The Untold Drama Behind the GOP VP Pick
 

Hopefully without triggering another Ernst-v-George or George-v-Cheesehead exchange of polemical posts, my brief take on the GOP Convention:

- Palin's speech: A very well-scripted and nicely delivered speech ... about nothing. I find it surprising that no has commented on the details in the above NY Times editorial - I find her quotes e.g. about the Iraq war deeply disturbing. Is this a person who believes in the constitution-mandated separation of church and state? Not even close. Haven't we had more than enough trampling of the constitution and "divinely guided leadership" in the past 8 years to provide us with a lifetime of bad memories and lingering political and economic woe?

- McCain's speech: Very moving, but again, woefully short on actual ideas about addressing the manifold problems the country finds itself in. What does John McCain still fighting the Vietnam war in his head have to do with his fitness to be president? Yes, he "fought for his country" - in a terribly misguided, unjust war of aggression, which cost over a million Vietnamese lives, including those of hundereds of thousands on noncombatants, women and children. That is "being pro-life"? How does that and surviving an admittedly terrible ordeal as a POW make one a "hero"? Is every German soldier from WW2 who helped invade Russia, ended up getting taken prisoner and sent to the lead mines of Siberia a "hero"? McCain's attempting to recast himself as "an agent of change" is belied by his record of voting the Bush party line roughly 95% of the time. The mere fact that he now admits the country is in dire need of change at the top is an implicit admission of the utter failure of the Bush presidency, yet his near-100% record of toeing the line with the Bush White House makes him "an agent of change"? Pull the other one, John.

One aspect of his choice of Palin strikes me as cynically clever, however - it became clear during the convention that he intends to use her as his personal attack-dog-in-sheep's-clothing, allowing him to paint himself as "above the fray".

[b]On a humorous note...[/b]

The [i]SF Chronicle[/i]'s Don Asmussen has a panel illustrating the wrenching behind-the-scenes wrangling that occurred in the past week within the GOP and culminated in McCain's last-minute surprise choice of Palin:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140979]

<snip>

The [i]SF Chronicle[/i]'s Don Asmussen has a panel illustrating the wrenching behind-the-scenes wrangling that occurred in the past week within the GOP and culminated in McCain's last-minute surprise choice of Palin:[/QUOTE]


I love a good flame war. Allow me to pour gas on the fire.

What do people make of McCain's (5th from the bottom of his Naval class!)
and Palin's (6 colleges in 6 years before getting her degree) educational
attainments? I think they are pathetic.

Let's couple their educational attainments with the fact that the Red
states are the least educated, have the highest per-capita prison
populations, highest divorce rates (so much for "family values"), highest
teenage pregnancy rates, etc. etc. The result is that states with
intelligent populations support Obama and the states populated by
ignoramuses support two ignoramuses. (as evidenced by their educational
"achievements")

It has also come out that Palin was ALSO pregnant before she got married.
And 3 days after she gave birth to a Down's Syndrome baby she was back
at work. Where is the "family values" mommy commitment to caring for
her children?

I also understand that in a typical Republigun abuse of power that AS
MAYOR she tried to get her town's librarian fired because the librarian
refused to remove books from the library that she didn't like. Typical
Republican--> ban books that contain things you don't like.
"Let's keep 'em ignorant and keep 'em from thinking for themselves". is
the Republigun attitude.

The **** also wants to teach Creationism in school; Yet another attempt
of the RRR to try to force their religion down everyone's throat.

I more I see of this *****, the less I like her.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140979]Palin's speech: A very well-scripted and nicely delivered speech ... about nothing. I find it surprising that no has commented on the details in the above NY Times editorial...[/quote]

Palin was not supposed to deliver a policy speech. Her goal was to introduce herself, some of her accomplishments, and take on the typical VP role of attacking the other party's candidate so that the head of the ticket can remain above the fray.

She accomplished her task rather well. Her biggest test will come in the VP debates. She has a lot to learn in a short period of time. She will also be at a severe disadvantage due to amount of debate experience.

As to the NY Times editorial, I have only two gripes. They do a great job of listing her problems, but (at least in your excerpt) spend no time listing her accomplishments. But it's an editorial, they don't have to be balanced. IMO, they completely miss the boat in calling the choice of Palin a "snap decision". In fact, McCain made a brilliant calculated decision. The pick united [I]and motivated[/I] his base. Prior to Palin there was a significant chance the base would stay home. Palin also brings some of the independent women vote into play. It also brings interest to his campaign. Would any other VP candidate have generated 6 straight days of headline coverage? Would any other VP candidate have brought in 37 million viewers?

Of course, Palin is not the most qualified to take over should the need arise. But from McCain's point of view the country will be better off if he becomes President and Palin gives him the best chance of that occurring.

What's interesting, and somewhat sad, to me is that the press, pundits, and public seem more interested in her family life, her daughter's pregnancy, whether a mother with lots of children one with special needs can be a VP. They don't spend much time talking about her real qualifications.

[quote]McCain's speech: Very moving, but again, woefully short on actual ideas about addressing the manifold problems the country finds itself in. What does John McCain still fighting the Vietnam war in his head have to do with his fitness to be president?[/QUOTE]

Actual there were a pile of ideas in there - mostly the same old republican ideas from the last two decades. The closest thing to a new idea was a call for energy independence. Yet that was a rather insincere "we need to do it" rather than a solid commitment with deadlines and goals (such as by 2020 I commit to 10% from solar, 10% from wind, ....). His only other new idea was to vow to veto any bill containing pork that comes his way. I've heard that before from politicians and it never seems to happen. I'd love to see a President actually do it. Now McCain has enough of a maverick reputation that he just might do it, but he also has a track record of being vindictive and prickly - not exactly consistent with the image he wants to project as one who can work with Democrats.

I thought the POW experience was the best part of his speech. Yes, McCain is a war hero. He put up with far more than I could have endured. It is irrelevant whether the Vietnam was just - that's the President and Congress' job, not the soldier's. He told how his POW experience changed his thinking and made him the man he is today - all quite relevant to a President's qualification.


Anyway, I'm thrilled. We've got a truly interesting election ahead of us. The first black candidate, a "maverick" candidate, the first Republican female candidate. Lots of interesting story lines. The polls are close. Will the youth vote come out for Obama? Can he inspire lots of new voters? How many people will tell the pollster that race doesn't matter yet change their mind when they enter the voting booth? Can Palin learn national and foreign policy issues in just a few weeks? Will she bring a significant number of females over to McCain? Truly fascinating.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;140983]The :censored: also wants[/QUOTE]

That's twice Bob has resorted to misogynist, politically incorrect and offensive terminology to describe to Palin. If she inspires such hatred from ranting left wingers like Bob, she is an inspired selection.

On the other hand, Bob needs a timeout until he can get his potty mouth under control.

Kudos to the moderators for acting fast on censoring Bob's garbage

[QUOTE=wblipp;141008]That's twice Bob has resorted to misogynist, politically incorrect and offensive terminology to describe to Palin. If she inspires such hatred from ranting left wingers like Bob, she is an inspired selection.

On the other hand, Bob needs a timeout until he can get his potty mouth under control.

Kudos to the moderators for acting fast on censoring Bob's garbage[/QUOTE]

I blipped out the offensive language - will be discussing with the other mods what if any other actions should be taken. I agree, such verbiage is completely inappropriate in an allegedly civil discussion.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;141010]I blipped out the offensive language - will be discussing with the other mods what if any other actions should be taken. I agree, such verbiage is completely inappropriate in an allegedly civil discussion.[/QUOTE]I suggest a public [spoiler]bollocking[/spoiler] is both appropriate and sufficient. As that seems to be what he's getting anyway ...

Paul

(spoiler) (/spoiler) tags used to protect the eyes of the innocent.
[spoiler]I hope this post isn't going to get me into trouble ...[/spoiler]

[quote=xilman;141016]I suggest a public [spoiler]bollocking[/spoiler] is both appropriate and sufficient. As that seems to be what he's getting anyway ...

Paul

[/quote]

I am gratified to have guessed the word precisely before
removing the spoiler.

I find the coyness about the c word slightly strange in the light
of the apparent acceptability and ubiquity of the f word these days.

David

John Cooper Clarke (a Manchester punk(?) poet) had a hilarious
ditty entitled "[spoiler]Twat[/spoiler]".
It consisted of a diatribe putting someone down which concluded
with the punchline:
"They can't find a good word for you,
but I can.....
[spoiler]Twat[/spoiler]!"

Mancunian accent required

[quote=davieddy;141019]
I find the coyness about the c word slightly strange in the light
of the apparent acceptability and ubiquity of the f word these days.

David[/quote]

As wblipp said, the c word IMO is misogynist. Any directly hateful word like that, or the n-word, is much more distasteful to me than the pseudo-mainstream f*** and its various forms. Kudos to the mods for getting rid of that language in an otherwise very enlightening and enjoyable thread to follow.

The key difference between the f-bomb and the c-bomb is that f*** is a crude slang for the sexual act and has morphed into a generic swearword, whereas c*** is a highly gender-specific slur.

A useful analog might be the putdowns "asshole" compared with the racist n-word. Both are pejorative, but one is generally so, whereas the other is widely considered hate speech, *unless* used by one black person to another. I find the latter case an interesting linguistic quirk - a word which is absolutely taboo for a non-black person to apply to a black person is considered quite harmless [and is often used as a kind of mildly chastising endearment, at least here in the U.S.] among its original targets. Perhaps a form of empowerment of the former victims by way of "taking ownership" of the term in the question.

Prick?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;141025]The key difference between the f-bomb and the c-bomb is that....[/QUOTE]So general vulgarity is ok? And using terms of destain are not? I would have hoped that all vulgar slang would be censored. Otherwise you are actually censoring Bob's thoughts. BTW, I used to work somewhere where one of the 4 letter words was a technical term, and not an adopted meaning, the one that everyone knows.