How will/should the Democrats attack Palin?

[jpeyton]

Here's another good piece of vetting work.

Remember that tiny town Palin was the mayor of? She ran it into financial ruin with her pet project, and managed to screw up a huge eminent domain seizure along the way, costing the city millions.

Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002. Her record during that time can tell us a lot about her. The biggest deal during her tenure is perhaps the construction of the sports complex that was built on someone else's land. She had to raise sales taxes to pay for it. The whole episode of incompetence, arrogance, and lack of respect for the law is exactly the style of governance that we've seen from Bush and co in the past seven years.

The $15 million multi-use indoor ice arena was supposed to be her legacy as the mayor. This was a very big deal for a city that had a budget of $3.9 million in 96 (increased to $5.8 million in 2002). Although the city subsidy has gone down from the initial $600k per year to about $125k per year, the sports complex still does not break even.

The biggest problem, however, was the process of how the land was acquired. The whole thing was handled with exceptional incompetence and arrogance, ultimately costing the city an extra $1.7 million in settlement and court cost for a piece of land that would have costed only $125k if they had handled it right from the beginning in 1998.

This involved a developer by the name of Gary Lundgren. Here is the whole scoop:

Lundgren negotiated with the national office of The Nature Conservancy to buy the land. Meanwhile, Wasilla city officials decided they wanted the land too, and began negotiating with the Alaska office of The Nature Conservancy. Offers were extended to both parties. Lundgren closed the deal.

Without the title in their hands, the city went ahead with the sales tax increase and started the construction. Then in typical Bush fashion, as Palin was leaving office in 2002,

Wasilla sued both Lundgren and The Nature Conservancy for title to the land. The case went to a federal appeals court, where Lundgren won rights to the property.

The court case was finally settled several years after Palin left.

The real legacy is, that the city is still paying for this today, while having to cut budget in library service, postponing capital improvement projects, and raising fees.

Can we afford this kind of incompetence on the national level?

Here's the recap:

Decided her small town (with an annual budget of $4 million) should build a $15 million ice arena (for hockey and sledding...wonder why?).

Decided to raise the sales tax in her town to pay for it.

Got outbid on a parcel of land by a developer; the cost of the parcel was $125,000.

Seized private land through eminent domain to build the ice arena, and sued the developer for the property.

Lost the eminent domain case, and her town now has to pay $1.7 million for the property and court costs for both parties.

The town still owes several million for the ice arena, which is losing money every year and needs government handouts to stay open.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think she has the liberal democrats pooping their pants because they don't know what to make of her. Consequently they will marginalize her and call her all sorts of names and probably use Hillary as the attack dog. While I know Hillary, I don't know Palin. I recall claims here in the last election that Edwards would clean Cheney's clock in debates. That turned out to be in error. I think McCain will be able to depend on the liberal hubris again by the looks of things here. I think his chances just went way up.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I think she has the liberal democrats pooping their pants because they don't know what to make of her. Consequently they will marginalize her and call her all sorts of names and probably use Hillary as the attack dog. While I know Hillary, I don't know Palin. I recall claims here in the last election that Edwards would clean Cheney's clock in debates. That turned out to be in error. I think McCain will be able to depend on the liberal hubris again by the looks of things here. I think his chances just went way up.

LOL, you give the denizens of P&N way to much credit.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I think she has the liberal democrats pooping their pants because they don't know what to make of her. Consequently they will marginalize her and call her all sorts of names and probably use Hillary as the attack dog. While I know Hillary, I don't know Palin. I recall claims here in the last election that Edwards would clean Cheney's clock in debates. That turned out to be in error. I think McCain will be able to depend on the liberal hubris again by the looks of things here. I think his chances just went way up.

LOL, you give the denizens of P&N way to much credit.

And he gives Axelrod way too little credit. Palin will get her introduction to Chicago-style politics soon enough.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
I love the smell of desperation in the morning The dems don't have a good avenue of attack, and they know it.

You basing that assumption on this forum? Only a fool would take what's posted here seriously.Take your post for instance.

Touché

I see the same thing on the left-leaning media outlets, they are furiously trying to come up with anything to try and discredit her or otherwise downplay her candidacy. Meanwhile, the right-wing nuts over at Fox are busy having a circle-jerk orgasm over her "strong stance on life".

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Specop, freedom for discussion does not mean that you have to discuss fairy tales in science class in order to be open minded. She wanted to discuss made up creation stories in a class on evolution. This is a common tactic of creationists in an attempt to make creationism legitimate when it's not. "teach the debate" is the same horseshit they've been trying for years and it's no less shitty now than it ever was.

Considering the one greatest influence on the world we live in is religion....Yeah, I think it should be discussed. And the fact that you represent a miority in regards to religion, well.... Tough titty said the kitty.

In the proper class, that of Myths and Fables.

The majority disagrees with you.
Of course your one of those highly educated liberals so of course you know whats right and wrong and feel it your duty to educate the entire rest of the world. It must be difficult being the enlightened one in a country filled with dullards isnt it?

:laugh:

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
I love the smell of desperation in the morning The dems don't have a good avenue of attack, and they know it.

Just wait until Hillary's done with her. There won't be much left for the wildlife.

After she praised Hillary and thanked her in her first speech, any attack by Hillary will just be seen by the average person as a case of sour grapes because she didn't get the position she so rightfully "deserved". Hillary could probably slice and dice Palin in an actual debate on issues, but it's a non-starter because that would simply empower Palin as a victim.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Specop, freedom for discussion does not mean that you have to discuss fairy tales in science class in order to be open minded. She wanted to discuss made up creation stories in a class on evolution. This is a common tactic of creationists in an attempt to make creationism legitimate when it's not. "teach the debate" is the same horseshit they've been trying for years and it's no less shitty now than it ever was.

Considering the one greatest influence on the world we live in is religion....Yeah, I think it should be discussed. And the fact that you represent a miority in regards to religion, well.... Tough titty said the kitty.

In the proper class, that of Myths and Fables.

The majority disagrees with you.
Of course your one of those highly educated liberals so of course you know whats right and wrong and feel it your duty to educate the entire rest of the world. It must be difficult being the enlightened one in a country filled with dullards isnt it?

:laugh:

Excuse me, are you saying the majority believe that Creationism should be taught in the class room????

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Specop, freedom for discussion does not mean that you have to discuss fairy tales in science class in order to be open minded. She wanted to discuss made up creation stories in a class on evolution. This is a common tactic of creationists in an attempt to make creationism legitimate when it's not. "teach the debate" is the same horseshit they've been trying for years and it's no less shitty now than it ever was.

Considering the one greatest influence on the world we live in is religion....Yeah, I think it should be discussed. And the fact that you represent a miority in regards to religion, well.... Tough titty said the kitty.

In the proper class, that of Myths and Fables.

The majority disagrees with you.
Of course your one of those highly educated liberals so of course you know whats right and wrong and feel it your duty to educate the entire rest of the world. It must be difficult being the enlightened one in a country filled with dullards isnt it?

:laugh:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here...

The majority of America agrees that the 1st amendment states that religious beliefs like creationism should not be taught in the classrooms of this nation's public schools. If you want to teach your own children your religious beliefs, then in the home and church is the best place for that.

Plus, belief in young earth creationism is waning even among the religious. Pretty much only the fundies accept it anymore. While most mainline churches accept that scientific theories like big bang and evolution do not contradict God or the Bible.

So please don't pretend that just because a majority of Americans are religious means that they support the fundamentalist minority that want to push their religion in the schools.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
I love the smell of desperation in the morning The dems don't have a good avenue of attack, and they know it.

You basing that assumption on this forum? Only a fool would take what's posted here seriously.Take your post for instance.

Touché

I see the same thing on the left-leaning media outlets, they are furiously trying to come up with anything to try and discredit her or otherwise downplay her candidacy. Meanwhile, the right-wing nuts over at Fox are busy having a circle-jerk orgasm over her "strong stance on life".

actually the exact opposite of what you say is happening.

Obama's first TV ad with Palin makes no mention of her. You will probably see this more often than not. There is no need to attack her right now, and doing so will be wasted effort when McCain is still so easily attached at the teat to GWB and the neocon agenda.

As for the circle-jerk over at Fox. They are busy silencing all of the grumpy white men who can't believe McCain put a 40 something year old soccer mom one heartbeat away from the Presidency...as progressive as some of you GOP supporters might think you are....there is alot of hand-wringing taking place over this selection. McCain abandoned the safe route (Romney) he just thumbed his nose at the GOP leadership.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
I love the smell of desperation in the morning The dems don't have a good avenue of attack, and they know it.

Just wait until Hillary's done with her. There won't be much left for the wildlife.

After she praised Hillary and thanked her in her first speech, any attack by Hillary will just be seen by the average person as a case of sour grapes because she didn't get the position she so rightfully "deserved". Hillary could probably slice and dice Palin in an actual debate on issues, but it's a non-starter because that would simply empower Palin as a victim.

hehehe I don't think a President has ever been elected because he was percieved as a victim.

the same goes for Veep

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm not sure what you're getting at here...

The majority of America agrees that the 1st amendment states that religious beliefs like creationism should not be taught in the classrooms of this nation's public schools. If you want to teach your own children your religious beliefs, then in the home and church is the best place for that.

Plus, belief in young earth creationism is waning even among the religious. Pretty much only the fundies accept it anymore. While most mainline churches accept that scientific theories like big bang and evolution do not contradict God or the Bible.

So please don't pretend that just because a majority of Americans are religious means that they support the fundamentalist minority that want to push their religion in the schools.

Proof? If, as you say, the majority of people thought creationism shouldnt be taught then we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

Based on the following I would disagree. As a side not, admittedly I have not a clue how reliable these sources are....

Personally, I think both should be taught. Then again I also think schools should teach children to think on their own rather then force their world views on them.

Click

The Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design lobby group located in the United States, also claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, "Teach the Controversy".

Click

Fifty studies were reviewed that surveyed opinions on teaching origins in public schools. The vast majority found about 90 % of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools. About 90 % of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In America, about 15 % of high school teachers teach both evolution and creation, and close to 20 % of high school science teachers and about 10,000 scientists (including more than 4,000 life scientists) reject both macroevolution and theistic evolution. Although the vast majority of Americans desire both creation and evolution taught in school, the evolutionary naturalism worldview dominates, revealing a major disparity between the population and the ruling élite.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Excuse me, are you saying the majority believe that Creationism should be taught in the class room????

I dont know. But I do know enough people support it that, as I said earlier, its obviously an issue.

As for the hard numbers as to where people stand, I'm rather interested in that myself.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Proof? If, as you say, the majority of people thought creationism shouldnt be taught then we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

Based on the following I would disagree. As a side not, admittedly I have not a clue how reliable these sources are....

Yes you do, you know they are unreliable. While you might be dense, stubborn and foolish you are not retarded.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Proof? If, as you say, the majority of people thought creationism shouldnt be taught then we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

Based on the following I would disagree. As a side not, admittedly I have not a clue how reliable these sources are....

Yes you do, you know they are unreliable. While you might be dense, stubborn and foolish you are not retarded.

Any numbers beat pulling random statements out of my ass now dont they?

So perhaps your time would be better served if you found some numbers rather then type out pointless replies?

 

[Vic]

Those polls are nonsense. I can believe that "God created the universe" without believing in young earth creationism. The notion that a belief in God necessitates a belief in a "literal" interpretation of the Book of Genesis is total bullshit.

Let's bring this topic back to reality:

Science belongs in the science classroom.

Religion belongs in church and home.

Kindly keep YOUR religion out of OUR children's science classrooms.

Thank you.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Proof? If, as you say, the majority of people thought creationism shouldnt be taught then we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

Based on the following I would disagree. As a side not, admittedly I have not a clue how reliable these sources are....

Yes you do, you know they are unreliable. While you might be dense, stubborn and foolish you are not retarded.

Any numbers beat pulling random statements out of my ass now dont they?

So perhaps your time would be better served if you found some numbers rather then type out pointless replies?

They're not pointless, they are the truth. You know for certain that those sources are unreliable and to say otherwise would be totally dishonest.


What's up with your sig? Why do you have the stats of Black on White Rape and not even bother to mention White on White Rape?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Specop, freedom for discussion does not mean that you have to discuss fairy tales in science class in order to be open minded. She wanted to discuss made up creation stories in a class on evolution. This is a common tactic of creationists in an attempt to make creationism legitimate when it's not. "teach the debate" is the same horseshit they've been trying for years and it's no less shitty now than it ever was.

Considering the one greatest influence on the world we live in is religion....Yeah, I think it should be discussed. And the fact that you represent a miority in regards to religion, well.... Tough titty said the kitty.

In the proper class, that of Myths and Fables.

The majority disagrees with you.
Of course your one of those highly educated liberals so of course you know whats right and wrong and feel it your duty to educate the entire rest of the world. It must be difficult being the enlightened one in a country filled with dullards isnt it?

:laugh:

The majority can believe whatever it wants, it doesn't alter objective reality. The majority of Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9/11, should we start teaching that in our schools? We teach what we know to be true in schools based upon the best available evidence regardless of how popular that evidence is. To suggest that we teach reality based on some popularity contest is some sort of ridiculous Stephen Colbert style wikiality. The majority disagreed with Galileo too, but evidence and science was on his side. Eventually he was able to clear away the cobwebs and medieval thinking that fought against him, and eventually evolution will do the same. Reality is a little too much to ignore forever.

First of all, the discussion is pretty much over. If you look at the Dover case, creationism (and intelligent design with it) was dealt such a crushing defeat that it will likely never mount a serious challenge again.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
First of all, the discussion is pretty much over. If you look at the Dover case, creationism (and intelligent design with it) was dealt such a crushing defeat that it will likely never mount a serious challenge again.

Sadly, I'd like to agree with you but there are far too many stupid people who are easily mislead by religion and pseudo-science. This kind of stuff will continue to happen, intelligent design will simply get redone under some other name and tried again.

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Specop, freedom for discussion does not mean that you have to discuss fairy tales in science class in order to be open minded. She wanted to discuss made up creation stories in a class on evolution. This is a common tactic of creationists in an attempt to make creationism legitimate when it's not. "teach the debate" is the same horseshit they've been trying for years and it's no less shitty now than it ever was.

Considering the one greatest influence on the world we live in is religion....Yeah, I think it should be discussed. And the fact that you represent a miority in regards to religion, well.... Tough titty said the kitty.

In the proper class, that of Myths and Fables.

The majority disagrees with you.
Of course your one of those highly educated liberals so of course you know whats right and wrong and feel it your duty to educate the entire rest of the world. It must be difficult being the enlightened one in a country filled with dullards isnt it?

:laugh:

The majority can believe whatever it wants, it doesn't alter objective reality. The majority of Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9/11, should we start teaching that in our schools? We teach what we know to be true in schools based upon the best available evidence regardless of how popular that evidence is. To suggest that we teach reality based on some popularity contest is some sort of ridiculous Stephen Colbert style wikiality. The majority disagreed with Galileo too, but evidence and science was on his side. Eventually he was able to clear away the cobwebs and medieval thinking that fought against him, and eventually evolution will do the same. Reality is a little too much to ignore forever.

First of all, the discussion is pretty much over. If you look at the Dover case, creationism (and intelligent design with it) was dealt such a crushing defeat that it will likely never mount a serious challenge again.

I agree.

And it's freakin scary that so many people believed Saddam was behind 9/11, can't find countries on the map, etc etc. Part of me hopes the polls are wrong, part of me believes Americans are just that stupid.

Creationism will never be accepted, and should not be taught in public schools IMO.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic
-snip-
'Executive experience' is a new talking point that you never even knew about before today. So let's not fool ourselves, eh?

I've always felt that governors have an experience advantage over legislators in presidential races. It isn't something I thought of today for the first time.
A campaign has some relevance in terms of experience, however I wouldn't give it the same weight as being a governor, mayor, or head of a large organization, governmental or corporate.

I don't consider experience as important as being right on the issues, leadership, or integrity, I would personally only look at it if those more important qualities were equal.

For many of us "executive experience" is not a new topic.

I remember bringing it up and the fact that our parties' nominees were not going to be governors a long time ago.

I don't see managing a campaign the same as gubernatorial experience. The former is basically waging a media campaign. The latter entails far far more.

As regards the OP's question, I've noticed a slew of Dem surrogates attacking her on any of fronts. The MSM is saturated. I suppose they're trying to define her before she gets a chance to do so herself.

But that could be risky. They're giving her a tremendous amount of publicity and firing up the Repub base at the same time. The issue of "experience" is now once again at the forefront. No matter how hard they pimp the "heartbeat away from the Presidency" thingy, everyone instinctively knows that the Presidential candidate needs more experience than a VP, and needs it right away. If you don't have the experience to be a heartbeat away, you damn sure don't have it to be President right away. So, the issue circles back right to Obama and his experience in an axiomatic fashion.

Then we see this whole creepy 'McCain" could die real soon stuff. And when we get there, the silent but unfortunately ever-present concern that Obama could be assissinated thing comes to mind.

Otherwise, nobody's saying so yet (except me) but the Dems are running a thinly veiled ageism campaign against McCain. Could be playing with trouble if it becomes to obvious, and they risk it here IMO.

Commericals touting "McCain, same old Washington politics" somehow have managed to have the word "OLD" plastered right under McCain's pictured. IMO, hardly subtle but the MSM lacks any motive to mention it. Then there was the whole mis-characterization of McCain's quote regarding his numerous homes. The political ad mis-quoted McCain as saying "he couldn't remember, any more. Again, IMO not by accident nor too subtle so as to not be detected (too old, failing memory etc).

Keep it up, and somebody's gonna string these things together in a pretty damn effective pol ad, and they'll be accusations quite difficult to deny.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh, here's another way she can/should be attacked: apparently she thinks we should teach creationism in our schools. Sure she wasn't pushing for curriculum changes, but she still thought that it was okay to teach religion in science class.

meh, I've heard an awful lot about the Dem's efforts to capture some of the religious back to their side. This line of attack sounds like a sure way to screw that up royally.

Of course, after Pelosi's il-advised statements about the Catholic church and their abortion stance they might as well punt on that now.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I seriously doubt you're right Fern. In fact I bet the Obama campaign is overjoyed with his choice. The issue of experience will be back now, but now it works against McCain instead of for him. By picking Palin he has implicitly stated she is ready to be CIC at any moment if something happens to him. If she's ready, Obama's ready. Now the theme that will be put forth about 'experience' is going to be something along the lines of "does McCain have bad judgment, or does he not even believe his own lines?"

Bad, bad move on his part. The Democrats are certainly running an age thing on McCain, and I doubt they are at all worried about it backfiring on him. If you look at polling, even those 65+ think that it is more likely to make McCain less effective than more effective. Probably most importantly on that issue is that the concerns are legitimate. If you have a 72 year old relative and someone asked you to bet on the state of their health 8 years from now I think most people would be given a moment of pause, and rightfully so.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton
:laugh: OMG, this is going to be GOOOOOD!

The pundits on all stations (except Fox) is tearing Palin a new one.

And the Republicans trying to defend the choice are arguing who is less experienced, not if Palin is experienced.

They certainly arent tearing her a new one.

You kidding? Turn it on something other than Fox. They are tearing her lack of experience to shreds.

Call it media bias if you want, but it's happening.

any ones doing it are probably as sexist as you are.

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I hope we never see a soccer mom in charge of the nuclear football.

because lord knows, females can't be trusted to do anything but cook your dinner, right?

Run the local PTA? Sure.

Coach the local sports team? Absolutely.

Be mayor of a small town? Fantastic.

Govern the 48th least populous state in our country for less than two years? That's progress.

Lead the most powerful nation in the world, and command the world's most powerful military and their arsenal of several thousand tactical nuclear weapons? Ummm...no.

http://forums.anandtech.com/message...ORDFRM=&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

and of course theres a difference between executive and legislative responsibility. as an executive your balls are hanging out there alone. as a legislator your responsibility is dispersed with all your fellow legislators.

 

[Jhhnn]

Eskimospy has it pretty well nailed down. Looks to me that being POTUS is the toughest job in the world, and has clearly made much younger men than McCain old before their time... His age and health history are legit concerns, particularly since their "Plan B" isn't much of a plan, at all...