Sam Harris on Sarah Palin

[_antishock8]

And to be fair, Senator Obama's VP shows, after years of "experience" in the Senate, that he's woefully ill-equipped to occupy the Office of the Presidency:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... g-bailout/

"No, I don't think they should be bailed out by the federal government, I'll tell you what we should do," he said on NBC's Today Show. "We should try to correct the problems that caused this. And what's caused this? The profligate tax cuts to the very, very wealthy that John [McCain] wants to continue. What has caused this is the failure to have regulation…It's this government's policies that have caused [the middle class] to get in great trouble."

It's a stunning and inadvertant admission of his own ignorance referece the current financial crisis. I don't see how he's any better suited to understand the Executive Office than Governor Palin.


















-----------------------

[_The Dude]

From that article, Biden sounds a bit like McCain. He was quick to make a bold remark without knowing all the information, and had to change his mind soon after. It happens. Now that Palin is in a class of her own with her level of unblinking bull sh!t, or maybe she shares a class with George W.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think Dart is doing a good job of backing up his points. His posts are substantive. I think the issue you two are having is he's 1) prone to calling people stupid/idiotic/moronic/etc... and 2) he's at odds, ideologically with you.

Remember, Dart and I are at odds on pretty much everything else, so I think I'm being pretty objective with my opinion... I recommend taking him to task on individuals points, and pushing him on the morality of his ideological position. See what happens..

I've got plenty of experience trying to reason with dart, and I refuse to get sucked into that IQ-lowering exercise again. Trying to reason with dart is like trying to teach a brick wall dog tricks. I never bother to argue with people who assert the Earth is flat. It's a waste of time. Mental patients are best left to the professionals.

It has nothing to do with our ideological differences. I have no problem considering other people's points of view, and I don't condemn folks for having an opposing viewpoint. I've praised many people on this board with whom I disagree. I am simply critical of nonsense, especially delivered in an arrogant way, which is the best you can hope for from a dart post. I barely even read his stuff anymore. The only time I really read it is when someone else is quoting him to address something he's written.

I think that it is actually you who is guilty of being influenced by ideological similarities when it comes to politics, by considering what he has to say on these matters. Otherwise, you wouldn't be fooled by his silly, 8-year-old's rhetoric.

[_Trevor]

Correct.

Once again you have demonstrated your astounding ignorance. The pile of basic points on which you are woefully ignorant gets ever higher, and yet your keep stacking it higher. Bravo! By the time you are done, no reasonable person will give you credence, even when you happen to be absolutely correct.

I was quoting Thomas Jefferson you idiot, but I guess you wouldn't know that. That goes for you too Schmo.

LOL!!! Yes, I missed a phrase that Jefferson used long ago to define an office that has changed over time, but which you imagine somehow to have frozen in time. I love how dated your quotes are. Not a few would contend that Cheney has significantly transformed the vice-presidency, but Kevin calls him superfluous. Astounding.

According to Trev, these men are the "most uninformed" about American politics. Sigh. Talk about a "lightweight."

And this from a man who is demonstrating all of the historical sophistication of a Biblical literalist without a college education.

As I said before, you should really educate yourself on politics before contributing.

I am beginning to think that there is little you could do before you contribute to make any sense. Your reasoning is just that bad.

So in Trevor logic, when Palin spends, she is "leaving" her constituents in debt, but she cuts spending dramatically, she is probably acting irresponsibly and only time will tell if her cuts were wise.

Can you spot Kevin' alchemy, wherein he conflates different statements of his opponent? Nice try, Kevin, but we have learned from your posting in the past not to take such stew on face value.

Not generally, but on the issue of politics your mind is slammed shut.

Thus spake Kevin Graham. And it was nonsense.

Aren't you the same guy who said he was going to vote for someone you believe isn't qualified to be President? You don't care about the issues.

Non-sequitur. Empty insult.

And your belligerent attitude on this is what got you in this mess, maybe you have forgotton that by now. The fact is you haven't even demonstrated that you even understand my argument.

Kevin calls my attitude belligerent. Irony? Anyone? I don't consider myself to be in a mess. I think you want to assert that I am in a mess and that I don't understand your simplistic argument. That about covers it.

Only if that analysis also considered the downside to choosing Obama. You're willing to abandon your own principles and move away from McCain just because he picked a religious woman. Just admit it. Your reasoning isn't sound, not if you acknowledge Obama's inexperience.

You can't win an argument by accusing your opponent of naked bigotry against a "religious woman." I know and respect many religious women. I am sure we could find one whom I would have preferred over Palin. Or is this just a subtle admission that your position on Barack Obama is motivated as much by your prejudice against black people as anything else? Please, Kevin. That was pathetic.

Again, start thinking for yourself and stop reading web blogs. Do I really need to point out the numerous, former Obama/Hillary supporters who are going with McCain-Palin?

So you are saying that I am wrong about Hagel, and that my source was an inaccurate weblog? Just what are you trying to say? It is difficult to disentangle the false assumptions, skewed rhetoric, and mind-reading you bring to just about every response.

Except that between the two of us, I'm the only one who actually provides evidence. You simply allude to it "out there" somewhere. You're literally quoting Barny Frank, who called this a "stunt." Barney Frank Trevor! The same guy who insisted there was no crisis with FM/FM just two years ago.

The sky is falling! Barney Frank said it! It must be false... because, well, Barney Frank happened to say it. It doesn't matter that he was but one of a number of people to reach the same conclusion.

I am told, Maggie,

We can stop right here. "I am told" by whom? What interest did this person have in recasting McCain's behavior in quite different terms. Should we by what this person is saying simply because Schieffer informs us that he was told by "sources" that these things are the case. Come on, Kevin.

"I am told, by sources, that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text... yea, a history of Ancient America."

It all makes for a nice story, but you should perhaps exercise a little more caution on that one.

Score points with whom? I'm not the one calling for support from the crowd. I'm not here for a popularity contest.

Kevin Graham showing his failure to understand the difference between attestation and popularity. Such a disappointment.

This is all I have time for now. I have a life (not to be construed as an accusation that Kevin does not).

[_antishock8]

I think that it is actually you who is guilty of being influenced by ideological similarities when it comes to politics, by considering what he has to say on these matters. Otherwise, you wouldn't be fooled by his silly, 8-year-old's rhetoric.

Oh, yeah? Huh? Oh, yeah?? YEAH??

[_dartagnan]

LOL!!! Yes, I missed a phrase that Jefferson used long ago

But commonly understood by students of history. You don't even qualify as that apparently.

... to define an office that has changed over time but which you imagine somehow to have frozen in time.

Not at all. I simply understand that the VP position is a rather useless slot to fill. Nothing really has changed over time that matters. It has to be the most boring job a politician could ask for.

I love how dated your quotes are. Not a few would contend that Cheney has significantly transformed the vice-presidency, but Kevin calls him superfluous. Astounding.

Have your little meltdown Trev. I know it must really burn you up to know you made such a stupid comment and revealed your own ignorance on the topic... again.

Maybe its poetic justice since you keep trying to embarrass Palin for her so-called ignorance on the economy.

Seriously, I would have thought that someone as educated as yourself would have been familiar enough with American history to know that when the word "superfluous" and VP were in the same context, that it would be in reference to the well known adage in politics. But it seems your ignorance on the subject is more profound than I realized.

I guess I overestimated you. Now you want to wriggle your way out of your mess by pretending you're not in one.

I'll just direct your attentions to something that was written just yesterday, essentially proving my point that this is not just something from "a long time ago." It stands true today as it did 200 years ago.

Published: September 28, 2008 6:00 a.m.

Measure of a nation

VP: Superfluous role, until …TED ANTHONY
Associated Press

WEEHAWKEN, N.J. – Beside a mighty river, tucked away in the shadow of a towering ribbon of asphalt that leads drivers into the Lincoln Tunnel and Manhattan beyond, sits a plot of land notable because of a 2-century-old event that, for most Americans, is largely forgotten.

Here, during an 1804 duel, Aaron Burr shot and killed the guy whose face now decorates your $10 bills – Alexander Hamilton, the former Treasury Secretary. Burr was Thomas Jefferson’s vice president at the time, and his action remains the highest-profile act ever committed by a sitting VP short of actually becoming president.

It’s as if Dick Cheney had gunned down an armed Madeleine Albright. Yet when the country’s No. 2 guy killed a rival founding father on the shores of the Hudson River and was charged with murder, he still ended up as mere historical footnote.

Which is precisely the point. Such has been, and is, the lot of the American vice president – sidekick, runner-up, constitutional escape hatch, perennial pretender to the throne in a country that doesn’t have one.

“What is it exactly that the VP does every day?” Sarah Palin wondered rhetorically in July after being asked if she might be gunning for the job.

The vice presidency has long been an odd beast that no one is quite certain how to pet. It’s a position that has been largely meaningless until, in the most dire of circumstances, it suddenly isn’t.

Forgotten, or not

“He’s superfluous – until he’s president,” says Jeremy Lott, author of “The Warm Bucket Brigade: The Story of the American Vice Presidency.”

Indeed, despite Al Gore’s high profile and Cheney’s behind-the-scenes ministrations, the job for which Palin and Joe Biden are vying remains a cipher. By intent or neglect, it was built that way from the beginning. And its occupants have felt the effects.

After William McKinley’s assassination in 1901, Republicans were terrified that his raucous, brash vice president would lead the country to ruin. Theodore Roosevelt, we now know, didn’t. “His Accidency” John Tyler, Andrew Johnson and Chester Arthur didn’t distinguish themselves as well when their bosses expired in office. Harry Truman did, though it took America a while to recognize it.

Whether or not they rose to the occasion, however, at least those guys are remembered.

Consider some of the men who held the job and remained unelevated by either death or election: Daniel Tompkins (Monroe), Hannibal Hamlin (Lincoln’s first), Garret Hobart (McKinley’s first), Thomas Marshall (Wilson). Now consider how many of those you’ve actually heard of.

Here, courtesy of Lott, are some of the ways the vice presidency has been trivialized over the years by its occupants: “a wreath layer,” “a nullity,” and, from the ever histrionic John Adams, “the most insignificant office ever the invention of man contrived.”

In recent decades, the vice president has spoken less softly and sometimes even carried a bigger stick. The office has evolved, as has a changing perception hammered home by the realization that, over four months in 1945, Truman went from first-term VP to ushering in the atomic age.

More subtle evolutions followed, each based on a specific personality – from power broker Lyndon B. Johnson to cranky Spiro Agnew to the diplomat-like Walter Mondale to the foreign-policy adviser of Cheney.

Current choices

John McCain seems to see the potential for this model. In a Republican debate late last year, he said he wasn’t surprised that, in the aftermath of 9/11, a still-inexperienced Bush looked to Cheney to complete him.

“I wouldn’t have to do that,” McCain asserted, though he allowed that he might rely on a vice president to be his more informed partner in other issues. But, the Arizona senator concluded, “The vice president of the United States is a key and important issue.”

Particularly, perhaps, when the president is 72 and has been treated for cancer.

Barack Obama is optimistic about the possibilities, too. When he announced Biden as his running mate last month, he said, “Joe won’t just make a good vice president – he will make a great one.” Given history, that may be a tall order.

Both Lincoln and FDR made a point of bringing their rivals and people of different political stripes into their administrations to offer reality checks. That is less true with Biden than with Palin, a counterweight to McCain’s traditionally more centrist positions.

Mischievous, indeed

Here, constitutionally, is what the vice president has been charged to do since the 12th Amendment was instituted 204 years ago, putting the two positions on the same ticket rather than having the vice president be the rivalrous runner-up:

• Step in if the president is disabled, incapacitated or dead.

That’s pretty much it. Since then, the vice presidency has been awash in possibility and obscurity, in hope and ambitions kept in check. And, “Babylon 5” and “24” aside, the image of a scheming vice president trying to overthrow the chief is not the hallmark of the office today.

Instead, it’s a continual fight by a competent, often talented politician to claim relevance and be useful, to prepare for the worst and, in the meantime, be available.

That’s been true since 1788, when the office’s relevance was asserted in one of the Federalist Papers – albeit after the writer acknowledged that the notion of a vice president “has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous.”

The author was none other than Alexander Hamilton. Sixteen years later, as he lay on the bank of the Hudson River in Weehawken and contemplated Aaron Burr’s bullet in his belly, he might have wished the position didn’t exist after all.

I'll say it again. The VP position is rather superfluous, and I have history on my side. Trevor has a lot of temper and rhetoric on his.

[_Some Schmo]

I think that it is actually you who is guilty of being influenced by ideological similarities when it comes to politics, by considering what he has to say on these matters. Otherwise, you wouldn't be fooled by his silly, 8-year-old's rhetoric.

Oh, yeah? Huh? Oh, yeah?? YEAH??

Um... yeah.

Do you have a habit of considering a large volume of words "substantive" or is this new? I've always preferred quality over quantity, myself.

[_dartagnan]

From that article, Biden sounds a bit like McCain. He was quick to make a bold remark without knowing all the information, and had to change his mind soon after. It happens. Now that Palin is in a class of her own with her level of unblinking bull sh!t, or maybe she shares a class with George W.

Dude, what planet are you on?

Do you really want me to list the "gaffes" by Palin and Biden and hold them up for comparison? There is no comparison. Biden doesn't even know what issues Obama is running on. How stupid is that? Don't ignore this question please. Biden also blathers away about a specific president and televisions during the great depression, when neither existed at the time. And this guy is supposed to be educated?

Palin cannot even ask a clarifying question about which aspect of the "Bush Doctrine" a journalist is referring to, without being tarred, feathered and then burned at the stake by the media. The campaign against her is designed to prove she's ignorant, and the media will have its way no matter what Palin offers in response. When she tells Gibson that the citation he was using was taken out of context, ABC just deletes that portion of the interview out of the televised and printed version.

This has got to be the most exhaustive smear campaign in the history of politics, and it seems several here have bought into it - probably because you began with the same exact assumption and you want to see it become a realization.

Was Palin's interview with Couric well done? Hell no!

But the author of your article made it sound a hell of a lot worse than it really was. He said the Couric asked the question because she wanted a specific answer... and then he proceeds to tell the world what that answer had to be. Is he psychic? Can he read minds? How does he know that was the precise intent of Couric? How did he know that was the precise answer she was fishing for?

Palin's comments were a little off tangent sure, but they weren't completely off the wall as this journalist portrays them.

The reason why I ask you what planet you're on is because you act like Palin is in a "class of her own." Again, she hasn't even begun to reach Biden's level of stupidity.

This sudden national spotlight is something new for her, and I suspect she's trying her best to adjust to it. She's given more interviews and had to deal with more prominent journalists and tougher questions that Obama and Biden put together.

I suggest we cut her some slack. Or maybe not.

Hell, she hasn't even had her debate yet and you guys are already acting like she's the dumbest person to ever hold office, and as if she is the only politician to ever offer vague responses or dodge questions. Hell, Obama did that the other night. This is a given from all politicians.

[_The Dude]

From that article, Biden sounds a bit like McCain. He was quick to make a bold remark without knowing all the information, and had to change his mind soon after. It happens. Now that Palin is in a class of her own with her level of unblinking bull sh!t, or maybe she shares a class with George W.

Dude, what planet are you on?

Why, planet "Cool" of course.

Do you really want me to list the "gaffes" by Palin and Biden and hold them up for comparison?

I was responding to a specific gaffe by Biden and not the complete works or "best of" collections of either candidate.

There is no comparison.

No surprise, since Palin was in 2nd grade when Biden entered politics.

Biden doesn't even know what issues Obama is running on. How stupid is that? Don't ignore this question please.

You mean the rheotrical "how stupid is that" question? Okay, I'm not ignoring it, but since it is obviously rhetorical I'm not sure what you expect me to do with it....

Biden also blathers away about a specific president and televisions during the great depression, when neither existed at the time. And this guy is supposed to be educated?

Oopsie!

Palin cannot even ask a clarifying question about which aspect of the "Bush Doctrine" a journalist is referring to, without being tarred, feathered and then burned at the stake by the media. The campaign against her is designed to prove she's ignorant, and the media will have its way no matter what Palin offers in response. When she tells Gibson that the citation he was using was taken out of context, ABC just deletes that portion of the interview out of the televised and printed version. This has got to be the most exhaustive smear campaign in the history of politics....

I know, even SNL is part of it now. They're all out to get her, and she doesn't even matter. It's just sadistic fun to watch her and her "mentor" go down in flames.

But seriously, you think after watching the Couric interview, that there needs to be a "smear campaign" against her? Such a campagin would be as superfulous as her office.

...and it seems several here have bought into it - probably because you began with the same exact assumption and you want to see it become a realization.

I've "bought into it" based on her performance thus far. We'll see how she does in the debate. It may be that a different setting will improve things for her.

Was Palin's interview with Couric well done? Hell no!

Okay then. No smear campaign, no buying into it, the interview speaks for itself. Palin was a schmuck. Just admit it.

[_Analytics]

She's given more interviews and had to deal with more prominent journalists and tougher questions that Obama and Biden put together.

You can't be serious.