true (bogus Vogue cover), but she was photographed by Vogue ...
as to the inexperience question, the press is already raising this issue ...





true (bogus Vogue cover), but she was photographed by Vogue ...
as to the inexperience question, the press is already raising this issue ...
That's a little less provocative than the (fake) lingerie-ish shot. For that matter, I thought Hilary Clinton was in Vogue, too.




Funny, Obama has not experience, and according to Mel will run the country into the ground. Palin is in pictures and Mel think's she can solve the world's problems.





IMHO neither Obama or Palin have the experience to qualify as president. However, it is only Obama that is running for president !!!
actually, no I didn't ! I DID know that Sarah Palin had been a Miss Alaska runner-up from her bio, so I had no reason to initially doubt the picture's authenticity. I found out about the Photoshopping after researching the accuracy of the Photoshop claim in this thread, found that the claim was in fact true, and admitted so.You knew that cover was fake when you posted it and posted anyway. How nice
Ok then. I thought it looked pretty darn fake myself but fair enough





true, but it isn't obama's lack of experience that is likely to run the country into the ground ... it's his liberal policies of tax increases, increased gov't regulation, institution of a nationalized health care program etc. And if you'll research my previous posts, you'll find out that I actually SUPPORT OBAMA becoming the next president. However, my reasons for doing so have nothing to do with supporting Obama himself or the liberal policies he will implement. In fact, Sarah Palin entering the picture may mess up that 'plan'.Funny, Obama has not experience, and according to Mel will run the country into the ground.
I was fooled by the cover, too. It seemed so outlandish for a governor to have such a cover. It took some Googling (that I shouldn't have taken the time to do) to find out it was fake.
Obama promised tax cuts for "95% of" working families and small businesses. We'll see. That was one part of his speech that wasn't so impressive, when he did the typical political thing of promising everything to everyone. I expect that of McCain, too.
Interesting that both the youngsters have no problem tapping into that oil money.





however, they propose entirely different means of doing so. Palin plans to tap oil and gas revenues primarily via royalty payments for crude oil and gas pumped from Alaskan wells. Obama proposes to do so primarily by collecting more money per gallon of gasoline from Americans at the pump via the indirect mechanism of increasing taxes on oil company profits (which will be passed on as price increases not eaten as reduced profits).Interest that both the youngsters have no problem tapping into that oil money




An interesting choice by far... It'll either be genius or a disaster. Who knows? Though to be honest, the more I think about it, the more I like it. For a lot of reasons. I personally thought it would be Romney, and I didn't think he was a great choice, yet I also thought he was better than the other options (I wasn't really aware of this woman really being an option). She brings a lot to the table, and the negatives she brings are, IMO, not all that bad.
Fair enough. Let's increase Federal royalties on the oil/gas lines, too, if the oil companies will just eat it. I didn't realize they were that discriminating or magnanimous.




In theory yes, that's what the VP's duties are as stated by the constituition. In reality, no. Rarely does the VP do either of those things. I knew a woman who's husband had been a pilot on Marine 1 (President's Helicopter) and she talked about one of the VP (I beleive it was Quayle) playing golf every day, even on major holidays. So that shows you what VP's duties are, hell how many days is the Senate even in session?
So before you insult someones intelligence, maybe you should find out what your talking about, and then go back and ponder their statement again.




If a Democratic governor had increased state revenues through increased royalty payments, wouldn't Mel be screaming about "windfall profits tax"! And the consumer always foots the bill, regardless where the tax is levied.
The local talk radio show here had a radio host from Anchorage on today discussing Gov Palin. She said the conservatives in Alaska considered her a socialist and she was a maverick republican mostly due to the fact she didn't have an indictment hanging over her head.
Rumor has it he will offer up his VP nominee and leave Cindy at home next year for the Biker Chick Contest at Sturgis.





So McCain is telling us that should anything happen to him (don't forget, he's 72 with a history of health problems) this is the best person available to take over his job? I find that a bit far fetched. She was mayor of a town of 6000 just what 20 months ago and he wants to put her a heartbeat away from the Presidency. And we're suppose to trust his judgement. Scary.





Well, does Trooper Gate qualify?



If you live in California or New York, your opinion doesn't matter because your votes don't matter.
McCain's move was simply brilliant because he achieved two things in one swoop
* Secured the republican base
* Opened up a %age of democratic voters
There are plenty of women (mostly from liberal New York and Californians who don't matter) who will say that Palin is not Hillary, but since they don't matter they will not affect the result.
* A mere 2-3% defection of Hillary supporters from other states will turn the tide in McCain's favor
* Elections are not won by hard-core election followers, but by casual voters.
* Most Informed Voters have already made up their mind and a VP choice don't matter
* For Casual Voters, Biden is as unknown as Palin
* When you are unsure or havn't made up your mind, decision making is mostly influenced by sub-conscious which are mostly driven by basic instincts
http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Th...0070331&sr=8-1
Factors that favor McCain in sub-conscious decision making
i) All things being equal, people like their own namesakes (There are more Johns than Obamas)
ii) All things being equal, people choose Whites over Blacks
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/
iii) All things being equal, people choose hot chicks over plain janes
Factors favoring Obama
i) All things being equal, people prefer tall personalities
ii) All things being equal, people prefer youth vs old
iii) All things being equal, deeper voice tone wins
* For Casual or 50-50 voters, All things are equal
* One line negative stereotyping of opponents have a stronger influence than any debate/experience/qualifications
Overall I think, sub-conscious decision making strongly favors McCain/Palin than Obama/Biden
If you think elections are won by Policies, Debates, Experience, & Qualifications, I have a brdige to sell you. Elections are won at the margin (50-50) and none of these matters on the election day when people actually vote
I find it offensive that, as a Hillary supporter, anyone would ever think that my support would go to Palin, just because she's a woman.
She doesn't have any of the characteristics that make Hillary stand out as a politician and as a woman. Just because I have a vagina and vote Democrat, it doesn't mean I'm a wannabe feminist nimrod.
well, most women don't fit in either category.
just like in the democratic primary?ii) All things being equal, people choose Whites over Blacks
only if by "people" you mean "men", and by "choose" you mean "elect as commander in chief." Women often dislike a woman for no reason other than being attractive.iii) All things being equal, people choose hot chicks over plain jane
Last edited by Emily; 08-29-2008 at 11:57 PM.

I really hope these Hillary supporters see what kind of stances she takes before voting based on the vendetta of simply wanting a woman in power.
Creationism in schools? vs. actually advancing our kids to give them an edge on global competitors, and rewarding their participation in their local governments or small businesses in exchange for extra money for college.
Hmmm TOUGH ONE.
ETA: this is directed at no one in particular here.




It's been over 16 hrs. since the news broke, & I still know very little about Sarah Palin. Obvious answer to question "Why Palin" is to win over disgruntled Hillary supporters, amoung other factors. That being so begs the question of "Why Not other qualified Republican women"??
1) Senator Elizabeth Dole(NC)- Many VP candidates (and VP's) of last 6 decades have been US Senators. Elizabeth Dole certainly has a vast Govt. serviced background, holding 2 Cabinet posts prior to being elected to U.S. Senate. Aside from question of her willingness to be McCain VP (and McCains willingness to have her as his running mate) is that she is 72 yrs. old- having 2 70- somethings on same ticket just wouldn't do.
2) Condoleeza Rice- She is certainly a qualified/experienced woman, with her background as Cabinet Member (Secy. of State), and White House staffer. Having her on ticket would play 2 cards, being female & black. But, given that McCain wants to distance himself from Pres. George Bush, having a longtime Bush staffer/ Cabinet Member on JMc's ticket wouldn't do. Not to mention if Ms. Rice would be willing to be John McCain's VP.
So, that brings us to Gov. Palin- OK, she's 44 yrs. old, and has only been Governor of Alaska for 2 years. That 2 yrs, though, is Chief Executive experience, which is different from being a Cabinet Member. At the turn of the 20th century, the new Vice President of the US had been Governor of New York for 2 yrs (he was famous for other feats, already), and, eventually at the age of 42 would become the youngest US President. His name: Theodore Roosevelt.





If a Democratic governor had increased state revenues through increased royalty payments, wouldn't Mel be screaming about "windfall profits tax"!Let's increase Federal royalties on the oil/gas lines, too, if the oil companies will just eat it.
actually, I would be congratulating that Democratic governor for being realistic about the current oil and gas situation. Because essentially the only way that a state gov't or the federal gov't can collect royalty money on oil and gas is by allowing it's underground oil and gas to be pumped and sold in the first place.
In essence, a royalty payment amounts to the 'wholesale purchase price' of the crude oil or natural gas. In the case of domestically produced oil and gas, that 'wholesale purchase price' gets paid to US states or the US federal gov't. In the case of imported oil and gas, that 'wholesale purchase price' gets paid to Saudi oil shieks or Hugo Chavez or Mohammed Almenijad. And the magnitude of this 'wholesale purchase price' royalty payment is pretty damn large ... at least 1/3rd of the final price of gasoline sold at the pump and 1/2 of the final price of natural gas sold by utilities.
It is true that US states and the federal gov't may also collect some form of payment from pipelines that these gov'ts allowed to be built across their territory. However, you're talking about pennies per barrel of oil pumped through a pipeline, versus royalty payments of $30-40-50+ dollars per barrel of crude oil. Keep in mind that these pipelines are privately funded such that the states and federal gov't do not have an 'ownership' interest in the pipelines as they do in underground oil and gas deposits located within their borders.
In regard to 'windfall profits taxes', one must also be realistic as to who ultimately pays these taxes. The oil companies are certainly not going to reduce compensation to their executives. They are also not going to reduce compensation to their unionized employees. And the oil companies are not in a position to reduce the 'wholesale purchase price' they must pay to pump more oil and gas. So this leaves two domestic options. One is to raise the price of retail gasoline / diesel / natgas, shifting the additional cost of the 'windfall profits taxes' onto consumers. The other is to reduce dividends paid to stockholders, which means reduced incomes for the retirees / 401k holders / civil service retirement funds / other investors who currently own oil company stock shares. I would also point out that, at after-tax profit levels of oil companies typically being in the 8-10% range (versus much higher profit margins for other types of businesses), and with a corporate tax level that already takes a 30-40% bite (versus much lower tax levels for other types of businesses), there really isn't a whole lot of available revenue left here even though the total dollar volumes are in the billions.
In a 'windfall profits tax' scenario, these days oil companies also have the 'Benedict Arnold' option i.e. officially relocating their corporate headquarters outside of the USA. In case you haven't noticed, Dubai is investing billions of dollars in order to build itself into a corporate Mecca (no pun intended) for just this reason. If the oil companies do officially move their headquarters, then yes the US gov't could still collect 'windfall profits tax' on US oil and gas operations. But the US gov't would no longer be able to collect either regular corporate tax or 'windfall profits tax' on money earned from oil company operations outside of the USA. This would significantly REDUCE total tax revenues the US government receives from oil companies rather than increasing it.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 08-30-2008 at 05:10 AM.





As to the possible reasons that McCain chose Sarah Palin, a number of issues come to mind ...
- she has no ties whatsoever to the GWB administration, thus discrediting possible democrat claims that McCain represents a 3rd Bush term
- she is essentially free of all corruption charges against herself, and has actively rooted out corrupt business / politcal practices ( often against members of her own political party), thus discrediting possible democrat claims of a 'republican culture of corruption'
- between her roles as a chair of an interstate oil companies regulatory body, and her pipeline / Prudhoe Bay dealings with oil companies as governor, she is probably THE most expert person in politics on the realities of dealing with the oil and gas industry. This places her in an excellent position to spearhead a future federal effort to promote increased US domestic oil and gas production i.e. offshore drilling, federal leases etc. - an effort that a large majority of US registered voters now support in light of $4 a gallon gasoline prices. In any case, her relationship with Alaskan oil and gas companies will elevate the issue of increased offshore drilling on the list of election topics.
- with the exception of New York (i.e. the UN, international business presence etc.), Alaska has more direct international dealings than any other US state. It shares a border with Russia ! It's a major travel hub for Asian countries. While this doesn't constitute foreign policy experience, it is certainly a step up from Illinois or Maryland in the foreign policy arena. In any case, Palin's inexperience in the area of foreign relations will be linked to Obama's inexperience in the area of foreign relations ... and Obama is running for president while she is not.
- many of Palin's positions on gun control / abortion etc. have strong appeal to the 'extreme' republican / conservative voter base who are lukewarm about McCain ... thus her presence on the ticket could motivate them to vote rather than staying home in 'protest'.
- Palin is really the only candidate from either party who is 'blue collar' rather than 'blue blood'. This could potentially have a large impact on swing state voters, as well as on some Hilary democrats.
- Obviously, she is female ... which mutes any potential democrat claims that Republicans are the party of rich white men (i.e. offsets the fact that the democrats have nominated a member of a minority).
- she doesn't appear to have any major political enemies ( who aren't serving time on corruption charges at any rate), any 'undesireable' associates (a la Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko. Bill Ayres), or any debts to special interests that could potentially become haunting election issues





If you live in California or New York, your opinion doesn't matter because your votes don't matter.again we find ourselves in complete agreement, Xan !!!If you think elections are won by Policies, Debates, Experience, & Qualifications, I have a brdige to sell you. Elections are won at the margin (50-50) and none of these matters on the election day when people actually vote
For a fact the results of the upcoming election comes down to the voters in a handful of states ... even the New York Times concedes this
Based on NY Times analysis, the upcoming election will boil down to which ticket wins the states of Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico, Vermont and Nevada. And the lion's share of 'undecided' electoral votes from this group will come from Ohio and Michigan. Thus from a cold, calculating election standpoint, whoever can deliver these states can deliver the election.
Ohio and Michigan have been hurt very badly by high oil prices and the consequent effects on the US auto industry which dominates their state economies. Ohio and Michigan have one of the highest 'blue collar' worker concentrations in the country. Ohio and Michigan also have significant numbers of 'traditional conservatives' i.e. Amish.
New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada have far more in common with a state like Alaska than they do with states like Illinois or Maryland. Like Alaska, they have a couple of big cities, but much of their population is small town / rural. And with the exception of Nevada gambling, like Alaska the economies of these states count on oil / natural resources industries for a significant percentage of their employment and revenues.
Beyond these 'swing' states, there is also the possibility that some states that are currently leaning toward Obama could be 'flipped'. Such 'flip' states could be Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota. These 'flip' states also have pretty high 'blue collar' worker concentrations, also have core industries that have been adversely affected by high energy prices, also have significant numbers of 'traditional conservatives', etc.
Thus it is arguable that McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was a calculated decision to directly appeal to voters in these 'swing' states, while perhaps helping to 'flip' a state currently leaning towards Obama, while doing no harm re voters in other states.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 08-30-2008 at 05:17 AM.





Well, if all states worked this issue like Alaska, the state would be PAYING its citizens a share of those oil and gas royalties with which to help defray their costs of buying gasoline / diesel / heating oil. In Alaska this now amounts to an annual check for $2100 from the Alaskan gov't courtesy of royalties paid to the state by the oil companies !!! Also, the additional royalty payments received by the Alaskan state gov't essentially eliminate the need for Alaska to impose an income tax on its' residents in order to fund state budget / programs.
This of course is a far different scenario than the social welfare program energy assistance being proposed by Barack Obama ... which would involve the federal and state gov'ts paying part of the costs of 'low income' residents' heating / fuel bills, but with the money to pay for this energy assistance being confiscated from the incomes of other Americans in the form of higher taxes !!!
Bookmarks