Oxygen for Morons?

[dottie_dear]

My brother, S, called me this weekend and left a message saying that he needed support and wise counsel.  After pondering why he would've called me, under those circumstances, I continued to listen to his tale of consternation and woe.

Apparently, his neighbor (S lives in Chesapeake, VA) has erected enormous McCain/Palin signs in his yard.  That

Comments

[syrlinus]

I love it!! I am finding US Politics a fun and entertaining sport to watch. :)

[dottie_dear]

So does that make you a sadist, a masochist, or a switch?

Re: smart

[shad_0]

In fairness, it wasn't that Palin couldn't name a Supreme Court decision. She just couldn't name one with which she disagrees, other than Roe v. Wade. With which she claims she disagrees on the ground of federalism, rather than on her own admitted pro-life beliefs. (Ten bucks says she had no idea what the word "federalism" meant until McCain's people prepped her for that interview.) And Palin also disagrees with other USSC decision that impose rulings on everyone in the country, rather than letting the states decide issues for themselves. But she couldn't name any such decisions, other than Roe v. Wade.

Gaaaaah.

On the other hand, as you and I have already discussed elsewhere, McCain naming Palin as his running mate was (unfortunately) a smart move on his part, and it did in fact attract more then-undecided voters to his side than Obama attracted to his when he named Biden.

Re: smart

[dottie_dear]

You are right about that, though as S pointed out: the US v. Alaska case was in 2005 and I feel pretty sure she disagreed with the outcome, or would if she'd bothered to know about it, since it did not find in Alaska's favor. (It's about off-shore ownership of a submerged land between an archipelago that is part of Alaska and the mainland. If I remember correctly, the bottom line was that because the disputed land is more than three miles from either shore, it doesn't fit the conventional requirements of ownership. Alaska contended that because it lies between two pieces of Alaska, it's an inland waterway. The decision came down to there needing to be some precedent of claimed ownership by the US over time in order for that to be true. Research demonstrated that neither the US nor Russia, when it owned Alaska, had laid specific claim to the area in question -- hence Alaska's claim was not upheld. I may have it a bit off, but I think I'm close. If you like, I can look it up. If you like, I can also tell you why I bothered to

Re: smart

[dottie_dear]

As you know, Obama was not my candidate. I'm in love with no one on either major ticket. And, quite frankly, I think that what is necessary right now has a bit less to do with policy and more to do with charismatic leadership. FDR was able to accomplish what he did in large part because of his vibrancy and ability to inspire and draw people in. In that light, Obama is the superior candidate

Re: smart

[shad_0]

I'm in love with no one on either major ticket.

Hear, hear. Someday there will be an election where people actually vote for a candidate, instead of against the other one. That day will come when negative attack ads stop being the most effective form of persuasion.

I guess I'm lucky in some ways. California's electoral votes are going to Obama no matter what I do, so I don't feel a lot of pressure. (My poor staunchly Republican parents, in contrast, are filled with fear and absolutely miserable.)

I believe that Obama would be taken seriously by world leaders and power-possessors. I do not believe that Palin would.

Agreed. McCain would, though. If I thought that he was the better candidate, I don't think that his strategically sound but otherwise rather poor choice for a running mate would persuade me to vote for the less-qualified President.

Further, I do not believe that McCain's foreign policy positions will do anything to restore the fractured relationships the US has around the globeAmen. I think the nail in McCain's