9 Comments Add your own

• 1. Joe  |  September 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  First off… I am pretty tired of the Obama-Palin comparisons. Obama needs to tell why he is so much better of an option and McCain is. Not Palin.
  Having said that, if the McCain camp hadn’t made such a HUGE issue of Obama’s “lack of experience”, then he Obama-Palin comparisons on “experience” wouldn’t be so necessary. So what does McCain do with his first major campaign decision? Pick someone with at best, as much experience as Obama (who he blasted for not having any) or at worst, has much less experience than Obama.

  It’s a first term Governor v. a first term Senator. Both are short on foreign policy experience. They each have some experience, but not an extensive foreign policy record.

  — Obama is a US Senator and a member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs.
  — Palin governs a state where, if you stand on a distant island off the state and squint really, really hard, you can see Russia. She has left the country once not counting family vacations to Mexico.
  =========
  What’s particularly surprising is that Governor Palin has the edge of legislative achievements
  and
  Palin’s legislative accomplishments actually eclipse Obama’s. She pushed through bipartisan ethics reform bill in Alaska. She passed a tax increase on oil company profits
  and
  Senator Obama does not have a bipartisan record, or a history of taking on his own party in any way.

  — When exactly was Palin in any legislature?
  — Are you just spouting GOP talking points about Obama and “major legislation”? No, he hasn’t authored anything that has totally changed the country, but have there been many legislators that have?
  — The Dems in Congress wanted to tax the oil companies and the GOP is fighting it.
  — If you are spouting her “ethics legislation”, then…

  Factcheck.org
  Palin disparaged Obama’s legislative record, both in Illinois and in Washington:
  Palin: But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state Senate.
  Of course, we can’t say what Palin considers “major.” But if Palin’s own ethics reforms in Alaska were important enough to highlight in her convention address, then it’s only fair to credit Obama’s efforts on that topic. In 1998 in the Illinois Senate, Obama cosponsored an ethics overhaul that bars elected officials from using their campaign funds for personal use and and was called the the first major overhaul of Illinois campaign and ethics laws in 25 years. It also bans fundraisers in the state Capitol during legislative sessions. Obama’s Republican cosponsor Kirk Dillard even appeared in an Obama ad last summer describing Obama’s skills working with members of both parties to get legislation passed.
  In Washington, Obama was instrumental in helping to craft the 2007 ethics reform law that ended gifts and meals from lobbyists, cut off subsidized jet travel for members of Congress, required lobbyists to disclose contributions they “bundle” to candidates, and put the brakes on other, similar common practices.
  In addition, we already noted in a recent article Obama’s efforts with Republican senators to help detect and secure weapons of mass destruction and to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles around the world, and to create a publicly searchable database on federal spending.

  Finally… I don’t think the argument is that McCain is “about to die, so watch out for Palin”. The bringing on of Palin just brings McCain’s age more of an issue. I also think that you people are making Palin’s “Governor years” sound like she has done all kinds of things. She has been a governor for 20 months. 20 months. That is it. Then at the same time, you put down Obama’s 6 years in a state senate and 4 years in the US senate.

  Another point… McCain isn’t acting like he is on the top of the ticket. He is acting like a chaperone to Palin. She appears to be the headliner for the GOP base, not him.

  So I am with you… I am done with Obama vs Palin. If we are going there, lets do Biden vs McCain. Otherwise… I am ready to actually talk McCain vs Obama.

• 2. Joe  |  September 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

  KM, please remove my 1st post on this thread.

  Thanks.

• 3. Joe  |  September 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

  Ok… on the lighter side….

  * If you live in an Urban area and you get a girl pregnant you’re a “baby daddy.”
  * If you’re the same in Alaska you’re a “teen father.”

  * Black teen pregnancies? A “crisis” in black America.
  * White teen pregnancies? A “blessed event.”

  * If you grow up in Hawaii you’re “exotic.”
  * Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you’re the quintessential “American story.”

  * Similarly, if you name you kid Barack you’re “unpatriotic.”
  * Name your kid Track, you’re “colorful.”

  * If you’re a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual you’re “reckless.”
  * A Republican who doesn’t fully vet is a “maverick.”

  * Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
  * Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded

  * A DUI from twenty years ago is “old news.”
  * A speech given without proper citation from twenty years ago is “relevant information.”

  * If you get 18 million people to vote for you in a national presidential primary, you’re a “phoney.”
  * Get 100,000+ people to vote you governor of the 47th most populous state in the Union, you’re “well loved.”

  * If you are biracial and born in a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs darn near 2 years and 3 major speeches to “get to know you.”
  * If you’re white and from a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs 36 minutes and 38 seconds worth of an acceptance speech to know you’re “one of us.”

  * If your pastor rails against inequality in the United States of America, you’re an “extremist.”
  * If your pastor welcomes a sermon by a member of Jews for Jesus who preaches that the killing of Jews by terrorists is a lesson to Jews that they must convert to Christianity, you’re a “fundamentalist.”

  * If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of “Change,” it’s just “empty rhetoric.”
  * If one week before your party’s national convention you SUDDENLY make your candidacy about “Change,” that’s “red meat.”

  * If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you’re not a real Christian.
  * If you cheated on your first wife with the rich heiress of a former bootlegger, and left your disfigured wife and your three children and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian.

  * If you’re a self-made man who grew up poor because your dad left the family, you’re elitist.
  * If you’re the son and grandson of Navy admirals and get into the Naval Academy even though you didn’t merit admission and later marry a millionionaire-heiress who finances your House and Senate campaigns, you’re a down-home regular guy.

  * If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you don’t have any real leadership experience.
  * If your total resume is: local weather person 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you’re qualified to become the country’s second highest ranking executive.

  Usually humor is funniest when it has a healthy dose of reality in it….. and this is pretty damn funny!

  By the way… did you see the SNL opening skit on Saturday with Palin and Clinton? That was brilliant!

• 4. Joe  |  September 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

  Thank you for removing the first one KM. That was quick

• 5. KMorrison  |  September 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

  I completely agree that the comparison should be McCain/Obama, but it’s not the McCain campaign that has been pushing that line.

  Obviously people are livid that McCain picked Palin, but when it comes down to it Obama picked experience and McCain picked change. They both went against their campaign’s theme, but McCain doubled down on reform making his “change” argument much stronger than before. (It’ll be hard to convince people Palin is the same as Cheney).

  Palin wasn’t in the legislature, but she’s the one that got a significant number of laws passed, and she’s the one who got the gas pipeline established, and took on the oil companies.

  As for Obama what has he accomplished in his committee work? I’ll give you his ethics reform and her ethics reform match up. He gets credit, she gets credit. Finally, when has Obama taken on his own party? Everyone is predicting a Dem House and Senate. Is there any evidence he will work with Republicans when his party is in control of the legislature? She’s unseated a couple Repubican incumbants, and reported other Republicans on ethics charges that why the reform angle is effective for McCain Palin.

  -I enjoyed the SNL skit too.

  I’ll give you that I’d prefer someone with more foreign policy experience, but her having less than I’d like, doesn’t make up for Obama having less than I’d like. As I said before, I’d prefer less experience at the 2 slot versus the 1 slot.

• 6. Joe  |  September 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  Obama DID take on a Clinton in the primaries. I would say that is taking on something substantial within his own party. No, he didn’t unseat her, but he confronted her and explained how they differed and he won.

  I really have a problem with McCain talking anything about him being a “change candidate”.
  He is basically saying… “OK, my party screwed up the everything, so elect me to be the one to change it”.
  Just as you are saying you would rather have Palin’s lack of experience as #2 than Obama’s as #1. I would rather see Obama’s plan for change as #1 than Palin as #2.

  So if we are comparing McCain to Obama (hopefully from now on)… I like that Obama goes a different direction than the last 8 years.

• 7. KMorrison  |  September 15th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  I think the reform argument is more geared for middle-of-the-roaders. I’ve never bought into McCain being the same as Bush argument, but obviously he is a Republican so issue wise there will be some similarities. However, I don’t think most of the complaints about Bush are solely that he’s conservative. ‘Reform’ I think works because it is a sort of new slate argument. If you’re moderate Dem, Independent, conservative, Republican it’s a strong arguement. If you’re a solid Democrat, I agree it probably isn’t your ticket as issues probably won’t match up very well.

  Also, outside of foreign policy I think she is quite strong, and looking at them as team I think they make an excellent match.

• 8. New Conservative  |  September 16th, 2008 at 8:14 pm

  KM,
  If the Dems keep saying McCain is Bush they will lose. No one that hasn’t been brainwashed is stupid enought to believe that.

  http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/

• 9. Joe  |  September 17th, 2008 at 9:21 am

  I don’t think McCain is Bush. I think he mostly subscribes to the same things as Bush (or at least didn’t before, but does now) and I don’t see enough different to make me believe that his policies are that much better than the last 8 years.

  It would be pretty damn hard to be as completely awful as Bush. I find it hard to believe we would ever find ANYONE that is another Bush.

  If you think about it, where exactly is he that much different on the key issues?
  War in Iraq - same
  Energy - drill, drill, drill, drill, drill, drill.
  Taxes - trickle down, cut for the rich because they will create all kinds of jobs!

  So those are the big three issues. Maybe he is different on some of the secondary issues, but that is really it.
  So no… he isn’t Bush (thank God! and may we never find ANYONE who is another George Bush).

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed