Friday, August 29, 2008

Defenders of Wildlife Response to Palin Selection

Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife made the following statement about Sarah Palin being tabbed to run with John McCain:

“Senator McCain’s choice for a running mate is beyond belief. By choosing Sarah Palin, McCain has clearly made a decision to continue the Bush legacy of destructive environmental policies.

“Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration.

“This is Senator McCain’s first significant choice in building his executive team and it’s a bad one. It has to raise serious doubts in the minds of voters about John McCain’s commitment to conservation, to addressing the impacts of global warming and to ensuring our country ends its dependency on oil.”

30 comments:

coreydbarbarian said...

wow.

is mccain even trying to win anymore?

i realize governor palin is a darling of the fundies (nra supporter, big oil supporter, creationist/i.d. supporter, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-choice, etc.), but in this desperate move to secure the support of the religious right, mccain is alienating countless independents.

strategically, it's either desperate or self-defeating. possibly both.

on the surface, palin's nomination is a ploy to bring dis-contented hilary supporters into the mccain fold. (personally, i believe feminists find that tact rather demeaning). beneath the surface, her nomination will lock up the evangelical vote and drive many independents toward obama's camp.

to say nothing of her total lack of experience. just a month ago, she admitted on television that she had no idea what the job of vp entailed.

biden will demolish her in a debate. hands down, no question.

i am simultaneously shocked, tickled and giddy with this pick.
thanks, john mccain! (and happy 72nd, ya ol' fart!)

Anony Mouse said...

A great choice and another big win for McCain. I think the guy at CNN is about to blow a gasket and Bob Beckle looked like he was about to pass out.
She is smart, female, a governor, a reformer she will bring back the evangelical base and she will capture many of the pissed off Hillary voters. The woman has a 90% approval rating. I didn’t think that was possible. On top of that, she is also more experienced than the top of the DNC ticket. Yes this took a lot of courage but it has the McCain bashers scrambling. As I have seen posted McCain/Palin 08 and Hillary in 12. I think Hillary likes the pick as well.

coreydbarbarian said...

"she is also more experienced than the top of the DNC ticket."

oh, mousey. mousey, mousey, mousey.
maybe you should ask your doc to lower the dosage or something.

barack obama has 14yrs of federal and state legislative experience. contrast that with palin's 18 months as governor of a state with less than 700,000 residents.

also, consider that the alaskan state coffers are overflowing right now (due to record oil profits) and maybe you'll begin to understand the 90% approval ratings.

ya know, on 2nd thought read this twice and call me in the morning.

csm said...

Nice link, Corey. Here is another one.

G said...

I'm shocked... SHOCKED that the Huffington Post would have a negative view of the Republican candidate for VP and would use it to question John McCain's judgment =0)

But seriously, thanks for the link, coreyd. I rarely visit Huffington Post, but it gave me a good laugh. It's almost comical to see the writer's "blinders" to all reality outside the greatness of Barack Obama.

EVERY VP selection carries positives and negatives with it. This one is no different. I was just wondering if McCain could have named ANY Republican that would have caused the hardcore Democrats to say, "Good choice." And if that were possible, how much would it have alienated conservative Republicans?

Personally, I don't know much about her. But it appears to be an excellent choice. Why? From what I've been reading and hearing, it has solidified the Republican base that has had a difficult time backing McCain wholeheartedly. Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, etc. have been totally energized by the choice.

Also, while Obama's campaign has been focused on change, it is now clear that his version of change is only in the area of policy (to more liberalism). But by McCain choosing someone outside the DC "machine" (and a reformer, at that), his version of change looks to be with politics (the way govt is run) rather than just policy. And for many people, that's the part of our federal govt that is most offensive. In that way, the pick fits with McCain's "maverick" reputation (true or not, it IS his reputation).

The one thing about the pick that I personally like most is that it shows that McCain is not "owned" (or even influenced) by the beltway Republican establishment. He chose the VP candidate that HE wanted... who best fits with what HE wants to accomplish as POTUS.

I think it definitely accomplishes a couple things for him. First, it pretty much eliminates any significant negative effect of Bob Barr being in the race. Second, it has electrified the "Reagan Republicans" that were pretty wishy-washy toward him. Third, the fact that he chose a woman WILL draw some people to his side (and solidify the Hillary backers who had already decided to vote for him). Whether that will be in any significant numbers remains to be seen.

Is she a perfect choice? Of course not. Nobody would have been. But it is far from being the "train wreck" that so many liberal bloggers and commentators allege. It seems that much of their glee is based on their perception that the ONLY criticism of Obama with any validity is his lack of experience. Truth be told, that isn't the only issue people have with him.

Policy-wise, McCain and Obama are very different in some significant areas. And if this choice turns the focus toward a debate on policy, then I applaud it.

coreydbarbarian said...

another excellent link, csm.

i must have read more than 60 opinion pieces in the past 24 hours. politically, the rolling concensus is that this was a shrewd move to solidify the social conservatives. i see zero evidence that the palin pick will energize fiscal conservatives, g excluded.

but the desperation becomes apparent when you analyze the sheer riskiness of the pick. mccain clearly thought he could win some of the soft republicans back, and maybe some independents. i believe he has misread the electorate on this one.

palin has potential negatives with that middle crowd.

environmentally, she will turn off more independents than she turns on. aside from sacrificing polar bears and wolves on the alter of big oil, she doesn't even believe that climate change is attributable to humankind.

her creationist credibility might be an asset to social conservatives (or "reagan republicans", as g likes to call 'em), but that asset is actually a liability with independents - she, like bobby jindal, believes i.d. is good science, and should be taught alongside biology in the classroom. there are other pitfalls associated with her creationism that may surface in the next 66 days, as well.

i want to touch on her anti-gay stance as well, but i'm out of time. gotta hit the road for my delivery route / weekend gig.

(p.s. for those keeping track, the unemployment check finally came yesterday, so my rent is paid, i'm not homeless. just in case anyone was worried or something. :)

Anony Mouse said...

Good post g. One of the reasons I left the world of partisan politics many years ago is so I could see critically on both sides. Biden was a good pick, safe but nothing spectacular. The negative is he makes the ticket look up side down. Obama's credentials as a community organizer just do not go far. Palen was a great pick because she energizes the base and the ticket looks right side up. Governor or community activist? Well, seems pretty obvious considering the activist is at the top.
I love the way this woman has attacked corruption in her state REGARDLESS OF THE PARTY. She seems to be a modern day Teddy who had less than two years as governor before becoming the VP candidate. She strikes me as a great speaker without the teleprompter. It is obvious from the web chatter and the anger that the Partisans are really concerned and they should be.

Lnks to the Huffington post to analyze Palen is like asking the mouse to analyze a cat.

I don't like cats.

G said...

coreyd,

We seem to have different interpretations of the term "Reagan Republican." I don't equate it with social conservatism. I realize that most social conservatives tend to align themselves with Reagan. But there are many RRs that don't really care about the social aspects of his presidency. In general, the focus would be on lowering taxes, reducing the role of govt in society (especially spending on welfare-type programs), a strong national defense, and strongly pro-life.

The effect of Mrs. Palin on the electorate remains to be seen. But I think you're overestimating the negatives. Anyone who would be turned off by her stand on environmentalism and drilling was probably not going to be voting for McCain anyway.

coreydbarbarian said...

thanks for the correction, g. wouldn't want to misrepresent the facts.

here's one for mouse. since you don't like the huff, here's one from politico, at the opposite end of the political spectrum. just pretend it's cheese.

Anonymous said...

5 things Biden pick says about Obama
By JIM VANDEHEI & MIKE ALLEN | 8/23/08 4:26 PM EST

It is easy to overstate the meaning of vice presidential picks. After all, rarely does the selection of a running mate significantly tilt the outcome of an election. But it does provide a unique window into the presidential nominee's decision-making instincts and his strategy for winning in the fall.

Here are five things the selection of Joe Biden tells us about Barack Obama:

1. He's fixing for a fight. Obama has been knocked for being too soft and too enthralled with rhetorical fancy. But the past few weeks provided a glimpse of his tough-guy Chicago side. He went negative the moment his campaign felt wobbly. Biden is a brawler — and the Obama camp is eager to unleash him.

2. He's a lot more conventional than advertised. Obama has promised a different and more consensus-oriented brand of politics but more often than not has done what most politicians do: switched positions to soothe voters, dodged the unpredictability of town hall meetings and gone for the jugular when he sees it. The Biden pick — the most important choice Obama has made to date in his public career — was safe and traditional. Two male career politicians from the Senate is hardly transformational.

3. He’s insecure about security. The Georgia-Russia crisis amplified Obama's shortcomings on national security — both his own experience and the perceptions of voters about his own readiness for command. McCain is making that his calling card, and polls show it's working. Biden offers Obama instant help: He knows this stuff and is more than willing to flaunt it.

4. He’s more worried about Lunchbox Joe than Bubba. Obama was not persuaded by arguments that Democrats for the past 60 years have won the presidency only when they've had a Southerner on the ticket. He seems confident he can put a few states in the Old Confederacy in play by stoking African-American turnout. Perhaps. But he also is calculating that his more urgent concern is working-class whites, especially those in the industrial Midwest. Hillary Rodham Clinton clobbered him in these areas — and white men remain very skeptical of him, if you believe the polls (and his people do). At the public unveiling of the ticket Saturday at Springfield, Ill., Obama called Biden a “scrappy kid from Scranton.”

5. He doesn't hold a grudge — or at least he doesn't let it get in the way. Biden, who pulled out of the Democratic race after finishing fifth in Iowa, raised serious questions about Obama’s readiness to handle national security in the primaries. Biden said things like this a year ago: “If the Democrats think we're going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to [bring to the] table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we're making a tragic mistake.” That criticism hurt then because it echoed the precise case made by Clinton in the nomination contest. It’s hurting now because Republicans are using Biden’s words against Obama in a new ad. Now Obama has to show he can get over the Clinton grudge.

Quantum_Flux said...

Please tell the McCain/Palin Campaign (preferrably politely) why teaching creationism in our public schools around America is superstitious and is not in our nation's best interests. These are the feelers McCain has out there, the way in which Americans can have a voice and be heard by his campaign:

Contact his campaign directly here:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/

Or go to his blogs and leave a polite message about the subject matter wherever appropriate:

http://www.johnmccain.com/blog/

Remember, McCain does a lot of things right and is a great heroic war veteran who genuinely puts his country first, but Creationism is one key area where he is completely wrong and could potentially create a major setback for American students and businesses. We can't let America fall behind foriegn countries in the departments of Science and Technology because of his superstitious beliefs.

csm said...

Thanks for the comment Quantum_Flux. I hope everyone here does what you suggest (though I know some won't).

G said...

coreyd,

I don't think you were misrepresenting facts at all. "Reagan Republicans" is a term that really doesn't have a concrete definition. It probably means a dozen different things to people. I guess I should just try to define my terms a little better.

I'm surprised we haven't heard from bawdyscot. Bawdy, are you there? I'd actually like to hear your views on both VP picks, since you aren't really behind either of the major candidates.

Anony Mouse said...

Quantum, when is the last time you visited a college campus especially in the areas of engineering & technology? American students are becoming greatly out numbered. The problem is not Creationism. Creationism is only a ridiculous substitution for the real problems and a minor issue for a presidential candidate.

csm said...

Yes, Creationism is a minor issue at this point. The right wing Christocrats want it not to be. Let's do everything in our power to keep it a minor issue instead of the wedge it is "designed" to be!

coreydbarbarian said...

amen, to that, csm! ;)
seriously, mouse, quantum_flux specifically said public schools, not colleges & universities. i think your xenophobia got the best of you on this one.

creationism is presented by proponents as equal to evolutionary theory; indeed, it was designed to replace evolution and give the fundamentalists a foothold in public education. it is currently a threat on the state level; texas, louisiana, kentucky and tennessee have all had infestations of creationism this year.
if we get a sarah palin or a bobby jindal in the white house, creationism may well become a national problem. we cannot allow that.

and just so ya know, mouse, i graduated from college with a degree in electronic engineering, and 100% of my classmates were american. :-P

Anony Mouse said...

Yes Corey, but you can't keep a job and you seem to live at home a lot. I know for a fact at the top universities, American kids are scarce in the sciences. Check with Bill Gates. He knows the problem well.

coreydbarbarian said...

oh no you didn't! mousey my dear, i just got laid off after many years at the same factory, and i have not lived "at home" for many years. not sure where you get off.

perhaps, should you escape your paranoid stupor, you might consider what specific issues are driving american students out of higher education, if indeed they are absent. is it the ever rising cost? disinterest? laziness?

then, maybe you would consider why it is you dwell in such fear and, as i said before, xenophobia.

sad little mouse. :(

Ceroill said...

corey, it seems to me that mouse is acting a bit trollish. He's just trying to push your buttons, buddy.

csm said...

It should be quite obvious to one and all by now that mouse is an asshole.

Anony Mouse said...

You got it Corey I am pushing your buttons. That should be obvious. Is that any worse than ass hole or your cute snide comments? I don't think so. I treat those with respect who do the same for me. For those who want to be ugly, I can do the same.

csm said...

Bring it on shit head.

coreydbarbarian said...

it's funny mouse, with you unflinching support of gov. sarah palin, i thought fo sho that you enjoyed cute snide comments. go figure. ;)

BAWDYSCOT said...

"perhaps, should you escape your paranoid stupor, you might consider what specific issues are driving american students out of higher education, if indeed they are absent. is it the ever rising cost? disinterest? laziness?"

Any ideas as to why the cost of a college education rises much faster than the inflation rate? Well, like any other service which is provided for money, the more money you pump into the system coupled with a static supply, voila! the costs go up. With all the grants and scholarships and easy(low cost interest ratewise)credit pumped into the system and only so many slots available at the very best colleges you will get higher and higher final cost. This is why the fixes promoted by most politicians will not solve, but exacerbate the problem as they want to what...pump more money into the system. Add to this the bloated administration at most universities and the problem seems intractable. My solution- The Internet. Even if a relatively small portion of the student base opts for this(10% to 20%)it could pop this cost bubble without harming the educational system. There will be less killer parties on campus, but oh well.

coreydbarbarian said...

one question, bawdy.
how do we ensure equal access to (traditional) higher education without grants and/or scholarships? i would think that merit-based awards support equal access.

as for school loans, only a small portion of guaranteed loans are locked in at a low rate. 20 years ago, this small amount was probably just right; with today's costs, it barely covers 10-15% of the total cost. the rest of the loans are considerably higher. mine are 16%.

as for internet-based schooling, i know several professors who have obtained their masters online. they were very satisfied. lower degrees require lab work, or some other form of hands on education.

BAWDYSCOT said...

I am not saying we shouldn't have ANY grants and scholarships; I was saying the government's plan usually entails MORE grants and scholarships which just provides more dollars chasing the same amount of product, hence the inflationary spiral.

To answer your question, means testing. If the poorest get the grants and scholarships we get equal access, no? By the way, I would use means testing for all kinds of federal government benefits, i.e. Social Security, Medicare, etc.

I also don't understand why there isn't a full blown investigation by Congress into why a college educational costs have risen so much faster than the inflation rate. My guess would be bloated school administrations for starters. I have posted before the only things you absolutely have to have for education to occur are students and teachers.

One of a few things I actually agree with the Europeans on is an apprenticeship system. Not everybody needs to go to college, but everybody should have the chance to learn how to fish instead of having to go to the fisherman.

Ceroill said...

I tend to agree with you on that. The closest I've seen to it in this country is the 'community college', 'technical institute' or 'vocational school'. I think the older term is 'trade school'. Anyway, lower priced state sponsored schools that teach trades rather than academic degrees.

coreydbarbarian said...

a word on trade schools-
the current governor of indiana is running for re-election.
yesterday he aired an ad that proposes to take all state lottery proceeds and use them to guarantee all indiana high school graduates two years of education at ivy tech (state sponsored trade school), or the school of their choice.

i love the idea. i really don't like the governor, but this is a good idea.

now, a word of warning: not all trade schools are good for you. state sponsored schools, yes. national schools (like itt tech, for example), no. unfortunately, the good trade schools can't afford all the tv commercials that the bad schools can.

BAWDYSCOT said...

If these bad tech schools recruit students from all over the country they can be regulated by the federal government. If they don't the states can regulate them. If they continue to be bad schools, it is then the government's fault in part. See how easy this is?

Ceroill said...

I was speaking only of the state sponsored schools, not the rash of national school 'companies' that have cropped up in recent years (ITT, etc, etc.)
In Nashville we had two, that fairly recently merged into one school. One was a technical school, the other was vocational. The merge was made easy as they are physically neighbors.