Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 20, 2010, 07:24:22 PM
-
Near as I can tell, Sara Palin and Scott Brown are the same thing, politically speaking. Both have potential as serious conservative leaders able to turn the direction of the country away from progressiveism. You'd think the left would want both of them destroyed equally, being that both are guilty of the same "crime" and both pose the same sort of "threat". Heck, they'd probably want Brown destroyed even more since he's the only one of the two in a position to cause a serious, immediate change in current events.
Yet Brown has been treated pretty well by the press. No vicious personal attacks on him or his family, not much in the way of scumbag gotcha journalism, none of the other hateful things they tried to do to Palin.
Whyizzat?
-
They didn't give him a snowball's chance and/or, they didn't want to smear him thus getting his name out there and riling up those nasty *derogatory term deleted* while the campaign was on. I say wait until next week after they have their weekly planning meeting to decide what the news is.
-
Whyizzat?
He's a dude, not a chick.
Conservative men are, basically, ho-hum and considered part of the normal (if distasteful) distribution. Women, OTOH, are all supposed to be in lockstep with NOW, NARAL, and other such feminist groups, cause, ya know, they gots to stick together against those oppressive potential rapists men. So a woman that has, and lives by, conservative principals is an anathma to such people, violates the laws of nature, and must be destroyed.
That and, like my pastor from Phoenix, she has kids and is supposed to be taking care of them, not pursuing her own ambitions. And having a teen daughter that gets knocked up is just that much more proof of how bad of a mother she is for abandoning her kids.
Now, where'd that barf smilie go?
I don't agree with any of that, but sadly, that is the reason.
-
They didn't give him a snowball's chance and/or, they didn't want to smear him thus getting his name out there and riling up those nasty *derogatory term deleted* while the campaign was on. I say wait until next week after they have their weekly planning meeting to decide what the news is.
Perxcatly, we'll be hearing/reading how he stomps kittens and cooks puppies in his spare time, by Wednesday next week.
-
Brown is not a conservative as we normally see them. He is a conservative by MA standards, though.
-
Brown is not a conservative as we normally see them.
Based on what?
I've heard tools like David Frum try to claim that he's not conservative, but nobody with any credibility. Everything I've seen of Brown indicates that he's an acceptable politician.
-
Based on what?
I've heard tools like David Frum try to claim that he's not conservative, but nobody with any credibility. Everything I've seen of Brown indicates that he's an acceptable politician.
Acceptable, yes, especially for MA. And he beats the heck out of the alternative.
However, if you do a little research you will find he is not all that conservative. He's more to the center. And no, it's not just Frum making those claims.
-
I thought it odd that the media felt it necessary to blur out non-nude images of his already covered genitals; as if to suggest he posed nude.
-
Acceptable, yes, especially for MA. And he beats the heck out of the alternative.
However, if you do a little research you will find he is not all that conservative. He's more to the center. And no, it's not just Frum making those claims.
Can you cite any examples?
-
Can you cite any examples?
http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues
Health Care
I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it. It will raise taxes, increase government spending and lower the quality of care, especially for elders on Medicare. I support strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs and make it easier for people to purchase affordable insurance. In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage, but I also recognize that the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform
The Massachusetts health care reform law was enacted in 2006. It requires nearly every resident of Massachusetts to obtain health insurance coverage. Through the law, Massachusetts provides free health care for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1], and partially subsidized health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale. The law is credited with covering an additional 439,000 Massachusetts residents as of April 1, 2008.[2]
The law established an independent public authority, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, also known as the Health Connector, which offers the subsidized coverage and facilitates the selection and purchase of private insurance plans by individuals and small businesses.[3][4] Incentives for residents to obtain health insurance coverage include tax penalties for failing to obtain an insurance plan. In 2007, Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan that was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. In 2008, penalties increase by monthly increments, and are based on half of the cost of a health insurance plan
Taxachussetts Liberal Manifesto (http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=mg2subtopic&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Resident&L2=Health&L3=Health+Care+Reform&sid=massgov2)
Health Care Reform
All Massachusetts residents are required to maintain health insurance. Health care reform works to improve the cost and quality of health care.
*
Commonwealth Connector
The Commonwealth Connector can help you learn more about the health care reform law. The Connector administers two programs: Commonwealth Care and Commonwealth Choice. Commonwealth Care connects uninsured individuals with incomes that fall within certain guidelines, and who meet other qualifications with approved health plans, and helps them pay for them. Commonwealth Choice offers private health insurance options for individuals, families and employers.
*
Mandated Health Insurance law
Key provisions of the law include subsidized health insurance for residents earning less than 300% of the Federal Poverty Level, and low-cost insurance for all other residents who are not eligible for insurance through their employers.
*
Health Care Quality and Cost Information
Here you will find information about the quality and cost of health care provided in Massachusetts. This site can be used as a tool to help you select a provider based on what is important to you.
*
Health Care Reform Tax Information
Those who cannot show that they have health insurance in 2008 will have to pay a penalty on their Massachusetts income tax return. Non-compliance penalties will increase for 2009.
*
Health Insurance Responsibility Disclosure (HIRD) Information
Massachusetts employers of 11 or more FTE employees must also disseminate and collect an Employee HIRD form from each employee that declines to enroll in employer-sponsored insurance or declines to use the employer's Section 125 Cafeteria Plan to pay for health insurance. The employer must retain the signed Employee HIRD for a period of three years.
-
Brown hit the headlines too late for opposition research to do its thang. Rest assured dweebs are at work sweeping up dirty to which we will all be treated at some opportune time in the future.
-
Meh. If I was a politician in MA I'd vote for that health care bill too. MA isn't the kinda place where you'll ever get enough political support to do health care right, so you'd be wise to take what you can get. In this case they managed to get insurance exchanges, open pricing and competition among providers, and they avoided forcing everyone into a government plan. That last one alone is worth the price of admission given the climate they're working with. Yeah, it's ugly, but is that Brown's doing or is that simply the result of MA being one of the most liberal states in the country?
Brown ran (and won) on true conservative principles. No nationalized health care. Lower taxes. Less spending. Federalism. Real national defense. Transparency and accountability. No porkulus bills. Border security.
At this point I don't see any reason to doubt the man, and lots of reasons to be comfortable with him. Time will tell.
Brown hit the headlines too late for opposition research to do its thang. Rest assured dweebs are at work sweeping up dirty to which we will all be treated at some opportune time in the future.
Hmm, yes, I believe this explains it.
-
He's a dude, not a chick.
Conservative men are, basically, ho-hum and considered part of the normal (if distasteful) distribution. Women, OTOH, are all supposed to be in lockstep with NOW, NARAL, and other such feminist groups, cause, ya know, they gots to stick together against those oppressive potential rapists men. So a woman that has, and lives by, conservative principals is an anathma to such people, violates the laws of nature, and must be destroyed.
That and, like my pastor from Phoenix, she has kids and is supposed to be taking care of them, not pursuing her own ambitions. And having a teen daughter that gets knocked up is just that much more proof of how bad of a mother she is for abandoning her kids.
Now, where'd that barf smilie go?
I don't agree with any of that, but sadly, that is the reason.
I stand by my original assessment, but I dunno how I forgot this. You can't be a female republican in this country without being attacked as a tool the man's machine, nor can you be republican and/or successful as a black person without being "white really." Strange how some think that genetic traits entitle them to en bloc votes.
-
Well, Brown is fairly capable as a national politician so far - ran a campaign, got elected, and didn't claim that questions like "so what do you read?" were hardball ambushes.
Palin, on the other hand, is political dead weight - but there are some people who will find any reason to explain how what she's doing is a smart thing. That was true during the campaign snafus, that was true when she resigned as governor, and it was true when she went to Fox news. None of those things did anything but help impact the boulder that seals her out of the mountain of national politics. But for her fans, every decision is a smart one.
Brown is a different story. So far he's showed some talent at the game. I'm not sure about his policies, but he does know how to play national politics...not that it's a skill that should matter; it's just one that does matter.
-
Doesn't square. If Palin is inept and irrelevant, they wouldn't spend so much effort trying to take her down.
There are still people out there who attack Palin at every opportunity. That tells much.
-
Doesn't square. If Palin is inept and irrelevant, they wouldn't spend so much effort trying to take her down.
That's because she's a backwoods hick with a nice face and figure, and all the stupid men in this country will vote for her just because of that. She's such an alluring siren that the media, Shootinstudent and others like him need to keep reminding us what a colossal mindless bimbo she is so we don't go tripping over our wedding tackle to give her any elected office where she could damage the country. We need serious minds like "Hairplug Joe" Biden to keep this country on track.
-
Both are schilling for McCain.
Neither are interested in truly conservative candidates, in a state that would easily elect a conservative candidate, especially with their voices behind a good conservative.
McCain's in an uphill fight against Hayworth, and Hayworth hasn't even officially announced yet.
But... both of them are supporting McCain. Despite probably being "in the know" that JD is coming out to run as we approach the primaries.
That tells me A LOT about their desire to fix the country rather than merely gain power or stay in the limelight.
-
Ya can't fix the country by being politically inept. (Insert obligatory Ron Paul crack.)
Campaigning for McCain is an effective strategy for turning short term temporary political capital into long term influence that can be used later when it really counts.
Think of it as the political equivalent of investing for the future. It's no fun right now, but it's still a good idea.
-
Ya can't fix the country by being politically inept. (Insert obligatory Ron Paul crack.)
Campaigning for McCain is an effective strategy for turning short term temporary political capital into long term influence that can be used massive budget deficits and across the aisle reach arounds to pass unConstitutional laws which will morally and fiscally bankrupt the United States of America and leave the country flat broke (actually, flat broke would be an improvement) later when it really counts.
Think of it as the political equivalent of investing for the future throwing money in the toilet. It's no fun right now, but it's still a good idea and will be even less fun for our grandchildren.
There, now it all makes sense.
-
Doesn't square. If Palin is inept and irrelevant, they wouldn't spend so much effort trying to take her down.
There are still people out there who attack Palin at every opportunity. That tells much.
It appears to be mainly for ratings. High television ratings don't mean you have a future in politics. Witness the Tiger Woods/Michael Jackson phenomena. Tiger Woods got it every day in the news for a while there; that doesn't mean he had a future in office.
I don't think Palin is as unsophisticated as she's made out to be. She clearly is incapable of handling a national campaign is all. Not cut out for it; maybe Fox television is a better line of work for her. That remains to be seen.
An electable Presidential candidate she is not.
-
She will definitely not be electable if we don't support her, no?
-
Depends who you mean by "we".
-
It appears to be mainly for ratings. High television ratings don't mean you have a future in politics. Witness the Tiger Woods/Michael Jackson phenomena. Tiger Woods got it every day in the news for a while there; that doesn't mean he had a future in office.
I don't think Palin is as unsophisticated as she's made out to be. She clearly is incapable of handling a national campaign is all. Not cut out for it; maybe Fox television is a better line of work for her. That remains to be seen.
An electable Presidential candidate she is not.
Palin is trying to destroy herself to get higher ratings? That doesn't square with reality, either.
-
Palin is trying to destroy herself to get higher ratings? That doesn't square with reality, either.
You're not smoking the right stuff, HTG.
-
She will definitely not be electable if we don't support her, no?
That's true, but she definitely won't be electable even if every APSer does vote for her. She's done too much damage with that series of terrible interviews, the quitting, and now this.
HTG,
Review the quoted portion from you. I was referring to why she gets so much attention in the media. Having people spend all day blasting her on television isn't a sign that she's got good prospects for election.
-
Review the quoted portion from you. I was referring to why she gets so much attention in the media. Having people spend all day blasting her on television isn't a sign that she's got good prospects for election.
Electable or not, getting blasted in TV is a sign that those blasting her think she's relevant in some capacity. You don't bother trying to defeat someone that you aren't in competition against.
-
I was referring to why she gets so much attention in the media. Having people spend all day blasting her on television isn't a sign that she's got good prospects for election.
Yeah, and look at who's doing the blasting. The most fiercely leftist partisan commentators on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, et al. That and the occasionaly pseudo-conservative like Kathleen Parker. If they are to be the sole arbiters of who is worthy to run for political office then we're really screwed.
I'll consider your analysis to have some merit when you demonstrate something other than serial apologia for Muslim extremists and liberal lunatics.
-
Heck, the fact that lefties like SS still pan her at every opportunity, more than a year after the election is over and done, means something significant.
-
So... again, I have this question. It interests me.
I am sorry if it seems rude, I have no such intent.
Surely, Shootinstudent, you respect - if not conservatives and libertarians, then at least us APS posters.
You know full well I am adequately educated. And so is HTG, and Balog, and Jfruser, and everybody here short of fistful. :D
So, why do we support Palin? What political demands of us freedom-lovers does Palin answer?
Answer that and you will reach the crux of the issue.
-
So... again, I have this question. It interests me.
I am sorry if it seems rude, I have no such intent.
Surely, Shootinstudent, you respect - if not conservatives and libertarians, then at least us APS posters.
You know full well I am adequately educated. And so is HTG, and Balog, and Jfruser, and everybody here short of fistful. :D
So, why do we support Palin? What political demands of us freedom-lovers does Palin answer?
Answer that and you will reach the crux of the issue.
Agreed, there is something about Palin that resonates with freedom loving individualists. Figure that out and you'll grok in fullness.
Actually, I'd suggest that shootinstudent would have better luck approaching the problem from the other direction. If he can pin down why he and the other leftie statist types feel a compulsion to attack her at every turn, that will also lead to the crux of the issue. The reason we like her is the same reason they despise her.
So, why do you folks need to attack her so heavily?
-
Having people spend all day blasting her on television isn't a sign that she's got good prospects for election.
I don't think you understand American politics very well. Getting "blasted" by the media, for many of us, looks very good on a policritter's resume. In fact, I don't think I would have much respect for a candidate that wasn't "blasted."
Of course, I seem to remember that you thought Obama's skin color would make it harder for him so this is a bit of a pattern with you. :laugh:
-
I forget who said it, but , "Judge me not by my friends, but by my enemies". Palin has some GREAT enemies. =D
-
Wait a second here, there are two issues on the table being confused:
1. Does Palin have policies that are sound, and should she be supported based on our agenda?
Under this category, I can see why APSers and conservatives like her. She is pro-gun. She is in touch with everyday people. I myself have commented favourably on her populist credentials here.
But then there's that other issue, which is:
2. Does Palin have a reasonable prospect of success outside the realm of APS, ie, in the United States nationally?
This answer is obviously no. Most people were put off by her terrible interviews. I think it's safe to say most people were not impressed by her resignation as governor. It's also a fairly safe bet that most people do not consider being a fox news anchor to be a plus when presidential campaign season rolls around.
Again, having her attacked in the media means only one thing: that attacks on Palin generate ratings. There is no basis for any other conclusion. Dennis Kucinich gets media attention pretty frequently as well; so does Al Sharpton. Does that mean either of those two guys is realistically on the path to the oval office?
I'm drawing a distinction between her own policies and capabilities as a manager/administrator, versus her complete lack of ability to run a successful national campaign. I can see why some might think she'd be a great leader, but I honestly cannot see how anyone can call her campaigning (again, different business to leading) a success.
That is why she won't be elected - you need to be a great campaigner to win the presidency.
-
There is no one on this earth who could've looked good on those hack job "interviews" they did to Palin. Note I say "did to" not "did with." If Obama had received 1/100 the vicious attacks Palin did, he'd be famous as the Presidential candidate who had a massive sobbing panic attack on teevee. The fact that SS was A. manipulated by the blatant propaganda & B. thinks everyone else must have been to is rather telling imho.
Palin isn't perfect, and she's made some risky choices. Maybe they'll pay off, maybe they won't. But anyone so massively hated by the propaganda wing of the DNC is someone I would support in a heartbeat.
-
Shootinstudent, do you know me to support candidates for office based on the mainstream's expectation of their 'electability'?
-
Shootinstudent, do you know me to support candidates for office based on the mainstream's expectation of their 'electability'?
No. And certainly I don't support policies on the basis of their realistic prospects for adoption by any politician.
What I'm seeing here, though, is this denial that Palin could possibly make a false move on the campaign trail. It's a bit surprising to see folks talking about how taking a job as a fox news anchor is a great plan for becoming president.
I'm saying, whatever you think of her policies, it's obvious that she is not capable of delivering on a presidential campaign. Sad that the system works that way, but we don't need to love it to acknowledge that it does.
-
Wait a second here, there are two issues on the table being confused:
1. Does Palin have policies that are sound, and should she be supported based on our agenda?
2. Does Palin have a reasonable prospect of success outside the realm of APS, ie, in the United States nationally?
Oh dear. This means that every conversation about Palin will be like a Ron Paul thread. Crap.
-
Well, based on SS' evaluation, I guess we had better forget about Palin. She will never be electable.
She can never learn to present herself better while being interviewed in the media. She can never polish her delivery and improve her debating skills. She can never improve her general knowledge of history or American politics. She is forever stuck where she is, finished as a politician, unelectable to any higher office.
Thanks, SS. What a relief. Now I can move on.
-
Shootinstudent, instead of getting people to agree with you about Palin, your posts seem to be having the effect of making people dig in their heels for her.
Too bad for the mainstream media's sake that they don't see that.
-
No. And certainly I don't support policies on the basis of their realistic prospects for adoption by any politician.
What I'm seeing here, though, is this denial that Palin could possibly make a false move on the campaign trail. It's a bit surprising to see folks talking about how taking a job as a fox news anchor is a great plan for becoming president.
Who has denied that she could make a blunder during an election campaign?
Campaigns are weird things. Elaborate, complex, lots of people, much planning and strategy, high stakes and strong emotions and personal investment. An election campaign is a lot like a military campaign in that regard. And like a military campaign, mistakes will happen, probably with some frequency.
Anyone can make a blunder on a campaign. Everyone does. Every time.
I'm saying, whatever you think of her policies, it's obvious that she is not capable of delivering on a presidential campaign. Sad that the system works that way, but we don't need to love it to acknowledge that it does.
Obvious based on what? She delivered more for McCain's campaign than McCain did, and more than most veep candidates ever do.
McCain's campaign was run by McCain and his people, according to their ideas and strategies (most of which were pretty dumb). McCain and Palin both made blunders (see above), but it's not reasonable to claim his blunders were hers. McCain lost that election, not Palin.
It's interesting to compare what happened to McCain and Palin since the election. A year later Palin is as popular as ever, we're all still talking about her, buying her book, following her moves closely, discussing it and analyzing it, and she's still as worrisome to our opposition as she's ever been. McCain has fallen of the map and is at risk for losing in the primaries next year. Tell me again which of these people can't deliver on the national scene?
-
No. And certainly I don't support policies on the basis of their realistic prospects for adoption by any politician.
What I'm seeing here, though, is this denial that Palin could possibly make a false move on the campaign trail. It's a bit surprising to see folks talking about how taking a job as a fox news anchor is a great plan for becoming president.
I'm saying, whatever you think of her policies, it's obvious that she is not capable of delivering on a presidential campaign. Sad that the system works that way, but we don't need to love it to acknowledge that it does.
Heard many of Obamesiah early interviews (or heck, recent ones lacking in teleprompter assistance)? He made Palin's interview with Couric look like brilliance.
And who here has said she can't make a mistake? The way the interviews with Couric and Gibson were clearly handled poorly, though I put more of that blame on McCain than Palin. They darn well should have known what those two would do and insisted on a live interview only. When it's live it's a lot harder to do such a hatchet job.
Was resigning from the governor's office a mistake in terms of her political future? Maybe. But she was being financially ruined by the frivolous ethics lawsuits being filed almost weekly. A quirk of the laws in AK meant she had to personally pay for her defense, and she couldn't not defend herself. If a single one of those suits had a shred of merit, I'd say she deserved such a fate. But not a single one was shown to be with even the tiniest amount of merit.
And what's wrong with going to Fox? In order for her to be acceptable as a presidential candidate does she have to become Rachel Maddow's girlfriend at MSNBC, or Wolf Blitzer's beard vacuumer at CNN? You do realize that Fox gets more viewers than all the rest of the networks combined during prime time news hours. The people that don't like Fox, and view that as a downside for her wouldn't vote for her anyway.
-
nd what's wrong with going to Fox? In order for her to be acceptable as a presidential candidate does she have to become Rachel Maddow's girlfriend at MSNBC, or Wolf Blitzer's beard vacuumer at CNN? You do realize that Fox gets more viewers than all the rest of the networks combined during prime time news hours. The people that don't like Fox, and view that as a downside for her wouldn't vote for her anyway.
Nothing wrong with going to FOX. In fact it may have demonstrated advanced long-term, strategic thinking. Yeah, she gets weekly access to conservatives of all stripes. But more to the point, what better way to learn to deal with media scum than to become one of 'em. She suffered mightily at the hands to Big Media (as well as McCain's media poobah's, as an aside) to an extent unknown by political predecessors except maybe Dan Quayle. Through it all her popularity if anything increased. So now she is in the process of becoming a national figure. One component of a strategy is how to tame a hostile media. I think her move to become one of them and learn the system from the inside out is classic. Then there is the added feature of becoming one of Roger Ailes' products. Let us not forget that it was Roger Ailes who masterminded Richard Nixon's media strategy as he headed for the White House. So with one decision she is in the process of nullifying the impact of those who seek her destruction and put herself into the hands of a proven media guru on the national stage. Doesn't strike me as a particularly stupid move.
That said, she is a politician just like Brown. The Prime Directive in dealing with politicians is never, ever believe their words. Always believe their deeds. Both Palin and Brown just committed a deed that needs to be watched. That is campaigning for McCain in Arizona. It may be innocent inside politics backscratching or it may be something worse. In any case both figures merit continued observation.
-
That last post was directed at SS. Otherwise, I'm with you 100%. If campaigning for McCain in AZ right now is the worst of her sins going forward I'll still vote for her in 2012. If it becomes the least of her sins, well, that's a different story.
-
There's a code in politics that says you don't turn your back on people who've helped you. Palin is helping McCain, but I don't know to what extent. What I can almost guarantee is that her trustworthiness amongst other politicos would have been weakened if she hadn't.
I had a small taste of that experience several years ago in giving one letter of support to a squishy Republican majority leader who had done everything she promised to advance CCW in the state senate, but then was facing a more conservative candidate in the primary. Giving her that one time support was viewed by others in the legislature as the right thing to do.
-
Given the "57 states" and all the other gaffes the current occupants of the White House made, I don't think a bad interview or two means anything. And given the success of a man who's highest qualifications prior to governship were making movies co-starring chimps...
Basically, the MSM hates Palin. If people respected the MSM that might mean something, but the very viciousness and irrationality of their attacks lose them credibility every day.