30 comments

• 

  Guardian_of_the_Chicken_Coop

  9 months ago

  Wow! When Sarah Palin blows it, she REALLY blows it. As a retired Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel I was shocked with her Fox News Comment concerning Obama's discussions of the Afghanistan War. To wit:
  
  "Some of his comments that he (Obama) has made about the war that I think may — in my world– disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief.” Palin said, “Some of his comments about Afghanistan and what we are doing there supposedly– just air raiding villages and killing civilians. That’s reckless."
  
  Palin misses the point that 'collateral damage," as this messy stuff is called, is causing us to lose the war - not only in Afghanistan, but throughout the Middle East. I happen to be in the Middle East for a period of time. It would surprise many Americans how each air strike tradgedy hits the front pages here. Unless we can get a handle on this, it will not make any difference how many new troops we send into battle in this tumultuous land that has defeated nearly every foreign invader in its history.
  
  Palin's comment smacks of the "more of the same" Bush Administration, i.e. deny reality, hope for the best, and blame loyal Americans for your failure.
  
  Shame on you Sarah Palin!!
  
  Bob Krause
  reply
• 

  Netter

  9 months ago

  Whether she blew the point or not, I'm unsure since I don't have Ilfill's original question in front of me. But what gets left unsaid is what the collateral damage has bought and is continuing to deliver. I have a son in Baghdad and people there have been grateful for the stabilization while they get back on their feet. Businesses are opening back up, children are going to school, hospitals are treating patients. Infrastructure is being repaired. Women are becoming part of the police forces and also government. Citizens of Iraq, the people who are not government- not military, but the citizens there desire freedom from the sectarian conflicts, freedom of religion, freedom to choose their leadership. The Bush Doctrine (that the enemy of the world is no longer in the form of a country, but an ideology of Terrorism/Extremism) is a legacy of the current administration. I believe that time will bear that out.
  reply
• 

  Guardian_of_the_Chicken_Coop

  9 months ago

  Problem is, Afghanistan/Pakistan is a completely different war. The
  mountainous terrain makes a better guerilla environment, and the Taliban
  that once ran the country have a deeper base. Blow up a few wedding parties
  by accident (and then deny it until forced to admit it), and the anger does
  not turn against the Taliban. Say what you will about bad intelligence,
  etc., that is a message that is broadcast to a half billion or so Asians
  that are not naturally inclined to give the US the benefit of the doubt. If
  you wonder where they get their troop replacements, you do not have to look
  much farther than this.
  
  Also, I think that the Bush Doctrine is more about pre-emptive warfare in a
  general sense than religious ideology. We fought ideology before not under
  these circumstances and won, but not by blowing up wedding parties. It was
  a hearts and minds kind of thing. Remember those days?
  reply
• 

  Netter

  9 months ago

  Um...when a terrorist aims at a target and misses, he/she doesn't have collateral damage, right?
  
  Furthermore...the anger doesn't outwardly turn against the Taliban because that would result in a beheading or tongue removal or whatever other heinous form of oppression is effective.
  
  The Bush Doctrine is neither pre-emptive warfare or religious idealogy. The Bush Doctrine states that the enemy is no longer embodied by the boundaries of a single nation or people. Extremism is not a religion but a mindset of fascism - violent, suffocating fascism and anarchy - spreading transcontinentally. Think about it!
  reply
• 

  Guardian_of_the_Chicken_Coop

  8 months ago

  The point was not that the terrorists do not create collateral damage. The
  point is that that collateral damage by US forces has been recognized by
  military and civilian observers as a major event in our failure to control
  the battlefield in Afghanistan. That a presidential candidate recognizes
  that this is creating damage for our cause is a legitimate comment if we
  want to turn a losing situation around.
  
  If you are old enough to remember Vietnam, you will remember that we rarely,
  if ever, lost a battle on the ground. We inflicted incredible damage upon
  our enemies. But our B-52carpet bombing and the like only infuriated the
  local populace and caused them to give shelter and support to our foes. It
  is really great to win the battles, but is is even greater to win the wars.
  
  In this case, I would look at a stratagy to win the war.
  reply
• 

  primus

  9 months ago

  How old is Palin? She acted like a 16 year year old with her constant giggling/smiling daffiness,Send her back to Alaska ASAP please she is out of her league.
  reply
• 

  Peggy2

  9 months ago

  I love these Average Joes who think they're smarter than the governor of Alaska. Ignorance is bliss.
  reply
• 

  jayson

  9 months ago

  There are millions of "Average Joes" who are far smarter than the governor of Alaska.
  
  For example, many of us managed to get a college degree without having to go to five colleges over six years to do it.
  We can remember which newspapers and magazines we read. We know what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are. We can name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade. We've heard of the Bush Doctrine. We know the difference between Spain and Mexico.
  
  Getting herself elected as Governor of a state with a smaller population than Columbus, Ohio doesn't make her smarter than the average American.
  reply
• 

  Netter

  9 months ago

  Einstein was an intellectual giant, does that mean we, the people, would benefit under his leadership? In my life experience, the very best leaders have been those whose EQ is higher than average. Educated elitists are not pro-democracy. They want to decide FOR everyone else because they know more. Hah! Decent citizenry of our nation have more common sense, street knowledge, and grit than do those who consider themselves of a higher intellect. We need a good balance of EQ and IQ.
  
  Btw - whose definition of the Bush Doctrine are we going to subscribe to?
  reply
• 

  JKIR

  9 months ago

  I'll take Palin's faux folksiness over Biden's know-it-all attitude, whether he knows it or not! If he doesn't know something he just starts spinning yarns about restaurants and Home Depots that have been closed for years. The tearing up over his wife is sad but I've seen that at every speech now and after 30 years, you'd think he'd have a grip on his emotions, either that or he's playing the sympathy card. Palin is gritty, authentic and as American as apple pie. Far preferable to Obama, raised in Indonesia and an elite Hawaiian prep school. Raised by a single mom, my eye! His gran was a well-paid bank employee and his mom was an anthropologist who saw to it that he had more than the average American kid. His adoptive stepfather also was an Indonesian government official. This isn't the American tale here. There is really no way to tell where he truly stands on anything with such an unusual upbringing. Add in his admitted history of drug usage and this isn't a picture I like of our future president. "Hey, Mom, drugs are no big deal, the President did them." Yuk. In this whole entire country couldn't we find a better example for our children? One who didn't come out of the corrupt Chicago political scene?
  reply
• 

  jayson

  9 months ago

  I need you to help me understand something here.
  
  We're in an economic crisis that could change America as we know it, and leave a very different country for our kids and grandkids. We're losing the support of our allies, and being targeted by terrorists who see attacking America as the best way to gain power in their parts of the world. China and India are catching up to us fast, and could replace us as economic superpowers within the next generation or two.
  
  Now, you don't like Obama because you don't think he's American enough. I don't like Palin because I don't think she's American enough. (Sorry, but spending 99% of her life without ever setting foot on mainland US soil bothers me.)
  I'm assuming that your feelings for Biden are similar to mine for McCain - decent enough guy, but doesn't share my politics.
  
  Let's set aside our respective distaste for the values that various candidates represent, and focus on who is going to handle the problems I mentioned.
  
  What is it about McCain and Palin that has you convinced they would do a better job than Obama and Biden?
  I'm not trying to change your mind, and I don't think there's anything wrong with you for holding your views - I'm really trying to understand here.
  reply
• 

  JKIR

  9 months ago

  Palin has a track record of reform as governor. That appeals to me. Obama has a track record of flip flopping on virtually everything he has promised. I really can't believe anything he says. Yes, we are in an economic crisis of monumental proportions and in my own life, I've had an economic crisis and I know it takes a lot of fortitude to take a pen and start scratching off all the extras in your budget. Obama and Biden have NO history of reform and love "pork."
  
  McCain is the enemy of earmarks. Politifact.com shows the McCain is truthful when he says he has a long history of reform. While I lean toward Dems frequently, I haven't seen much substance in Obama's promise of Hope and Change. He was a state senator in Illinois for a number of years. That city is renown for its corruption, but did he ever speak out on it and call his fellow Chicago pols to account for their misdeeds? Nope... However, both McCain and Palin have gone up against people on either side of the aisle as well as worked with people on both sides of the aisle. Palin accomplished a lot of her reform with help from Dems in the Alaskan legislature. She has gone as high as 95% approval to as low as 75% approval rate as governor. Culver would kill for those percentages, LOL.
  
  Trust me, I don't want another Bush in office. He has been a terrible leader. If I thought McCain/Palin would take our standing in the world down like he has, I'd never consider voting for them. McCain is NO George Bush, however, and once said, after having a few drinks at a party, that he hadn't voted for Bush, LOL. McCain has kept us out of war several times by arguing against it. I wish he could have managed to keep us out of Iraq but the Congress generally let us down there. McCain is against torture and Palin says "war is hell." I don't think they are rightwing warmongers. I think they are moderates.
  
  Biden voted for the bankruptcy reform that favored the credit card companies and got other dems to vote for it, too. That ticks me off. He also was responsible for holding the hearings on Clarence Thomas and the Anita Hill affair which I feel could have been handled better. He also tells whoppers at about the rate of one per hour. He was rated 6 Pinocchios by the NY Post for the veep debate. I do think the best government is one of checks and balances. We now have a Dem congress and that is unlikely to change this election. A Republican president is in order to keep the Dems from spending us into the poorhouse. Personally, I'd cheerfully kick everybody out of Washington after this bailout and start over!
  reply
• 

  jayson

  9 months ago

  Palin's record as governor:
  Under investigation for abuse of power
  Charged the state for $50,000 in per diems when she was working at home (and failed to report it on her taxes)
  Used official city resources to run for state office
  Requested more federal earmarks than any one in any state - totaling over a quarter billion dollars (including $3 million to study the DNA of harbor seals)
  
  McCain's history on earmarks:
  Voted for the $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana (yes, that earmark that he tried to make fun of in the debate)
  Voted for the bailout after over $150 billion in earmarks were added, despite the fact that he had just said that as President, he would veto any bill with earmarks, no matter what.
  
  It's the Washington Post, not the NY Post, that uses "Pinocchios" as a fact check rating, and they only go up to four, not six. The Washington Post rated McCain's stance on earmarks to be so untrue, it got the full four Pinnochios:
  http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/200...
  
  I am most concerned that neither Palin or McCain seem to understand the basic workings of the federal government. I can excuse a governor to some point, but McCain has been in Washington for decades - he should know better.
  
  The current Republican president has spent us into the poorhouse already. The problem didn't come from his ideology, it came from his rash judgement and stubbornness. If anything, McCain is more rash and stubborn than Bush could ever be.
  
  If McCain were to get into office, I worry that he would run the national credit card up so high that our broken economy could never begin to pay it off.
  I see a McCain / Palin administration as one where we would antagonize our way into ineffective wars, with no allies to help us, where we become economic hostages to China, and every crisis gets met with erratic, shoot-from-the-hip overreaction.
  
  I agree, the best thing at this point would be to kick every one of them out, from McCain to Obama and everyone in between.
  
  Since that's not happening, though, and we have to pick one president, I feel a lot safer with Obama, especially at times like this where a cool head and a steady hand are needed.
  reply
• 

  JKIR

  9 months ago

  The abuse of power is arguable but it is definitely over a family matter so we'll have to see how that plays out. The at home charges are legal under Alaska state law and are still much less than the previous governor. H&R Block filed her taxes so looks like they'll be paying some interest. Some of the federal earmarks were already requested when she came into office and she has greatly reduced the previous average asked from Alaska. As far as McCain voting for earmarks, we all know that the earmarks are usually tagged onto bills that otherwise are often much needed. So would have to see the bill to know what is up with that.
  
  Sorry about the misspeak on WaPo, I was quoting from the NY Post. As far as the factchecker article in WaPo, the first comment below points out that they will look forward to a similar article on Obama and until I see that, I'm reserving judgement on McCain. Usually, however, Obama gets a pass on everything from the media. Now that is SCARY!
  
  As far as getting further in debt, our credit card is already maxed out as a nation. We are already economic hostages to China. Whoever becomes president is going to have to work us up out of a deep dark hole. When Obama chaired the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago, he frittered away more than 100 million dollars allotted for the school system on experimental programs that resulted in no improvement. Even just hiring a few more teachers to reduce classroom size would have shown significant improvement. This showed extremely poor financial management, IMHO. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/can-obama-survive-...
  
  Speaking of concerns about McCain getting us involved in wars, what about Obama campaigning for Odinga in Kenya as a United States Senator? When Odinga lost, his supporters murdered hundreds, including burning Christians alive in their churches. http://inyourface.info/ArT/Theta/KeNY.shtml Obama is anxious to give more foreign aid to other countries and while that seems laudable, we aren't rolling in dough for our own people. We really need to be careful who we give our limited resources to.
  
  One thing that troubles me greatly about Obama. He touts unity but his campaign uses race baiting to divide us. His ads have manipulated racial tensions with an us vs. them mentality. So much for the post-racial candidate. Until recently he used significantly more negative advertising than McCain. So much for a new kind of politics. http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/20...
  
  To me, Obama just shows a lot of naivete in many areas, both financially and in foreign affairs. Besides Ayers, Wright, Odinga, etc., he just has way too many bizarre associates that make me really uncomfortable. That really makes me question his judgement of people. I don't want the corrupt political scene of Chicago messing up the already murky waters of Washington.
  reply
• 

  jayson

  9 months ago

  If you're going to argue for anti-intellectualism in government, then you're headed down a Maoist path, and history has shown us that is not a pleasant way to go.
  
  EQ (a concept defined by "educated elitists") is merely the ability to correctly perceive and interpret emotions. I agree that is important - an autistic President might have trouble with the job - but I'm not sure that's what you meant to say.
  
  Were you trying to say that a good leader should be not only intelligent, but also wise? I'd agree with that.
  How about exercising good judgment, respecting the will of the people while protecting the minority, or demonstrating integrity? I'd say those are traits that I'd like to see combined with intelligence in our leaders.
  
  How do you differentiate between "decent citizenry" and other types of citizens, by the way? Just curious.
  
  If you're making the case that a leader should be neither educated nor elite, then I suppose you're arguing for a populist instead. What is a good example of a leader, in that case?
  reply
• 

  Netter

  9 months ago

  My intent was not to demonize elitists or intellectuals - only to call them out because they have over-run the mainstream media and mocked people who don't fit their exclusivist ideals.
  
  "Decent citizenry" is referring to citizens with good judgement, integrity, basic morality and respect for dignity of the weak living among us. "Others types" I would differentiate as people with a sense of entitlement w/o contribution to society, poor stewards of what we/they have, anarchists, and those who are base in thinking. The latter being unfit for deciding what builds up a nation because they only know how to use one up or tear one apart.
  reply
• 

  Peggy2

  9 months ago

  She doesn't claim to be smarter than the average American, unlike the armchair political pundits (AKA Average Joes) who act like they're more qualified than her just because they heard Katie Couric drill her in an interview.
  
  Case in point: how many people off the street CAN name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade (without Googling it first)? How many people also misspell the word potatoes (remember Dan Quayle?).
  
  And, Jayson, I know a lot of people with college degrees who are certifiable morons.
  reply
• 

  jayson

  9 months ago

  So you've redefined "Average Joe" as the political pundits, and shifted your claim that it is the pundits who claim to be smarter than Americans, not Sarah Palin, as your last comment implied.
  
  Since I could obviously just Google a Supreme Court case, there's nothing to gain by citing any that I might know, but are you really suggesting that the average American doesn't know about Gore v. Bush in 2000? You've never heard of Dred Scott?
  I'd hope that someone running for vice president of the United States would at least remember Dred Scott from high school, maybe point that out as an example of a bad decision by the Supreme Court?
  
  Your last point, that a college degree doesn't automatically endow intelligence, seems counterproductive to your argument for Governor Palin's own. If anyone is likely to represent the ability to earn a degree through time served and not ability, it would seem to be the person who requires six years and five schools in order to do so.
  reply
• 

  Peggy2

  9 months ago

  You left out "armchair." Let me be more specific: they would be dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, possibly like yourself, who are of average intelligence but suddenly think they're smarter than the Republican candidate for Veep just because Katie Couric tripped her up with a few weird questions. Are you following me?
  
  Do you think every politician must be a Harvard grad with a law degree? If that's the case, there's only about one tenth of one percent of the American population that is 'qualified' to run for anything other than county sheriff.
  reply
• 

  jayson

  9 months ago

  So the problem isn't that there are people who think they're smarter than Sarah Palin, it's that they are Democrats?
  
  What "weird questions" did Couric trip her up with?
  
  Anti-intellectualism and folksiness got us into the mess we're in now. I think people just want to make sure our next administration doesn't repeat the mistakes of the Bush years.
  reply
• 

  Peggy2

  9 months ago

  Why Jason, what "mess" could you be referring to?
  
  And whose "anti-intellectualism and folksiness," in particular, are you talking about?
  reply
• 

  jayson

  9 months ago

  The anti-intellectualism and folksiness of George W. Bush.
  
  The mess of an economy in a tailspin, a deficit that is reaching $10 trillion, a six-year war (and counting) against an enemy that can't be found, with thousands of American soldiers dead while the terrorists that attacked us hide unmolested in the hills of Pakistan and Afghanistan, oil at record high prices, and a federal government that has grown to its largest size in history, spending more than any US administration in history.
  
  That mess.
  reply
• 

  Peggy2

  9 months ago

  Like I said, dyed-in-the-wool.
  reply
• 

  BobsyerUncle

  9 months ago

  Peggy2: was really looking forward to your actual response on those "weird" Couric questions myself.
  
  Guess I see why you like Palin so much--you don't answer direct questions, either.
  reply
• 

  Netter

  9 months ago

  Now, darn-it-all Douglas, there y'go spinning Palin with a blind-eye y'got from Palin Derangement Syndrome! Palin was decidedly re-assuring, intelligent, and confident. Palin is respectfully frank and apparently fearless. She is articulate and homespun just like people I know and love. I didn't think her winks were weird or that she seemed school-girlish in any way - only charming, accessible, and warm-hearted. She performed wonderfully, squarely hitting the mark with her velvet gloves. She's obviously very capable of learning and accomplishing what needs done in places of neglect. She looks energized while Biden seemed to be in auto-pilot. Look out, because this woman is on the rise. The AmeriCain Hero and Sara Barracuda are my ticket without a doubt.
  reply
• 

  tmlindsey

  9 months ago

  Analyzing the VP performance, using a sports metaphor that average Joes can understand, it felt like watching a seasoned, veteran quarterback facing off against the rookie. Through experience, Biden has all of his plays committed to memory, namely because he knows who he is at this point of the political season. Palin, however, had her set or plays (or talking points) on her wrist band, which she constantly fell back on, regardless of what Biden said or the moderator asked.
  
  On several occasions Palin fell back on her bread-and-butter play, "energy independence." I didn't realize that everything could be linked back to the latter. Move over Kevin Bacon, Six-Degrees of Energy Independence is here to stay. Speaking of which, I made the horrific mistake of agreeing to play a drinking game that required a nip for every time Palin said maverick, energy, and energy independence.
  
  D'oh!
  reply
• 

  Netter

  9 months ago

  i have only one thing to say to that: notnbooshzplan, notnbooshzplan,notnbooshzplan,notnbooshzplan, notnbooshzplan,notnbooshzplan,notnbooshzplan, notnbooshzplan,notnbooshzplan,notnbooshzplan, notnbooshzplan,notnbooshzplan....
  
  "Biden has all of his plays committed to memory" because he has been PROGRAMMED in Washington by being there forEVER! 5-weeks election prep time vs 5 presidential terms (re-hashing the "same old -same old") makes Biden seem stale and stuck in Washington paradigms. So in that light, I see Palin's performance in the debate (and on the campaign trail) as stunning! She is shrewd as a fox AND gentle as a dove all at the same time. I think a shake-up in Washington is overdue - she may be able to help McCain do exactly that if given the chance.
  
  Respectfully speaking, of course.
  reply
• 

  Shane Vander Hart

  9 months ago

  Forced folksiness? That was her being herself. Give me a break!
  reply
• 

  martial_arts_expert

  9 months ago

  It's nice to see a decent analysis of the debate in Iowa (i.e. not Rudy Giuliani or some other pundit remarking at what beautiful clothes the emperor is wearing).
  
  What's most disturbing are some of these comments on here, which I hope merely represent the "already-locked-in base" you described. Calling this debate a "home run" for Palin or saying "she killed" (NBC) is an insult to anyone with eyes, ears, and a brain. The bar was set so so unbelievably low for her, that people are calling this a win? This was not a victory for Palin, and least of all for the American people. She should be held to the same standards and public scrutiny as anyone up for high public office.
  reply
• 

  Netter

  9 months ago

  IT TAKES A GLOBAL VILLAGE
  
  Something I've been thinking about as we approach the election of THIS country's leadership for the next four years might be of some help to others who, like me, get lost in all the complicated issues, information/mis-information, rumors, and pundit opinions hurricaning our brains as we seek contextual understanding of our candidates positions. Without making any judgements of the personal choice each of us concludes to, I think one important question every American voter should ask and seriously think on is this: Is the vision for America one of progressive change that adopts European principles? Or is the vision for America's future best rooted on the uniquely "western" qualities by which our land has prospered for 230 plus years? I think that voting choices made on the current dire problems with our economy alone is pretty short-sighted. Too much tampering or inadequate oversight are behaviors that can be corrected if "we the people" demand it and hold our elected accountable. Based on the longevity and overall success of our system, the fundamentals probably ARE just fine, it would seem to me.
  
  Support for Obama is strong and so it is with a sense of speaking into the "tyranny of majority" that I state my preference here for "values" voting. I value, and do relate to, leaders with background experiences that are deeply rooted in "American" culture and history - that I can recognize as similar to mine and my founding ancestors. I mean that there can be no mistaking that a western quality of life HAS been the defining life experience of McCain (AND Palin). But if you consider the developmental experiences in Obama's upbringing and childhood, you can see why he may be inclined to lead our country into a "euro-style" America (think also Eurabia and read his father's life works). While impressively unique, Obama's life spent in places around the globe and his "it takes a village" parentage, lends itself into the notion I have that Obama is a bit too unfettered by any ancestral ties to THIS country, and may even be motivated to lay groundwork for re-casting this nation with the helpful collaboration of dictators and fascists. I think that if you like heavier-handed socialism and the way countries like Holland, for instance, have been governed; if you believe citizenry there is happier than we are, and if you despise American 'cowboys' or the zealous patriot, preferring your alignment to be with certain "elitists" - you know the right ticket to vote for. On the other hand, if you were raised in small-town America, taught the Golden Rule, and had siblings/parents who lived and were raised up in the same country as you, the choice should be even more obvious. It seems to me that McCain and Palin inarguably have deeper roots in this country. I believe that is one valid measure of who is best to lead this western nation forward.
  reply