and Alaska was the next-to-last (so far). I also know that Delaware is a bit smaller in area but has a somewhat larger population. They still each have three (3) electoral votes.
As I have said elsewhere, according to both the ADA and the ACU Obama is the most liberal of the senators, and Biden is third most. Someone mentioned Kerry: I point out that Obama was not in the Senate when Kerry reported for duty as candidate for president. On issues where you can find a record, Obama is indistinguishable from McGovern. Were he not black the superdelegates would have bounced him first thing: that is why the Democrats invented superdelegates, a sort of anti-McGovern insurance. McGovern carried one state and the District of Columbia. The superdelegates mostly hold elective office.
The American people identify themselves as moderate to conservative. To the extent that we can identify Obama's policies, he appears to have about the same as McGovern did. I expect that will become reasonably well known over the next few months. Now it is possible that Obama will overcome this handicap by sheer personality and charisma, but it is by no means inevitable. Most of us understand that change is not always reform, and much change is for the worse. Of course Obama will triangulate to the center as quickly as possible. McCain doesn't need to do that; the country club Republicans of which he is a prime example have always tried to claim the political center, to the dismay of the conservative Republicans. Palin will undoubtedly stay where she has always been, conservative personally and libertarian-republican politically. Were matters left to her, she would leave a great number of issues to the states -- as would I. I'd rather see her President than McCain, but we live with the choices we have.
Mr. Heinlein once speculated that we ought to reserve high political office for women with children because they tend to see things a bit more realistically. While I didn't necessarily agree with him, I never won the argument with him. On the other hand, Robert used to take positions for the sheer fun of it. (Actually I think he'd have preferred that anyone elected be a woman with children who could solve quadratic equations in her head, but he never went quite that far in public statements. Ginny never had children, but she could certainly do the math....)

We do live in interesting times.

Post 25

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 7:49am

Is it a coincidence that the thrust towards bigger and bigger government welfare came with women's suffrage? Most, but not all, women vote in favor of welfare policies in one form or another and at different levels of government involvment. A girl friend of mine posited that women support welfare policies because they don't want to be left in the cold without financial support if their husband or partner leaves them. Also, because of their nurturing natures most women, at least most of the women I have ever known, tend to see state sponsored welfare as acceptable and good because it takes care of women with children who have no apparent needs of support. It would be interesting to see Mrs. Palin's take on welfare, i.e. what is and what is not "acceptable" welfare to her.
(Edited by Erik on 8/31, 7:54am)

Post 26

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 8:07am

George Reisman has an excellent article on Sarah Palin and oil:

http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/08/barack-obama-and-sarah-palin-on-taxing.html

Post 27

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 10:21am

Erik,

I am sorry to say that there is a great deal of truth to your comments about women voting and the growth of the welfare state.

Post 28

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 11:00am

Erik:

Thanks for the link to the Reisman article.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 29

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 12:32pm

George Reisman has an excellent article on Sarah Palin and oil:

http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/08/barack-obama-and-sarah-palin-on-taxing.html

I don't want to make too much of this, but there is a subtle difference at work here. Alaska's constitution gives every citizen a kind of ownership in the State's oil. Every citizen gets a check each year. Palin's tax was more of an increase in user fees than a windfall profits tax.

Post 30

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 1:07pm

"Alaska's constitution gives every citizen a kind of ownership in the State's oil."

If this is true how does Alaska law differ from any other nationalization of private property scheme?

I believe Alaska law gave a share of oil money to Alaska property owners only. I'm not sure if the Palin give-away was limited to only property owners. At any rate, a money giveaway explains her popularity more than anything else I've read. "Barracuda", humph.

Post 31

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 2:32pm

Mike Erickson wrote:

If this is true how does Alaska law differ from any other nationalization of private property scheme?

It wasn't such a nationalization. The government owned the land originally. It was not a case of the government confiscating land owned or developed by oil companies.

I believe Alaska law gave a share of oil money to Alaska property owners only. I'm not sure if the Palin give-away was limited to only property owners. At any rate, a money giveaway explains her popularity more than anything else I've read. "Barracuda", humph.

Oil dividends have been going to Alaska residents for many years. Palin had nothing to do with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

Post 32

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 2:55pm

There is plenty of hysteria, both for and against this woman. It is most certainly premature.

As for yourself, Steve, when I am addressing you specifically, I will name you. So no, the panic was not attributed to you. But I will ask, how does the fact that you intend to vote Libertarian relieve you from (possibly justified) panic over this woman as a potential step away from the presidency?

Post 33

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 3:31pm

Ted,

I kind of like the woman - not her religious beliefs, and not her ignorance of economics, or her lack of experience, or that she seems to be an intellectual lightweight, but her gutsy independence, willingness to actually attack corruption, and her somewhat more honest approach to campaigning - actually saying what she believes - what a quaint notion!

The decision to vote Libertarian has a slightly calming effect in that I will have not have played a part in that strange dance of the lesser evils. I could be one of those dorks with a bumper sticker, saying, "Don't blame me. I didn't vote for him."

Of the different scenarios - McCain gets elected and lives long enough to serve out his term, Obama wins, or McCain wins, dies and Palin is president - I actually like the last one the best (not that I'm wishing McCain would die - I don't dislike him that much!)

I keep going back and forth between seeing her as a major mistake in McCain's campaign and the reason undecideds might change their mind and vote McCain. She certainly has made it more interesting.

It's like you said; getting worked up at this point is premature.

Post 34

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 5:57pm

To be sure, Palin does have some very fine political qualities both as a mayor and Governor, but I vote based strictly on the candidate with the best idea's.-and to me the most qualified candidate to fill those shoes as President of the United States of America, qua the Spirit of '76, is Bob Barr.
(Edited by Erik on 8/31, 6:00pm)

Post 35

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 6:55pm

Steve, post 33 (minus the looney Libertarian stuff), could have been written by me.

Post 36

Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 9:07pm

"The government owned the land originally"

That made me laugh louder than hearing about McCains choice for VP in the first place. This election campaign is entertaining to say the least. I believe McCain will win handily, I don't think he needs Palin to win but she probably will help.

Post 37

Monday, September 1, 2008 - 9:13am

I wrote: "The government owned the land originally"

Mike Erickson replied:

That made me laugh louder than hearing about McCains choice for VP in the first place.

"Originally" wasn't a great word choice, but I'm glad you had a good laugh. But let's review the facts. The U.S. government. bought Alaska from Russia. Oil companies entered contracts with the U.S. government to drill for oil around Prudhoe Bay. Pipeline and other companies entered contracts with the U.S. government to build the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. So at no time did the U.S. do any nationalization of private property as you claimed in post 30.

Also, the facts belie your claim to a "Palin give-away".

Addenda: After writing the above I learned something new (assuming it's accurate).

"One of her most significant accomplishments as governor was passing a major tax increase on state oil production, angering oil companies but raising billions of dollars in new revenue. She said the oil companies had previously bribed legislators to keep the taxes low. She subsequently championed legislation that would give some of that money back to Alaskans: Soon, every Alaskan will receive a $1,200 check." (link)

However, I doubt this was what Mike Erickson meant by "Palin give-away".

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/01, 9:48am)

Post 38

Monday, September 1, 2008 - 11:46am

Ted, you have my sympathy. I can only imagine how difficult if must be for an intelligent, knowledgeable man of principle to find himself supporting McCain-Palin. Certainly it was bad enough before Palin, when McCain would say things like, "The reason, the only reason why I'm here today is because I believe that a higher being has a mission for me in my life." And, "I will be a pro-life president, and this presidency will have pro-life policies." And backing the gay-marriage ban and his ignorance of economics, and his flip-flops. But now to find yourself supporting a ticket that is gung-ho on Creationism and little Miss Mooseburger, the former Miss Wassilla, runner up to Miss Alaska, head of her high school Fellowship of Christian Athletes chapter, being just a heart-beat away... well, it must be tough. If I were you I too would be counseling patience and saying that it is just too premature to say anything. Maybe we should all hold our breath and hope for the next 60 days to pass quickly and unnoticed. If anybody says that's just loony, ignore that too. :-) Good Luck.

p.s., It occurs to me how useful it is to the politicians to be seen as liars. It means that in this lesser of evils context, that the supporters can pretend that this or that statement is just a temporary 'posture' put forth to get elected and not their 'real' position. I mean, can anyone imagine a Libertarian candidate trying to win the born-again vote by talking about his relationship to God and his supporters saying it was just bring in needed campaign funds, or saying that some projects were necessary to help the poor and needy, and his supporters saying he didn't really mean it - it was just campaign rhetoric? The biggest problem with using the lesser of the evils approach to voting is the acceptance of this disconnect with principles and tolerance for lies.

Post 39

Monday, September 1, 2008 - 2:25pm