Howard County Maryland Blog

Local Politics and Current Events

Sarah Palin’s (and John McCain’s) Grand-Slam Home Run

Posted by Jim Walsh on Thursday, September 4, 2008

All but the most partisan Democrats could not help but be impressed by Sarah Palin’s speech before the Republican National Convention last night (Wednesday, 9/3/08).  Even the talking heads among the MSM (including Keith Olberman) admitted her speech was impressive.  Her speech had the right balance of humor, seriousness, defiance and inclusiveness.

The only person alive who still might not be impressed with her is Susan Reimer of the Baltimore Sun (quoting from her article of 9/1/08):  “You want to look good to the evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child.”   “I don’t know what I’ll do if she trots out the story of her 5-month-old baby to shore up the Republican base.”  Can you imagine the uproar that would have ensued if a conservative columnist had written something like that about a liberal Democrat with a special needs child?  And liberals wonder why conservatives distrust the mainstream media.

But I digress.   I think more and more that McCain’s selection of Palin was a stroke of genius.  The teapot tempest over her 17-year-old daughter will be a forgotten footnote in this campaign in two weeks.  In the meantime, as Mike Huckabee jokingly but accurately noted, she has managed to unite and energize the Republican Party.

I heard some talk-show Democrats opine that by selecting Palin, McCain has blown his use of the issue of experience over Obama.  I strongly disagree, and here’s where I think the brilliance of her selection comes in.   McCain had repeatedly tried to hammer Obama’s lack of experience, and frankly it didn’t seem that he was getting any traction with it.  If McCain had selected a Washington insider to emphasize his experience even more, I doubt that he would have made any further headway; the McCain-Insider ticket would be dismissed as politics as usual.  But by picking Sarah Palin, the Democrats and the media couldn’t help themselves from attacking her lack of experience.  And what did that do?  It brought the experience issue front and center. And who wins that argument, even now?  The Republicans.  In one of the most memorable lines from her speech, Palin pointed out that her experience as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska was like being a community organizer, except with responsibility.  The Republican vice-presidential candidate still has (at least arguably) better experience than the Democratic presidential candidate.   Brilliant!

Advertisements

23 Responses to “Sarah Palin’s (and John McCain’s) Grand-Slam Home Run”

  1. General Zod said

    So belittling community organizers is a good thing?

    Wasilla, Alaska has about 9000 people. Which is about 1/20th the size of Barack Obama’s district when he was a member of the Illinois state Senate.

    While both candidates were still debating who to pick Karl Rove made comments about the possibility of Obama selecting Tim Kaine as VP. Rove said, “With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he’s been a governor for three years, he’s been able but undistinguished,” – “I don’t think people could really name a big, important thing that he’s done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America.”

    Richmond has the population of about 200,000 people.

    If Rove feels so strongly about Tim Kaine not being fit for the VP spot I wonder what his views are on Gov. Palin?

    Some of our greatest Presidents had about the same experience as Barack when they ran for office. The two that I can name of the top of my head are Abraham Lincoln and FDR.

    A trained chimp could read a teleprompter. The true test will be when she is released to the media and has to face Joe Biden in the VP debate. It will be interesting to hear her stances on foreign policy. Is there really life outside of Alaska?

  2. cindy vaillancourt said

    If being an impressive public speaker/performer is enough to distinguish a candidate for president….then I suppose you would have to concede Barak Obama is also therefore eminently qualified?

    Using the same logic – George W Bush is also terribly unqualified since he is a fairly poor public speaker….and Condi Rice must be downright backward. (poor thing’s voice shakes so badly and she seems so stilted it is almost painful to watch).

    Sorry, but the rip rousing oratory performance does not in and of itself prove anything.

    I’m still looking for something in the content to sink my teeth into, but I found it to be somewhat short on substance.

    CIndy V

  3. cindy vaillancourt said

    While I also sort of shuddered when I read that part of Ms. Reimers piece I am less uncomfortable about the issues surrounding the pregnant teenager. It seems clear to me that Palin and the ticket are very openly counting on appealing to the pro-life, fundamentalist wing by showcasing the otherwise very personal decisions to proceed with problematic pregnancies. They have put these issues on the table as campaign tactics and they are, I believe, legitimate topics for discussion. Particularly as it relates to the problems of policies which limit sex-education and teenage birth-control and result in pregnant teenagers.

    I find it interesting to note that both these women have exercised a CHOICE which Mrs. Palin would deny other women. I would also like to note that many of us who believe in the right to make this choice believe it to be a private affair. Exploiting the circumstances of these decisions strikes me as suggestive that having made a morally superior decision that she/they can claim some kind of moral superiority. For those to whom the wish to appeal, I suspect it will work. To those of us whose hearts break for the women who find themselves in similar or more tragic circumstances and may choose to make a different decision – I am not willing to cast the first stone.
    I found a lot to agree with Ms. Reimer’s comments – though not everything. If the idea was that disaffected Hillary voters would somehow automatically transfer allegiance to the McCain/Palin ticket because Palin is female…. well, that would have been a mistake … but it may help to push them into Obama’s arms.

    Cindy V

  4. pzguru said

    General Zod and CV – why do you keep comparing Palin to Obama? The comparison you need to be making is McCain to Obama. And in that comparison, McCain has 100 times more experience.

    The media is deceptively trying to say that Palin is just a heartbeat away from the presidency. Obama is the one who is up for the presidency on the dem ticket, and he does not have the experience to be the president. Plus, McCain’s mother is 96 and kicking, so he may have gotten her good genes. Who’s to say that Obama couldn’t have a heart attack and die two months into office. It’s a stupid, desparate line of attack since the dems see their presumed victory slipping away.

    As for the issue about Palin having a special needs child, I am shocked and dismayed that the MSM have tried to turn this into a negative against Palin. And shame on you Cindy V. for falling right into the trap of latching onto it. If Palin had aborted her baby I guess you and the far left, pro-abortion rights advocates would be holding her up as a hero. And who cares if her teenage daughter is pregnant. It’s something that has happened to many, many families in this country. Instead of taking the easy way out, and not taking responsibility for their choice to have sex, her daughter is going to let that baby live.

    Abortion has become a form of contraception in this country, and that is not acceptable.

    If abortion is a private matter, then ALL federal subsidizing of abortions should be cut off, immediately. Let the pro-abortion people help subsidize abortions for those who want to do it.

    But, I still wouldn’t support abortion. Millions of people in this country who CANT have a baby look to adoption as an alternative. Why not choose to carry the babies to term and give them up for adoption.

    And if that wasn’t enough of a reason to oppose abortion, here is the most important reason. It’s the termination of a human being’s life! Just because we don’t have a machine that can detect a heartbeat, that doesn’t mean that it’s not a human being. If it weren’t a human being from the moment of conception, then yiu are saying that something non-human somehow becomes human. That defies every basic tenant of science and medecine. A rock is a rock, and can never become a human. A dog is a dog, and can never become human. And humans are humans from start to finish.

    Cindy, you are correct on one point. I McCain thinks that his selection of Palin will automatically get all of the Hillary women to vote for McCain/Palin, that is not going to happen, mostly because gender takes a back seat to philosophy. Conservative leaning Hillary supporters may shift to Palin, but liberal leaning Hillary supporters will not.

    I don’t understand though, why you seem to put an issue like abortion higher in importance than national security, defense, strong military, economic growth, etc. If abortion is such a personal issue, a private issue, then why are you putting your self serving concerns ahead of those of the entire country? Just something to consider. Eight years ago, all of the pro-abortion folks swore that Bush would end Roe v. Wade and abolish abortion – did it happen? Nope.

  5. pzguru said

    Gen Zod – maybe Rove was merely playing reverse psychology with respect to Gov. Kaine. I personally think Kaine would have been a much better choice than Biden. He could have put VA into Obamas column on election day, which could have made a huge difference.

    There have also been plenty of VP candidates in history with similar resumes to Palin, so to say that her resume is weak is just a desparate attempt to downplay her accomplishments. The fact is, that in the last 40 years, GOVERNORS are the candidates that have had better success at becoming President and/or VP. This is an unusual year in that both McCain and Obama are senators, but McCain actually has a record of accomplishment to go on.

    And as for the silly talk about how McCain votes the same as Bush 90% of the time, that means that 10% of the time McCain has broken ransk with Bush and the republican party. How many times have Obama or Biden “broken ranks” with the democratic party????? Ever???? It just shows that McCain is the TRUE candidate with an independent streak, who doesn’t kow-tow to the party line, who will bring real bi-partisan accomplishment to Washington DC.

  6. Jim Walsh said

    “It seems clear to me that Palin and the ticket are very openly counting on appealing to the pro-life, fundamentalist wing by showcasing the otherwise very personal decisions to proceed with problematic pregnancies. They have put these issues on the table as campaign tactics …”

    Huh? You must be kidding. By having a special-needs child you’re making your personal life a campaign issue? Sorry, but you’re grasping at straws at this one in an effort to justify the unjustifiable.

  7. cindy vaillancourt said

    First, I did not say that having a special needs child was a campaign issue — I said and implied only that her decision to proceed with a problematic pregnancy put her very public position on anti-choice abortion rights very much on the table.

    However, now that you mention it, SHE did explicitly bring her family situation with a special needs child into the spotlight by telling the nation that as the parent of a child with special needs we could be certain that we would have an advocate in the white house.

    Personally, I don’t have a problem with that. Children with special needs could use an advocate in the white house.

    One of the first signs of grasping at straws is claiming comments which were not made.

    Cindy V

  8. General Zod said

    It was hilarious how John McCain was making himself out to be the change candidate when he has supported the Bush Administration 90% of the time. How is that change? I’m not willing to take that 10% gamble. Plus why are Republicans backing his bipartisanship? Typically they cry about it for instance Feingold-McCain and voting against the Bush tax cuts.

    During Barack’s short time as US Senator he has crossed party lines several times, for example, the Lugar-Obama Act and the Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act with Orrin Hatch.

    You’re right this is about McCain and Obama. So I don’t understand why the Republicans are going out of their way to try and inflate Palin’s record.

    John McCain has had 26 years to improve health care and energy and he has done nothing. Furthermore for the past 8 years he has done nothing but support the failed policies of the Bush Administration.

    This is not so much about experience but judgment and Johns McCain’s lack thereof.

  9. cindy vaillancourt said

    I would have preferred the GOP not try too hard to make Palin into something she is not. In many ways she does stand just fine on her own, if limited, record.

    I happen to be a strong believer in the founders’ original notion of citizen legislators and am generally dismayed at the professional “ruling” class which seems to be developing in our country.

    The idea that a bright, accomplished individual can be plucked from (virtual) obscurity to serve a term in public office … bringing common sense and recent real world life experience to the decisions on how to run the country is genius that has been lacking for many years.

    As far as I can tell, Mrs. Palin has a fairly straightforward philosophy on government and a number of demonstrably specific positions on issues facing the nation.

    It is somewhat refreshing to be able to simply look at her record and check the box – i agree or i don’t agree. Next question.

    What has evolved with this controversy, however, is the huge blip on the bs meter for hypocrisy.

    As people trip all over themselves trying to explain perceived strengths and weaknesses they inevitably fall into arguments that they want to apply to their candidate but not the other.

    For example – either limited washington experience is good or it’s not. either youth is good or it’s not.

    cindy v

  10. cindy vaillancourt said

    BTW, the legitimate issue for discussion is whether or not one wants to vote for a candidate who opposes reproductive rights, choice and education.

    The “facts” of the Palin’s public reproductive issues are (imho) simply the demonstrable proof of the candidates true feelings and positions on the issue.

    In short – any conversation that focuses on the individuals or their choices is off limits…. any discussion about how the demonstrated views of the candidate might effect public policy… perfectly legitimate.

    cindy v

  11. pzguru said

    General Zod – what about Biden’s 36 years in DC? What has he accomplished? Zip!!! You talk out of both sides of your mouth – it’s almost comical. You cited several instances where McCain has gone against Republican party line, but then you say try to say that he doesn’t buck the party line. HUH?

    The Obama pieces of legislation you cited are minor legislation compared to the bipartisan legislation that McCain has worked on. Answer my prior question. How many times has Obama or Biden gone against the Democratic party line???? 1% of the time? 2% of the time? My guess is 0%. It certainly isn’t anywhere close to 10%.

    It’s funny how over the last 8 years, Dems use to love how McCain went against party line and opposed Bush and other Republican leaders on various issues. Now they want to say that he’s Bush’s twin. BWAHAHAHAHA!

    Obama can’t even use the war in Iraq as an issue, because Biden voted for it, and Obama voted for funding. And, to top it off, Obama now wants to go to war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and Iran. So Bush’s wars are all wrong, and foolish, and horrible, but Obama’s wars are ok? Nice double standard. While Democrats were rooting for defeat, and politicizing every casualty of the war in Iraq, McCain pushed for the surge, which has turned things around in Iraq, even though Obama can’t admit it. How sad and pathetic that Obama can’t admit he was WRONG.

    Zod – you obviously look at the issues, but I think you are completely misguided by the brainwashing perpetuated by the main stream media.

    Obama is a marxist/communist and that is a fact. He wants to tax the rich and redistribute their wealth. Isn’t it odd that he and other dems want democracy around the world, yet they are peddling communism here in the USA. He preaches about living the american dream, but those people who have succeeded at the american dream and become wealthy (like those who might own several homes) he wants to punish them with excess taxes. Why would you punish people for being successful!

    He’s a hypocrit of the worst order (he might not own 7 homes like McCain, but he lives in a million dollar mansion) and he changes his positions daily because he has no backbone and no leadership skills whatsoever. He acts like he is squeaky clean but he is knee deep in questionable conduct and scandalous friends (he got his million dollar mansion via a shady sweetheart deal with a crooked businessman). And he wants to claim that he’s the candidate of high ethical standards and change??? BWAHAHAHAHA!

  12. cindy vaillancourt said

    A lot of Dems were fairly open to McCain when he was the “maverick” he still claims to be. However, as is often the case during campaigns – it seems to many Dems that Mr. McCain has made a number of movements away from his more independent days and has aligned himself more closely with the more right wing side of the GOP.

    Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your personal views.

    Would PZGuru argue that Mr. McCain has not made any movements to the right?

    CV

  13. cindy vaillancourt said

    Perspective Check Obama’s ethics and his house purchase.

    first -The Obama’s decision to move from a condo to a stand alone home with two growing children, flourishing careers, and security issues seems quite reasonable to me.

    Artificially maintaining a well below means lifestyle under the circumstances would have seemed rather crassly opportunistic to me. By the same standard, the McCains owning several houses of SUBSTANTIALLY more grand proportions and values does not give me any heartburn, either. Mrs. McCain is a very wealthy heiress and business woman – and John McCain has 40 more years of wealth building under his belt than Obama. By rights they ought to be better off financially and housewise.

    second- The price, value and scale of the Obama’s home seems reasonable under the circumstances. Both Obama’s are ivy league educated professionals. Mrs. Obama earns in the neighborhood of $325k per year and Mr. Obama earns around $160k per year. A family with a combined income of just under $500k per year should be able to afford a mortgage of around $1.5mil (based on prevailing rates and 28% income to housing debt ratio) That puts the Obama’s decision to purchase a house in the price range of $1.65mil in the “reasonable” category, to me. The house, while often referred to as a “mansion” is pretty nice, but hardly deserving of that moniker.

    Obama has been quoted as saying that the house was a stretch for them and they were not comfortable making the entire leap of buying the adjacent lot as well — which puts him squarely in the “normal person” category based on my experience. And their reluctance to bite off every bit of the mortgage most banks would have “approved” them for shows responsible restraint. Good for them.

    Additionally, figuring out a way to purchase only the portion of the offered property that they wanted – and finding someone else to purchase the adjacent lot – is not really uncommon. A good realtor would help make that happen.

    On the other hand… the self described “boneheaded” decision to let the house deal involve the somewhat suspiciously creative group and the convoluted structure that developed is a head shaker that gives my pause.

    If that is the worst disclosure to come about Obama’s finances and associations I might be willing to chalk it up to what he called it “boneheaded”… and go further and call it ill-advised even if there was no corrupt intention.

  14. General Zod said

    It’s not about punishing people who are successful. Those people would not be successful if it were not for the infrastructure and military which this country provides through tax revenue. It’s about time the top paid their share and to take the burden off of middle class. The rich are getting richer and the middle class is shrinking. Capitalism is great idea but it needs rules and boundaries like everything else. The Obama plan is about cutting taxes for the middle class. If you are a family or even a small business making $250,000 or less, Barack Obama will not raise your taxes. Not your income tax. Not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax. Not any tax. He will CUT your taxes. His plan is more aggressive than McCain’s unless your at the top percent of wage earners then McCain has your back. Look at the past 7 years under the Bush Administration (2000-2007), the median income has declined. Trickle down economics does not work!

    If the right wants to label Obama as an elitist so be it. This country could use an elite leader. But to make him out has some rich tycoon who does not understand blue collar America is a cheap tactic and distorts Barack’s past.

    Obama’s father did not get him into Harvard. Unlike McCain’s father who enabled him to attend the Naval Academy. Obama worked his way through law school and decided to work at the community level instead of going on to make more money. That says a lot about his character.

    Obama has admitted that the surge made an impact. Did you not watch his interview with Bill O’Reilly?

    In April 2008, the Iraq surplus was discussed with General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

    Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) “I’d like to focus a minute on the financial sacrifice of our country. It is a burr in the saddle of the American people that the Iraqi government has a budget surplus and we have a massive budget deficit, and yet we are paying and they are not.”

    Knowing this McCain gave a campaign speech and said more money was needed to be spent on training for the Iraq military. When is Iraq going to take responsibility for their country?

    The surge is only one small detail in that sh*t storm. There are many other factors that Obama has brought up in the past and present but they always fall on deaf ears. The right has turned this complex issue into a bumper sticker. Winning vs losing is should no longer be part of the discussion. This country has succeeded in Iraq. Now it’s about saving face and getting the hell out of there because we did not belong there in the first place.

    Obama is right, the focus should be on Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran not Iraq.

  15. cindy vaillancourt said

    pzguru said “As for the issue about Palin having a special needs child, I am shocked and dismayed that the MSM have tried to turn this into a negative against Palin. And shame on you Cindy V. for falling right into the trap of latching onto it. If Palin had aborted her baby I guess you and the far left, pro-abortion rights advocates would be holding her up as a hero. And who cares if her teenage daughter is pregnant. It’s something that has happened to many, many families in this country. Instead of taking the easy way out, and not taking responsibility for their choice to have sex, her daughter is going to let that baby live.”

    I was going to just ignore this as the usual unworthy of comment tripe that gets thrown around when folks are so ager to spout on their soapboxes that they start hyperventilating before the words they read actually make it to their brains.

    But, really, this has to be the dumbest thing I have heard in a some time.

    NO ONE would be pleased about the tragedy of an abortion for anyone. Since you are so wager to pass out “shame” please help yourself to a heaping helping for this scurrilous accusation.

    Further, I have yet to see any sign that anyone has made any derogatory comment about Sarah Palin’s son or her daughter – including me.

    However, I stand by my assessment of the motives of the GOP in showcasing not only Sarah Palin’s legitimate claim to ultra-conservative reproductive rights status but her abundant proof of same.

    To date, I have not seen any evidence that the Palin’s themselves have used their personal experiences in any untoward way. Which I count as a plus in her column.

    However, all the efforts of rabid partisans to insist that neither Mrs. Palin’s well documented views on reproductive issues nor her family experience have anything to do with her placement on the ticket are not only laughable and insulting — but demeaning to those of you who repeat them.

    For Gawd’s sake – have the courage of your convictions and give your party enough respect to give it credit for having the courage of its’ convictions. It is, after all, the explicit policy of the GOP to oppose freedom of choice, isn’t it?

    Cindy Vaillancourt

  16. We have 3 qualified candidates for the 2 highest offices in the US.

    McCain, Biden, and Palin.

    Just kidding. Palin’s stab at “community organizers” was not a stab at community organizers. It was a sarcastic reaction to Obama’s surrogates suggesting she lacked experience. I don’t know how that could be lost on anyone.

    As to her pro-life stance. Abortion is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Despite my feelings on that particular issue the only thing the Feds should do is to return that right back over to the States and quit overstepping their Constitutional authority. Palin thinks the same thing.

    Funny thing is that most people believe that abortion was illegal in the US prior to Roe v Wade. Surprise – it was legal in 17 states. The Federal Government stripped that right from the States. It would be correct to say that I don’t support a constitutional ban on abortion.

  17. PZGURU said

    While the Obama’s house might be proportinate to their income, you are missing the point. They bought a million dollar house for somewhere around 300,000 less than it’s appraised value. I have no issue at all with them owing a million dollar house, or 10 million dollar houses. I DO have a problem with Barrack trying to make McCain out as some ultra rich person, and thereby out of touch with middle class america. The Obama’s, based on their income, as you tallied it, are hardly middle class themselves.

    You haen’t seen or heard any of the criticism about Palin? Really. It’s EVERYWHERE on the blogosphere. And the stuff that I read would garner an “R” rating from the motion picture association. The hate and venom spewing from the republican bashers is deplorable.

    CV – As for the pro-abortion versus pro-life issue, i thought you were (1) criticizing Palin for being pro-life and (2) criticizing the Republicans for touting her pro-life credentials. I fail to see the negative side of either of those items. Don’t the Dems tout their candidates’ liberal positions?

    GZ and CV – if you think McCain is suddenly moving to the right as a candidate, how about Obama’s attempt to lurch to the middle and try to paint himself as a “moderate”? He’s the most liberal rated person in Congress, and one of the most partisan. Obama has shifted a hell of a lot more than McCain.

    CV – I’m not trying to dole out shame on you. However, I’m tired of pro-abortion people ripping on conservatives as bible thumping zealots. My position, as I outlined it above, was not at all based on religion, but on the scientific matter that fetuses are human beings from the moment of conception. I was hoping you might respond to those issues, instead of feeling that I am shaming you.

    I do believe that abortions should be allowed in the case of rape or incest, or if there is a TRUE threat to the life of the mother; however, that last reason is too often falsely used as an excuse for abortions when there is no threat to the life of the mother. On top of that, no tax money should be used to fund abortions.

  18. cynthia vaillancourt said

    -$300k less than appraised value (in 2005) is an interesting concept – I am more concerned about fair market value – as in what a willing buyer and a voluntary seller might agree to. there is no charge that the sellers turned down any higher offers… or that the house was not on the open market. the business with the side lot changes the relative values of the different pieces, but even then the sellers got close to their asking price (which is what most sellers want). I have to wonder what the fair market value of the place is now (minus the celebrity factor) – probably less.

    -$500k income does not qualify them as middle class, huh? While I’d be likely to agree with you, I don’t think your candidate does.

    -Of course I have heard criticism of Palin – that is not the same thing as criticizing her son or her daughter… or her decision to carry her pregnancy to term. Freedom of choice includes the freedom NOT to abort. Also, not agreeing with an individual’s position on abortion is not necessarily the same thing as a criticism. She is entitled to her opinion and should definitely be free to act in accordance with her opinions.

    -Ignoring for a moment whether one can actually assign “shame” to another – as shame is an internal feeling… the assertion that “pro-abortion people” consider all anti-abortion people “bible thumping zealots”… it would be hard to honestly argue that there are not plenty of literally bible thumping activists. However, it is my feeling that both sides are guilty of gross generalizations and stereotypes and both sides are wrong. I am personally acquainted with people on both sides of this issue who do not use any organized religion as their basis. I believe that people of very good faith and conscience can disagree on the public policy aspects of this issue as well as the practical question of whether they might choose it for themselves.

    It seems to be very difficult for folks to understand that a single individual can believe that individual women should have the legal right to choose and yet believe that even in the most trying circumstances would not choose abortion for themselves.

    -Does the “fact” that Palin opposes abortion rights even in the case of rape or incest trouble you from a public policy perspective?

    – I’m not sure which candidate wins the battle of who moved further to the right this year. I believe in many ways it is inevitable and possibly even important for candidates for national office to evolve positions. It would be inappropriate for the president to be overly concerned with the parochial issues of his hometown. It is important for elected officials to be able to represent all of America. Any insincere/false/artificial posturing that proves to be a temporary, campaign only position… a lie to get votes and then not acted on …would be wrong on either side.

    I think people on both sides have to make a gut decision about whether their candidate is pandering or has evolved.

    cindy v

  19. pzguru said

    CV – I agree on all of your points/observations, with the exception of the $500k income. In my mind that qualifies as upper income (maybe the lower side of upper income), considering that the percentage of people earning that much in this Country is very small.

    As for positions evolving – you’re right on. As times or circumstances change over time (and I mean in years, not days or months), it is perfectly reasonable for a candidate to modify their position.

    Frankly, as I stated previously, I don’t even rank the abortion issue in the top 10 as far as issues that I examine at election time. It is not a National issue, but too many people, mostly on the left, try to make it the forefront issue every election cycle. The thing is Palin did not stump on that issue (or her position on that issue). It’s other people, mostly the leftist media and also some ultra-conservatives, that are talking about it.

  20. pzguru said

    GZ – what exactly would you consider a “fair amount” for rich people to pay? They already pay a higher percentage of their incomes to taxes. Those rich people are also the same people who employ a lot of us not so rich schlups. If you try to tax their “windfall” profits they will simply lay off workers and who does that hurt, the rich guy or us not so rich schlups?

    That is why it is laughable for Obama and people like Pelosi and Reid to say that they want to tax the oil company CEO’s out-of-this world profits. The CEO won’t actually pay that money out of his pocket, he/she will pass it on to us consumers in the form of higher gas prices. So, it will only serve to hurt us not so rich schlups. Think of a boomerang…try to tax the rich and it will come back to smack you right in the face.

    Plus, does it cost more to provide services to rich folk? Don’t rich folks spend more money buying products and services, and aren’t there taxes on those things? So, they already contribute a lot more to the tax coffers than you and I do, assuming you’re not rich, and I certainly am not.

  21. chris said

    Making the “rich” pay their fair share? The upper 10% of taxpayers pay 68% of the taxes. How can that not be fair?

    $500k per year is only at the lower end of the upper spectrum? I’m sorry, but $500k per year puts the Obamas in the upper 1% of taxpayers. Probably haven’t done their own grocery shopping for years.

  22. cynthia vaillancourt said

    I believe it was John McCain, candidate for president, who said 5mil per year was the threshold for rich.

    I believe Obama has said people earning “only” 250k would not see any increase to their tax situation – so I guess he understands his family income situation at 500k to NOT be the abused middle class.

    However, I don’t think that 500k in the chicago market means they don’t shop for their own groceries – conjuring images of uniformed maids and butlers…. though many two career couples with time consuming/demanding jobs (including, i suspect, the governor of alaska) have to hire help to make their family lives work.

    cindy v

  23. Salman Javaid said

    In Afghanistan, Is there any other possible supply line for US and NATO force except Pakistan?

    Iran …. Will Never Allow
    China … Will Never Allow
    Russia … Will Never Allow
    Uzbekistan … Very Far

    Obama understands this?

    I Challenge you, Obama will never attack Pakistan even if he becomes President. He is only doing so to gain votes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: