I agree about Reagan, but McCain was even OLDER. When you're bugged about other things that's just more for the pile. And, I'm with you on the scale being tipped to. It's spilling over.

I agree, Ken. They have particular motives they select--of course those that make her look sinister or stupid. And I agree about McCain, but I have never supported McCain. I couldn't BELIEVE that of all the good and great people in the US, the republican party ended up with McCain as OUR CHOICE for the best guy to run the country. That seriously floored me.

And it was because of that nomination that I re-registered as non-partisan after being a lifelong democrat. I admire his service to our country (blah, blah, blah ... the obligatory disclaimer) but he's far too liberal for me, I think adulterers are skanks--I nearly threw up when his wife was giggling over her "how we met" story, never mentioning that the old geezer chasing her skirt at the party happened to be a married geezer with kids--and I did think he was too old at that point to be the main guy over the free world.

Conservative Issues Forum
http://www.the-9-12-project.com

delu2qtkds (I actually deciphered that!), I feel much the same. When Palin was announced last summer, I was stunned--mostly because I assumed McCain's choice would be someone we all knew. But I was thrilled. Yes, partly because she was a woman and a...well, a committed mom as opposed to a very career oriented, put-my-kids-in-boarding-school-so-I-can-get-on-with-my-real-life kind of mom. I liked the whole picture of the family who actually cares about each other, etc.

I also liked the down-to-earth quality. Not because it makes ME feel more important (Wow, she's just like me and she can be VP!), but because I think those who aren't down-to-earth are usually that way because they have just lost touch. They aren't smarter or more sophisticated, they're just pompous.

She's bright and energized and I think she can rally a good crowd.

I even like that she's well-dressed AND feminine. (And, yes, I think M. Obama does the same.) Women should be able to be intelligent and respected without turning into men.

Still, I have concerns about her experience, particularly in foreign affairs and the like.

I'm totally laughing at your hunting description. Hey, at least you're willing to get into the tent. You're much more of a hunter than I am! Unless you call sleeping at the Marriott and getting room service "hunting." But I fully support gun rights. My husband and I even went to a gun show a couple of months ago. Never thought you'd see me there!

Conservative Issues Forum
http://www.the-9-12-project.com

I apologize, Hobbes. I didn't realize, "you win" meant that I was no longer allowed to voice my opinions. If you could point me to that forum rule, I'll be happy to observe it more carefully in the future.

Apparently I need to remind you, again, that ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It does not prop up your argument nor does it disprove another. And it's interesting that you insist on ignoring the actual definition of leadership.

For the real record, I do know about how Obama got elected. And you'll notice that being elected to the senate, being elected to the presidency, and commandeering trillions of dollars certainly is not a "single example." He has been able to decimate the entire US economy and beyond and gotten hoards to follow his lead. I suggest that neither you nor I like where he's leading them, but her certainly has the ability to get others to follow.

Your implication about ACORN is ridiculous, particularly given the obviously and pointedly numbered item that we might be able to use and "ethical and appropriate means" of gaining the same result. Of course not everything they do is criminal. We can, and SHOULD, learn from good and bad behavior, from good and bad results. We can, and SHOULD glean the ethical and appropriate and weed out that which is not so.

We can't do that by ignoring what is happening in our society, by pretending it isn't garnering huge amounts of support, or by simply using ad hominem, straw men, and mocking tones to try to shut down those who are speaking up. None of those things is helpful.

Conservative Issues Forum
http://www.the-9-12-project.com

Thank you for your gracious reply.

Was that all their was to it? Seriously, if we can't actually DISCUSS what course would be best, what candidates are best--without ad hominem and illogic--what's the point? We won't get anywhere.

Conservative Issues Forum
http://www.the-9-12-project.com

No, I didn't define leadership as you say. That's what we call a straw man. How about we discuss without all the logical fallacies, eh? The continued ad hominem still isn't working. It proves nothing about either position, it only speaks to your character.

The definition of "leadership" is simple. The ability to lead. To lead is to organize and direct, to set in motion. The word "leadership" does not proscribe nor require a particular ethical base. Obama obviously has the ability and willingness to do so. To pretend he doesn't just because I don't like either his means OR his ends is nonsensical. And it doesn't help us to change the tide.

ACORN has also been able to lead huge groups of people as well. They've been able to garner a great deal of power and resources. I think it serves us much better to find out precisely what they did and how they did it. That serves two purposes: (1) we might be able to stop it and (2) we might see if there is an ethical appropriate means of turning things in a better direction.

Jaopfer and others. I want to sincerely apologize.

Truthfully, I do think we should avoid any gossip, innuendo, and ad hominem. I think if we want to be take seriously as a force for political change we need to stay above the HuffPo speculation and smearing. I honestly do think that's the ONLY way we can take a principled position on issues and get any traction. It is very frustrating and dismaying to come to this forum, ready to be part of change for the better, only to hear comment on MO's belly or Hillary's voice or Biden's hairdo--just as it is to hear slimy comments about Palin's clothing and her children. I don't see how those things are relevant OR how they help our cause.

But that aside, I handled my criticism badly. I wasn't "having a bad day"--that would be a lame excuse. But I was coming across a stream of posts that all seemed to focus on ad hominem and non-issues. Shadrach said what I should have said, if I had the eloquence. I will try harder to be less harsh. I hope you will forgive me. I will be outspoken on issues I'm passionate about, but I will truly try to be less caustic. (But, bipartisan, I won't make much of an attempt at brevity! :) )

Hobbes, get real. Calling someone a "troll" is name calling. My post pointed out your misquote. You misquoted me and you might want to correct that. You decide.

"For openers, I wonder whether, apart from your children, what personal experience you have had being responsible for the success and growth of others?"

For openers, my personal leadership experience isn't at issue, since I'm not running for office. This is called ad hominem. But suffice it to say that I travel around the country speaking at conventions, I am the CFO of an engineering company, and have been a local and national...ahem...organizer in a handful of religious, education, music, etc. groups. But, as I said, none of that proves or disproves my points.

But since you believe it matters, please feel free to elaborate on your excessive national leadership experience.

"Obama's repeated obvious failures to provide good leadership in his exalted role stem in part from the fact that he's NEVER DONE IT BEFORE. Should you disagree with that, please cite examples."

Obama was able to get himself elected to the senate and then president. He's been able to ram through trillions of dollars of expenditures of other people's money. I don't agree with any of it, but to pretend he's been a failure at leadership is to miss out on figuring out how HE got be president and all the REST of the candidates FAILED. He's got the seat and WE are holding the bag to pay for it. Somehow that doesn't look like he failed at achieving his goals.

"As most of us who post here and elsewhere understand, nobody cares what our real names are"

Hobbes, I suggest you don't want to stand behind your words. Ad hominem doesn't prove your point. I'm willing to say who I am and to stand behind it. I'm all over the internet. You can drive to my house if you want to. And if I am offensive and nasty and feel the need to mock others as a way to try to elevate my position, I'm willing to have the guts to stand behind it. I would be willing to bet that you won't reveal your real name. I think you'd be embarrassed to.

But that's neither here nor there. Ad hominem doesn't prove your point. You can say whatever you care to about me, but it still doesn't address the issues.

"Seriously, if there is one state with the potential for international diplomacy, it's Alaska."

LOL Spot on!

Conservative Issues Forum
http://www.the-9-12-project.com