Alaskan Politics (statewide and nationwide) (Metlakatla: furniture, owning, programs)

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by Geechie North

.

Again, this is why AK is Ak, and why McCain's people should have immediately known that Gov. Palin could only appeal to the hardcore.

Once the media blitz was over, of course.

I don't know, I am in Ohio before heading back home for a few weeks and Palin has packed them in with really big numbers all over the place, 20,000 alone in Strongville, Ohio a couple of days ago. And that was suppose to be a "Small" rally. They had to go outside and do it again for the ones that couldn't get inside.

Clearly the Left is really underestimating the Conservatives that are getting fed up with this move towards making the country into a socialist version of their ideals.

America was built on you earn what you get, not what you can steal from those that do work....

Obama's plan for raising the taxes on anyone right now is just stupid.... How many of you are employed by someone that makes less than $250,000.00... I doubt very many, and if you aren't, then expect cutbacks or layoffs when your boss gets hammered with more taxes... That is reality, you will vote yourself out of a job in the name of Socialism.... Way to go!

[Geechie North]

The problem is twofold, I believe.

When the 17th Amendment was adopted (1913), it was because the Senate was "a millionaires club", and did not care about the people, but only functioned to advance the interests of the rich.
Today, thanks to a paradox, a loophole in a Watergate era reform, it's not only the Senate (all are filthy rich except for Feingold, Sanders and perhaps Biden) but the entire Legislative, Executive, (and increasing the Judicial) Branches which serve the $ to the exclusion of the people.

It has turned the US of A into a radical capitalistic version of the old USSR.

The second problem (related to the first) is that while you can win an election by a relentlessly negative campaign based solely on lies, it is impossible to govern after doing so.

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by starlite9

I don't know, I am in Ohio before heading back home for a few weeks and Palin has packed them in with really big numbers all over the place, 20,000 alone in Strongville, Ohio a couple of days ago. And that was suppose to be a "Small" rally. They had to go outside and do it again for the ones that couldn't get inside.

Clearly the Left is really underestimating the Conservatives that are getting fed up with this move towards making the country into a socialist version of their ideals.

America was built on you earn what you get, not what you can steal from those that do work....

Obama's plan for raising the taxes on anyone right now is just stupid.... How many of you are employed by someone that makes less than $250,000.00... I doubt very many, and if you aren't, then expect cutbacks or layoffs when your boss gets hammered with more taxes... That is reality, you will vote yourself out of a job in the name of Socialism.... Way to go!

.

The "socialism" bogeyman won't work for a number of reasons. If anything I worry that Obama is still too conservative to do what FDR did to save Capitalism during the last depression.

As for raising taxes on the rich being a killer to the economy, that has never been shown to be the case. Our Capital Gains rate is about 1/2 it was in the 1950's, and look at our economic situation then vs now.

Per numerous sources, Gov. Palin's campaign (along with McCain's) give crowd estimates that are off by 10-20%.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Geechie North

Ah, but cash is not an indicator of popularity. And that applies to Sen. Obama, also.

Gov. Palin attracts about 30% of the general population; roughly the same number who call themselves Republican.

And while it can be said that most Evangelicals are Goppers, and therefore Gov. Palin folks, please don't let these 7% speak for the other 70% (rounded off) who also say they are Christians.
I happen to fall into that latter group. In fact I believe that Jesus was indeed God, but that he has zero to do with organized religion, which is just a pile of self-promoting BS.

Religious identification in the U.S.

That makes no sense. MacCain is a liberal, and a lot of conservatives, both Republicans and independent voters, don't like him very much. Yes, these Republicans and independent voters (conservatives) would have still voted for the lesser of two evils. However, by bringing a real conservative into the picture (Palin), the conservative Republicans and independent voters, have been energized.

Palin brings in the following votes:
-Christian (which is quite large)
-Conservatives who are pro-Second Amendment, gun owners, hunters, etc.
-More women than with MacCain alone

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

That makes no sense. MacCain is a liberal, and a lot of conservatives, both Republicans and independent voters, don't like him very much. Yes, these Republicans and independent voters (conservatives) would have still voted for the lesser of two evils. However, by bringing a real conservative into the picture (Palin), the conservative Republicans and independent voters, have been energized.

Palin brings in the following votes:
-Christian (which is quite large)
-Conservatives who are pro-Second Amendment, gun owners, hunters, etc.
-More women than with MacCain alone

.

McCain is only a "liberal" in the sense of the contemporary GOP.
He is the miiddle of the Rightwing in the economic and foreign policy sense.

A prediction: Unless there is widespread voter suppression, the GOP ticket of 2008 will carry only 1-3 states N. of the Ohio and east of the Dakotas.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Barkingowl

I think that's going to happen no matter which candidate is elected,

Probably will, because tax payers will now have to pay for the bail-out. But with a Democrat sweep in Congress, and also having a Democrat president, that puts the nation into a very different situation. According to what I have heard and read on the news, the Democrats will have a lot more seats in the Senate and House, which increases the possibility for Congress to have enough votes to pass whatever they want. There are a few "moderate" Republicans that usually vote along the Democrats.

As you can see in Hawaii, one of the programs Obama talks about (Universal Health Care), can be extremely expensive. The only way Obama can keep his promises is by increasing tax on all Americans, since the top tax payers (the richest 5%), are already paying a great portion of the taxes.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Geechie North

.

McCain is only a "liberal" in the sense of the contemporary GOP.
He is the miiddle of the Rightwing in the economic and foreign policy sense.

A prediction: Unless there is widespread voter suppression, the GOP ticket of 2008 will carry only 1-3 states N. of the Ohio and east of the Dakotas.

No. MacCain is a liberal in most issues. Look at his voting record, and the bills he has sponsored with Democrats. One time, when Kerry was running for president, MacCain was looked at (by conservatives) as a sort of Kerry's running mate. MacCain is liked by a lot of Democrats, and a friend of Hillary. I see MacCain as more conservative than Hillary. I see Hillary as more conservative than Obama.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

That makes no sense. MacCain is a liberal, and a lot of conservatives, both Republicans and independent voters, don't like him very much. Yes, these Republicans and independent voters (conservatives) would have still voted for the lesser of two evils. However, by bringing a real conservative into the picture (Palin), the conservative Republicans and independent voters, have been energized.

Palin brings in the following votes:
-Christian (which is quite large)
-Conservatives who are pro-Second Amendment, gun owners, hunters, etc.
-More women than with MacCain alone

you are right on all points. Face it, any democrat especially a lib thinks all people with a R in front or behind their name must be a conservative.

BTW, I tried to give you a kudo, but can't cause I did a few days ago and the system says I need to find someone else, maybe Geechienorth? I didn't say that....

Obama: liberal as hell, Hillary, middle to the left: McCain, middle of the road. The only conservative view he has in foreign policy and right to life. I am not sure he is as strong a right to lifer as he would want us to think.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by nmnita

you are right on all points. Face it, any democrat especially a lib thinks all people with a R in front or behind their name must be a conservative.

BTW, I tried to give you a kudo, but can't cause I did a few days ago and the system says I need to find someone else, maybe Geechienorth? I didn't say that....

Obama: liberal as hell, Hillary, middle to the left: McCain, middle of the road. The only conservative view he has in foreign policy and right to life. I am not sure he is as strong a right to lifer as he would want us to think.

Thanks about the kudo.

And you are correct about the rest above. For the past eight years, conservatives of all kinds have been pushed aside by some of Bush's policies and big government. True conservatives are against big government, high taxes, and unneeded social programs. I am an independent voter who votes for conservative issues. Palin is all conservatives have at the moment, regardless of the upcoming elections' outcome.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

True conservatives are against big government, high taxes, and unneeded social programs. I am an independent voter who votes for conservative issues.

That is inherently flawed. It assumes that by choosing an ideology over specific solutions, that government will be improved (basically by electing the right people when making those choices). But that gives us Presidents like Bush and Governors like Murkowski. It rarely if ever provides better government.

The reason it doesn't isn't all that hard to see either. The selections are made for a different purpose than the desired outcome, and in fact there is no coorelation between the purpose (conservative ideology) and the outcome (good governance).

Selections based on demonstrating appropriate solutions, regardless of ideological appearances, is a valid way to improve government. But it does not settle well with conservatives, mostly because it requires more expertize than most people have. It's a lot easier to make ideological decisions than it is to determine of a program can solve a problem, or not.