FLASH! Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin

Sand

Politics is all about passing the blame and stealing the credit. Obama is just more of the same tbh.

Haha you are totally wrong dude!! Ha

The Democratic party has traditionally had great success with poor rural voters in the South. The Republican party garnering much of its support from wealthy business urban dwellers.

When the Republicans started to really manipulate the weak-minded poor religious people of the South they had them. They aint gonna vote against God now are they?

Well, the South isnt rural America for starters. And the Democrats of Obama wouldnt be exactly proud of their record in the South between the ACW and the 1960s....

The Republicans were the party that presided over the ending of slavery, Union victory in the American Civil War and the reconstruction where the Republican party used troops to put down the likes of the KKK and other opponents to Black emancipation and federal rule - none of which was exactly wildly popular in the South - and the Democrats were the party that....well, lets say they were sympathetic to the concerns of the shocked aristocrats on the losing side of the ACW [ The Dems ran their 1864 campaign against Lincoln on a "Victory is impossible, lets recognise the Confederacy and allow slavery to continue!" platform...sounds familiar doesnt it?]. Hence their historical support in the South.

Afterall, its was a Democrat governor that deployed state troops to stop black children from attending a formerly all white school in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. And a Republican president that deployed the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to ensure that those children would attend that school. Clearly, Republicans wouldnt be exceptionally popular with those stances.

Its actually remarkable that the tables have turned and now the Republicans are doing so well in regions that historically were biased towards the Democrats. Perhaps a mixture of the voting demographics changing, and the Democrats leaving their old bile behind them, and embracing a more civil rights friendly position, whilst alienating religious voters by their positions on red line issues like abortion. But it is ironic...

Lirange

The southern democrats were conservative ... especially on social issues. The old Yankee Republicans tended to be liberal. It was a delayed electoral shift from the 19th Century. Today, said individuals would be G.O.P. and they'd all certainly vote that way. During the 50s and 60s being a Democrat or a Republican told you nowt about their political views unless you knew the part of the country they were from. Outdated party labels from more than a generation past are useless now.

Abe Lincoln was a Republican by label but in no way resembles the modern party. He favoured stronger taxation and a stronger central government. The Democrats favoured giving more control to the states (State's rights).

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Clinton exercised his veto privilege more than Bush has, does that make him a better president that Bush? Seriously, what is your point? Your argument becomes more and more redundant with every post.

Sand you seem to be forgetting about the Southern strategy and the way the two parties effectively switched demographics in the sixties and seventies. There's no mystery to Republican success when this is factored in. In fact I think the Southern strategy says a lot about the party you are celebrating for emancipating slaves.

CPT. SURF

Sand wrote: »

Well, the South isnt rural America for starters. /QUOTE]

Yes it is rural. Do not come back with some garbage about how the midwest is "rural America". Sure the midwest is rural, but the South is very rural also. Southerners pride themselves on this so best for you to be quiet on that one now.

The Dems had huge support in the South, as I mentioned earlier, because they traditionally appealed to the poor rural people in the South. Poor people see it in their best interests to vote for candidates who will support social programs. Simple to understand, regardless of your opinion on how government taxation should be implemented.

Just look up Senate and Congressional races of the last thirty years in the South and you will see that the Democratic party was hugely popular in many poor, rural areas. This has rapidly declined in the last few years. Combination of reasons for that really; Republicans exploiting religious bigotry by painting the Dems as a party whose values are not alligned with those in the Bible, genuinely bad Democratic candidates, etc.

So people in the South are voting with their hearts; they used to vote with their wallets. Your whole long-winded post about how the Dems are not a party of rural people is a load of shyte.

CPT. SURF

I am actually still laughing about how you said the South is not rural America. Like the label of 'rural America' defines some magical place. That really is some laughable stuff.

Sand

Thread Derail Incoming!!!!

Sand you seem to be forgetting about the Southern strategy and the way the two parties effectively switched demographics in the sixties and seventies. There's no mystery to Republican success when this is factored in. In fact I think the Southern strategy says a lot about the party you are celebrating for emancipating slaves.

I found this on google, its rather sarky conclusion is that that strategies havent changed all that much [the Dems simply picking a different angle on the racial politics], but the demographics have. Basically the South is now richer, paying more tax, so a tax cutting agenda is more attractive than previously? Along with the Dems crossing the red line on issues like abortion.

Sand

I am actually still laughing about how you said the South is not rural America. Like the label of 'rural America' defines some magical place. That really is some laughable stuff.

I take it Alaska is a dystopian urban metropolis then? It clearly cant be rural because its not in the South? Or is it maybe correct to say that you cant make a point on a rural - urban divide by claiming the South is some sort of substitute for "rural America"?

I'm not laughing by the way. You're just not as funny as I am.

Hobbes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Like I said I was able to follow it back to its source. While Clinton did sign it it is disingenuous to say it is solely his fault. About the only thing you can blame Clinton soley on in regards to bill is that he intervened to get it into law when he shouldn't of.

Also while it was a disaster waiting to happen, it is amazing nothing was done until the disaster actually happened.

I think you're getting me confused with Overheal.

Indeed.

Overheal

Hobbes wrote: »

You were the one making the claim that being POW makes you presidential

When?

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

Thread Derail Incoming!!!!



I found this on google, its rather sarky conclusion is that that strategies havent changed all that much [the Dems simply picking a different angle on the racial politics], but the demographics have. Basically the South is now richer, paying more tax, so a tax cutting agenda is more attractive than previously? Along with the Dems crossing the red line on issues like abortion.

Does that article actually mention the Southern strategy at all? It seems to deal solely with the 1990s. The Southern strategy is not a normal strategy such as a party has every year, it's the strategy with which Republicans actively sought out disaffected Southern Democratic voters, (Dixiecrats if you wish) and others which were traditionally conservative and Democratic. It was high on rhetoric (heh) and short on defining policy.

here two articles from both sides of the debate (in the interest of, dare I say it, balance?) and also a third Where a republican confirms the party sought out the disaffected dem voters as I outlined.

Overheal

Hobbes wrote: »

See thats your problem with research. You take the first link you find and then post it as gospel.

Actually iirc I said I googled it, and said I agreed and disagreed with pieces. For example I didnt agree with his pro life policies. However I did strongly agree with him signing a new Nuclear Arms Treaty with Russia.

You were the one making the claim that being POW makes you presidential

When? Now I think you've got me and Donegalfella completely flipped about Im putting my old sig back on to clear this cluster**** up a bit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

irish_bob wrote: »

its pretty irelevant if sarah palin hasnt met any world leaders or that she has little amount of domestic experience , cant remember who said it but the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit or words to that effect

That opinion a teeny bit ignorant in my view. You have to consider that McCain is 72, is liable to die soon, especially considering the stress of the job. Theres a higher than normal chance that Palin will be given the driving seat.

CPT. SURF

Sand wrote: »

I take it Alaska is a dystopian urban metropolis then? It clearly cant be rural because its not in the South? Or is it maybe correct to say that you cant make a point on a rural - urban divide by claiming the South is some sort of substitute for "rural America"?

I'm not laughing by the way. You're just not as funny as I am.

You said the South was not "rural America". I pointed that out as a ridiculous statement, which it is.

What I was trying to point out was that your post about how the Democratic party cant or does not appeal to rural people is nonsense, which it is.

It also read like a thesis statement for some pseudo-intellectual social commentary written about a country in which the arrogant author neither lives in or is a citizen of.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

is_that_so

Heard this piece on BBC Radio 4(Real Player needed) from Illinois. Groups of various women talking about Palin and how she is viewed and what can be done to counter her. You can also listen to it by going to the BBC site and using their player. Go to 22.10.

Also a link to a blog from a BBC presenter on his travels to various parts of the US. According to him Iraq is not an issue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BenjAii

is_that_so wrote: »

Also a link to a blog from a BBC presenter on his travels to various parts of the US. According to him Iraq is not an issue.

I've been surprised at how little the Iraq War seems to be an issue, given its unpopularity.

It's hardly an expression of support, but at some level people seem to accept it. It's hard to ascribe reasons for that, maybe people are resigned to the fact it can't end, until at some level Iraq is stable enough to go on, regardless of how it started.

The issue of distancing themselves from original support for it seemed to be a big issue during the primaries though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BenjAii

Slate have an interesting article on how Iraq has been a diversion of resources away from where the danger from al-Qaida truly lies.

Perhaps everyone knows Iraq is in its endgame now. Maybe what people haven't begun to address is that Bush allying with Pakistan has been a huge mistake, they are part of the al-Qaida problem and that has to be faced up to.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And yet would you ask these women to select the candidate to run the receivership of Lehman Brothers?

Black Swan

While all these discussions have been interesting, since the OP was about Palin, how do these economic, domestic, military, security, and international relations arguments relate to Palin? What is Palin's position on these issues? Does she have one? If so, what are they specifically? (Links would be important to support the pro and con discussions).

Pocono Joe

Here is a site that shows each of the four candidates... "on the issues" (please, no pie throwing ).

K-9

is_that_so wrote: »

I think what you really have overall are four pretty ordinary candidates pretending to be a lot better than they are. Added to this mix is the self-righteousness and monopoly of truth of both sides, as in some of the arguments here and the shadow of one man, GW Bush.

Bush is indeed a big shadow. Some will say he should never have went into Iraq at all, WMD and all that and other will say will say McCain was right with the surge. Obama and McCain were both right IMO at different times!

is_that_so wrote:

Without the dismal 8 years of Bush who knows who if any of these candidates would currently be campaigning for the Presidency.

That often is politics! FF probably would have been outed here, if a decent alternative was put forward.

is_that_so wrote:

Where you stand on this as far as I can see comes down to how the candidate suits your politics or is not Bush, not necessarily whether they'd be any good or not. Many arguments can be made to justify why either one is better than the other.

Not necessarily, McCain is distancing himself from Bush and admitting some of the problems, but he picked Palin for the Bush wing.

is_that_so wrote:

McCain offers to bring the country together. That's part of his pitch. Easier to achieve and in my view more necessary than some of the lofty ideals that Obama has. Even the debate here on the election demonstrates how poorly people view the "other" side.

As does Obama. McCain has as much chance of uniting the country as McCain does!

is_that-so wrote:

As McMillan commented "It's events dear boy, events" that affect things and judging by the continuing financial problems there are likely to be more of those events. Whoever wins is likely to have to deal with that.

Or how they will react. There is a perfect opportunity there for Obama to push that this happened from Bush lobbyists, sub prime etc.

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Here is a site that shows each of the four candidates... "on the issues" (please, no pie throwing ).

<_<

>_>

?_?

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm seriously confused here.

If Carter was so wrong, why was the law not repealed or amended?

Why blame Carter for a wrong 30 years ago that could easily have been changed since?

Methinks, you're looking for somebody to blame and a law that worked ok for 20 odd years is now partly to blame for the last 10!

PS: Maybe the selfish manipulation of laws like that in the last 8 years has contributed to the sub prime crisis. Or was this crisis always there, but it has suddenly just became a major issue?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Martyr

Maybe try to know a little bit about what you're talking about before you accuse me of looking for someone to blame!

Very briefly, around 2005–06 the housing bubble that had begun during the Clinton years began to burst..

Sounds like McCain when talking about the U.S Economy.

He gave a speech in Jacksonville saying:

"the fundamentals of our economy are strong"

In his TV campaign ad he says:

"Our economy is in crisis."

Overheal

your house can its roof blown off in a tornado but still have a strong fondation, grasshopper

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can you provide anything to back up this assertion that the bubble started in the Clinton years? Because its generally put forward that 2001-2005/6 are the years of the housing bubble. Are you just looking to blame Democrats for everything or can you show why you think it was caused by Clinton administration? Furthermore, most would see it as part of a wider global housing bubble. Indeed contributory factors of most consequence were probably not the G-L-B act, but the fed's cutting of interest rates 11 times in 2001 and the halving of mortage denial rates in 2002 compared to 1997. The market done wrong here, and if you are looking for a President to blame, you must conclude that the Bush administration was at fault for not stepping in much earlier and dealing with unsustainable business patterns.