Texans would have 10 U.S. Senators and wouldn't lose any U.S. Representatives. Throw in five governorships as well and five legislatures and staff. It would be wild! What a growth industry!
Ted Rall may be the one with the IQ problem .... More on point, I don't know about the correlation between IQ and political competency .... look at Jimmy Carter.
We would quickly turn into 5 seperate states with 5 seperate agendas. You know the problem with the republic as it is set up? McCain made an interesting point last night about people getting to Washington and not representing their constituancy, and I think he is 100% wrong. I think they OVER represent their constituancy and try like mad to get pork for their own people.... Who is looking out for the good of the country when everyone is looking out for their own back yard? The founding fathers understood this, it was country above community.... Now it is community above country....that is the main problem with our system as it is set up...IMHO. DD
I'm pretty sure the federal government has more power than the founding fathers ever intended. For the first 100 years of this country states collectively were more powerful than the US government, but the three branches have chipped away at local and state power over the last 100 years to where I believe they are under represented compared to the total government. Now, your point about going to Washington to collect a bunch of pork for your local populace is taken and agreed with, that wasn't intended by the founding fathers, but the original republic was created with a fairly weak federal government on purpose, and it has grown exponentially.
I agree with this, but I do think the founding fathers would agree with our federal government having the majority of powers, it seems the checks and balances still works.....at least for the most part. The issue is still who has the countries interests at heart? Is it the President? Because the House, and Senate are looking out for their own people, which is what they are elected to do... DD
Touche. The opportunity to skewer the condescending sob was too much to resist. Again, to the point of the article I am not sure there is any correlation between political/executive experience, IQ, military record, etc. and whether someone will be a good president. As for Palin's speech, I thought she did a good job (I wasn't expecting a Bill Clinton policy speech), but then there was this huge disconnect with McCain's speech last night. It will be interesting to see how she handles more substantive policy questions.
I disagree in a sense. If politicians represented the whole community, I think that would be a good thing. However, not everyone votes and because of that small groups can influence an election. Say 60% of voters vote and you win with 52%. That means you were put in office by less than a third of all voters. That means that some group, be it the NRA or NOW, can realistically go to you and say, "our members made the difference in your election and here's what we want from you." If everyone voted, that large slice of 32% that gives a group power becomes a much smaller slice of 52% and there are, at the same time, more groups in your coalition and more people who voted for you so you are forced to govern from a less partisan position. The problem with our system now is that the number of people not voting gives disproportionate power to those groups that do vote and almost requires the elected official to go partisan. That said, it's also no accident that there is one party that has steadfastly stood in the way of expanding voter rolls, opposed easier voting, and actively worked to suppress turnout.
True, in my delivery; I felt like showing, by example, her type of snooty rhetoric and cheap shottery that so turned me off. But she does support banning books, which seems very 19th century to my book-obsessed self. According initially to Drudge, the Obama campaign raised a record 24-hr figure of $8M after her speech. Interesting. The campaign manager claimed it hit $10M before McCain's speech. Here's a review of the phenomenon by the Telegraph.
Hmmm. This sounds familiar... Where's that from you ask? Why it's from John Hagee's book What Every Man Wants in a Woman. http://mediamatters.org/items/200803140013
* Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." 1, 2 * Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'" 3 * Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.4 * Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade." 5 * Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP. 6 * Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest. 7 * Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches. 8 * As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." 9 * She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." 10 Sources 1. "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'," Associated Press, September 3, 2008 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24701&id=13709-9267370-GgEm4.x&t=6 2. "Palin wasn't 'really focused much' on the Iraq war," ThinkProgress, August 30, 2008 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24702&id=13709-9267370-GgEm4.x&t=7 3. "The Sarah Palin Digest," ThinkProgress, September 4, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/ 4. "McCain and Palin differ on issues," Associated Press, September 3, 2008 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24703&id=13709-9267370-GgEm4.x&t=8 5. Ibid 6. The Sarah Palin Digest," ThinkProgress, September 4, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/ 7. Ibid 8. Ibid. 9. "Mayor Palin: A Rough Record," Time, September 2, 2008 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24704&id=13709-9267370-GgEm4.x&t=9 10. The Sarah Palin Digest," ThinkProgress, September 4, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/
This is an inaccurate interpretation of what she said. Her quote was basically telling a church to pray for our country and for our leaders to be in line with the will of God. She was not saying the war in Iraq was God's mission. This is one area that I have concerns. I don't know enough about it, but I want more to be highlighted on it. A little disingenous. She made a campaign vow NOT to push creationism in the school system and held to that vow. She does believe in God as the creator, but she honored the wishes of her electorate. Fair enough. It's a position that many hold though. She lives and works in Alaska. She did however take on big oil companies and do things in the best interest of her state that the oil companies weren't too happy about. Totally legitimate point. This is a big negative for anyone who isn't ardently pro-life Again, a position many hold. Many people do not want public schools educating their children on sex. This is the scariest one to me. I want this vetted BIG time by the media and I want to hear an explanation pronto from the Palin/McCain camp. Way too scary. Although in fairness, the former mayor and her didn't get along by all accounts so it could be bogus. I've seen no serious reporting on it yet, but it makes me really nervous about her. The Bridge to Nowhere thing baffles me. Why do they continue to trumpet this as an accomplishment for her? Is there an explanation from her I've missed? Because it seems to me she is flat out lying about it. Bothers me. The earmarks thing doesn't bother me at all. Earmarks ARE a vital part of this nations budget. The only problem I have with earmarks are when they are used for corrupt purposes (see Hastert, Dennis.)
Does she have ANY foreign policy or economic policy experience or insight??? All the other stuff is rope-a-dope. The GOP would love to shift the focus to social issues, small town/big town posturing, local civil liberties and the like. Small town, frontier woman against elitist big city intellectuals. It's worth a shot. It's the economy stupid. Integrity. Focus. FWIW -- I thought her speech was great. I think she's addressed the personal criticisms tremendously well (so far) and has projected a very likeable persona. I think she's nuts on social policy...but...more importantly...completely lacking in national and international insight (from what I've seen so far).
Let's see, Palin balanced a budget, recorded surplus, giving $1200 back to the people of Alaska, worked with Energy companies, created jobs, That sure sounds like economic policies compared to Obama's "Community efforts". Foreign Policy..for Obama...oh yea..he went to school in Indonesia. Gotcha!
You could argue that's executive experience. I'll leave it to you to decide if the breadth of it was sufficient or necessary (does a Pres/VP need to be a governor or CEO). I haven't heard anything regarding policy, insight or ideas on the economy or foreign relations. Obama's got plenty of those. You may agree or disagree with his ideas, or his ability to accomplish them, but he's certainly got a vision he wants to implement. And he's been vocal on it for a few years now. She's been silent.
