Random Thoughts

[Kevin Price]

Democrats are rattled.

Of course they are- she's very difficult to attack: Woman, working mom, "family issues," pro-gun, Very Christian. Its enough to make a strategist's teeth turn around and start to eat his own brain.

Here's a thought: Whenever a candidate comes up for LA Superior Court judge, the LA County Bar reviews his or her credentials: years in practice, trial experience, law school, reputation in the legal community, ethics, etc. Candidates are objectively rated either "qualified," or "not qualified." I believe that if Palin were rated in this manner, she would be "not qualified" to be president. And let's face it, she could be president on day 2.

This candidate is remarkable because she is so utterly unqualified by any objective criteria. And yet, there she is.

which brings me back to my joke post.

what differentiates her experience from Obama?

The senate, for one thing. A dozen years in elected office, a law degree from Harvard, and he was a constitutional law teacher.
Mayor of a town of something like 6000 people and 22 months as governor of Alaska just ain't the same thing. The biggest heart in the world doesn't substitute for a few basic skills. Obama might be a little green, but Palin's not even a sprout.

She has more in common with me than she does Obama, and I'm not qualified to be president either.

[Bob Beamesderfer]

Bob, Palin was also a Governer since 2006. And regardless of which President or Vice-President we get, pettiness and vindictiveness will live on. Republicans don't have that market cornered. What's absolutely amazing is that people assume there will be significant changes in the status quo if their candidate is elected - based purely on campaign slogans. Does anyone really think we will have more money in our pockets, our kids will be smarter, the earth will be cooler, the air will be cleaner, and all religions will join hands and live in peace just because Obama or McCain get elected?

Watch and enjoy the election for what it is, a big political soap opera. Come 2009 we will all still be facing the same local problems while womever is in the White House starts planning for the 2012 election.

She's been governor less than 2 years, taking office in 2007 and her style there had been the same.

And while every political party has its thugs, I'd rather not elect one any higher then they've already gotten. I don't expect miracles from politicians, elected or otherwise. However the sooner this election is over the better.

[Jeff Shyu]

The senate, for one thing. A dozen years in elected office, a law degree from Harvard, and he was a constitutional law teacher.

lets break that down.

sworn into the senate in 2005. he's spent half of his time in the senate campaigning for the presidency.
a dozen years in elected office? 1997-2004 Illinois senate? help me with the math here.

while the law degree and teaching is impressive, i personally don't see it as a qualification for presidency. If anything, it just means he's in good company of past presidents.

lets not forget, while in Illinois senate, he pressed the "present" button more times than most others. A button intended for people who have a conflict of interest with the proposal.

Mayor of a town of something like 6000 people and 22 months as governor of Alaska just ain't the same thing. The biggest heart in the world doesn't substitute for a few basic skills. Obama might be a little green, but Palin's not even a sprout.

She has more in common with me than she does Obama, and I'm not qualified to be president either.

and here's where we differ in opinion.

the framers chose to set the qualifications for presidency low. I personally believe this is because they held the belief that anyone can be president, IF they reflect the will of the people.

that IS the intent of the office. To serve and protect the interest of America and its people. who better to serve my interest, than someone who has most in common with me.

[Bob Beamesderfer]

lets not forget, while in Illinois senate, he pressed the "present" button more times than most others. A button intended for people who have a conflict of interest with the proposal.

You have a source for that?

The Framers also either included or preceded several presidents who believed America had no role to play in world affairs.

[Jeff Shyu]

there's several articles about it, but this is the quickest one i found on NY Times: linky

It was elaborated on NPR one night with another Illinois senate member (i forget his name, but he actually moved into Obama's old office after Obama left, made a note about how most people would leave a note for the incoming rep inside their desk, but Obama did not).

[Larry Andrews]

Of course there's no source. Devoted marionettes do not question those who make their strings go.

[Jeff Shyu]

Of course there's no source. Devoted marionettes do not question those who make their strings go.

you talking about the obamabots?

Obama's voting record is out there for people to see, that's the SOURCE if you want to look through the thousands of votes. Considering Obama camp hasn't denied the reports, I'm going to assume that it's true.

it begs the question, if he's the president, and a bill lands on his desk, and it's not politically expedient for him to vote Yes nor No, what will he do? there's no "present" vote for the president.

[Bob Beamesderfer]

Of course there's no source. Devoted marionettes do not question those who make their strings go.

you talking about the obamabots?

Obama's voting record is out there for people to see, that's the SOURCE if you want to look through the thousands of votes. Considering Obama camp hasn't denied the reports, I'm going to assume that it's true.

it begs the question, if he's the president, and a bill lands on his desk, and it's not politically expedient for him to vote Yes nor No, what will he do? there's no "present" vote for the president.

Yes there is. It's called a pocket veto.

You can take issue with Obama's experience and whether it is valuable enough to hold higher office all you want. It's still a) more than Palin's and more varied than McCain's; and b) includes at least a basic understanding of the monetary and financial system of this country, which Ms. Palin does not possess in the slightest. McCain's staff would do themselves and possibly the nation a big favor if they explained just how the bail out of Fannie and Freddie hasn't cost the taxpayers a nickel as of yet. And, more important, how it would have cost NOT JUST taxpayers, but every citizen, enterprise, institution and governmental body in this country a great deal more if those institutions failed.

As I've said before, Palin's selection is cynical and condescending pick. First they bash Obama as celebrity, then create one while saying that the election isn't about issues. They could have chosen from any number of better qualified female or male running mates who are better versed on any number of issues. Instead, they insult voters' intelligence with this one.

If the media were really biased against the GOP ticket, they would ignore it's lesser half. Instead, they've, meaning primarily the major cable/broadcast outlets, become an unwitting accomplice to a farce. I'm sure Fox will still perpetrate more outright lies about the Democratic ticket and how everyone else is beating up on poor Bristol, after the Palin camp issued a goddamn press release about the girl's state of health. It's gone beyond spin to flagrant deception in the belief that public is so short on attention, interest and memory that it allows itself to be manipulated.

The scary thing is that it's probably true. It certainly was in 2004. What states still use Diebold machines? Ohio? Florida?

[Bob Beamesderfer]

lets not forget, while in Illinois senate, he pressed the "present" button more times than most others. A button intended for people who have a conflict of interest with the proposal.

OK, Jeff, you description of voting "Present" is completely off-base. The article you link doesn't support your contention that he voted that way because there were conflicts of interest.

Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.

More important, 130 times out of more than 4,000 votes borders on being statistically insignificant.

As for how Obama has spent his time in the Senate, a quick look McCain's voting record the past two years reveals a lot of "No Vote Cast" or NVs as they're listed in the record. I wonder why?

[Jeff Shyu]

lets not forget, while in Illinois senate, he pressed the "present" button more times than most others. A button intended for people who have a conflict of interest with the proposal.

OK, Jeff, you description of voting "Present" is completely off-base. The article you link doesn't support your contention that he voted that way because there were conflicts of interest.

actually, it does. I didn't link it to point out the conflict of interest, that's what it was SUPPOSE to be for. it indicated in the article that many of those "present" votes as part of a political strategy against the republican party. that's what i meant when i said politically expedient.

More important, 130 times out of more than 4,000 votes borders on being statistically insignificant.

As for how Obama has spent his time in the Senate, a quick look McCain's voting record the past two years reveals a lot of "No Vote Cast" or NVs as they're listed in the record. I wonder why?

it's not about the statistics, it's about the why.

[Jeff Shyu]

and lastly, i don't think line item veto will solve Obama's unwillingness to own up to a position for political political gain.

though, i guess if he's the president, there's no more reason to cover his political ass, except for re-election.

[Bob Beamesderfer]

lets not forget, while in Illinois senate, he pressed the "present" button more times than most others. A button intended for people who have a conflict of interest with the proposal.

OK, Jeff, you description of voting "Present" is completely off-base. The article you link doesn't support your contention that he voted that way because there were conflicts of interest.

actually, it does. I didn't link it to point out the conflict of interest, that's what it was SUPPOSE to be for. it indicated in the article that many of those "present" votes as part of a political strategy against the republican party. that's what i meant when i said politically expedient.

More important, 130 times out of more than 4,000 votes borders on being statistically insignificant.

As for how Obama has spent his time in the Senate, a quick look McCain's voting record the past two years reveals a lot of "No Vote Cast" or NVs as they're listed in the record. I wonder why?

it's not about the statistics, it's about the why.

It's thin argument Jeff. Voting present or NV is a fact of life for the vast majority elected representatives. To condemn one person for it is a red herring. The article outlines more than just a political strategy being played out between the two parties. The statistics are completely relevant because it is far more important to examine the other votes for or against a piece of legislation than to look at the few that didn't take a position. Many, many times pieces of legislation face more than one vote, not only in committee but before the full body considering them.

[Kevin Price]

the framers chose to set the qualifications for presidency low. I personally believe this is because they held the belief that anyone can be president, IF they reflect the will of the people.

Yes, they set the bare minimum quite low, so low in fact that even this person qualifies. Truthfully, I don't think the founding fathers meant that "anyone with a pulse will do." This country has always been a meritocracy, or at least held that ideal.

My own standard for presidential candidates is quite a bit higher than what you're suggesting. Candidates should be brilliant, off the charts intelligent. They should have a photographic memory, extraordinary patience, and exhibit wisdom and knowledge well beyond their years. They should be well educated, quick minded, articulate and speak well. They should be well travelled and well versed in foreign cultures. They should have enough of a track record doing a difficult enough job that we know that they are competent. I'm sure I'm missing a few things, but McCain, Biden and Obama all fit the bill as far as I'm concerned. This is my "bare minimum."

who better to serve my interest, than someone who has most in common with me.

Well shucks, in that case some slack-jawed yokel who spent his youth throwing rocks, was a poor student, spends way too much money on cars, whose mind wanders at last half of any given day, and who doesn't really understand what the vice president does, should represent my interests perfectly!

No, actually the president should dwarf me in their intelligence, achievements, and wisdom, and be superior to me in almost every way. That's the difference between my peer and my leader. They should certainly be far, far above the average shmo who whittles away time on a message board.

[Jeff Shyu]

honestly, the only criteria i place above all else in a candidate, is for him/her to be well-informed.

everything else, can be elected, as it should be.

now if we can just get rid of the electoral college, i'd see that as a big step forward. we're not living in 1700's anymore, where only the privileged few have access to all the news around the country.

[Bob Beamesderfer]

honestly, the only criteria i place above all else in a candidate, is for him/her to be well-informed.

everything else, can be elected, as it should be.

now if we can just get rid of the electoral college, i'd see that as a big step forward. we're not living in 1700's anymore, where only the privileged few have access to all the news around the country.

The electoral college still serves its intended purpose of preventing the so-called "tyranny of the majority," and even though Steve Forbes has made an excellent argument for its continuation, I remain less than convinced of the need.

As for well-informed, as I pointed out in another post, Palin is not.

[Kevin Price]

honestly, the only criteria i place above all else in a candidate, is for him/her to be well-informed.

She clearly does not meet that criteria: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loUHRv3i ... re=related

[Jeff Shyu]

the pitfalls of internet argument, where everyone's input gets mixed up.

i never defended palin as a good candidate. I simply put her up against Obama, to point out that there's seriously deficiencies in Obama's resumé too.

what i DO like about Palin, is what a great move it was by McCain, as evident by the polls.

she's amicable, and the "normal" voters can relate to her. she's a good attack dog, especially given traps of a debate vs. a woman.

so yeah, she doesn't meet my criteria for the candidate, but she's not the candidate, she's the 2nd string. her selection reflects positively (IMO) on McCain, because it shows that he understands what people would respond to.

[Mako Koiwai]

A great leader doesn't just give people what they think they want. Most women I talk to think she's insulting to their gender.

[Bob Beamesderfer]

the pitfalls of internet argument, where everyone's input gets mixed up.

i never defended palin as a good candidate. I simply put her up against Obama, to point out that there's seriously deficiencies in Obama's resumé too.

what i DO like about Palin, is what a great move it was by McCain, as evident by the polls.

she's amicable, and the "normal" voters can relate to her. she's a good attack dog, especially given traps of a debate vs. a woman.

so yeah, she doesn't meet my criteria for the candidate, but she's not the candidate, she's the 2nd string. her selection reflects positively (IMO) on McCain, because it shows that he understands what people would respond to.

I didn't think you that you thought Palin was a good candidate. However, her deficiencies are far more serious than Obama's. What made Nixon a good candidate? His congressional and vice presidential stints were unremarkable. Yet, flawed as he was in many respects, he had a good grasp of foreign policy. That wasn't evident from his previous stints in elected office.

You're reading too much into the polls; it's still post-convention bounce that McCain would have gotten regardless. Amicable but an attack dog? I think she's phony and petty. Her speech at the convention was, of course, not written by her. Most likely written by my former student newspaper cohort Matthew Scully, a strict vegetarian neo-con. She did OK on delivering the lies and half-truths that were put in front of her. What traps are there in debating a woman? I didn't see any during the Democratic debates. Does having a vagina radically alter one's policy approach to the economy? Foreign relations? Trade agreements? Civil liberties?

I'll say it again. She is a cynical and condescending choice. Pandering to two groups, creating a celeb candidate, with a record, such that it is, completely spun by the campaign. I've heard one clip of the Gibson interview today, she had nice snow job of an answer designed to soften a previous statement she made equating the Iraq War to some calling from God.

[Larry Andrews]

Sharia Plan was unable to correctly define the Bush Doctrine. She did a fine job of reminding everyone how Islamic extremists are hell-bent on destroying America. She repeated this line about six times - more than even Rudy 9u11iani ever did in a single answer. When the Bush Doctrine was explained, she was unable to understand the context of the question and would not provide a simple yes/no answer.

I'm not sure how others would feel if their doctor couldn't give a yes/no answer to a question like 'do I have cancer?' I think I'd be looking for a new doctor.

And, yes, I am equating the Bush Doctrine with cancer. Oh, and being a frightened little wimp.

[Giovanni Jaramillo]

I love reading this "political thread". I swear Election Day is gonna feel like last year's (though technically it happened this year in January) SuperBowl! With the GOP as the New England Patriots (how appropriate), and the Dems as the NY "football" Giants. Could the GOP go undefeated again? Let's hope the outcome is like the Super Bowl.

Time for a change.

Bob, you really should be on CNN next to Wolf & Anderson. Jeff..........why aren't you studing for the LSAT?????

[Kevin Price]

Does having a vagina radically alter one's policy approach to the economy?

It can and often does when you're arguing with your wife about whether or not you can buy another autocross car.

Thanks! I'll be here all week!

[Bob Beamesderfer]

Does having a vagina radically alter one's policy approach to the economy?

It can and often does when you're arguing with your wife about whether or not you can buy another autocross car.

Thanks! I'll be here all week!

It's all about the tires ... [insert ED commercial phallic reference here]. Heh, heh, I said "insert" heh heh.

[Jeff Shyu]

Jeff..........why aren't you studing for the LSAT?????

i'm afraid i'll become jaded just like i am with architecture.

you go into school with these grand ideals of what you're going to do, and then, you realize that the "real world" doesn't have the same freedom in design that you have in school, nor the opportunities.

with law, i'd actually want to litigate, i want to be in front of a court. I don't want to be a paper pushing lawyer.

from everything i gather though, even after passing the bar, and getting into a firm that DOES a lot of litigation, i'm still very unlikely to be able to present cases in front of a jury.

so yeah, i'm not wholely sold on a career in law.

[Bob Beamesderfer]

Bob, you really should be on CNN next to Wolf & Anderson. Jeff..........why aren't you studing for the LSAT?????

Thanks, but despite being a preacher's kid, I have stage fright. One of the reasons I won't even think about going on Jeopardy. Along with categories about literature and opera.