Joe Biden's recent remarks that after Obama is elected, there will be a manufactured crisis somewhere in the world to test him brings up some interesting points. When a nation chooses a young and inexperienced leader, especially one that has a history of opposing armed conflict, it is only natural for America's enemies to choose this time to test us.
This has happened historically many times, not just to America but also throughout history. It happened when we elected John Kennedy and Khrushchev decided to test us with the Cuban missile crisis. It happened when England chose Margaret Thatcher as prime minister and Argentina decided that was the right time to test England. Margaret Thatcher was not young and inexperienced, but in the male-dominated macho world of Argentina, it was just assumed that a woman would not be a strong leader. If they had done their research they would have found out that she wasn't called the Iron Lady for nothing.
Part of this is of no fault of Obama himself. He can't control how old he is or how much experience he has. But part of it is the fact that he ran his whole campaign on the premise that we need to get out of Iraq quickly as possible. This could cause extremist groups all over the world that oppose our presence anywhere to attack us and hope that we leave. He will have no choice but to fight back, and fight back hard, to prove himself and prevent future tests. There is a very strong possibility that this could lead to another war that we don't really have the troops and the manpower to effectively fight right now.
Of course, Obama's supporters will point out that that he is almost exactly the same age and has almost exactly the same years of experience in government as Sarah Palin. Of course, there are two major differences, one she's running for vice president, not president and two she has a reputation for being a very tough fighter.
Although McCain's critics a point out that he might be a little erratic and have a bad temper, that is just the kind of leader that no one really wants to test. Nixon sought to convince the North Vietnamese that he was just a little crazy to improve his bargaining position. Somehow I can't help but think about Richard Pryor's attempt to convince his cellmates, in one of his movies, that he was insane so they would leave him alone.
One of the reasons that virtually everyone in the rest of the world wants America to elect Obama is they think that he will not be assertive on the world stage, and America's power and influence will diminish. And of course each of those countries hopes that partially they will be there to replace that influence. But I believe it is in interest of the United States that we choose a leader like McCain, who no one will dare test. An international crisis and possibly a third war are something we just cannot afford at this moment in our history.
Showing posts with label sarah palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sarah palin. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Change you can trust, a slogan that could turn around McCain's campaign?
Change you can trust contrasts beautifully with change you can believe in.
Everyone wants change, only with a team that we can trust to implement it. If you're in a tough spot, you want someone to come to help you that you can trust, not someone you believe may want to help you.
John McCain, polls show, is rated as highly qualified and highly trusted. This slogan, change you can trust, reinforces this message.
It can even be added on to John McCain’s current slogan. Country first, change you can trust. Or perhaps Change you can trust that puts Country first. Or how about Change you can trust that puts America first
It implies without directly saying it that the other side is perhaps a little less trustworthy.
It also reinforces the message that in a time we are facing battle with Al Qaeda worldwide and two conventional wars, John McCain is a commander in chief you can trust to lead us to victory.
There are 30 days left before Election Day. Sarah Palin’s debate performance was good, but it's really up to John McCain to win.
CHANGE You Can TRUST
CHANGE You Can TRUST to put COUNTRY FIRST
CHANGE You Can TRUST to put AMERICA FIRST
CHANGE - TRUST
COUNTRY FIRST
John, are you listening???
Everyone wants change, only with a team that we can trust to implement it. If you're in a tough spot, you want someone to come to help you that you can trust, not someone you believe may want to help you.
John McCain, polls show, is rated as highly qualified and highly trusted. This slogan, change you can trust, reinforces this message.
It can even be added on to John McCain’s current slogan. Country first, change you can trust. Or perhaps Change you can trust that puts Country first. Or how about Change you can trust that puts America first
It implies without directly saying it that the other side is perhaps a little less trustworthy.
It also reinforces the message that in a time we are facing battle with Al Qaeda worldwide and two conventional wars, John McCain is a commander in chief you can trust to lead us to victory.
There are 30 days left before Election Day. Sarah Palin’s debate performance was good, but it's really up to John McCain to win.
CHANGE You Can TRUST
CHANGE You Can TRUST to put COUNTRY FIRST
CHANGE You Can TRUST to put AMERICA FIRST
CHANGE - TRUST
COUNTRY FIRST
John, are you listening???
Friday, September 12, 2008
John McCain to support drilling in ANWR, biggest news from Palin/Gipson interview
John McCain to support drilling in ANWR, the biggest news from the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gipson.
The world watched with bated breath awaiting Sarah Palin’s first big interview with the mainstream media. There were no huge surprises in this interview; she performed well by most accounts, not brilliantly but very well for someone in her position in their first big interview. Some of the questions that Charles Gibson asked seemed to be to set up traps for her, as any good reporter would. The nearest she came to a gaff was when he asked her about the Bush doctrine. But, the Bush doctrine means different things to different people. It can mean a preemptive war, it can mean democratization of dictatorships to lessen the chance of war in the future, or it can mean that people who give comfort and support to terrorists should be judged and dealt with the same as the terrorists would be. Sarah Palin then asked Charlie Gibson, what exactly he meant by the Bush doctrine, asking him to be more specific. And again he tried to trap her by instead of answering; he said “well, what does the Bush doctrine mean to you?” She then went on to explained her view of what Bush's policies had been and also her view of some of the mistakes he had made. Sort of a gaff, but maybe not.
Charlie Gibson then pushed her on points of disagreements with John McCain. But keep in mind, and this is very important, during the Democratic primary debates, Joe Biden and Obama disagreed a lot.. So it may turn out that Sarah Phelan was in fact ready to be interviewed all along on what she thought. However, it is the vice president's job to support the presidential candidate's positions. Joe Biden will support the positions of Obama, even know some of those positions he argued about during the debates. That's just the way the system works, the vice president supports the president. So, what she may have been going through for the last few days was not someone coaching her on how to answer questions or how to speak, but simply a detailed analysis of what John McCain's policies are, because those are the policies that she is supposed to go out and support. She seems to be her own woman, but will generally support McCain’s polices just as Joe Biden will support Obamas, no surprise there. However, I believe that she would push her own in some ways, to get her policies at least hearing with John McCain.
And so the biggest news out of this debate came when Charlie Gibson and Sarah Palin were walking down a lane and he was asking her about areas that she disagreed with John McCain on, and specifically asked her about ANWR. She smiled and said well, that's one of the areas that we disagree on. But the smiling face certainly didn't seem like someone who is being educated on an issue and was about to change her mind. The smile was as someone who is very, very sure of her position and knew it would prevail in the end. Charlie then asked her if ANWR was something they had agreed to disagree on. Sarah Palin laughed and smiled and said yes. She then added this caveat. Smiling even more broadly and more sure of herself, she said, I think we'll all be coming together on this in a week or so. The look on her face was not the look of someone who is about to lose an argument.
The world watched with bated breath awaiting Sarah Palin’s first big interview with the mainstream media. There were no huge surprises in this interview; she performed well by most accounts, not brilliantly but very well for someone in her position in their first big interview. Some of the questions that Charles Gibson asked seemed to be to set up traps for her, as any good reporter would. The nearest she came to a gaff was when he asked her about the Bush doctrine. But, the Bush doctrine means different things to different people. It can mean a preemptive war, it can mean democratization of dictatorships to lessen the chance of war in the future, or it can mean that people who give comfort and support to terrorists should be judged and dealt with the same as the terrorists would be. Sarah Palin then asked Charlie Gibson, what exactly he meant by the Bush doctrine, asking him to be more specific. And again he tried to trap her by instead of answering; he said “well, what does the Bush doctrine mean to you?” She then went on to explained her view of what Bush's policies had been and also her view of some of the mistakes he had made. Sort of a gaff, but maybe not.
Charlie Gibson then pushed her on points of disagreements with John McCain. But keep in mind, and this is very important, during the Democratic primary debates, Joe Biden and Obama disagreed a lot.. So it may turn out that Sarah Phelan was in fact ready to be interviewed all along on what she thought. However, it is the vice president's job to support the presidential candidate's positions. Joe Biden will support the positions of Obama, even know some of those positions he argued about during the debates. That's just the way the system works, the vice president supports the president. So, what she may have been going through for the last few days was not someone coaching her on how to answer questions or how to speak, but simply a detailed analysis of what John McCain's policies are, because those are the policies that she is supposed to go out and support. She seems to be her own woman, but will generally support McCain’s polices just as Joe Biden will support Obamas, no surprise there. However, I believe that she would push her own in some ways, to get her policies at least hearing with John McCain.
And so the biggest news out of this debate came when Charlie Gibson and Sarah Palin were walking down a lane and he was asking her about areas that she disagreed with John McCain on, and specifically asked her about ANWR. She smiled and said well, that's one of the areas that we disagree on. But the smiling face certainly didn't seem like someone who is being educated on an issue and was about to change her mind. The smile was as someone who is very, very sure of her position and knew it would prevail in the end. Charlie then asked her if ANWR was something they had agreed to disagree on. Sarah Palin laughed and smiled and said yes. She then added this caveat. Smiling even more broadly and more sure of herself, she said, I think we'll all be coming together on this in a week or so. The look on her face was not the look of someone who is about to lose an argument.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Sarah Palin letter to Harry Reid on Energy Policy. "Energy Expert"?
Sarah Palin letter to Harry Reid on Energy Policy.
Is she a "Energy Expert"?
Any comments??
June 23, 2008
The Honorable Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
528 Hart Senate Office Building .
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senate Majority Leader Reid:
In previous correspondence to members of Congress, I have urged the enactment of legislation to authorize development of oil and natural gas in a small portion of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I will not repeat the arguments in favor of this legislation but will briefly focus on a few key points that have become even more evident since my last correspondence.
That letter began, “With the price of oil hovering around $100 per barrel”. Now, just a few months later, the price is close to $140 per barrel, and there is no end in sight. What will it take for Congress to enact comprehensive energy policy that includes increased domestic production of oil and gas, renewable and alternative energy, and conservation? It seems to us outside of the Capitol Beltway that Virtually every effort to accomplish this is met with criticism and failure. In my opinion, the debate about energy policy is no longer theoretical and abstract. Our failure to enact an energy policy is having real consequences for every American in their daily lives and has begun to affect America’s place in the world.
In the last few days, proposals have been tabled to permit oil exploration and development in the 80 percent of the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) which is off limits to such activity. I strongly support oes development in Alaska and elsewhere as a necessary component of a sound energy strategy. However, it makes no sense to consider the oes and to ignore the possibility of exploration and development in highly perspective upland areas, including the coastal plain of ANWR-the most promising unexplored petroleum province in North America.
With appropriate stipulations, oil exploration and development in the OCS can be conducted in a safe manner. Uplands development can be accomplished even more safely. Advanced technologies, such as directional drilling and the re-injection of oil wastes, ensure that the footprint of development would be less than 2,000 acres (approximately one-quarter of the size of Dulles Airport).
In advocating for oil development in ANWR, I have never guaranteed that this new domestic production would immediately reduce the price of oil. However, incremental production from the coastal plain should help reduce price volatility in the U.S. Additionally, ANWR development would send a strong message to oil speculators and producing countries that the United States is serious about addressing its energy problem.
Yet, there is an even more important point. The location and quantity of oil production are changing world geopolitics. Countries that produce significant quantities of oil and natural gas are gaining in power and prestige. Several of these countries have objectives and value systems that are antithetical to U.S. interests. We are becoming increasingly dependent on these insecure sources to our long-term detriment. Further, it has become clear that U.S. petrodollars are financing activities that are harmful to America and to our economic and military interests around the world.
Much attention has been focused on the importance of crude oil and gasoline in fueling our nation’s transportation system. This need for petroleum will not end anytime soon despite efforts to develop new technologies and to diversify our transportation system into mass transit and more fuel efficient automobiles.
Meanwhile, the true significance to the nation’s economy of products refined from petroleum is becoming increasingly apparent. These products undergird our entire society and economy and provide precious jobs and revenue. The soaring prices of chemicals, plastics, fertilizer, and other products - and the loss of jobs - graphically illustrate this point. We must recognize that it will be many years, if ever, before we discover alternatives to the petroleum-based products that every American uses in our daily lives.
If we don’t move now to enact an energy policy that includes more oil and gas production from domestic sources, including ANWR and the federal OCS, we may look back someday and realize that we failed to perceive a critical crossroad in the history of this nation. I don’t think it’s overly dramatic to say that this nation’s future and the quality of life for every American are dependent on the decisions you make or don’t make in the next few months.
Thank you for considering my views.
Sincerely,
Sarah Palin
Is she a "Energy Expert"?
Any comments??
June 23, 2008
The Honorable Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
528 Hart Senate Office Building .
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senate Majority Leader Reid:
In previous correspondence to members of Congress, I have urged the enactment of legislation to authorize development of oil and natural gas in a small portion of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I will not repeat the arguments in favor of this legislation but will briefly focus on a few key points that have become even more evident since my last correspondence.
That letter began, “With the price of oil hovering around $100 per barrel”. Now, just a few months later, the price is close to $140 per barrel, and there is no end in sight. What will it take for Congress to enact comprehensive energy policy that includes increased domestic production of oil and gas, renewable and alternative energy, and conservation? It seems to us outside of the Capitol Beltway that Virtually every effort to accomplish this is met with criticism and failure. In my opinion, the debate about energy policy is no longer theoretical and abstract. Our failure to enact an energy policy is having real consequences for every American in their daily lives and has begun to affect America’s place in the world.
In the last few days, proposals have been tabled to permit oil exploration and development in the 80 percent of the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) which is off limits to such activity. I strongly support oes development in Alaska and elsewhere as a necessary component of a sound energy strategy. However, it makes no sense to consider the oes and to ignore the possibility of exploration and development in highly perspective upland areas, including the coastal plain of ANWR-the most promising unexplored petroleum province in North America.
With appropriate stipulations, oil exploration and development in the OCS can be conducted in a safe manner. Uplands development can be accomplished even more safely. Advanced technologies, such as directional drilling and the re-injection of oil wastes, ensure that the footprint of development would be less than 2,000 acres (approximately one-quarter of the size of Dulles Airport).
In advocating for oil development in ANWR, I have never guaranteed that this new domestic production would immediately reduce the price of oil. However, incremental production from the coastal plain should help reduce price volatility in the U.S. Additionally, ANWR development would send a strong message to oil speculators and producing countries that the United States is serious about addressing its energy problem.
Yet, there is an even more important point. The location and quantity of oil production are changing world geopolitics. Countries that produce significant quantities of oil and natural gas are gaining in power and prestige. Several of these countries have objectives and value systems that are antithetical to U.S. interests. We are becoming increasingly dependent on these insecure sources to our long-term detriment. Further, it has become clear that U.S. petrodollars are financing activities that are harmful to America and to our economic and military interests around the world.
Much attention has been focused on the importance of crude oil and gasoline in fueling our nation’s transportation system. This need for petroleum will not end anytime soon despite efforts to develop new technologies and to diversify our transportation system into mass transit and more fuel efficient automobiles.
Meanwhile, the true significance to the nation’s economy of products refined from petroleum is becoming increasingly apparent. These products undergird our entire society and economy and provide precious jobs and revenue. The soaring prices of chemicals, plastics, fertilizer, and other products - and the loss of jobs - graphically illustrate this point. We must recognize that it will be many years, if ever, before we discover alternatives to the petroleum-based products that every American uses in our daily lives.
If we don’t move now to enact an energy policy that includes more oil and gas production from domestic sources, including ANWR and the federal OCS, we may look back someday and realize that we failed to perceive a critical crossroad in the history of this nation. I don’t think it’s overly dramatic to say that this nation’s future and the quality of life for every American are dependent on the decisions you make or don’t make in the next few months.
Thank you for considering my views.
Sincerely,
Sarah Palin
Friday, September 5, 2008
Some sobering thoughts for both sides in the Sarah Palin frenzy.
I never heard of Sarah Palin before Friday's announcement. I immediately googled her and found some fascinating material. Keep in mind this was before all the new pages appeared so all the articles were on what see had actually done. OMG!
Everyone seems assured Biden will destroy Sarah Palin in the VP debate.
Newsflash, 2 years ago she debated the sitting GOP Governor, who also happened to have spent over 20 years in the US Senate, and killed him and won the election in a landslide.
Every seems assured she wont hold up without a teleprompter.
Watch this video interview with Newsweek on female governors last march.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156190?tid=relatedcl
There seems to have been a 2 year old grassroots effort to get her to VP, first for Rudy, and only later for Jonnie. Look for the older stuff on this site; front page is RA RA for her and McCaine now.
http://www.palinforvp.com/
Newsflash for the GOP bigwigs that think they can use her to stay in power and forget about her, that's what all the Alaskan GOP bigwigs thought to, they don't have jobs now. She is so hated by the old time GOP powers that her name is not mentioned on the GOP's state website.
"In the roughly three years since she quit as the state's chief regulator of the oil industry, Palin has crushed the Republican hierarchy (virtually all male) and nearly every other foe or critic. Political analysts in Alaska refer to the "body count" of Palin's rivals. "The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah," says pollster Dave Dittman, who worked for her gubernatorial campaign. It includes Ruedrich, Renkes, Murkowski, gubernatorial contenders John Binkley and Andrew Halcro, the three big oil companies in Alaska, and a section of the Daily News called "Voice of the Times," which was highly critical of Palin and is now defunct."
From http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp
Funniest video take on Sarah Palin, done by 2 guys who think there slamming her, just like Archie Bunker was supposed to be making fun of people like him but became their hero.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W5IAPK0hbU&feature=related
Everyone seems assured Biden will destroy Sarah Palin in the VP debate.
Newsflash, 2 years ago she debated the sitting GOP Governor, who also happened to have spent over 20 years in the US Senate, and killed him and won the election in a landslide.
Every seems assured she wont hold up without a teleprompter.
Watch this video interview with Newsweek on female governors last march.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156190?tid=relatedcl
There seems to have been a 2 year old grassroots effort to get her to VP, first for Rudy, and only later for Jonnie. Look for the older stuff on this site; front page is RA RA for her and McCaine now.
http://www.palinforvp.com/
Newsflash for the GOP bigwigs that think they can use her to stay in power and forget about her, that's what all the Alaskan GOP bigwigs thought to, they don't have jobs now. She is so hated by the old time GOP powers that her name is not mentioned on the GOP's state website.
"In the roughly three years since she quit as the state's chief regulator of the oil industry, Palin has crushed the Republican hierarchy (virtually all male) and nearly every other foe or critic. Political analysts in Alaska refer to the "body count" of Palin's rivals. "The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah," says pollster Dave Dittman, who worked for her gubernatorial campaign. It includes Ruedrich, Renkes, Murkowski, gubernatorial contenders John Binkley and Andrew Halcro, the three big oil companies in Alaska, and a section of the Daily News called "Voice of the Times," which was highly critical of Palin and is now defunct."
From http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp
Funniest video take on Sarah Palin, done by 2 guys who think there slamming her, just like Archie Bunker was supposed to be making fun of people like him but became their hero.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W5IAPK0hbU&feature=related
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)