“What does “identify” with Palin exactly mean?

Do people identify and support her purely because she’s a woman? Because she’s white? Because she’s a life-long NRA member? Because she’s a mother? Pro-choice? I’m all those things and I still have no idea of how she would keep our country safe from terrorists… how she will inspire cooperation and unity in a fractured country?”

You’ve got MOST of the “identify” part, except for the fact that she appears to have a common sense governing style, making her very different from establishment politicians and closer to acting like people we know, like and respect.

She’s already talked about how our energy policy is directly associated with foreign policy and thus the War on Terror in many respects. Further, it’s pretty much a matter of philosophy. If you don’t get that Palin believes in pursing and destroying terrorism around the world very much in the Bush mold (if not more muscular), you haven’t been paying attention.

I don’t care so much about inspiring unity and cooperation as I’m concerned about government doing the right thing. Given that about half of the nation would cast a ballot for people who espouse so much of the WRONG thing for this country, I’d much rather have a pitbull that frightens them away than a chiuahua that just wants to be loved by everyone.

“Does her “executive experience” of running a town of 7,000 put her in the league of running a country of over 200 million?”

Deliberately skipping her CURRENT job as governor is testament to your bias. Governors have generally been our preference for Presidents mostly because, as opposed to legislature jobs, there is a whole lot more direct accountability and decisiveness involved.

“Does seeking/accepting over $27 million in earmarks for a town of only 7,000 make her a fiscal conservative?”

I haven’t come across this one before. But even IF it is completely true, there is ample evidence of fiscal conservatism in Palin’s record that isn’t over 10 years old. I’ll take a politician that has made changes to their governance over time in the right direction any day.

“Does Alaska’s proximity to Russia really serve as part of Palin’s foreign policy knowledge and experience? Really?! The fact that she just recently got a passport and has scarcely been out of the country has no bearing on her readiness to serve?”

It surely does have bearing. It means she’ll have to be a quick study. But her history shows a capacity and willingness to be just that. And again, because most of our Presidents have been governors, they have historically been short on such experience as well.

“What about her educational background? I’m sure that an undergraduate degree in journalism prepares you for a career as a sportscaster or a news anchor, but what else?”

I know half a dozen people with advanced degrees who are complete idiots when it comes to government and policy and the like. And I could just as easily name half a dozen people who never went to college at all who I’d prefer in a leadership position between the two. Your elitism is showing.

“It looks like Sen. McCain went out and found his own “celebrity”… She’s pretty, but that’s about it.”

And with that, the unserious nature of this entire exercise is topped with a nice condescending cherry.

Do people identify and support her purely because she’s a woman? Because she’s white? Because she’s a life-long NRA member? Because she’s a mother? Pro-choice? I’m all those things and I still have no idea of how she would keep our country safe from terrorists… how she will inspire cooperation and unity in a fractured country?

Does her “executive experience” of running a town of 7,000 put her in the league of running a country of over 200 million?

Does seeking/accepting over $27 million in earmarks for a town of only 7,000 make her a fiscal conservative?

Does Alaska’s proximity to Russia really serve as part of Palin’s foreign policy knowledge and experience? Really?! The fact that she just recently got a passport and has scarcely been out of the country has no bearing on her readiness to serve?

What about her educational background? I’m sure that an undergraduate degree in journalism prepares you for a career as a sportscaster or a news anchor, but what else?

It looks like Sen. McCain went out and found his own “celebrity”… She’s pretty, but that’s about it.

it does not endear her to me that she slid so easily into the attack dog role

When you read the whole comment it is patently clear that nothing could “endear” Sarah to old Aaron.

Fine, but why bring all that frustration here? The Democrats are in full attack mode against Sarah. They have passed “snarky” and gone full blown mean. Now they are saying that Sarah and McCain are making them behave that way. Sort of like the old “the devil made me do it” line.

Honestly, Aaron, when Obama heard the crowd laughing as soon as he said “you can put lipstick on a pig,” he should have stopped and said “don’t go there … I am not referring to Governor Palin.” He had enough time as he was stuttering around for it to sink in. But, for whatever reason, he let it happen. Personally, I think his “A” game without a teleprompter would get him thrown off a mediocre high school debating team.

Hillary attacked Obama plenty during the primaries. Aaron just doesn’t like it when a real lady scolds a goofy male and remains a lady while doing it. A-w-w-w, she should wear a pants suit and scratch like a cat. Right Aaron? Fit the stereotype as a (*)itchy woman. Sorry, pal, our Sarah doesn’t fit the democrat mold. Just Like Clarence and Condi.

1. Find out the difference between appropriations and earmarks.

2. Find out what Gov Palin actually did with the money.

3. Find out why she killed the project (hint, it has a lot to do with how bloody expensive it became).

4. Find out if Gov Palin has any OTHER earmarks, or did she veto them (I suspect you can dig all the way to New Zealand and you won’t find much).

Gov Palin is not running as the female equivalent of Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour, the only Man without sin. As long as she does ~95% of what she’s campaigning for, and what she’s running on, we’re quite happy. Indeed, some might even settle for ~85-90%. That’s something you have to understand about conservatives. We don’t cry out hypocrisy the instant you slip. It’s only when you show consistently that you slip, or that you don’t really mean what you’re saying, that we start having issues.

But hey, go ahead and vote for Mr BHOmbastic. Or Bob Barr, if that’s who floats your boat.

But for all the talk of country first and honor and so forth, the republicans reveal themselves to be power at all costs hypocrites too. McCain/Palin are stumping across the country repeating a very bold lie about the bridge to nowhere. McCain/Palin claims she was against it and she told the feds thanks but no thanks, keep the money.

That is simply not the truth. Palin supported the project, indeed it had tremendous support in Alaska. They pursued earmarks for it for 30 years, they got the earmarks and even though they were later stripped out of appropriation bills, Alaska still actually got $400 million plus dollars for the bridge. At which point, Palin killed the bridge project because she thought it too expensive(it was supposed to be $238 million, but over time had got up to $400 million), not because she was a maverick reformer who hated earmarks. She KEPT the money to be spent on something else that was cheaper than the bridge had become. She didn’t return it as she claims.

This is not the story McCain/Palin are telling on the stump. What they are claiming is that she was never for it and she sent the money back. Neither is true, just the opposite. It is a lie. A lie they are purposefully telling at every opportunity.

The candidate of “country first” is willfully, knowingly lying to America about his running mates record to get elected. They just are not being called on it. And if they ever are, their rejoinder is going to be that Biden and Obama voted for it.

However, Obama is not running as the great enemy of earmarks. Its a very bold lie that are repeatedly telling people about Palin’s record.
On that alone, John McCain loses all the POW, military service, honor, maverick, reformer street cred, right there.

Not a very good way to attract women voters…ya think ?

If Obama gets this scared and panicky over some little Gal who’s running for VP…… how is he going to handle the really scary threat of Iran and North Korea ?

I would just play it cool and ignore Palin, if I were the Democratic Candidate. A Democratic Presidential Candidate who’s that frightened of a woman who isn’t even running against him….you have to wonder about his comfort level, and judgment, when the real threats start piling up……as they most surely will if he’s elected.

But then again, me thinks the Democrats have a problem with women in general, obviously.

This is one of the reasons I have come to love the McCain-Palin ticket, even though I disagree with much of what McCain has stood for in the past. At this rate, not even family members of CNN employees will be watching CNN in a few years.

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism and laissez-faire liberalism, or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Thomas Paine and others.
–Wikipedia

Let’s see: Those who call themselves “liberal” in US politics today:
Pressure those who dare to disagree with them,
Engage in irrational ranting at anyone who tries to argue from logic.
Want to take from those who have property and give it to government bureaucracies and the poor.
Consider “natural law” anathema.
Currently are attacking Stanley Kurtz for exercising his civil liberties (esp. right to information in the public good).
Seek bigger, less limited government and government-controlled markets.

I agree, the liberals have left liberalism and they’ve left us; also, they’re clueless.

–equal pay
Absolutely! So long as it’s really equal work. (Palin looks like she can do and has done equal work.)
–the choice to parent or work
How about to do both? But in practice, feminists disapprove of women who choose to be stay-at-home moms. Keep that in mind as you vote for “choice”.
–the choice to have an abortion
Do you mean the “choice” to commit murder? Do you also favor the rights of a gang member to “protect his turf”?
–the right to choose their spouse
Do you mean these words, or is this code for homosexual “life partner”? Where in the US do women not have the right to choose whom they will marry?
–a right to be respected at home and in public just as anyone should.
Absolutely!

–Palin is against abortion
No, she’s in favor of life.
–she is againts gay/lesbian rights
She sees homosexual practice, as humankind always has until the last 35 years in the US, as a perversion, a sickness. Most of us agree but have been intimidated into not saying so.
–she wasn’t very open to new ways of thinking
Wow! That’s a criminal offense if I ever heard one! What is meant by “new ways of thinking”? I’ve seen that or similar phrases applied to sexual deviance, “modern” theology, “traditional” values, and more. In the 70s, “new ways of thinking” often applied to wife-swapping, the “swinger” life-style, doing drugs, living in a commune, opposing capitalism and the US government. If these are an indication of what you mean by “new ways of thinking”, and Palin is “not open” to it, that gets her my vote!

And as to credentials? Palin has a strong record of actual change that’s actually good for the people. Hillary has a record of liberal positions. The only record Obama or Biden have is of being party hacks.

The fact that the Dems and MSM have piled on so viciously say that they are afraid. If they truly thought that she was a poor choice for VP they would let her implode on her own, rather than smearing her with scurrilous rumors from the get-go. That says something.

This is another battle in the Culture War. What kind of country do we want to live in? A country where anyone can accomplish great things (Palin) or a country where one is rewarded by groupthink and identity politics (Obama)?

Those who say Palin wouldn’t be where she is if she weren’t a woman may be partly right, but I don’t think so. She is a maverick and reformer who compliments McCain and adds strength to his weaknesses. If you look at one of the conservative movement’s other stars, Bobby Jindahl, you will see someone who has similar accomplishments and experience.

Palin confronted her own party and exposed the corruption and collusion with the oil companies for all to see. She managed to get the pipeline up and rolling, something that had been “in the works” for 30 years. She is a fearless warrior.

What has Obama actually accomplished? Other than run a 2 year campaign for President? And lose 110 million dollars? (Annenberg Challenge) And get his opponents divorce records unsealed, causing them to drop out of races where they were running against him? And blocking the Ill. Infant Born Alive Protection Act?

Anyone?

I don’t think choosing Hillary as a VP would have done Obama that much good, either. He dissed her pretty good in the campaign; the nomination would have looked like a sop to the feminists, and some would probably have been less than thrilled.
What Palin is giving the voters is a clear choice between the two parties, something we haven’t had in a long time.

I wish I could be a liberal again. It used to be liberalism did not equal totalitarianism, it used to mean tolerance, generosity of spirit, broad mindedness and knowledge.

Well anyhow thats how I like to remember it anyhow.