The number one argument for Sarah Palin (in response to this): A month ago our choice was Obama/Biden or McCain/___, and McCain looked like he didn’t have a chance anyway. Now it’s Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin, and either one could win.
Of course Palin isn’t going to disagree with McCain, or have a comprehensive understanding of our foreign policy – she was the governor of Alaska. She still makes voting for McCain much, much easier.
PS: Chris, you are the gold standard of rhetorical arch-nemesis.
That argument still feels like politicus interruptus. I get all excited about the fact that McCain will win until I get to thinking… what the heck am I excited about? Then frustration sets in.
I just want Americans to split the ticket, without exception.
I’m not bothered by the fact that McCain and Palin agree. Palin and I agree on quite a few things; that hardly disqualifies her in my mind.
It’s the way she is politicking – the kind of talking points and half-truths she’s saying – that disturb me. The McCain campaign has been pounding us with the blunt end of the half-truth stick for months now, and Palin has fallen right in line.
Plus, yeah, sometimes when she’s flustered she can’t manage to put a complete sentence together.
You might ask – is Palin really lying?
1. She has come out multiple times against Earmerking and Pork Barrel spending, and has pretended that she’s got some sort of record as a reformer against waste. She actually got 27 million in earmarks for Wasilla – which is half the size of Moscow if you don’t include our students – and 197 million in earmarks this last year for Alaska as governor.
Alaska, by the way, is so rich that they handed their citizens back $3200 each this year.
2. Palin has said she is a reformer that will cut out corruption and battle the power of lobbyists in Washington. How did she get all this money (especially in Wasilla)? Her town hired a lobbyist.
3. The Bridge to Nowhere? “I said thanks, but no thanks.” No, you pretty much didn’t. The story is complicated, but her little quippy answer is a half-truth at best. She supported the bridge at first, and only eventually rejected the idea. She still took the federal money and spent it on other things, however.
4. It actually really bothered me when she said she thought Americans were looking to McCain, not Obama, for leadership in this financial crisis. It’s not a lie, really – there’s no way to prove it, of course – but the fact is that polls show that Obama is stronger on economic issues in the American eye. When asked for why she said this, Palin appealed not to real American sentiment, but McCain’s past. When asked for examples from McCain’s past, Palin had none to offer but the one example Couric provided to her.
This was clearly glib political drivel.
I don’t want this to look like a Kossassination. I’m also quite aware that this is how politicians talk, and I’ll freely admit that Obama’s campaign has said similar things. But look up top. Palin is being duplicitous, or at least disingenuous. She was supposed to be a refreshing, robust Christian that would change the political landscape. It is sad to see how quickly she has been corrupted. She can agree with McCain and defend him without sliming herself with his Rovian politics.
Your argument is not an argument at all. That Palin gave McCain a temporary boost in the polls for a few weeks (immediately after a poll-boosting convention) has nothing to do with her fitness to lead this country. If you so vilify Obama that you would support McCain at any cost, I suppose your argument applies, but I believe it is a poor choice. Their administration supports the same economic and foreign policies as Bush. Both policies have utterly failed.
Remember, wise Turks aren’t all that bad. Palin is a lump of wholesome Christian clay, but is currently being shaped by the hands of Rovian politics.
Question: if it was Bush vs. Obama, who would you vote for?
MAN I’M VERBOSE
Bush.
Bush, easy. Obama still would have taken us to war.
AHA!
Actually, I was just plain curious. It’s a tough answer for me to give. Ironically, it appears that a vote for Bush 4 years ago may have turned into a vote for Obama. If the Dems win due to voter backlash…
What a funny world we live in.
@A – You’re going to have to give me more than just a bald statement about Obama. What makes you say that? I agree on Afghanistan, but Iraq?
I meant Afghanistan.
I’d clarify my answer this way: Bush *then* vs. Obama *now* – easily Bush.
Bush *now* vs. Obama *now*, then maybe I’d consider Obama. Fiscal policy would be a big factor.
Excepting 9-11 Truthers, I can’t imagine many people would object to the war in Afghanistan. I don’t recall hearing any criticism of that move at all.
If Obama would have taken us to war there, I would not consider it to be a mark against him.
What’s the difference, in your mind, between Bush Then and Bush Now? Do we see any similarities between Bush Then and McCain / Palin that might lead us to indicate the GOP has nominated somebody likely to become Bush Now?