Well...I can't disagree with you on this point. It's a dangerous and unfortunate truth that there is a large majority of people in this country that would vote for Sarah Plalin on the principle that she is "simple" and reflects the lowest common denominator of American Society. The fact that we could hold our potential leaders to such a low standard is both vile and utterly digusting.
She's a solid politician. A leader? I don't know for sure.
A great leader (like a teacher) boils down complex problems to simplisitic ones and makes a decision. A job of a President is to make decisions and to delegate, not to show how eloquently they can speak or how much they can memorize.
america is so divided along partisan lines that often what is "right" is so often overlooked ...
I think you are dead-on.
If McCain could accurately say this and explain that he has tried to do just that I think he'd connect with voters... but, he's hasn't and I don't think he will.
To be fair to him, I really do think he is one of those "right" politicians. That said, I think that part of him has gotten lost in trying to win the Presidency. IF he has any hope, he needs to find it again.
I just can't figure out what direction the McCain campaign is trying to go in...
One moment Palin is firing up the conservative base with her shots at Obama, the next moment McCain is giving conservatives the finger with this mortgage buy back program.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
If McCain could accurately say this and explain that he has tried to do just that I think he'd connect with voters... but, he's hasn't and I don't think he will.
To be fair to him, I really do think he is one of those "right" politicians. That said, I think that part of him has gotten lost in trying to win the Presidency. IF he has any hope, he needs to find it again.
there would be a lot of people who would say so 8 years ago ... but that man is no longer there ... the GOP is bigger than the president and vice-president ... and that goes for the democrats as well ... the machine operates with purpose and it can't be changed by a senator who has already shown he has caved ...
As for your "facts", McCain's tax cuts to the rich is a blatant lie, and what the hell are you talking about Women's right to choose? If your talking about Abortion I'll be the first to tell you that whole arguement is bullshit. It's not in the Constitution, that means it should be decided by the states. I can't stand when people expect the Federal Government to decide shit like this. This also applies to Gay Marriage.
You asked me 5 things where McCain and Bush are similar. I think I gave you 8.
John McCain IS offering tax cuts to the rich. It's on his website. It's in his platform. Sure since he's been called out on it by both Obama and Biden he's flipped flopped like everthing else in this election. But the truth is that McCain's tax plan provides $700,000 tax cuts to every single person that is amoung the richest 2% of the population. This is Fact.
Secondly...I'm not going to tangle with you on Abortion issue because that may warrant an entirely new thread on it's own. The fact is that John McCain and George W. Bush have the exact same policy on abortion and the issue of abortion. They feel that it is illegal. Both men have gone on record that if given the chance, they would fight to make abortion illegal. This is also Fact.
I actually think the Presidential race would be closer if Palin was the nominee for President. I am being 100% sincere too.
I just think that she is too decisive of a person/personality to be a serious nominee. Her negatives are going up everyday, and if she would have started campaigning a year ago, I think that she'd be old news at this point.
In my opinion, Mit Romney (as much as he annoys me) would have made the strongest republican candidate... Besides Romney, I just can't see where the republicans go in 2012.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I actually think the Presidential race would be closer if Palin was the nominee for President. I am being 100% sincere too.
That would like Ross Perot all over again. Meaning that since she is a throw away vote makes McCain and Obama look better? The biggest joke ever!
Palin=FUCKING SCARY! Seriously folks. She is a dangerous person to have in office. Encouraging teen marriages for the sake of a child?? How about what's best for her own child! Why on earth would Palin hide her own pregnancy from her family for almost 5 months? Regardless of the condition of the fetis, it just doesn't make sense. Going to war is god's way?? Using her power to have people removed from their jobs. Her smiling as she telling you the sky is falling. Fueling the fear factor every bit of the way! Just like the rest of them but worst, she can do it more convincingly. Just plain scary.
My friend called me up the day she was picked by McCain. She honestly thought I would be thrilled with his decision. She actually deemed it the best day ever. And that she cried since she was so happy, so happy that she might even put a McCain sign on her lawn.
Just prior to his announcement, I was truly on the fence. Once she was picked...it all change. I said to her "McCain lost my vote forever with the pick. He just threw away his chance at making it into the office with her. He has officially lost".
Secondly...I'm not going to tangle with you on Abortion issue because that may warrant an entirely new thread on it's own. The fact is that John McCain and George W. Bush have the exact same policy on abortion and the issue of abortion. They feel that it is illegal. Both men have gone on record that if given the chance, they would fight to keep abortion illegal. This is also Fact.
I do not want to tangle with you on this issue either. I do not agree with the Republicans with this issue. I also am not sure that I agree entirely with the Democrats, but I certainly side with them a little more with the issue. I just think it should be up to each state.
BlackRedYellow - I will go on record as stating I voted for Mitt in the primaries. What a waste of a vote that was.
I just think that she is too decisive of a person/personality to be a serious nominee. Her negatives are going up everyday, and if she would have started campaigning a year ago, I think that she'd be old news at this point.
In my opinion, Mit Romney (as much as he annoys me) would have made the strongest republican candidate... Besides Romney, I just can't see where the republicans go in 2012.
I think Mitt would be a good choice as to helping with this wall street clean up. I think he is a smart business man. I think he should used by either person in their cabinet. To not leverage his brain would be a disservice this country. I am a democrat by nature but I like few aspects of the Republican party. I think his reputation shows he can turn things around from the red to the black. Just my opinion.
I agree with more of McCain then Obama....I don't agree with every aspect of his doctrine. I don't agree with the negative things of the party. Obviously I'm not an idiot. I just think McCain will do a better job at getting us out then Obama. I mean if you think anyone is getting tax cuts in the next 10 years your out of your mind. Both parties say this is going to happen, but we all know it won't
I agree with more of McCain then Obama....I don't agree with every aspect of his doctrine. I don't agree with the negative things of the party. Obviously I'm not an idiot. I just think McCain will do a better job at getting us out then Obama. I mean if you think anyone is getting tax cuts in the next 10 years your out of your mind. Both parties say this is going to happen, but we all know it won't
so ... you're saying the negative things associated with bush aren't negative enuf for you to not vote for them?
so ... you're saying the negative things associated with bush aren't negative enuf for you to not vote for them?
No I'm saying I agree with more with McCain then with Obama on a lot of issues. I just think and it's only my opinion, that Obama has too many negatives for me.
I just think that she is too decisive of a person/personality to be a serious nominee. Her negatives are going up everyday, and if she would have started campaigning a year ago, I think that she'd be old news at this point.
In my opinion, Mit Romney (as much as he annoys me) would have made the strongest republican candidate... Besides Romney, I just can't see where the republicans go in 2012.
Decisive or Devisive? I see little wrong with decisive. If you meant devisive, I don't think so. It's interesting actually, that you bring that up. Why does the left always consider a candidate "devisive" when aren't to their liking? I mean Obama could be considered devisive. But, I don't think the right would ever say that.
She performed very well and the convention and in the debate. She's new to big-ticket political scene. With a year or two of studying (like Obama) I think she'd be hard to beat.
Decisive or Devisive? I see little wrong with decisive. If you meant devisive, I don't think so. It's interesting actually, that you bring that up. Why does the left always consider a candidate "devisive" when aren't to their liking? I mean Obama could be considered devisive. But, I don't think the right would ever say that.
She performed very well and the convention and in the debate. She's new to big-ticket political scene. With a year or two of studying (like Obama) I think she'd be hard to beat.
Sorry, I meant divisive... Policy-wise, while I greatly disagree with her, I wouldn't consider her divisive, but as far as personality, in my opinion she really is. Part of it may be her role in the campaign as an attack dog, but she just comes off in her speeches as she as "joe six pack" gets it, and no one else really does... like there is a genuine contempt for people not like her (whatever that is).
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Pro-war? Come on, man. You are obviously fired up, but do you have to go there?
I am not pro-war. I am not pro-deficits. That said I am pro-defense. I am pro-tax-cuts. I am pro-spending cuts. And I agree with the Republican take on morals.... with a few exceptions (ie death sentence).
I don't always vote Republican though..... so you are wrong.
Take a deep breath and calm down. Your prefered candidate will be in office soon.
i dont know if this has been said before, but why dont you vote Ron Paul? You can still write his name on the ballot right?
Sorry, I meant divisive... Policy-wise, while I greatly disagree with her, I wouldn't consider her divisive, but as far as personality, in my opinion she really is. Part of it may be her role in the campaign as an attack dog, but she just comes off in her speeches as she as "joe six pack" gets it, and no one else really does... like there is a genuine contempt for people not like her (whatever that is).
Actually that's very interesting.
I am wondering why the media and the left consider her (and Bush before her) so devisive. It makes sense. She's not a blue-stater. Kinda like what you said above. She's speaking red-state language. That makes her polarizing because blue-staters don't get her style because it's not blue-state style. Then the remarks about how she's stupid start, which backfire because it fires up the red base.
Ironically, the opposite always happens with the Dem candidate. They always appear professorial, talking down to their audience. The red-staters don't understand why the guy is talking down to them as if they are not smart enough.
The one time this was not the case was Clinton. He had a blue-state and red-state style.
I am wondering why the media and the left consider her (and Bush before her) so devisive. It makes sense. She's not a blue-stater. Kinda like what you said above. She's speaking red-state language. That makes her polarizing because blue-staters don't get her style because it's not blue-state style. Then the remarks about how she's stupid start, which backfire because it fires up the red base.
Ironically, the opposite always happens with the Dem candidate. They always appear professorial, talking down to their audience. The red-staters don't understand why the guy is talking down to them as if they are not smart enough.
The one time this was not the case was Clinton. He had a blue-state and red-state style.
It's all about perception, and perception is reality. Geographically more than anything, people relate to people differently. A high-strung new yorker or laid back west coast surfer doesn't play well in the south, and a good ol' boy from Alabama doesn't come across well to people in the northeast.
I just don't understand the whole idea of the candidate who you would like to have a beer with, or whatever. The general manager of the company that I work for can't seem to carry an everyday conversation with his employees, but he runs the business very well and is good at what he does. I would rather have that than a guy who I'd like to hang out with, but runs the business poorly.
I guess for a lot of voting people, an emotional connection means more to them than what it does to me.
Clinton did have both... a red state way of relating/communicating, with blue state policies.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
It's all about perception, and perception is reality. Geographically more than anything, people relate to people differently. A high-strung new yorker or laid back west coast surfer doesn't play well in the south, and a good ol' boy from Alabama doesn't come across well to people in the northeast.
I just don't understand the whole idea of the candidate who you would like to have a beer with, or whatever. The general manager of the company that I work for can't seem to carry an everyday conversation with his employees, but he runs the business very well and is good at what he does. I would rather have that than a guy who I'd like to hang out with, but runs the business poorly.
I guess for a lot of voting people, an emotional connection means more to them than what it does to me.
Clinton did have both... a red state way of relating/communicating, with blue state policies.
I think the "have a beer with" thing is really saying that they are down to earth. I can understand why that would be important. People want someone in office that can relate to people in every day life.
I think the "have a beer with" thing is really saying that they are down to earth. I can understand why that would be important. People want someone in office that can relate to people in every day life.
unfortunately, it's the people that shoot off potato guns and huff paint that feel they can relate to Palin in every day life.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I don't know what's worse...The fact that you voted for Bush twice, or the fact that you'd actually go back and vote him in again.
The Conservative Right never ceases to amaze me.
It's what Jesus would do...kill the muslims..
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
a lot of things from both sides, didn't really make sense. but whoever wins will have a hard time getting things done with that little thing known as the 11 trillion debt...
Reading 2004
Albany 2006 Camden 2006 E. Rutherford 2, 2006 Inglewood 2006,
Chicago 2007
Camden 2008 MSG 2008 MSG 2008 Hartford 2008.
Seattle 2009 Seattle 2009 Philadelphia 2009,Philadelphia 2009 Philadelphia 2009
Hartford 2010 MSG 2010 MSG 2010
Toronto 2011,Toronto 2011
Wrigley Field 2013 Brooklyn 2013 Brooklyn 2013 Philadelphia 2, 2013
Philadelphia 1, 2016 Philadelphia 2 2016 New York 2016 New York 2016 Fenway 1, 2016 Fenway 2, 2018 MSG 2022 St. Paul, 1, St. Paul 2 2023 MSG 2024, MSG 2024 Philadelphia 2024
"I play good, hard-nosed basketball.
Things happen in the game. Nothing you
can do. I don't go and say,
"I'm gonna beat this guy up."
I am wondering why the media and the left consider her (and Bush before her) so devisive. It makes sense. She's not a blue-stater. Kinda like what you said above. She's speaking red-state language. That makes her polarizing because blue-staters don't get her style because it's not blue-state style. Then the remarks about how she's stupid start, which backfire because it fires up the red base.
Ironically, the opposite always happens with the Dem candidate. They always appear professorial, talking down to their audience. The red-staters don't understand why the guy is talking down to them as if they are not smart enough.
The one time this was not the case was Clinton. He had a blue-state and red-state style.
I think what separates Palin from Obama and Biden (and John McCain and George W. Bush, for that matter) is the outright contempt she seems to have for such a significant portion of the electorate. I don't think she's stupid by any stretch of the imagination; I think the Katie Couric interviews were her tripping up in an attempt to relay talking points, but I don't think the problem is that she is unintelligent. I think it's a much different problem, and a worse one at that.
I don't like the hyper-partisanship that verges on hatred that exists between the different groups and different political parties. I mean, in some way it's not surprising that a bunch of liberal, elitist smug asshole intellectuals and a bunch of redneck, inbred morons would not get along with each other, and might be hateful of each other. However, the fact is, they're all Americans; it's cliched, but it's true. However, whereas the people may hate each other, the candidates must be bi-partisan in the sense that they are aiming to be the leader of all Americans (of course, unless you're a Wall Street CEO; then you're shat on by all candidates).
Sarah Palin breaks this mold; she does not seem to like Obama, which is unsurprising, but she seems to have a surprising amount of contempt for those "East coaster elitists", which are a rather large part of the electorate. I honestly cannot remember a presidential or vice presidential candidate in my lifetime that has not only been hateful towards the opposing candidate (which admittedly, is nothing new), but has also been hateful towards a significant portion of the people she is applying to lead. Maybe there's some candidate I'm forgetting, but I don't remember Clinton, Reagan, Kerry, either of the Bushes or Cheney expressing that kind of contempt. It's a little disconcerting to see that kind of attitude and atmosphere encouraged by a vice presidential candidate.
I think what separates Palin from Obama and Biden (and John McCain and George W. Bush, for that matter) is the outright contempt she seems to have for such a significant portion of the electorate. I don't think she's stupid by any stretch of the imagination; I think the Katie Couric interviews were her tripping up in an attempt to relay talking points, but I don't think the problem is that she is unintelligent. I think it's a much different problem, and a worse one at that.
I don't like the hyper-partisanship that verges on hatred that exists between the different groups and different political parties. I mean, in some way it's not surprising that a bunch of liberal, elitist smug asshole intellectuals and a bunch of redneck, inbred morons would not get along with each other, and might be hateful of each other. However, the fact is, they're all Americans; it's cliched, but it's true. However, whereas the people may hate each other, the candidates must be bi-partisan in the sense that they are aiming to be the leader of all Americans (of course, unless you're a Wall Street CEO; then you're shat on by all candidates).
Sarah Palin breaks this mold; she does not seem to like Obama, which is unsurprising, but she seems to have a surprising amount of contempt for those "East coaster elitists", which are a rather large part of the electorate. I honestly cannot remember a presidential or vice presidential candidate in my lifetime that has not only been hateful towards the opposing candidate (which admittedly, is nothing new), but has also been hateful towards a significant portion of the people she is applying to lead. Maybe there's some candidate I'm forgetting, but I don't remember Clinton, Reagan, Kerry, either of the Bushes or Cheney expressing that kind of contempt. It's a little disconcerting to see that kind of attitude and atmosphere encouraged by a vice presidential candidate.
I just don't see what you are seeing. I don't see her bashing east coast elitists. But for the sake of argument, let's say she used that term... "east coast elitists"... I see no problem with it because she said elitists which was the noun. The other two terms are adjectives. She's bashing the elitists in the east coast, more specificially DC. Now if east coasters was the noun, I'd agree with you.
I just don't see what you are seeing. I don't see her bashing east coast elitists. But for the sake of argument, let's say she used that term... "east coast elitists"... I see no problem with it because she said elitists which was the noun. The other two terms are adjectives. She's bashing the elitists in the east coast, more specificially DC. Now if east coasters was the noun, I'd agree with you.
I think it's a bit of a loaded phrase in the manner that it's used.
If (or when, I'm sure it's been said before) a liberal begins spouting off about their contempt for those "redneck southerners," it takes on a different connotation.
In the latter case, it's a assumed that it's only those who are perhaps racially prejudiced or blinded by religious ideals to a fanatic level. Yet, I have the feeling that many people supporting said liberal would view that as a larger percentage of the south than it truly is. Likewise, it seems the people supporting Palin's statements may fall in to the same trap of over-estimating the number of people being discussed or playing a little fast and loose with the definition or intention.
Of course, whenever anyone uses either phrase, they know this is going to happen. They understand that this is the point of stereotyping in the first place.
I don't know, I'm not explaining this well, I don't think. Ugh, I need a drink or something.
I just don't see what you are seeing. I don't see her bashing east coast elitists. But for the sake of argument, let's say she used that term... "east coast elitists"... I see no problem with it because she said elitists which was the noun. The other two terms are adjectives. She's bashing the elitists in the east coast, more specificially DC. Now if east coasters was the noun, I'd agree with you.
The proof is in the pudding; look at what we've been hearing about in regards to these Florida gatherings. I don't hold Palin personally responsible to the reprehensible actions taken by her supporters, but it does show that the environment is toxic nonetheless. But let's say you're right; let's say she said 'east-coast elitists' as opposed to 'east coasters'. Let's go even further; let's say she said 'east-coast elitist liberal media intellectual Ivy Leaguers.' It's still encouraging hatred towards something more than a policy position or a candidate; it's hatred towards people to stir the base. When has Barack Obama done this? John McCain? Dick Cheney? That type of language and intent is quite a bit further than the typical 'red meat' of a stump speech. I don't like candidates egging on the hatred of a candidate, but I accept that it exists. What I cannot stand for is a candidate egging on the hatred of another section of the voting bloc. It's extremely un-presidential.
i've read every post from this thread and all i can say is that i'm so happy that i'm not friendly with any of you's ,you guys are all f'n scary and racist all you have to do is read between the lines .....
Comments
She's a solid politician. A leader? I don't know for sure.
A great leader (like a teacher) boils down complex problems to simplisitic ones and makes a decision. A job of a President is to make decisions and to delegate, not to show how eloquently they can speak or how much they can memorize.
I think you are dead-on.
If McCain could accurately say this and explain that he has tried to do just that I think he'd connect with voters... but, he's hasn't and I don't think he will.
To be fair to him, I really do think he is one of those "right" politicians. That said, I think that part of him has gotten lost in trying to win the Presidency. IF he has any hope, he needs to find it again.
One moment Palin is firing up the conservative base with her shots at Obama, the next moment McCain is giving conservatives the finger with this mortgage buy back program.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
there would be a lot of people who would say so 8 years ago ... but that man is no longer there ... the GOP is bigger than the president and vice-president ... and that goes for the democrats as well ... the machine operates with purpose and it can't be changed by a senator who has already shown he has caved ...
You asked me 5 things where McCain and Bush are similar. I think I gave you 8.
John McCain IS offering tax cuts to the rich. It's on his website. It's in his platform. Sure since he's been called out on it by both Obama and Biden he's flipped flopped like everthing else in this election. But the truth is that McCain's tax plan provides $700,000 tax cuts to every single person that is amoung the richest 2% of the population. This is Fact.
Secondly...I'm not going to tangle with you on Abortion issue because that may warrant an entirely new thread on it's own. The fact is that John McCain and George W. Bush have the exact same policy on abortion and the issue of abortion. They feel that it is illegal. Both men have gone on record that if given the chance, they would fight to make abortion illegal. This is also Fact.
I just think that she is too decisive of a person/personality to be a serious nominee. Her negatives are going up everyday, and if she would have started campaigning a year ago, I think that she'd be old news at this point.
In my opinion, Mit Romney (as much as he annoys me) would have made the strongest republican candidate... Besides Romney, I just can't see where the republicans go in 2012.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
That would like Ross Perot all over again. Meaning that since she is a throw away vote makes McCain and Obama look better? The biggest joke ever!
Palin=FUCKING SCARY! Seriously folks. She is a dangerous person to have in office. Encouraging teen marriages for the sake of a child?? How about what's best for her own child! Why on earth would Palin hide her own pregnancy from her family for almost 5 months? Regardless of the condition of the fetis, it just doesn't make sense. Going to war is god's way?? Using her power to have people removed from their jobs. Her smiling as she telling you the sky is falling. Fueling the fear factor every bit of the way! Just like the rest of them but worst, she can do it more convincingly. Just plain scary.
My friend called me up the day she was picked by McCain. She honestly thought I would be thrilled with his decision. She actually deemed it the best day ever. And that she cried since she was so happy, so happy that she might even put a McCain sign on her lawn.
Just prior to his announcement, I was truly on the fence. Once she was picked...it all change. I said to her "McCain lost my vote forever with the pick. He just threw away his chance at making it into the office with her. He has officially lost".
I do not want to tangle with you on this issue either. I do not agree with the Republicans with this issue. I also am not sure that I agree entirely with the Democrats, but I certainly side with them a little more with the issue. I just think it should be up to each state.
BlackRedYellow - I will go on record as stating I voted for Mitt in the primaries. What a waste of a vote that was.
I think Mitt would be a good choice as to helping with this wall street clean up. I think he is a smart business man. I think he should used by either person in their cabinet. To not leverage his brain would be a disservice this country. I am a democrat by nature but I like few aspects of the Republican party. I think his reputation shows he can turn things around from the red to the black. Just my opinion.
mccain's recent history is the party's history
I agree with more of McCain then Obama....I don't agree with every aspect of his doctrine. I don't agree with the negative things of the party. Obviously I'm not an idiot. I just think McCain will do a better job at getting us out then Obama. I mean if you think anyone is getting tax cuts in the next 10 years your out of your mind. Both parties say this is going to happen, but we all know it won't
so ... you're saying the negative things associated with bush aren't negative enuf for you to not vote for them?
No I'm saying I agree with more with McCain then with Obama on a lot of issues. I just think and it's only my opinion, that Obama has too many negatives for me.
Decisive or Devisive? I see little wrong with decisive. If you meant devisive, I don't think so. It's interesting actually, that you bring that up. Why does the left always consider a candidate "devisive" when aren't to their liking? I mean Obama could be considered devisive. But, I don't think the right would ever say that.
She performed very well and the convention and in the debate. She's new to big-ticket political scene. With a year or two of studying (like Obama) I think she'd be hard to beat.
Sorry, I meant divisive... Policy-wise, while I greatly disagree with her, I wouldn't consider her divisive, but as far as personality, in my opinion she really is. Part of it may be her role in the campaign as an attack dog, but she just comes off in her speeches as she as "joe six pack" gets it, and no one else really does... like there is a genuine contempt for people not like her (whatever that is).
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
#1. He won't win.
#2. I'm not also not a huge fan of his. He's great in his current role, but not as President.
Actually that's very interesting.
I am wondering why the media and the left consider her (and Bush before her) so devisive. It makes sense. She's not a blue-stater. Kinda like what you said above. She's speaking red-state language. That makes her polarizing because blue-staters don't get her style because it's not blue-state style. Then the remarks about how she's stupid start, which backfire because it fires up the red base.
Ironically, the opposite always happens with the Dem candidate. They always appear professorial, talking down to their audience. The red-staters don't understand why the guy is talking down to them as if they are not smart enough.
The one time this was not the case was Clinton. He had a blue-state and red-state style.
It's all about perception, and perception is reality. Geographically more than anything, people relate to people differently. A high-strung new yorker or laid back west coast surfer doesn't play well in the south, and a good ol' boy from Alabama doesn't come across well to people in the northeast.
I just don't understand the whole idea of the candidate who you would like to have a beer with, or whatever. The general manager of the company that I work for can't seem to carry an everyday conversation with his employees, but he runs the business very well and is good at what he does. I would rather have that than a guy who I'd like to hang out with, but runs the business poorly.
I guess for a lot of voting people, an emotional connection means more to them than what it does to me.
Clinton did have both... a red state way of relating/communicating, with blue state policies.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I think the "have a beer with" thing is really saying that they are down to earth. I can understand why that would be important. People want someone in office that can relate to people in every day life.
unfortunately, it's the people that shoot off potato guns and huff paint that feel they can relate to Palin in every day life.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
It's what Jesus would do...kill the muslims..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14396.html
I just wish I could get back the 90+ minutes I wasted watching it.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
Albany 2006 Camden 2006 E. Rutherford 2, 2006 Inglewood 2006,
Chicago 2007
Camden 2008 MSG 2008 MSG 2008 Hartford 2008.
Seattle 2009 Seattle 2009 Philadelphia 2009,Philadelphia 2009 Philadelphia 2009
Hartford 2010 MSG 2010 MSG 2010
Toronto 2011,Toronto 2011
Wrigley Field 2013 Brooklyn 2013 Brooklyn 2013 Philadelphia 2, 2013
Philadelphia 1, 2016 Philadelphia 2 2016 New York 2016 New York 2016 Fenway 1, 2016
Fenway 2, 2018
MSG 2022
St. Paul, 1, St. Paul 2 2023
MSG 2024, MSG 2024
Philadelphia 2024
"I play good, hard-nosed basketball.
Things happen in the game. Nothing you
can do. I don't go and say,
"I'm gonna beat this guy up."
I think what separates Palin from Obama and Biden (and John McCain and George W. Bush, for that matter) is the outright contempt she seems to have for such a significant portion of the electorate. I don't think she's stupid by any stretch of the imagination; I think the Katie Couric interviews were her tripping up in an attempt to relay talking points, but I don't think the problem is that she is unintelligent. I think it's a much different problem, and a worse one at that.
I don't like the hyper-partisanship that verges on hatred that exists between the different groups and different political parties. I mean, in some way it's not surprising that a bunch of liberal, elitist smug asshole intellectuals and a bunch of redneck, inbred morons would not get along with each other, and might be hateful of each other. However, the fact is, they're all Americans; it's cliched, but it's true. However, whereas the people may hate each other, the candidates must be bi-partisan in the sense that they are aiming to be the leader of all Americans (of course, unless you're a Wall Street CEO; then you're shat on by all candidates).
Sarah Palin breaks this mold; she does not seem to like Obama, which is unsurprising, but she seems to have a surprising amount of contempt for those "East coaster elitists", which are a rather large part of the electorate. I honestly cannot remember a presidential or vice presidential candidate in my lifetime that has not only been hateful towards the opposing candidate (which admittedly, is nothing new), but has also been hateful towards a significant portion of the people she is applying to lead. Maybe there's some candidate I'm forgetting, but I don't remember Clinton, Reagan, Kerry, either of the Bushes or Cheney expressing that kind of contempt. It's a little disconcerting to see that kind of attitude and atmosphere encouraged by a vice presidential candidate.
I just don't see what you are seeing. I don't see her bashing east coast elitists. But for the sake of argument, let's say she used that term... "east coast elitists"... I see no problem with it because she said elitists which was the noun. The other two terms are adjectives. She's bashing the elitists in the east coast, more specificially DC. Now if east coasters was the noun, I'd agree with you.
I think it's a bit of a loaded phrase in the manner that it's used.
If (or when, I'm sure it's been said before) a liberal begins spouting off about their contempt for those "redneck southerners," it takes on a different connotation.
In the latter case, it's a assumed that it's only those who are perhaps racially prejudiced or blinded by religious ideals to a fanatic level. Yet, I have the feeling that many people supporting said liberal would view that as a larger percentage of the south than it truly is. Likewise, it seems the people supporting Palin's statements may fall in to the same trap of over-estimating the number of people being discussed or playing a little fast and loose with the definition or intention.
Of course, whenever anyone uses either phrase, they know this is going to happen. They understand that this is the point of stereotyping in the first place.
I don't know, I'm not explaining this well, I don't think. Ugh, I need a drink or something.
The proof is in the pudding; look at what we've been hearing about in regards to these Florida gatherings. I don't hold Palin personally responsible to the reprehensible actions taken by her supporters, but it does show that the environment is toxic nonetheless. But let's say you're right; let's say she said 'east-coast elitists' as opposed to 'east coasters'. Let's go even further; let's say she said 'east-coast elitist liberal media intellectual Ivy Leaguers.' It's still encouraging hatred towards something more than a policy position or a candidate; it's hatred towards people to stir the base. When has Barack Obama done this? John McCain? Dick Cheney? That type of language and intent is quite a bit further than the typical 'red meat' of a stump speech. I don't like candidates egging on the hatred of a candidate, but I accept that it exists. What I cannot stand for is a candidate egging on the hatred of another section of the voting bloc. It's extremely un-presidential.