Palin’s Power Play

Palin received more votes for Mayor of Wasilla than Joe Biden received for president in the 2008 Democrat primaries. Nice point Publius.

Biden is a joke.

The change that Obama talks about means he is referring to the minority voice who is not heard.

So in other words promise the world to the working class and call socialism change. Who doesn't want help right? The problem is and he knows it he is targeting the uninformed.

I learned this at the office of the voter registration drive in Colorado Springs Colorado. The ones registering the voters are told to target minority races.

This battleground state is full of the democrat party disguised as a neutral organization.

Another is protect Colorado or something like that. But they want to tax the oil companies in Colorado. It is another attack on 'big oil' so to speak.

Why do liberals think that taxing oil companies more is going to cause the price of gas to go down?

Great Tuna Burgers!

A morning on the boardwalk in San Diego

Eggsovresy

The uninformed vote always goes to the candidate who is better at hiding their real agenda. The uninformed voter is always easily duped into casting their ballot for the better speaker, the nice dresser, the media darling, the one promising the most goodies, or the candidate with the best lofty rhetoric and creative platitudes. Rarely does the uninformed voter vote for the better suited person for the job.

Clearly we have entirely too many uninformed voters. Why else would a man - who is making the same century-old promises, using platitudes over policies, dazzling the media with substance-free speeches, and "guaranteeing" the world to the needy - be able to win a presidential primary and be considered the front-runner in a national election?

It's not a matter of having a better economic plan. If you know anything about economics, you'd know that Obama's plans would hurt our economy.

It's not a matter of energy policy. If you understand that we have plenty of oil and natural gas and that we have the capability to create clean-coal and safe nuclear power plants, then you'd easily understand that Obama's refusal to expand those energies is absurd.

It's not a matter of foreign policy. If you comprehend the fact that isolationism or "talking" with terrorists isn't considered a practical "foreign policy," then you'll know why Obama's promises to be safe and to be popular in the world are laughable at best.

No...we know why Obama has the amount of support he has. He doesn't have to "target" the uninformed - they flock to him willingly. Our education and voting systems practically guarantee that we'll have uninformed voters. Politicians just need to make a speech that tells these voters exactly what they want to hear:

That everything can be cured by one man and that man's ability to get you everything you need with as little effort from you as possible.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

Palin's speech was apparently plagued by a faulty teleprompter. I guess that makes her speech much more impressive than originally thought.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

Any idea on the writer of the speech?

I'm neither convince YET of Palin's ability to lead this country nor her values fitting with mine.

I am very interested to see how she does with Biden in the debates (although the debates a turned into a major bs fest)

Of course I'm not convinced of the Obama/Biden ticket either.

I think McCain did not pick a good enough running mate also.

We'll see how this all plays out.

I think Palin was absolutely awesome. She was poised, confident and delivered punch after punch. What a great VP she will make.

wHATUP...

I'm not sure how the speech writer is relevant - all the candidates have one. But for the record, the name is Matthew Scully.

About her "values" - this is something I've never really understood about voters. The vice-president is just that...a vice-president. They do not set policy for the executive branch and they do not author legislation. Sure, they can have influence over some decision-making and some congressmen by virtue of their role, but exactly what effect would the VP's values have on our laws? Her position on abortion is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Her membership in the NRA is not going to force citizens to own a gun. Her views about families are not going to result in a ban on homosexuality. Her religious beliefs will not cause the creation of a theocracy. She is there to play the VP role in the executive branch. Her experience as mayor and governor have far more influence on her executive decisions that she will be making as VP than her personal "values." Her record on taxes, reducing government, and fighting corruption is what will define her and what will shape her policies in the federal executive position.

The Obama/Biden ticket gives us the same old thing we've seen and heard from Democrats for decades - raise your taxes, spend your money, increase the size and power of our federal government. We simply can't afford that - neither financially nor politically.

At first, I didn't like the Palin pick either. But seeing the Democrat reaction to it, learning about her, and hearing her Wednesday night, I'm beginning to think it was a very solid choice - and certainly in line with McCain's character. We will see what happens over the next month. Just don't write her off yet...she seems (at least at this point) to be very promising and a welcomed new face to fight the Washington establishment.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

Are far as values goes with me, even though I know, you know and everyone should know, that the VP has very little to do with setting policy, I want some one in office who represents me. By that I mean representative of me and my values. So if say I don't believe in gun control why would I want someone in office that believes in gun control? Yes, I know your answer (i'm a mindreader too) "Because that person may be what is right for the country." That is when my voting decision becomes hard. I do not believe in party line voting. I believe in voting for who is going to do the best job with the info I have. So yes, I have to look at Palin and say would she do a better job than Biden, would Obama do a better job than McCain. Right now I am torn. I believe McCain - if he stays upright - might be a bette choice than Obama. But I believe Biden is a better choice than Palin. Even though I probably shouldn't - I think about the Reagan and FDR terms and how failing health affected both of their terms and say that Obama/Biden is the better ticket.

I patiently await my dressing down.

That's the value I care about, since she heads one of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributors!

(But actually I'd prefer to get a higher-quality brew, if AB makes one)

wHATUP...

I get the notion of wanting to have someone in office that shares your personal interests. But the chances of finding a candidate that matches up perfectly are very slim. I tend to look at the overall message and record of the choices.

In McCain/Palin, I see two people who have demonstrated their willingness to fight corruption and government waste in both major parties despite the possible consequences. They understand the idea of limited government, lower taxes, and a strong national defense. These are ideas that - for me - take precedence over personal views like abortion or religion.

With Obama/Biden, I hear the same old story about how individuals simply cannot survive without government involvement in our every day lives. They want to "give" us healthcare. They want to "tax the rich" - which always translates into increased costs for everybody and a slowed economy. They want to regulate and mandate which is in direct contradiction to a "free market" and the principles of our founding. Their ideas do not represent republican government and the concept of individual responsibility and liberty. I personally don't care if they are pro-choice on abortion or if they are not hunters - it's irrelevant to me.

I vote based on whether or not the candidates understand republicanism and limited government...which is why I have been pretty disappointed with George Bush's domestic policies and the Congress' absurd amount of "pork" spending - something John McCain has never taken.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

Let's hope she will be a great VP. We'll see what happens in the next two months. Hopefully we'll be able to give her that chance.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

Did you know that, publius?

There are vegan republicans veghead.

A reason not to vote for Obama

Eggsovresy

But isn't that hypocritical? How does being an ethical vegan jive with their anti-environment, anti-Endangered Species, pro-hunting, pro-factory farming agenda? For example, Matthew Scully, the vegan speechwriter in question, ought to be asking himself what he's doing, associating with (and profiting from) writing speeches for these people, who clearly don't share his animal rights ethics. On the other hand, it's not hypocritical for lefties to be vegan, because for one thing, nonhuman (animal) rights is (or should be) a natural extension of human (animal) rights, which they claim they are all for. But sadly, lefties often ridicule animal advocates; they're as hostile to the idea of animal rights as the average gun-toting rightie.

Strange world we live in.

Wonder why he didn't slip any references to veggie burgers or soy milk into Palin's speech? He's a pro, there must have been some subliminal stuff he could have done. But then, if it was subliminal, we wouldn't know it... so maybe it WAS there. Hmmm, I feel a sudden urge to go out and guzzle a gallon of Silk chocolate soy milk...

A vegan speech-writer...and a Republican?? Say it ain't so!

Anyway, what's your point?

I see your further argument - and it makes me laugh. Never mind the fact that you pretend all Republicans are anti-environment, anti-animals, anti-tree-hugging, anti-soy-bean, anti-promiscuity, anti-thinking, anti-whatever-new-hyperbole-you-can-think-of...your argument is absurd. Apparently Scully doesn't think being a vegan and being Republican creates a conflict of interest. That's just your twisted perception of reality.

Your problem, veghead, is that you are anti-reason. If you'd take a moment to actually read and at least attempt to understand the things that you write, you'd be able to see the utter inanity that you try to portray as thoughtful analysis. What you fail to realize is that your hatred for everything and everyone that doesn't conform to your warped political views impairs your ability to make logical assessments and write cogent articles and comments. It also doesn't allow you to see the fallacious arguments and the factually inaccurate "information" you present.

This is why you choose to comment about a speech-writer being a vegan - it has nothing to do with the content of this article, but to you, it means the entire Republican Party is evil and hypocritical. It is a failure in your thought process, not any political party and their platform.

It really is sad that so many people suffer from your condition. I truly hope that you are able to receive the help you need for it.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

He's been in a position to do so much good for animals but all he's done is written a self-righteous book about animals and speeches for people who actively support animal exploitation. Shame on him.

and that you're all for sexual promiscuity and soybeans! For awhile there I was worried! ;)