What is wrong with our society that more and more people with that attitude seem to be produced.

You probably have no idea how much such a comment reveals about you. As a woman, I have known men like you. And they have not been men whose judgment I respect.

For instance, that you are sure she was chosen for her looks is one of those completely unsupported statements that indicate more about how you look at a woman than how McCain does. The rather bizarre & discursive point that conservatives are not true bootstrappers and true hunters again tells us how you want to project yourself – little about her but that she gets under some people’s skins.

Her history demonstrates someone who is indeed McCain’s soul partner; they share some of the same strengths and some of the same weaknesses. The flaws may be reinforced by their proximity and that is a problem. (But the strong sense of honor & stubborness they share, I find that less worrisome than that Biden’s quite silly perspective will influence Obama’s complete lack of experience.)

McCain and Palin share abilities to cut through to what they see (and often is) the core of a problem. Some mistake intelligence for solipsism – that is a problem of our times. Some people mistake voting present and not taking a stand as wise. If you have earned that position – say, you are George Washington and Benjamin Franklin after they have successfully freed us from England and demonstrated their own characters in countless ways through long lives – that may be a sensible position, choosing not to weigh in often or heavily. You want the young Turks who have to live with it to develop a system that works, so you provide lightly so as not to dominate. That Obama is in that position is laughable.

Perhaps the Democratic leadership can relate to Niven’s ultimate Precautionary Principle adherents, the Pierson’s Puppeteers.

It seems to me that choosing between two candidates who are 0.1% apart on any given issue is not very useful.

If you want to get some mileage out of your vote, vote for the non major-party candidate who is least objectionable to you.

There are many reasons to vote for a Republican or Democratic candidate. Maybe you like him or her, maybe you’re stupid, maybe you just don’t care. Nobody can tell; all those reasons get mixed into one big sticky wad of votes.

But when you vote for someone who isn’t going to win, you’re sending a clear message. You’re saying that whether or not anyone else agrees with your opinions, you’re still not going to vote for bad candidates. You’re saying that principles matter to you.

More importantly, you’re making a strong argument that there are probably ten or twenty people who share your opinions but still voted for the major candidates (or just didn’t vote at all). The major parties, seeking to gain or solidify the support of these voters, will adjust their policies in a favorable direction. The more support given to the minor parties, the more adjustments result.

No, it probably won’t matter much, but neither does choosing McCain or Obama, and at least you won’t be cooperating with your own destruction.

. png

If you’re basing your assessment of Palin on the Gibson interview you should be aware that the interview you saw was heavily edited to leave out much of what she said. You should read the entire transcript before making your judgment.

We can’t solve the problems of big government by instituting a different kind of big government. None of the major candidates appreciate this simple fact, so none of them deserve our support.

In real world we have to choose the least of evils. Voting is only the first step in the political system. You can vote for the least obnoxious candidate and then do what you can to hold their feet to the fire on big government issues.

But now that I’ve read more about her actual record, and I’ve heard what she’s said about her record, and I’ve watched that Gibson interview, I realize she has very little in common with a Heinlein heroine.

Yes, she’s a leader. She has a strong personality that is not defined in terms of her relationships with men. She’s able to define and seek her own goals. She’s comfortable out of doors. She’s attractive.

But she isn’t particularly smart. When she doesn’t have a script, she doesn’t speak well. To me, she appears to be the least intelligent of the four people on the major tickets.

She isn’t particularly honorable. She’s been misrepresenting her record, and the record itself bears no clear relationship to her professed ideals.

And she isn’t even a good politician. She’s done a poor job of covering up her flaws (though I must say, they are not particularly bad in the context of national politics). She doesn’t respond well when aggressive questioners like Gibson attempt to take her off message, which is a crucial skill. She’s shown little talent for consensus-building, relying instead on “my way or the highway” bullying.

I have the same problem with Palin that I have with Bush, Obama, Biden, and McCain. They’re all pushing big-government political agendas without any apparent awareness of the problems inherent in these agendas. (On the other hand, they’re all experts on the problems with their opponents’ plans.)

Ultimately, they’re really just bickering over details. Should the Federal budget be $2.9 billion or only $2.8 billion? What’s the most effective way to buy votes– more social spending, or tax breaks for business?

Sometimes I wonder if the purpose of this bickering is to distract attention from the first-order effect, which is whether the government ought to be taking such a large role in the economy and in our social lives in the first place.

We can’t solve the problems of big government by instituting a different kind of big government. None of the major candidates appreciate this simple fact, so none of them deserve our support.

. png

McCain’s science fiction parallel lies elsewhere…

http://cmpalmer.blogspot.com/2008/03/john-mccain-is-he-cylon.html

At least nobody says Palin is lipstick on a bandersnatch :-)

Of course, I tend to be quite insulting to fools wasting my time, gauging it by the site.

OR hasn’t impressed me as a complete waste of time, I’d say his points are not egregiously bad.

My US$.02 < —- and worth each and every pfennig.

The fact that you would even CONSIDER Barack Obama pulls you utterly out of libertarian and into left field.

Ignore Palin — as the wit once said, her job, every day, is to get up and ask “How’s the President’s health?”

McCain, the PotUS being considered, is clearly middle-of-the road — to the left of middle by most conservative viewpoints.

Obama, by his voting record, is not only far, far left but he’s gonee off the road, past the ditch, and is out scouting new, uncharted territory.

Any true libertarian would consider Obama a complete loss.

You can call yourself a libertarian. Your support of Obama makes the prevarication blatant.

“Let’s assume Sarah Palin was moderately above average in IQ at the University of Idaho.” Why? She was a student of JOURNALISM, not engineering, science, economics, or law.

What a silly line of logic: Palin went to U of I decades ago… average SAT’s there now are 1110 (remember how they were “recentered” in the mid-90’s so that 1110 today would have been closer to 1000 then)… Palin, J-schooler, probably had a higher-than-average score (instead of squeaking in because of sports, A/V club, etc. and disregarding her major)… therefore, Palin has an IQ in the mid 120’s…

Good work, Obloodyhell! At least you’re talking about the substance of the issue.

In the woods? Yes. In the city? Doubtful. And I never go to the woods. Also, paint-balling has so many differences from real shooting that I don’t think Heinlein would have been impressed with your bet.

Also, we’re talking about Heinlein’s Heroines, who mostly used handguns indoors, in-city, or on the moon. I’ve never seen Palin with a handgun. Not that I’m arguing she doesn’t love guns.

Plus, her IQ is only average, even if someone on another blog pointed out that she uses language with great skill. (How about an example of this that wasn’t written for her, Jonathan?)

a) The average SAT score of freshmen at the University of Idaho is about a 1110.

b) The site below claims to have an SAT to IQ conversion table. An SAT score of 1110 gives an IQ of 117. Let’s assume Sarah Palin was moderately above average in IQ at the University of Idaho. Then she could easily have an IQ in the mid-120s. This would be slightly higher than JFK’s 119.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx

That’s taken out of context, madame. Michael had “talked” to it prior to its assumption of those duties…

> Fight efficiently? Sure, if her targets can’t shoot back at her.

I will bet you $100, even money, that she would kick your ass at paint ball.

Read my statements and the statements of Jay Manifold in order. Now tell me where my “tone is insulting” and realize that you sound like a whiny Democrat. Almost every statement I’ve made here has been a statement of fact that can be checked, not a threat that I’m going to revoke someone’s posting privileges (gasp). If you find my tone insulting just because I say that Palin has average intelligence, then I’m probably hitting a nerve because you see it too.

Like all libertarians, I have no real party, which is why I’ll be voting for Dino Rossi and Barack Obama. My strong endorsement of Rossi and unhappy endorsement of Not McCain/Palin pulls me clearly out of the Lefty column and into the Cato column.