US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

[BVS]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

Yes. An LA Times article quoting Sarah Palin during a gubernatorial debate.

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau

also

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."



Seems that she is not as backwards as you thought

Either you don't understand Sarah's stance or she doesn't understand it herself. How do you teach contraception if you don't teach sex? In the education questionaire for her gubernatorial race this is what Palin wrote:

3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

[TheEdge U2JT]

Originally Posted by indra

I was using the dictionary definition of explicit, which is:

1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2. clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3. definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken: He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.
4. described or shown in realistic detail: explicit sexual scenes.
5. having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted: explicit movies; explicit books.

I assumed she was also using that definition.

So I still wonder how sex education that isn't explicit (see definition above) does any good.

Then I agree with her. I don't find it necessary, using points 4 and 5, to be showing porn as part of sex education. I dont see it as a "how to" class. It should be comprehensive education. Discuss STD's and how the rise in Chlamydia has resulted in increased eptopic pregnancies. How HPV give a woman a 70 times greater chance of cervical cancer. Cover birth control. Instill in the boys an understanding that birth control isn't just the girl responsibility.

[Utoo]

Originally Posted by U2democrat

I'm just wondering, does anyone here actually volunteer for either of the campaigns on a consistent basis?


Just curious. I want to know how active FYMers are beyond this message board...which is why I've barely been posting during the election and won't be posting much through Nov. 4 (I'm an intern).

I haven't done anything out in the field, though I'm setting up one of those donation webpages that I can get friends to donate to Obama through my page. Trying to decide if I should set a realistic goal or an ambitious one....

[BVS]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

Then I agree with her. I don't find it necessary, using points 4 and 5, to be showing porn as part of sex education. I dont see it as a "how to" class. It should be comprehensive education. Discuss STD's and how the rise in Chlamydia has resulted in increased eptopic pregnancies. How HPV give a woman a 70 times greater chance of cervical cancer. Cover birth control. Instill in the boys an understanding that birth control isn't just the girl responsibility.

There are no sex ed programs out there that are showing porn.

No one is asking for a "how to" class in the sense of "well here's this position" or "if you really want her to feel good do this", but you have to teach the basic "how to's". You have to know what sex actually is before you protect yourself, you have to know how to properly use contraception otherwise it may not work. And yes you have to teach the risks but not as a scare tactic.

[TheEdge U2JT]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

There are no sex ed programs out there that are showing porn.

No one is asking for a "how to" class in the sense of "well here's this position" or "if you really want her to feel good do this", but you have to teach the basic "how to's". You have to know what sex actually is before you protect yourself, you have to know how to properly use contraception otherwise it may not work. And yes you have to teach the risks but not as a scare tactic.

I agree, I said comprehensive. It can be done in a respectable way as to not offend. I dont think you need to show "movies or depict explicit sexual scenes".....as per the posted definition, to accomplish to goal of teaching.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Saying that one is the best candidate for VP to help the ticket win in November in no way implies that its a "gimmick". This form of criticism is funny considering who is at the TOP of the Democratic ticket.

if you're going to criticize who is at the TOP of the Democratic ticket, how can you either defend who is also on the GOP ticket or the reckless, entirely political decision made by the man on the TOP of the Republican ticket?

so if Obama isn't qualified, and doesn't have the experience, then why did McCain choose someone to be next in line who's even less experienced than the person he has been trying to claim, for months, lacks experience?

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

if you're going to criticize who is at the TOP of the Democratic ticket, how can you either defend who is also on the GOP ticket or the reckless, entirely political decision made by the man on the TOP of the Republican ticket?

so if Obama isn't qualified, and doesn't have the experience, then why did McCain choose someone to be next in line who's even less experienced than the person he has been trying to claim, for months, lacks experience?

For the third time now, I have never claimed that Obama was unqualified to be President. I have stated that McCain's experience is a huge asset and that McCain is the best qualified person to be President. I supported George Bush over Al Gore in 2000 despite the fact that Al Gore had more experience than George Bush in government.

McCain chose the qualified candidate who was best positioned to help him win the election. To do otherwise would essentially be voting for Obama.

Ironically, lets take a look at some clips of what Obama's running mate, Joe Biden has said about Obama's qualifications to be President. I don't agree with Biden, but watching this flip-flop is interesting.

YouTube - Joe Biden swears Obama is not ready to be president

Contrast here what Biden says about Obama and then about John McCain.

YouTube - Even Joe Biden does not believe in Barack Obama!

Joe Biden on why he thinks Obama is now ready:

YouTube - Biden on Obama's Lack of Experience

Barack Obama on why he thinks he is not ready to be President.

YouTube - Barack Obama Makes Shocking confession!!

[Irvine511]

gosh, STING, that was creative. no one has ever thought of doing this before, and no one has ever slammed their future running mate in the primaries and then made nice before.

it's a penetrating, totally original line of attack you've constructed. well played. you totally avoided the question, and then posted a little youtube sideshow to distract.

let's look at this statement:

McCain chose the qualified candidate who was best positioned to help him win the election. To do otherwise would essentially be voting for Obama.

again, you've agreed with me. McCain made a purely political pick that ignores the fundamental qualification of the VP, that they be able to assume the presidency. McCain has put politics before the country, clearly, in this situation, and he's told you that this argument:

I have stated that McCain's experience is a huge asset

really isn't any reason at all to vote for him. he's told us that, when it comes to assessing potential presidents, and Palin certainly is one, that experience has nothing to do with it at all.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

gosh, STING, that was creative. no one has ever thought of doing this before, and no one has ever slammed their future running mate in the primaries and then made nice before.

it's a penetrating, totally original line of attack you've constructed. well played. you totally avoided the question, and then posted a little youtube sideshow to distract.

Its just a little post on a U2 fan website, calm down.

again, you've agreed with me. McCain made a purely political pick that ignores the fundamental qualification of the VP, that they be able to assume the presidency. McCain has put politics before the country, clearly, in this situation, and he's told you that this argument:

I don't think you actually read what I stated. Any VP pick is going to be based on a combination of factors. But to ignore the ability of the ticket to win in November would essentially be voting for Barack Obama and that certainly would not be McCain putting the country first. By picking the qualified candidate for VP that has the best chance at helping McCain win in November, McCain is indeed putting the country first.

NO one has ever stated that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be President prior to McCain picking her. She was actually always in the top 10 of nominees that McCain was considering.

Harry Vest started his thread about Sarah Palin weeks before McCain actually picked her, yet I don't recall you saying that picking her would be a "gimmick" and that she was unqualified to be President.


But hey, if you really think Sarah Palin does not have the qualifications to be President, at what point in time do you think she would become qualified for the office?

When did Barack Obama become qualified to be President? Was it when he announced that he was running in January 2007, when he won his Senate race in November 2004, or earlier?

When did Governor Clinton become qualified to be President? How about Tim Kaine, one of Obama's top 3 picks for the VP slot?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Its just a little post on a U2 fan website, calm down.

it was silly.

I don't think you actually read what I stated. Any VP pick is going to be based on a combination of factors. But to ignore the ability of the ticket to win in November would essentially be voting for Barack Obama and that certainly would not be McCain putting the country first. By picking the qualified candidate for VP that has the best chance at helping McCain win in November, McCain is indeed putting the country first.

everyone knows McCain would not have preferred Lieberman or Ridge. if McCain dies and Ms. Palin become president, do you think McCain would be comfortable with that? can you sit there and tell me with a straight face that putting the country first is really putting your career first and making a decision that totally abdicates the fundamental requirement of the VP in order to score some short term (and i do think that what we are seeing is a short term bounce -- the polls will tighten again and it will, again, come down to a few swing states, as convention bounces are usually wide but not deep) political points and to distract from the fact that most Americans are deeply unhappy with their country due to 8 years of rule by McCain's own party (note that he didn't even mention Bush by name in his acceptance speech) and most Americans are feeling the effects of 6.1% unemployment, inflation, gas prices, etc.

it is a gimmick. and a sideshow. and a way to try to fight a culture war instead of talking about war and economics.

NO one has ever stated that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be President prior to McCain picking her. She was actually always in the top 10 of nominees that McCain was considering.

she never warranted serious enough consideration by any mainstream media outlet. this is obvious by the amount of entirely legitimate coverage that's come forth since then. the only people who whispered about Palin were the fundamentalist base of the Republican Party. not even McCain was seriously considering her. he had met her once before. once. that's wildly irresponsible.

would any corporate chieftain pick a number two on those grounds and not be dismissed by his board for recklessness?

it reminds me of another rash decision made without having properly vetted the situation, and that frightens me.

Harry Vest started his thread about Sarah Palin weeks before McCain actually picked her, yet I don't recall you saying that picking her would be a "gimmick" and that she was unqualified to be President.

you're right -- i didn't post in that thread at all because i didn't take a Palin pick seriously. yes, i think she's a gimmick. and being "qualified" is beside the point -- what i've been stressing, repeatedly, is that i don't think she is *prepared* to be president. she has no record, at all, of any thought or interest given to foreign policy. you've said yourself that this is the most important party of any presidency, why then would you support a VP candidate who has no evidence of giving any serious thought at all to, say, Pakistan especially in light of a new president.

But hey, if you really think Sarah Palin does not have the qualifications to be President, at what point in time do you think she would become qualified for the office?

i would like to see some demonstrated interest and demonstrated mastery of the nuances of foreign policy across a variety of spheres as well as the articulation of a genuine overarching political philosophy. i would like to see an interest in anything beyond highly localized politics -- even at the governor level, Alaska is hardly typical. it is a deeply idiosyncratic state that's more of an oil colony than a state. in fact, would be very hard to find a governor in America who knows less about the mainstream economy. Alaska is much like Russia where oil has made the economy boom, so Ms. Palin can write checks to Alaskans out of an enormous surplus (and then some people marvel at her 80% approval rate). her one key policy issue in Alaska has been drilling for oil in ANWAR -- you know, a policy opposed by McCain.

there's no record of her speaking on foreign policy at all, save for a small interview in 2006 where she talked about hearing of "the surge" on "the news."

i can't believe that you, of all people on this board, would be defending this pick as anything other than a political gimmick.

maybe her interview with Gibson will reveal hitherto unknown depths of understanding and nuance.

When did Barack Obama become qualified to be President? Was it when he announced that he was running in January 2007, when he won his Senate race in November 2004, or earlier?

again, this misses the issue. Barack Obama is clearly *prepared* to be president as demonstrated by 18 months of campaigning where we've gotten specific, detailed, nuanced proposals and positions on a wide variety of topics. we have his judgment on various national and international issues, and most critically, he has demonstrated such judgment in the selection of his own VP, which is the biggest decision of any presidential campaign. say what you will about Biden's politics, but the fact remains that Biden is a generally conservative, cautious pick who's deeply versed in foreign policy. it was very professional. you can disagree with the substance, but it's hard to disagree with the thought process that led Obama to this pick.

When did Governor Clinton become qualified to be President? How about Tim Kaine, one of Obama's top 3 picks for the VP slot?

Tim Kain wasn't picked, so i don't know why you'd even bring him up.

as for Gov. Clinton, again, as you noted with the then Gov. Bush, the issue is preparedness, not "qualifications." Palin is a total blank slate when it comes to foreign policy. she has no expressed interest on the topic. she's been governor of a strange state for 18 months, whereas Clinton had several terms.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

again, this misses the issue. Barack Obama is clearly *prepared* to be president as demonstrated by 18 months of campaigning where we've gotten specific, detailed, nuanced proposals and positions on a wide variety of topics. we have his judgment on various national and international issues, and most critically, he has demonstrated such judgment in the selection of his own VP, which is the biggest decision of any presidential campaign. say what you will about Biden's politics, but the fact remains that Biden is a generally conservative, cautious pick who's deeply versed in foreign policy. it was very professional. you can disagree with the substance, but it's hard to disagree with the thought process that led Obama to this pick.

Well, Sarah Palin has been to the Persian Gulf. When was Barack Obama's first trip to the Persian Gulf?

I'll ask this again, at what point in time did Barack Obama became qualified, or prepared to be President?

Tim Kain wasn't picked, so i don't know why you'd even bring him up.

Um, he was strongly considered. Barack Obama met with him, so obviously he was considered to be qualified and prepared to be President by Barack Obama. He along with Evan and Joe were Obama's top 3 picks.

So once again, at what point in time do you feel that Tim Kaine became qualified or prepared to be President of the United States?

as for Gov. Clinton, again, as you noted with the then Gov. Bush, the issue is preparedness, not "qualifications." Palin is a total blank slate when it comes to foreign policy. she has no expressed interest on the topic. she's been governor of a strange state for 18 months, whereas Clinton had several terms.

When did Governor Clinton become qualified or prepared to be President in your view? Prior to running for President, can you show us anything that would demonstrate an expressed interest in Foreign Policy by Governor Clinton, the Governor of one of the most important states in the country, Arkansas?

[TheEdge U2JT]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

When did Governor Clinton become qualified or prepared to be President in your view? Prior to running for President, can you show us anything that would demonstrate an expressed interest in Foreign Policy by Governor Clinton, the Governor of one of the most important states in the country, Arkansas?

Well, Arkansas is the home of Walmart, so he must know about foreign relations with China where everything is made.

[Diemen]

Hmm. Let's see what Karl Rove has to say on the subject of picking a governor with little experience who used to be a mayor of a small town:

YouTube - KARL ROVE SLAMS MCCAIN ON PALIN VP PICK

Interesting.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

colorado, ohio, new mexico and new hampshire. the only thing that matters is what these people think.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Well, Sarah Palin has been to the Persian Gulf. When was Barack Obama's first trip to the Persian Gulf?

I'll ask this again, at what point in time did Barack Obama became qualified, or prepared to be President?



Um, he was strongly considered. Barack Obama met with him, so obviously he was considered to be qualified and prepared to be President by Barack Obama. He along with Evan and Joe were Obama's top 3 picks.

So once again, at what point in time do you feel that Tim Kaine became qualified or prepared to be President of the United States?




When did Governor Clinton become qualified or prepared to be President in your view? Prior to running for President, can you show us anything that would demonstrate an expressed interest in Foreign Policy by Governor Clinton, the Governor of one of the most important states in the country, Arkansas?

these are totally fatuous equivocations that dodge the issue -- Sarah Palin has at no point in her career demonstrated any sort of interest in national or international affairs. she has not demonstrated that she is prepared to be president.

there is no magic date as to when someone becomes magically "prepared" -- if someone runs for office, it's well to assume that they themselves believe themselves to be prepared. and the judgment is then left up to the voters. 18 million of them. as they run on a national platform.

[U2democrat]

But Irvine, Alaska is close to Russia, *duh*

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by U2democrat

But Irvine, Alaska is close to Russia, *duh*

and Sarah Palin has been to Kuwait. thus, she knows all about the Middle East.

what is interesting is how completely McCain has tried to co-opt the message. listen to his convention speech. it's all "change" and "let's work together" and totally empty on policy. it's substituted the personal for the political, and the platitude for the policy.

again, they've become everything that they once accused Obama of being.

though it's important to note that the McCain camp clearly gave up on using the "he's inexperienced" line of attack. instead, they've tried to co-opt change and reassert the "Maverick" with the convention, and it certainly is exciting and that's been reflected in the polls. no question. however, it seems to me that it's going to be difficult to convince the country that you want another 4 years of the same disastrous party that brought you the past 8 years. McCain has all but pulled the trigger on Bush. but i don't think he'll be able to get him to effectively die so that Mr. 30%-on-a-good-day won't be a liability on 11/4. ultimately, McCain positioning himself -- a 72 year old Republican who voted with Bush on taxes and Iraq -- as an agent of change is logically preposterous.

we'll see if they can keep up the charade until election day.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

what do you think of two events that i think have a reasonable chance of happening this election...

1) obama wins the popular vote by a fairly large margin, thanks to overwhelmingly large turnouts in high population areas (NYC, LA, Chi, etc.) but loses the electoral college.

2) 269

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

what do you think of two events that i think have a reasonable chance of happening this election...

1) obama wins the popular vote by a fairly large margin, thanks to overwhelmingly large turnouts in high population areas (NYC, LA, Chi, etc.) but loses the electoral college.

2) 269

i have no idea on either.

perhaps they'll just let the SCOTUS decide again.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

colorado, ohio, new mexico and new hampshire. the only thing that matters is what these people think.

Obama will likely get New Hampshire. Virginia is a more of a question mark at this point.