Thread: The Palin debate

All this stuff was known before McCain picked her. They won't matter to anyone but the media.

-dale

Palin's ex-brother in law allegedly tasered her nephew, the ex-brother in-law's step-son.

Being the ex-brother in-law was a state employee, the State is responsible for his actions. If there is evidence to prove such, the guy should have lost his job.

Originally Posted by Julie

Palin's ex-brother in law allegedly tasered her nephew, the ex-brother in-law's step-son.

Being the ex-brother in-law was a state employee, the State is responsible for his actions. If there is evidence to prove such, the guy should have lost his job.

It depends on why the nephew was tasered? Was he in violation of the law? Was force against him justified? Now that the vetting has begun this pick seems indefensible. She hasn't thought seriously about foreign policy, she is tangled up in a probable scandal in Alaska, she cannot even keep control of her own household, her position on Iraq (when she has one) mirrors Obama's and not her running mate's. The only reasons she seems to have been picked is because she was a chick, with a Downs baby, and shoots guns. That doesn't speak well for McCain's judgment.

I won't swear to it, but I thought I read that the nephew was ten years old at the time.

Originally Posted by Mangolassi

Palin is onder fire there are etic investigations about the dismissal of an law enforcement official in Alaska and her daughter of 17 is pregnant.

What do you think of al this?

All things that prove Palin to be a lightweight.

Originally Posted by Iron Man

All things that prove Palin to be a lightweight.

Please explain.

Originally Posted by McFire

I won't swear to it, but I thought I read that the nephew was ten years old at the time.

You are correct. If he would have tasered my 10-year old son, I would have had his balls on a platter.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Please explain.

I can't speak for Iron Man, and I guess he's been banished anyway. For me though the main issue is she has not thought seriously about foreign policy. True we have had presidents, and vice presidents who have not had experience in foreign policy, but at least they had thought about it. Reagan made foreign policy the central theme of his campaigns for president, and was vetted twice, in 1976 and 1980. He had thought seriously about it, read up on it, and knew what direction he wanted to take America, and even put the former CIA head on his ticket.

Clinton had studied international relations at the Walsh school as an undergrad, which is the top school that the State Department selects its FSOs from. That means that despite his inexperience in hands-on foreign policy, he was at least familiar with the concepts and history of the international system. Obama, also majored in international affairs at Columbia which is one of the best schools for IR in the country. Both Clinton and Obama picked Senators with foreign policy experience.

Bush I had picked a running mate who was a Senator and thus had foreign policy exposure. While Bush II had little practical experience or training in international affairs he was still the son of an ambassador, CIA director, and V.P., and had thought somewhat seriously about the world. He also had selected a former SecDef as his V.P. Carter had picked Mondale, a Senator, and McGovern, a Senator, had picked Shriver a former ambassador. Carter had at least served in the Navy, and was thus exposed to national security issues.

So we go all the way back to 1968 to find a running mate with comparable experience, exposure, or interest in foreign policy to that of Palin. And Agnew had the luxury of having Nixon as his foreign policy guru, a man who was, when running, much younger than McCain is today.

This could end up being a disaster for McCain.

The "Eagleton Scenario"

Originally Posted by Julie

You are correct. If he would have tasered my 10-year old son, I would have had his balls on a platter.

But the question is, is it legal or ethical for her to do that. If this man did violate rules/procedures of the Police Department, better to let the Internal Affairs department handle it then to overstep your bounds as governor.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

But the question is, is it legal or ethical for her to do that. If this man did violate rules/procedures of the Police Department, better to let the Internal Affairs department handle it then to overstep your bounds as governor.

From what I understand, his fellow officers were "turning the other cheek," so the IAD was doing no good. I do not know what her "boundaries" were as Governor, but it seems to me the Governor is head honcho over all state employees.

Doesn't the Governor decide who lives or dies in his/her state when one is on death row on appeal?

Again, I'm not sure what the boundaries are in a governorship.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

I can't speak for Iron Man, and I guess he's been banished anyway. For me though the main issue is she has not thought seriously about foreign policy. True we have had presidents, and vice presidents who have not had experience in foreign policy, but at least they had thought about it. Reagan made foreign policy the central theme of his campaigns for president, and was vetted twice, in 1976 and 1980. He had thought seriously about it, read up on it, and knew what direction he wanted to take America, and even put the former CIA head on his ticket.

Clinton had studied international relations at the Walsh school as an undergrad, which is the top school that the State Department selects its FSOs from. That means that despite his inexperience in hands-on foreign policy, he was at least familiar with the concepts and history of the international system. Obama, also majored in international affairs at Columbia which is one of the best schools for IR in the country. Both Clinton and Obama picked Senators with foreign policy experience.

Bush I had picked a running mate who was a Senator and thus had foreign policy exposure. While Bush II had little practical experience or training in international affairs he was still the son of an ambassador, CIA director, and V.P., and had thought somewhat seriously about the world. He also had selected a former SecDef as his V.P. Carter had picked Mondale, a Senator, and McGovern, a Senator, had picked Shriver a former ambassador. Carter had at least served in the Navy, and was thus exposed to national security issues.

So we go all the way back to 1968 to find a running mate with comparable experience, exposure, or interest in foreign policy to that of Palin. And Agnew had the luxury of having Nixon as his foreign policy guru, a man who was, when running, much younger than McCain is today.

This could end up being a disaster for McCain.

The "Eagleton Scenario"

I am guessing she has a bit more experience than most realize. The fisheries issue in particular. The US, Russia, and Canada all have vested interests in the region and at least the US+ states and Canada+ provinces have a multinational IGO Pacific Salmon Commission) the current chair is I believe also wearing a hat/or wore for the state of Alaska. There are also many other fishery issues including the bearing strait and the US's arctic areas. There the oil industry and military in Alaska.

Originally Posted by Julie

From what I understand, his fellow officers were "turning the other cheek," so the IAD was doing no good. I do not know what her "boundaries" were as Governor, but it seems to me the Governor is head honcho over all state employees.

Doesn't the Governor decide who lives or dies in his/her state when one is on death row on appeal?

Again, I'm not sure what the boundaries are in a governorship.

Well in this instance she could have recused herself as she had a conflict of interest and let her Lt. Governor take any action deemed appropriate.

Here is what the AK state constitution says about the duties of the governor:

16. Governor's Authority

The governor shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws. He may, by appropriate court action or proceeding brought in the name of the State, enforce compliance with any constitutional or legislative mandate, or restrain violation of any constitutional or legislative power, duty, or right by any officer, department, or agency of the State or any of its political subdivisions. This authority shall not be construed to authorize any action or proceeding against the legislature.

§ 22. Executive Branch

All executive and administrative offices, departments, and agencies of the state government and their respective functions, powers, and duties shall be allocated by law among and within not more than twenty principal departments, so as to group them as far as practicable according to major purposes. Regulatory, quasi-judicial, and temporary agencies may be established by law and need not be allocated within a principal department.

Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell

Originally Posted by zraver

I am guessing she has a bit more experience than most realize. The fisheries issue in particular. The US, Russia, and Canada all have vested interests in the region and at least the US+ states and Canada+ provinces have a multinational IGO Pacific Salmon Commission) the current chair is I believe also wearing a hat/or wore for the state of Alaska. There are also many other fishery issues including the bearing strait and the US's arctic areas. There the oil industry and military in Alaska.

Fair enough, she should highlight this then as the campaign goes forward.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

I can't speak for Iron Man, and I guess he's been banished anyway. For me though the main issue is she has not thought seriously about foreign policy. True we have had presidents, and vice presidents who have not had experience in foreign policy, but at least they had thought about it. Reagan made foreign policy the central theme of his campaigns for president, and was vetted twice, in 1976 and 1980. He had thought seriously about it, read up on it, and knew what direction he wanted to take America, and even put the former CIA head on his ticket.

Clinton had studied international relations at the Walsh school as an undergrad, which is the top school that the State Department selects its FSOs from. That means that despite his inexperience in hands-on foreign policy, he was at least familiar with the concepts and history of the international system. Obama, also majored in international affairs at Columbia which is one of the best schools for IR in the country. Both Clinton and Obama picked Senators with foreign policy experience.

Bush I had picked a running mate who was a Senator and thus had foreign policy exposure. While Bush II had little practical experience or training in international affairs he was still the son of an ambassador, CIA director, and V.P., and had thought somewhat seriously about the world. He also had selected a former SecDef as his V.P. Carter had picked Mondale, a Senator, and McGovern, a Senator, had picked Shriver a former ambassador. Carter had at least served in the Navy, and was thus exposed to national security issues.

So we go all the way back to 1968 to find a running mate with comparable experience, exposure, or interest in foreign policy to that of Palin. And Agnew had the luxury of having Nixon as his foreign policy guru, a man who was, when running, much younger than McCain is today.

This could end up being a disaster for McCain.

The "Eagleton Scenario"

I don't see how just looking for large experience (or intellect) is a proper way to assess how a candidate might perform.

Herbert Hoover was pretty bright - he was a mining engineer in private life - but not much of a President. Carter was also pretty bright in his way, but more of a "deep feeler" than a deep thinker. A nice man, but I wouldn't hire him to be a store clerk because he lacks focus and a sense of reality. Among the recent candidates, Romney has a sharp intellect and has cogitated more than a bit on international issues, but he's a fascist; not what I want to see in the White House.

US Senators are, really, not much more than highly glorified town selectmen, except that they are much better compensated, and they are very far removed from having to personally experience the consequences of their blunders. Even the most powerful and influential Senator is just one among a large group, who gets to play in the game but never has to risk making a really big decision. A Senator who more or less sits back anonymously can cruise along for years, getting his ticket punched, just one face out of a hundred.

The US President isn't supposed to be some sort of Philospher-King who deals only in lofty terms, he is supposed to be a competent manager: pick your people, set the tone, step back and let things run. That's what Reagan did best, and he was pretty successful.

I'm not a Republican, but many of my friends are, and they are universally happy with Palin.