The Obama campaign, within minutes of McCain’s announcement of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, issued a statement that said, “Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.” The most notable thing about this statement was that they completely ignored Palin’s experience as governor of Alaska. They called her instead, “the former mayor of a town of 9000.”
Palin and other Republicans responded in kind during last night’s Republican convention. Ignoring Obama’s recent experience, they referred to Obama most often as a former community organizer. Comparing her experience as mayor to Obama’s experience, Palin said, “Being a mayor is kind of like being a community organizer, except a mayor has actual responsibilities.”
To those who belittle small towns like the one where she was mayor, Palin said that people in small towns “are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America … who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.”
But Palin also highlighted her experience and accomplishments as Governor of Alaska. Among other things, she established ethics reforms, vetoed “nearly half a billion dollars” in “wasteful spending,” and “fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history”: “a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.”
In contrast to her accomplishments, she said of Sen. Obama, “this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform – not even in the state senate.” Earlier in the evening, Rudy Giuliani went even further in criticizing Obama’s tenure in the state senate:
Then he ran for — then he ran for the state legislature and he got elected. And nearly 130 times, he couldn’t make a decision. He couldn’t figure out whether to vote “yes” or “no.” It was too tough. He voted — he voted “present.”
I didn’t know about this vote “present” when I was mayor of New York City. Sarah Palin didn’t have this vote “present” when she was mayor or governor. You don’t get “present.” It doesn’t work in an executive job. For president of the United States, it’s not good enough to be present. You have to make a decision.
There were several other noteworthy sound bites from Palin’s speech. Here are a few:
- “And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion – I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country.”
- “While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor’s office that I didn’t believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.”
- “In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change. They’re the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.”
- “And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, ‘fighting for you,’ let us face the matter squarely. There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you … in places where winning means survival and defeat means death … and that man is John McCain.”
Precinct,
The point is he didn’t pass anything that made him stand out. Anyone can propose legislation, its getting substantive legislation that makes a difference and I think that is what NewVoice was getting at.
The only bills that he proposed that would have made significant change he simply used for PR stunts and wasn’t willing to dedicate the time necessary to get them passed. (like the gun bill)
Also you have some SB’s in there, you might want to proofread next time.
Gee Martha. Would you really call what Schock has in state legislature experience?!?!?!? As I have said before, “experience” will not be the REAL issue. Political platform will be. People are tired of Republican BS! I do feel bad for McCain. Imagine having to tell the nation how you intend to ‘fix everything’ when it was a member of your own party who broke it [in only 8 years]!!!
And now you are getting ready to send Republican Boot Camp Schock to D.C.? One more reason to wonder why Peoria continues to freak me out.
11Bravo is correct.
I must now retire for the evening.
I never said I was voting for Schock.
I never even said I was voting for McCain.
I just wanted to know what your opinion was. And I still don’t know (other than, to turn a phrase, “It’s the platform, stupid.”)
For the record, it wasn’t Bush who “broke everything”. That argument implied everything was perfect before.
Our nation’s debts have been accumulating for decades, if not centuries. Thanks to the promises of entitlement programs that Congress won’t even discuss reforming/reducing, our debt grows at least $2-3TRILLION each year, and that’s even before Congress spends one penny — on energy, education, environment, government employees, or any of myriad other programs.
Notice how you didn’t hear about this at either convention. It doesn’t make great political theatre to say you can’t actually spend any money because we don’t have any.
Bush DID create the greatest increase in entitlement spending in recent history with the Medicare Drug Bill, which I did not support. So, on this one point, I do agree with you.
Oh, and SB, so you’re aware….
Of the 136 pieces of legislation Obama has sponsored since he has been in the US Senate, more than 122 stalled in committee. Only 2 have actually been passed.
He was a co-sponsor for over 600 (but I’m sure he didn’t just “stick his name on them.”).
Martha,
I never called you stupid [maybe your politics?]. Just kidding. I respect your opinion, but Clinton worked on reducing the debt…George W on the other hand….?
U.S. president Party Term years Start debt/GDP* End debt/GDP* Increase debt ($T) Increase debt/GDP
Roosevelt/Truman D 1945-1949 117.5% 93.2% 0.05 -24.3%
Truman Harry Truman D 1949-1953 93.2% 71.3% 0.01 -21.9%
Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower R 1953-1957 71.3% 60.5% 0.01 -10.8%
Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower R 1957-1961 60.5% 55.1% 0.02 -5.4%
Kennedy/Johnson D 1961-1965 55.1% 46.9% 0.03 -8.2%
Johnson Lyndon Johnson D 1965-1969 46.9% 38.6% 0.05 -8.3%
Nixon1 Richard Nixon R 1969-1973 38.6% 35.7% 0.07 -2.9%
Nixon2 Nixon/Ford R 1973-1977 35.7% 35.8% 0.19 +0.1%
Carter Jimmy Carter D 1977-1981 35.8% 32.6% 0.18 -3.2%
Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 1981-1985 32.6% 43.9% 0.65 +11.3%
Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985-1989 43.9% 53.1% 1.04 +9.2%
Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989-1993 53.1% 66.2% 1.40 +13.1%
Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 1993-1997 66.2% 65.6% 1.12 -0.6%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997-2001 65.6% 57.4% 0.42 -8.2%
Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001-2005 57.4% 64.3% 1.15 +6.9%
Bush GW2 George W. Bush R 2005-2009 projection 64.3% 68.2% projection +3.9% projection
folks, politics is a vicious game-for that reason, the very best candidates do not even put their name on the ballot. Reputations are ruined, lives are turned upside down, families are split, mostly all because some jerk with a computer and half-assed knowledge spits out venom like it is truth. Have a good day!
Wacko,
Any specifics?
Wacko,
What you say may be true, but why do so many men and women make a career out of politics? If we consider higher office, maybe the rewards outway the ruined reputations, upside down lives, etc. Any living Pres, Senator, Congressman, Governor, etc can make a billion dollars on the speaking circuit alone.
11B,
The SB bills are the Senate version of the house bills that Aaron was chief sponsor in the House side of the capital, sorry for the confusion.
NV,
the list was in response to cgiselle12 posting earlier, I did not make that clear enough.
New Voice: power, celebrity, immunity… lots of reasons to become an American politician… great retirement and health care, too!
Oh, the debt? Eliminate the “Federal” Reserve System and you eliminate the debt. You can’t spend what you can’t borrow and you can’t borrow what you can’t print out of thin air.
(Then he ran for — then he ran for the state legislature and he got elected. And nearly 130 times, he couldn’t make a decision. He couldn’t figure out whether to vote “yes” or “no.” It was too tough. He voted — he voted “present.”)
This is actually pretty indicative of what our government does. When presented with a bill they either know little about or don’t care about, MOST politicians just ask their advisers, their lobbyists or their party whip how they should vote. Obama, (and others, I’m sure) apparently, had the integrity not to cast an uniformed vote simply because someone told him to.
I actually like that. That’s much better than those that vote for stuff they know or care nothing about and later say “I didn’t know what I voting for”.
kcdad — I believe the point is, Presidents don’t get to vote “present.” They have to make a decision.
Secretary of Defense: “President Obama, terrorists have flown planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We’ve grounded all planes, but there’s still one in the air flying over Pennsylvania. We think it may be heading for another target in D.C. — possibly even the White House. Should we shoot it down?”
Obama: “Uh… ‘Present’?”
You don’t always get to have all the information you want before you have to make a decision. And decisions like that are tougher than any of the ones he voted “present” on in the state senate.
Thanks for the list PC – I will read up on those bills, for sure.
Martha – one of the major points about Bill Clinton’s 8 years in office was that our gov’t was running a budget surplus for the last few years of it. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about when you say they’ve been accumulating debts for centuries. Statistics or something please? Our current debt is completely due to the invasion of Iraq and a lot of bad management in congress (I give here, by both sides of the aisle in the house and senate).
Were mt stats to in-depth?
Deficit does not equal debt.
You have a mortgage, you have credit cards that carry balances, you have a car loan. You get paid, pay your monthly bills, and let’s say you have $100 left over at the end of the month. You decide to put that into savings. The money in savings won’t come close to paying off your car, house, or VISA, but it’s still nonetheless important to have. You have a surplus (money left over at the end of the month), but you still have debt.
SO… in relation to the federal government. Congress writes tax laws to (theoretically) determine how much money they have to spend. They write the budget based upon commitments, debt interest, employee wages and pensions, requests by states and Congressmen themselves (read: everything from grants to earmarks). With very, VERY few exceptions throughout the history, there are too many appropriations at the end of the income (therefore, DEFICIT). In some special cases, the spending was actually controlled, and there was a surplus (I’ll get to the late 90s in a minute). But that doesn’t mean the debts of previous generations were erased (the sins of the father…)
90s: the Social Security “trust fund” was incorporated into the general fund, purely for accounting purposes. So it looked like there was more money to spend. When Congress didn’t spend as much (give credit to the Republican Congress for reforming welfare and restraining spending or to Clinton for his refinancing plan using short term notes, whichever your prefer; they both took place) there were surpluses.
Why there won’t be surpluses any time soon: bailouts of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac; bailouts to homeowners with bad mortgages; economic stimulus checks; relief to the airline industry (whether or not it’s still going on, it did earlier this decade); military spending (whether or not you value this or see it as legitimate; however, the amount spent on defense is dwarfed by that spent on Medicare/Medicaid); and the fact that Congress’s only plan is to “tax corporations and tax the wealthy.”
New Voice — on the contrary, I found them quite informative (I’m sorry, but time with my son kept me from answering you with adequacy).
I did find it interesting, that you did not include any of the spending during the first 12 years of FDR, the era which gave us one of the largest and most permanent entitlements, but I’m sure that was just an oversight.
Martha,
FDR? Why not go back to Washington? Your notes on deficit vs. debt are right-on though. Again though, scholars and economists aside, the average voter sees debt as DEBT. Consider everything else going on with the economy [jobless rate, Wall Street swinging away, oil this-and-that, etc]. Does Congress play a part in all this? Of course, but who will voters point the finger at? I am just thinking McCain has an uphill battle by virtue of Party.
I also misspelled [my].
“Uh… ‘Present’?”
C’mon C.J., that’s a bit of a stretch.
Postsimian, are you expecting me to believe you didn’t get my point?
Jeez Louise, I guess I didn’t, but thankfully I realize why: I painstakingly read through the entire thread to get to that point, but I somehow missed kcdad’s post. O_O
Context: it’s what’s for dinner. I’m going to bed.
New Voice — I beg to differ. I think the “average” voter sees debt as something beyond their capability and responsibility, so they turn to others for assistance. Example: you receive a mortgage for a home you can’t afford and now you face foreclosure? Ask your Representative or Senator for help and *presto!* there’s legislation being debated which will send relief to troubled homeowners. Economy turns a little sour? *Presto!* Stimulus checks!
In the grand scheme, however, these programs are relatively insignificant. The real culprits are the entitlement programs. For decades, senior citizens have been promised that the government will take care of them in their later years. They’ve counted on this promise. That was fine when the ratio of current employees to Social Security recipients was 30:1; however, now it’s less than 3:1, and the promises haven’t changed. Large monetary promises + fewer sources of revenue = $trillions and trillions of debt.
The average 20-, 30- and 40-somethings know Social Security won’t be there when we retire. We know that asking Congress to do anything about is an exercise in futility, so we take care of things ourselves with 401-Ks and IRAs. Congress knows the money isn’t and won’t be there, but no one has the strength of character to fight for change. To even suggest reform has one side crying “The other side wants to deny you your benefits in your time of need.” (think back: Bush was demonized back in 2004 for suggesting younger employees have the option of privately investing a portion of their Soc. Sec. contributions; McCain didn’t fare much better in Biden’s acceptance speech last week) And since neither side wants to lose the votes of the senior citizens, the reformers back down and nothing gets done.
Who’s to blame? All incumbents have something to answer for:
Biden = 36 years in the Senate, no significant entitlement reforms
McCain = 22 years in the Senate, no significant entitlement reforms (although he recognizes that reform will only come with both sides working together)
Obama = 4 years as a member of the Senate, argues he will usher in “change” but hasn’t/doesn’t address the greatest problems
Palin = in a pretty good position being outside of the system and therefore not part of the problem
Palin – No clue as to how any “problem” could get solved, other than with a shotgun the size of Detroit, and with an “Abstinence Now” pamphlet (never opened by her daughter).