Progressive World Review

There were better Republican options in the party. No question there were better running mate options for the current competition.

—
Blog Disgusted at http://www.PoliticalDisgust.com

Originally Posted By U.S. Common Sense Just to fill in some gaps, Sarah Palin does in fact have foreign relations experience. Not only being the only state of the Union that shares borders with two nations (which comes with many agreements that are enforced on the state level), Alaska is a part of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region, which includes Canada. On the scale of foreign relations experience, her two years as governor is (at the minimum) on par with Obama’s world tour over the Summer.

Using Alaska’s geographic proximity to other countries as foreign policy experience is absurd, as is citing economic agreements with traditional allies. How does either of these points apply to nuclear nonproliferation or peace in the middle east etc. etc.

As far as her daughter being pregnant and your comments regarding family values, I do not see how this is contradictory. Her daughter is keeping the baby and is getting married, which is in line with the underlying theme of responsibility within family values. Palin, no any other parent (legally), can not stop her children from engaging in risky behavior. All she can do is share her beliefs with them, and then be supportive if they find themselves in trouble (as is the case here). So I don’t see how that is hypocritical in any sense.

You don’t see her unmarried and underage daughter’s pregnancy as contradictory to the type of family values pushed by Palin? As to the second part, that’s the whole point. Instead of preaching to our children and then expecting them to live up to ridiculous expectations that they obviously can’t or won’t meet, as is the case with Palin’s daughter, we need to teach our children the best we can and be ready to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.

But you are right though. Not all of the children out there have the support structure that Bristol has. We need to work to bring “family” back into the mainstay of society. However, that cannot be done by the government but by society itself. We lost something back in the sixties and need to reclaim it. It goes back to responsibility.

Why is it that when conservatives talk of responsibility it’s always about someone else? In any case, we did lose something but it wasn’t in the sixties, it was in the seventies and it isn’t what you think it was either. Read the essay “What We Really Miss About the 1950s” to see what I’m talking about. I’ll give you a hint, it isn’t family values we miss, it’s the prosperity and the fact that it was widely distributed that we miss. The fifties, one of the most popular decades in recent history was also probably the most socialistic period in America. That’s what we call “the good old days.”

Originally Posted By U.S. Common Sense
To say she has no experiece is incorrect, and I am merely pointing that out. As a governor of a country that shares borders with foreign countries, there is interation between the state government and the foreign government, even if it doesn’t involve nuclear nonproliferation, for example.

This is just splitting hairs. It’s not uncommon even for city mayors to have some interaction with cities in other countries. You could call that “foreign policy” experience and be technically correct but it would be disingenuous to do so. Palin clearly has no useful foreign policy experience. Neither really does Obama, but a least he’s voiced opinions on the important issues facing us. And while I don’t happen to agree with a lot of what he’s saying he’s still making far more sense than McCain. Palin has offered nothing in this regard.

There is nothing in the family values platform that says that there isn’t a chance for a minor to become pregnant, so no. In the end, the child is either going to listen to their parents or they won’t. As far as the “rediculous expectations that they obviously can’t” meet (already addressed the “won’t”), that is just rediculous, pardon me saying. Everyone has the ability to say no.

You said, “As far as her daughter being pregnant and your comments regarding family values, I do not see how this is contradictory. Her daughter is keeping the baby and is getting married, which is in line with the underlying theme of responsibility within family values.” Of course that is contradictory. Do you want to take that argument to an Evangelical Christian? Do you honestly think that had you asked Palin herself before her daughter got pregnant if it’s okay for an underage, unmarried teenager to have sex she would have replied, “Sure, as long as they get married and keep any babies they produce.” If you answer yes to that then I’ll know you’re lying.

But far more important is the fact that Palin’s own situation demonstrates the bankruptcy of her position. Clearly her strong “moral” stance didn’t prevent her daughter from having sex. “Just say no” doesn’t work. Our children need information not edicts. Maybe if Palin’s daughter had been better educated about sex she might have avoided getting pregnant.

There are some that do point the finger at others but don’t realize that there are three fingers pointing back at themselves. That goes for “responsibility” as well as other things, and that goes for all sides of the aisle (that includes Democrats/Liberals as well as Republicans/Conservatives).

I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here. I was making an observation that those who talk the most about responsibility are generally talking about someone else.

You can say that Palin took responsibility for her actions (becoming pregnant) by giving birth to a child which she new would be disabled. I would say in this case she is leading by example.

Leading by example is fine but the problem is, if Palin has her way children won’t get the kind of education for life that they clearly need. Palin’s example didn’t keep her daughter from getting pregnant. And it’s fine to say that people (Palin’s daughter in this case) can make their own decisions but obviously children need more than for us to just tell them “don’t do that,” obviously they need more. If it was that easy then children wouldn’t need parents they would just need a manual.

As far as socialism, not everyone would agree with you. With every era and ideology, there are both good and bad aspects.

I’m guessing you didn’t read the article. You can talk all you want about “ideology” but the fact remains, we did things different in the fifties, call it whatever you want, but people liked it. That is the inescapable truth, the policies of the fifties and sixties had the effect of expanding the middle class and people liked it. We changed course in the seventies and implemented policies that favored big business under the guise that this would bring prosperity to everyone but it didn’t work. You can argue this point all you want but people liked the way we did things back then and they don’t like it now.

Originally Posted By Benjamin K. Baker
I think if you asked Martin Luther King if he “LIKED” the 1950s he would disagree with you. Your argument is purely subjective. What evidence (beyond anecdotal) can you offer to support this statement?

You’re correct, blacks and other minorities certainly don’t consider the fifties as one of their favorite decades. That just proves my point. It wasn’t the “values” that are missed it was the prosperity for those allowed to enjoy it. As for supporting my statement, read the article I cited in my first response to Common Sense (which I also refered to in the comment you replied to, “I’m guessing you didn’t read the article”).

The prosperity of the 1950s was a result of the HUGE increase in jobs and US Government Spending during World War II.

Exactly. Again, you’re just proving my point. Government spending had a hugely positive effect. However, the period I’m refering to was after the war but the point still stands, government spending on infrastructure was more than double what it is today and this was paid for not through borrowing but through higher taxes.

If I remember correctly, both Unemployment and Inflation were well into double digits at the time Ronald Reagan took Office (from a Democratic President).

The pre-Reagan recession was caused by the all the borrowing for the Viet Nam war which was largely paid off by the time Reagan took office, at least to the point where we could finally start recovering.

By the end of the 1980s the Economic Policies that “favored Big Business” had reduced Unemployment and Inflation to numbers very similar to what we have today (during our HORRIBLE recession).

This is your argument, that the economy was as good after Reagan as it is now? During the period I’m refering to, wages increased more each year than they did for the entire decade of the 80s. And citing today’s statistics doesn’t help your argument at all. Americans aren’t clamouring for change because they’re so happy with their lot now. Bush’s legacy, other than lying us into an unnecessary war, will be two recessions, unprecedented mortgage foreclosures and Wall Street run amok, all while endlessly calling for tax breaks on the wealthy. More than four times the jobs were created under Clinton than under Bush and taxes were higher than under Bush.

As I said in my earlier comments, the fifties and sixties were marked by policies designed to expand the middle class and they worked. That all changed starting with Nixon and gaining full steam with Reagan leading to the declining middle class we see today. The Kennedy/Johnson war played a large part of that as well but it’s interesting to note that it was the same foreign policy attitudes of American hegemony that led to both the Viet Nam and Iraq wars (Iraq and the Lessons of Viet Nam).

Obama has lots of Opinions. He is even very gifted at expressing them. But, I have Opinions as well. That doesn’t make me qualified for President of the United States.

At least Sarah Palin has developed a plan and successfully executed it!

Really? I have yet to hear of anything of actual substance from Palin.

BTW – If you check Pregnancy Rates for the various States, you will find that demographics has a much higher correlation than Sex Education Programs (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf). Interestingly, you will find Alaska is near the middle of the pack.

Did you leave something out here? Correlation to what? It took me less than five minutes to find a peer reviewed article demonstrating the failure of abstinence only education to protect our children from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Originally Posted By monkeysuit
What does his two bouts with cancer have to do with anything?

McCain’s cancer along with his age go to the likelyhood that Palin would actually be called upon to step in for McCain as president.

And I dare say to point out Palin’s lack of foriegn policy is insane as Obama has none either.

The point here is that it’s been McCain that has jumped on Obama for not having enough experience and then he goes and adds someone as unexperienced as Palin to the ticket.

Also Obama’s choice for VP is far from change and could be seem as the opposite. Joe Biden is the same old thing it’s just that his a democrat that he hasn’t received the “same” label that McCain has.

I’m in full agreement with you here. Moreover, Obama’s backtracking on positions such as FISA also do not inspire a lot of confidence. However, when you put the candidates side by side what you find is this: McCain uses the word “change” a lot but his actions as well as the individual policy positions he takes clearly show he’s in favor of doing things the same old way. From supply side economics to drilling for oil to healthcare, it’s guaranteed that nothing will change at all with McCain.

As for Obama, it’s clear that he mostly understands where the problems are but it’s far from certain whether he’s capable of bring about any real change. So while I don’t have a lot of confidence that any Democrat, Obama included, is going to return this country to its rightful owners, with McCain it’s only going to get worse.

Originally Posted By monkeysuit@Paul Wilden –
Well I would say that just because he is old and had cancer doesn’t mean he will die in the next four years that’s a bit of a stretch I mean anybody could die at anytime.

That’s a strawman. I didn’t say he will die or even that it’s likely he’ll die but it’s certainly a possibility given his age and medical history. And it’s arguably more likely than with someone decades younger than he is.

I’m glad we could agree on something but Obama’s actual “change” and his ideas for “change” I can bet are far a part. Let’s say he is elected Washington is still Washington and I would have liked an outside of Washington kind of VP pick for him. What I mean is he probably does have a lot of good ideas but how many can he actually get doen is another question and maybe a VP with a more outsiders kind of view could have enabled him to do more changing.

Again, we seem to be in agreement here, Washington is not likely to change just by electing Obama. However, putting McCain in the White House is very likely to be disasterous. McCain is itching to invade Iran for example, McCain isn’t going to even attempt to fix healthcare in any meaninful way, prefering to stick with the current model and the same goes with the economy.

If we really want meaningful change it’s going to have to be a bottom up effort. Latching on to a charasmatic candidate and expecting that person to do it themselves is a recipe for failure. But as the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging, and that’s what electing Obama over McCain represents.

Originally Posted By JoeK
… probably sleeping most of the time at his desk …

Actually, I think we’d be better off if you’re right.

He has no vision and the country has no concerns because it will guarantee another four years of stalemate.

Seriously though, you are right. McCain has absolutely no vision and whatever claim he might have had as a reformer maverick has long past. McCain only wants to lead us down the same failed path we’ve been following since Reagan.

Originally Posted By JoeK

I find it strange that Americans seems to have a very short horizon. The large number of people that have no health insurance, struggle with income, have only McDonalds and Walmart low pay jobs, should be up in Gear and show McCain and Palin the door. It is a phenomena that all this seems forgotten, they talk about lipstick instead of McCains Warmongering 100 years in Iraq, a Republican plunder of the economy and nobody talks about Republican Lies and Fraud that is going on with Halliburton, the Federal Contracts and everything else. These Republicans have made America a 1$ store for Arabs, Koreans and everybody else who does not borrow like crazy America. The largest banks are now on bargain prices and Republicans still recommend to spend more, borrow more and drive us deeper into disaster.
Americans wake up, McCain and Palin, a receipe for more disaster.

It is indeed strange, especially now. How much clearer could it be that the Republicans have screwed up this country. Sure, they got plenty off help from Democrats but it’s the Republicans that have been the driving force behind the policies, both foreign and domestic, that have Americans clamoring for change and yet they’re poised to elect McCain as president despite the evidence that he could very well be even worse than Bush. It boggles the mind.