Comments on: A Belated Palin Analysis

By: J. Ewing

J. Ewing — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:27:22 +0000

Sorry, I keep forgetting what a radical concept of government you have– somewhat akin to the black-masked poo-flinging monkeys rampaging through St. Paul yesterday. Since I have no hope of convincing you otherwise, I must content myself with the knowledge that 1) about 10% of eligible voters will make an informed decision based on the issues, 2) 40% of eligible voters will decide based on “other” reasons, that 50% will NOT vote, including you, and 4) that the 50% who do vote will determine who runs the country and how. It doesn’t matter WHY you don’t vote, and you can claim the intellectual and moral high ground all you want, but in the end analysis, you don’t matter!

You are, in essence, criticizing us for the way we choose to make a decision that you yourself refuse to make. Somehow I find that proposition lacking in intellectual rigor.

By: Eddie Willers

Eddie Willers — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:52:28 +0000

The opposite is true, JE: if you vote, regardless of the outcome, you have no right to complain. The system you endorsed by casting your ballot seals your fate, regardless of whether your new slavemaster is named Obama or McCain.

Again, linking empty phrases such as what is contained in the post above as reasons for people to head to the polls to cast a ballot only strengthens my non-voting position. What’s the difference? Exactly! Garbage in, garbage out…and the retards who think they are “performing his or her civic duty” by voting are only endorsing the (ever-expanding) State. Congrats, comrades…the State is only too happy to have a couple more cogs in place.

By: J. Ewing

J. Ewing — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:39:13 +0000

Perhaps instead of criticizing Kevin’s spot-on analysis you would favor us with your brilliant dissertation on the subject? Exactly what substantive issues should have been factored into a political analysis of a political event?

OK, so you won’t vote, regardless. But some people will vote on the “non-substantive” issues of character and moral values or even Party label, while others will vote on the more substantive issues of policy. What is the difference? In the end, the one with the most votes wins, and if you don’t vote, you can’t complain about the result.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:39:17 +0000

Wow, two whole comments and not one sentence of substance. Just bitching and petty insults! Well done!! True to form!

A VP pick is often picked for purely political reasons. I gave some. At the same time, while you may think how many kids a candidate has or what their husband does doesn’t matter, to many voters it does and it has to be taken into consideration.

As far as issues go, a VP candidate is going to largely follow the lead of the presidential candidate. So analyzing those issues would be pointless since it’s essentially the same McCain platform we’ve had for months now.

By: Eddie Willers

Eddie Willers — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:55:32 +0000

Ha, JE, it’s safe to say I’d never cast a ballot. Never again.

What part of “fire up the base” … “vote for a woman” … yadda yadda yadda smacks of substance?

If anything, Kevin’s “analysis” is insulting to the intelligence of the American voter (and serves to strengthen my case for non-voting) … attempts to convince people to vote through solganeering is a surefire sign of intellectual deficiency.

Assuming that people are dumb enough to vote for someone because she has five children, her husband is union (conservative trait? I think not, but I guess you can file that under “maverick” huh?), she’s “more than held her own on the abortion issue” (whatever that means) her bringing energy, etc. is a rather arrogant assumption, is it not? I mean, I know you guys love platitudes – indeed, that’s the only language you speak – but c’mon, seriously? This is analysis?!?!

Isn’t it rather disheartening to know that the “informed” votes you and Kevin will cast can/will be negated by two equally stupid people subscribing to Obama’s empty rhetoric?

At times like these, when drivel like the above is passed off as (and even defended) as analysis, I am reminded of a great quote by the brilliant H.L. Mencken:

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Based on the above “analysis” I think Mencken has you guys pegged – enjoy casting that “informed” ballot. HA!!

By: J. Ewing

J. Ewing — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:17:51 +0000

How odd. You mention a large numbers of issues of substance, and then complain that there are none. The “analysis” was of the political aspects of a largely political decision. The only issues of substance are political considerations and ramifications. The fact that others may have said them before this posting does not negate the accuracy of the analysis one bit.

Come to think of it, and considering your past postings, why would you even care? Are you being tempted to actually cast a vote?

By: Eddie Willers

Eddie Willers — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:59:36 +0000

Wow! Over one page of “analysis” and not ONE mention of an issue of substance – well done!

“Fire up the base” … “Set up a potential Palin/Jindal ticket” … “Executive experience” … “Son going to Iraq” … “Washington outsider” … “Real change” … “Spitfire who can hold her own against Biden” … Blah blah blah

Remember that commercial where business employees were making fun of their boss by playing buzzword bingo? I think my entire card is covered.

Heh. Nice analysis – sounds eerily similar to everything I’ve heard on the news this weekend.

By: J. Ewing

J. Ewing — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:55:34 +0000

I suggested to a couple of strong Republican women yesterday the idea that women would vote for Palin just because she was a woman, and got the ticked-off response I expected. We did agree, however, that those women who would vote for a candidate simply because she was a woman– HIllary Democrats– would have their votes welcomed.