View Full Version : All About McCain
innerSpaceman
08-06-2008, 09:59 AM
Ok ... so scaeagles claims he doesn't like McCain every bit as much as he doesn't like Obama. But all we read is how he doesn't like Obama. Day in and day out.
Pfft, I'm not a big Obama fan myself .... but scaeagles' constant battering is bordering on obsessive.
So let's put his money where his mouth is ... and here's an outlet to hear all about his dislike of John McCain.
(and, ya know, everybody's else's thoughts on the Replublican candidate for President)
scaeagles
08-06-2008, 10:13 AM
Obama is the candidate getting all the attention, so it is natural that my attention would go there as well.
McCain - Feingold campaign finance reform.
The Keating 5. I think he's dishonest.
Illegal immigration and McCain - Kennedy.
His temper and over all demeanor.
His stance on tax cuts (which has changed, but I don't trust him on it)
His stance on drilling (which has changed, but I don't trust him on it)
That's the short list off the top of my head. The only thing I like about him is I think he "gets it" (meaning we pretty much agree) on national defense.
So, were you against the war before you were for it, too?
scaeagles
08-06-2008, 10:20 AM
I'm not sure what you are referencing, but it wouldn't surprise me if I had disagreements with him on that as well.
scaeagles
08-06-2008, 10:23 AM
And courtesy of Fab in another thread -
Owning nine houses and dumping your wife and kids for a zillionaire blonde?
That's another one.
You aren't going to find me complimenting McCain. Very often anyway.
Scrooge McSam
08-06-2008, 10:46 AM
The only thing I like about him is I think he "gets it" (meaning we pretty much agree) on national defense.
What is it he "gets"?
The difference between Sunni and Shia... Nope, that can't be it.
Timelines? Nope, he's got big problems with those.
The definition of "defense"? No
JWBear
08-06-2008, 10:53 AM
The only thing I like about him is I think he "gets it" (meaning we pretty much agree) on national defense.
Attacking another sovereign nation, without provocation, is not national defense. Having no plan on leaving said nation, and saying we will be there for 100 years, is insanity.
Cadaverous Pallor
08-06-2008, 10:56 AM
What is it he "gets"?
The difference between Sunni and Shia... Nope, that can't be it.He's had trouble discerning between Taliban and Al-Qaeda too.
innerSpaceman
08-06-2008, 10:58 AM
Well, only insanity if you don't count Korea, Japan, Germany or any of the other places we've established the military outposts of our world-wide empire.
I'm no McCain fan ... but I hate people's statements being misrepresented. OF COURSE we will have a permanent military presence in Iraq. That's going to happen whether McCain wins or not.
But, yeah, he's still a dunce on timelines, defense, countries, tribes, and the internet.
scaeagles
08-06-2008, 11:04 AM
Attacking another sovereign nation, without provocation, is not national defense.
Sorry. Gulf War I, widely accepted as...umm...acceptable, ended not with a treaty, but with a cease fire. Granted, we didn't invade Iraq because of violations of it, but the violations were not only provocation, but justification for the invasion.
I realize I am in the minority, but I think my logic is sound.
And I will say I find it somewhat amusing that out of my lengthy laundry list of what I disagree with him on the only comments are about what I agree with him on.
Scrooge McSam
08-06-2008, 11:08 AM
Why?
You expected anyone to defend him for the other stuff?
scaeagles
08-06-2008, 11:09 AM
No, Scrooge....not at all. But perhaps an acknowledgement that, yes, Leo isn't just saying he dislikes McCain (as the OP seems to suggest), but he has real policy and personality disagreements and dislikes might be in order. I'm not just saying that I don't like McCain.
Scrooge McSam
08-06-2008, 11:27 AM
IC... Sorry, that wasn't something I thought needed to be said.
You illustrated that quite adequately in your first post.
Ghoulish Delight
08-06-2008, 11:34 AM
And I will say I find it somewhat amusing that out of my lengthy laundry list of what I disagree with him on the only comments are about what I agree with him on.
Because the one thing you agree with him on is the one thing that he wants to use as the driving force behind his campaign which means it's going to be focused on.
innerSpaceman
08-06-2008, 11:52 AM
You're not just saying that you don't like Obama either. You have a daily reason stemming from whatever current campaign events there are.
This is your thread to do the same with McCain. He has a campaign, too.
scaeagles
08-06-2008, 12:01 PM
OK...I am happy to comment when I see stuff in the news. I don't see anything in the news about McCain....well, that is an exaggeration, but not nearly as much as there is about Obama. That, and there was an Obama thread.
I was contemplating, though, and I would like to add that McCain is an elitist as well. He once said, in support of illegal immigration, that American citizens wouldn't pick lettuce for $50/hour. That was elitist and stupid and showed how absolutely out of touch he is the income of the average American. Hell, I'd pick lettuce for $50/hour, and I'm sure just about everyone here would, too.
innerSpaceman
08-06-2008, 12:06 PM
Granted, McCain isn't in the news as much. And yes, of course, there was an existing Obama thread. That's precisely why I opened this McCain thread ... and because he's not in the news as much, I won't fault you for not posting as much bile about McCain.
I'm not sure I'd pick lettuce for $50/hour. Well, maybe for a few months.
Well, I certainly wouldn't pick lettuce for $50/hour but I'm sure many Americans would.
I don't actually strongly dislike McCain politically. A significant part of my personal dislike of him has to do with a fear of hearing for 4 or 8 years "my friends" 23 times a day and in every single skit comedy show (which, by the way, is another advantage of Obama; he'll open new employment opportunities for black sketch comedians who have skills beyond rap impersonation).
But my huge disagreements with McCain tend to be in those places where he has been most partisan. I am, for example, stoutly against McCain-Feingold (as I am against any limitation on political contributions by individual humans to any campaign or cause they wish).
And while I won't vote for him, if somehow he gets elected anyway, I won't be super upset by it. At least not with what I currently know of him.
But since I don't like him personally (and have alternative that I do like personally if not so much politically) and do consider his age to be a concern, I'm not going to vote for him.
JWBear
08-06-2008, 01:52 PM
Sorry. Gulf War I, widely accepted as...umm...acceptable, ended not with a treaty, but with a cease fire. Granted, we didn't invade Iraq because of violations of it, but the violations were not only provocation, but justification for the invasion.
I realize I am in the minority, but I think my logic is sound.
And I will say I find it somewhat amusing that out of my lengthy laundry list of what I disagree with him on the only comments are about what I agree with him on.
I'm sorry... I thought we attacked Iraq because of WMDs... I mean 9/11... I mean human rights abuses... I mean... Um... why are we there exactly?
Potential violations of the Gulf War cease fire? That's a new one....
innerSpaceman
08-06-2008, 02:46 PM
No, that was scaeagles' reason. Invading and occupying every country that violates a cease-fire. Please ask scaeagles where his country, scaeaglesistan, is going to get the money for that kind of thing.
scaeagles
08-06-2008, 03:06 PM
Potential violations of the Gulf War cease fire? That's a new one....
I didn't use the word potential. Iraq violated the cease fire pretty much daily.
And I already stated that was not our official reason for going in. I get that. However, it certainly means it wasn't illegal.
JWBear
08-06-2008, 03:12 PM
...it certainly means it wasn't illegal.
That's a matter of opinion.
innerSpaceman
08-06-2008, 04:27 PM
I really haven't kept up on it. How did they violate the cease fire daily when we monitored the north and south no-fly zones on a constant basis?
Was it the food-for-oil program scandal? And, if so, wouldn't it have been better to go after our purported allies or bigger fish who aided and abetted?
Ghoulish Delight
08-06-2008, 04:35 PM
Sorry, if you're going to play legal technicality as justification, you still lose. The cease fire they were accused of violating was an agreement with the UN. The terms of that cease fire certainly gave the UN the option of acting on the violation. However, the very body that signed the cease fire and made the rules did not decide that those violations warranted action. Any action by the US due to that cease fire remains illegal.
If someone is convicted of murder with special circumstances in a state with the death penalty, but the jury recommends against the death penalty and the judge agrees, that does not give a police officer the right to kill the defendant on the grounds that he has been convicted of something that might carry the penalty of death. If the decision was no death penalty, then no death penalty.
scaeagles
08-06-2008, 04:40 PM
Not going to go through the same arguments that we've been through 100 times. Not going to change you, not going to change me. ISM, just answer your questions, they fired on our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone regularly and were also guilty of using helicopters ain the no fly zone against groups of Kurds.
(And actually, GD, the cease fire was declared by GHWBush after Iraq agreed to the 12 conditions from the UN. The UN made the conditions, the US declared the cease fire. The UN did not declare the cease fire, they only brokered it. Sorry....had to do it even though I said I wasn't going to).
JWBear
08-06-2008, 08:39 PM
Not going to go through the same arguments that we've been through 100 times. Not going to change you, not going to change me. ISM, just answer your questions, they fired on our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone regularly and were also guilty of using helicopters ain the no fly zone against groups of Kurds.
(And actually, GD, the cease fire was declared by GHWBush after Iraq agreed to the 12 conditions from the UN. The UN made the conditions, the US declared the cease fire. The UN did not declare the cease fire, they only brokered it. Sorry....had to do it even though I said I wasn't going to).
Sooo.... What you are saying is that all the previous reasons the Bush Administration used to justify the invasion were false? If violating the cease fire was the real justification, why didn't they say so from the beginning? Why did they lie to us about WMD, 9/11, et al?
scaeagles
08-06-2008, 09:33 PM
I'm saying the intelligence was wrong, which I have said before. I do not believe it was intentionally falsified, so I don't subscribe to the lied aspect.
I aso didn't claim the violation of the cease fire was the real justification. I'm saying that this fact made it not illegal to invade.
Ghoulish Delight
08-06-2008, 09:35 PM
I aso didn't claim the violation of the cease fire was the real justification. I'm saying that this fact made it not illegal to invade.
And your response to the fact that it WAS illegal to invade because the body that made the rules under which your purporting the US had legal authority specifically did not grant that authority? See the death-penalty analogy.
JWBear
08-06-2008, 09:49 PM
I'm saying the intelligence was wrong, which I have said before. I do not believe it was intentionally falsified, so I don't subscribe to the lied aspect.
I aso didn't claim the violation of the cease fire was the real justification. I'm saying that this fact made it not illegal to invade.
Ok... Assuming the WMD excuse was incompetence on their part, as you say, why did they keep trying to convince the American public that Saddam was behind 9/11?
tracilicious
08-06-2008, 11:11 PM
McCain has voted anti-women's rights something like 186 times. And he looks like the reanimated dead.
scaeagles
08-07-2008, 04:37 AM
Hey JW....while I appreciate you haven't been around these boards for all these....um....duscussions, I'm just not going to go down this road again. We've hashed it out oo many times.
And tracilicious, I was chatized for an "ad hominem attack" against Obama, so be careful! The ad hominem police are out no matter how true the statement may be (and yours is true).
innerSpaceman
08-07-2008, 06:37 AM
Um, no. Ad hominum is allowed ..... in the wisdom of Roger Rabbit, "as long as it was funny."
reanimated-dead qualifies.
Cadaverous Pallor
08-07-2008, 07:10 AM
Um, no. Ad hominum is allowed ..... in the wisdom of Roger Rabbit, "as long as it was funny."Sage advice. *nods heavily*
I glanced through an article in a liberal magazine saying "I still like McCain". All the writer could come up with was "he used to be great." Um, duh.
scaeagles
08-07-2008, 07:21 AM
I've never had a high opinion of McCain. What has changed about him that has made those of you who used to like him not like him any longer?
Cadaverous Pallor
08-07-2008, 07:28 AM
He's changed his stance on everything he leaned left on in order to appease his conservative captors.
Ghoulish Delight
08-07-2008, 07:33 AM
And your response to the fact that it WAS illegal to invade because the body that made the rules under which your purporting the US had legal authority specifically did not grant that authority? See the death-penalty analogy.*tap tap tap* I this thing on?
scaeagles
08-07-2008, 08:18 AM
GD, just not worth it to me to go over this stuff anymore.....has been rehashed 100 times. I'm not in the mood to bang my head against the wall right now.
JWBear
08-07-2008, 08:41 AM
And tracilicious, I was chatized for an "ad hominem attack" against Obama, so be careful! The ad hominem police are out no matter how true the statement may be (and yours is true).
For the record, I wasn't accusing you of making an ad hominem attack, I was saying that those who call him an elitist (among other things) are.
scaeagles
08-07-2008, 09:42 AM
No big....I was attempting to be sarcastic and funny and that probably didn't go through.
sleepyjeff
08-07-2008, 11:36 AM
He's changed his stance on everything he leaned left on in order to appease his conservative captors.
Could you tell me what those things he's changed his stance on are specifically and if he had not changed his stance on those things would you have voted for him?
scaeagles
08-07-2008, 12:14 PM
I am also wondering how this compares to Obama changing his positions to move toward the center and if that's acceptable.
innerSpaceman
08-07-2008, 12:25 PM
It's not acceptable to me. I frelling hate Obama right about now.
I'm fine with it. It moves him a bit closer to me on several policy issues and I still like him as a candidate, leader, and being a clean break from the current institution of political power families.
McCain's changes just move him farther away from me on many of the issues he has changed on. And while Obama's changes may move him farther from the political center of his party towards the political center of the country, McCain's are moving him from the political center of the country towards the political center of his party.
But I don't really think that either candidate has done nearly so much flip flopping as opponents enjoy pretending. They just stop allowing for any nuance of position and call it a flip flop.
It's not acceptable to me. I frelling hate Obama right about now.
But you never liked him much to begin with. It wasn't that long ago that you were saying if Clinton didn't get the nomination you might vote for McCain.
innerSpaceman
08-07-2008, 01:22 PM
Exactly, which is why I very much dislike him now.
Alas, McCain has moved even further from my happy place.
Nader's on the ballot in California. I might vote for him. He might have become as untenable in his old age as McCain has in his ... but Nader hasn't got a chance, so I wouldn't have to worry about that. Obama has California locked up, so I might just vote my (past-tense) conscience and vote for Nader again (I picked him over Gore, too).
Gemini Cricket
08-07-2008, 02:31 PM
Paris responds to McCain's Celebrity ad (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d)
Okay, I can't stand her. But this is pretty funny. Snaps to her for being funny.
:)
Pirate Bill
08-07-2008, 03:00 PM
Only my reptilian brain has found Paris sexy. And even though I know her "energy policy" was scripted, she actually sounded intelligent and... human. For a minute there at least. And now, I... I think I'm in love.
She's got my vote, 'cuz that ad was hot.
Ghoulish Delight
08-07-2008, 03:01 PM
She's a good actress. Her SNL appearance proved that.
wendybeth
08-07-2008, 04:25 PM
I am also wondering how this compares to Obama changing his positions to move toward the center and if that's acceptable.
As a moderate, I'm good with a candidate who's not too far right or left. So, Obama's moves aren't nearly as annoying as McCain's, who would be much better off if he stuck to his earlier, more central stance.
JWBear
08-07-2008, 04:37 PM
As a moderate, I'm good with a candidate who's not too far right or left. So, Obama's moves aren't nearly as annoying as McCain's, who would be much better off if he stuck to his earlier, more central stance.
Agreed.
scaeagles
08-07-2008, 05:26 PM
As a moderate, I'm good with a candidate who's not too far right or left. So, Obama's moves aren't nearly as annoying as McCain's, who would be much better off if he stuck to his earlier, more central stance.
Such as????
innerSpaceman
08-07-2008, 06:45 PM
I'm not her, but immigration reform, for one off the top of my head.
Cadaverous Pallor
08-07-2008, 07:07 PM
Waterboarding
Wiretapping
Talking to "enemy" countries
Abortion
Here's a nice list, (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops) though there are plenty more (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=8MH&q=mccain+flip+flop&btnG=Search). "mccain flip flop" came up as a common search.
scaeagles
08-07-2008, 07:10 PM
I get 1660000 entries on google for McCain and "flip-flop", and I get 1620000 for Obama and "flip-flop". Pretty close.
And Obama just voted to renew FISA, didn't he?
He has also come out recently against using "mental distress" as a health of the mother reason or late term abortions. I am not certin, so I definitely could be wrong, but isn't that a chnange of position for him?
Those are certinaly not the extent of his recent changes, I was just highlighting a couple of the issues you had brought up which Obama has had a change in recently as well.
sleepyjeff
08-07-2008, 07:29 PM
You know that game show from the 60's where a panal has to decide which one of 3 people is really a (fill in some job here)?
I am thinking Obama could play that game just as well as McCain....will the real President Bush please stand up;)
http://jewishworldreview.com/0708/hanson071008.php3
For all his prior talk of the loss of civil liberties, a President Obama, like a President Bush, would give telecommunication companies exemption from lawsuits over tapping private phone calls at government request.
And although Obama is still pro-choice, he now, like the president, thinks "mental distress" should not justify late-term abortion
Obama is now a gun-rights advocate. Like Bush, he applauded the Supreme Court's overturning of a Washington, D.C., ordinance banning the possession of handguns.
The senator, also like Bush, supports the death penalty. He recently objected to the court's rejection of a state law that allowed for the execution of child rapists.
In addition, the new Obama would like to continue — and even expand — Bush's controversial faith-based initiative program of involving churches in government anti-poverty programs.
Like Bush, he advocated expanding the military after the Clinton-era troop cuts. Obama once advocated lifting the embargo against Cuba — but no longer. Like Bush, he thinks that it is wise to leave it be.
Ghoulish Delight
08-07-2008, 07:57 PM
I didn't see anyone saying Obama hasn't flopped. All they have said is that his flipping has flopped him closer to their positions on the whole while McCain's have waffled his way further away from their positions.
scaeagles
08-07-2008, 08:17 PM
Which is why we are asking. No one has said it, I was just curious about certain things that I know many who are planning on voting for him may be upset about. For example, his voting for FISA doesn't move him closer to most of the posters here who plan on voting for him, right?
Politicians all have to do two things. Solidify their base, which Obama did in the primaries. McCain never did that. So now McCain has to solidify the base and move away from his centrist positions. They also have to position themselves as moderates, which McCain has always done, and now Obama must. They are both politicians first and foremost.
Cadaverous Pallor
08-14-2008, 12:53 PM
I waited a day for a major news source to pick this up. Looks like they're ignoring it, though the quip seems pretty important to me. I'm not waiting anymore. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/13/mccain-21-century/)
Whaddaya think, minor gaffe, or worthy of raking over the coals?
BarTopDancer
08-14-2008, 01:11 PM
So we can count on him to bring our troops home starting the day he is inaugurated, if he wins. Right?
Strangler Lewis
08-14-2008, 01:55 PM
I waited a day for a major news source to pick this up. Looks like they're ignoring it, though the quip seems pretty important to me. I'm not waiting anymore. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/13/mccain-21-century/)
Whaddaya think, minor gaffe, or worthy of raking over the coals?
While raking over the coals wouldn't bother me, I have a feeling that what he was trying to say was that we are somehow past the day when countries invaded other countries to amass territory and build empire.
Ghoulish Delight
08-14-2008, 01:57 PM
While raking over the coals wouldn't bother me, I have a feeling that what he was trying to say was that we are somehow past the day when countries invaded other countries to amass territory and build empire.
Or to fight for control over oil?
Strangler Lewis
08-14-2008, 02:04 PM
Well, clearly there's control control, and then there's liberating control. Which is what we do.
Tenigma
08-19-2008, 11:42 AM
CNN.com has an editorial (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/cafferty.mccain/index.html?iref=mpstoryview) by Jack Cafferty today called "Commentary: Is McCain another George W. Bush?"
Obama's campaign has been saying that voting for McCain is to vote for another 4 years of a Bush administration ("McBush"), mostly because there wouldn't be a lot of change in the war, etc.
But this editorial is a little different. Its thesis? That McCain is a STUPID AND SHALLOW as W!! Hilarious. Examples:
It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven." Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.
Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?
Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.
He was asked "if evil exists." His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to "the gates of hell." That was it.
He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.
One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has -- virtually none.
Do we really want another stupid president to make fun of? Or a smart, intellectually curious one that we can disagree with? I'd choose the latter (because some of you already know I am a big Obama fan even though I don't agree with all of his stances on issues).
scaeagles
08-19-2008, 11:53 AM
That piece is a misrepresentation. As one example of that, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z9cyyupn4k) is a clip of the 5 million remark. That was clearly taken out of context, and after McCain made the joke, he even said he was sure it would.
The Osama wasn't the entirety of his answer on evil.
And while Obama is a much, much better speech giver than McCain, McCain is far better than Obama without the teleprompter.
I disagree. McCain is better at giving his stump speech without a teleprompter.
But at this stage we've all made up our minds and read everything so as to reinforce what we already think? If you like Obama, slow answers and stuttering when answering questions is a sign of thoughtfulness and giving consideration to what he is about to say. If you don't like him it is a sign of bumbling and confusion.
If you like McCain his starting answers with jokes is a sign of wit and playfulness and if you don't it is a sign he doesn't take things seriously and is trying to deflect from the shallowness of his consideration.
I'm just still at the stage that more than anything I fear even four years (or the horror of eight) of listening to him say "my friends" every 4.3 seconds and the even more horrible prospect of hearing every two-bit impersonator doing it. I don't hate him, I just don't like him; he is then further penalized for being a member of the party that should be ejected from the game for too many fouls.
scaeagles
08-19-2008, 12:31 PM
But at this stage we've all made up our minds and read everything so as to reinforce what we already think?
Indeed. Agreed.
Cadaverous Pallor
08-19-2008, 09:48 PM
That McCain is a STUPID AND SHALLOW as W!! Ugh, what a smear piece. Even if I agree with some of the "analysis", the rest is just so much dirty play. *washes hands*
It'd be nice if these editorialists bloggers got inspired by the concepts Obama talks about and rose above this kind of stuff.
Haven't read the piece so no opinion on its points but Jack Cafferty is a generally very well regarded news analyst and commentator with a pretty distinguished career.
He isn't a partisan hack (though that doesn't necessarily mean this particular piece is any good).
lashbear
08-19-2008, 11:53 PM
I LOVE McCain... they make the BEST potato wedges.. (http://www.mccainusaretail.com/Retail/showProduct.aspx?productID=1283&SectionID=10&SubSectID=17)
....oh, not that McCain? My Bad.
Tenigma
08-20-2008, 12:56 PM
I LOVE McCain... they make the BEST potato wedges.. (http://www.mccainusaretail.com/Retail/showProduct.aspx?productID=1283&SectionID=10&SubSectID=17)
OK, "seasoned wedges with skin on" just sounds soooooo..... wrinkly. lol
By the way Alex, you're right--Drudge had a link to an editorial at Investor's Business Daily (something like that) where it was completely flipped. They said the forum was proof that Obama is terrible without a teleprompter, while Mccain had all the right answers.
So in some people's views, taking a little longer to come up with thoughtful responses in the form of complex sentences is a sign that someone is unsure of themselves... while someone who has a bunch of memorized motto-like phrases in a can is da winnah!!
scaeagles
08-20-2008, 01:18 PM
Ha! Have to laugh at that. Bush hesitating or stumbling over words is seen as stupidity. Obama stammering with "uhh..." "errr...." "ummmm..." over and over is seen as gathering an unpackaged response. That's hysterical.
I haven't seen Bush stumble over words much, or be hesitant or stammer, like Obama. The ridicule of Bush comes when he says wrong words, not when he pauses in saying them. Seeing someone who takes time to say something correctly as a refreshing change seems reasonable to me.
scaeagles
08-20-2008, 02:19 PM
Never mind.....I misread your post, Tom, so I edited out my response.
Cadaverous Pallor
08-20-2008, 08:26 PM
I LOVE McCain... they make the BEST potato wedges.. (http://www.mccainusaretail.com/Retail/showProduct.aspx?productID=1283&SectionID=10&SubSectID=17)
....oh, not that McCain? My Bad.Heehee, this site is even funnier (http://mccain.com)
My favorite headline of the day:
"Democrats Jump on McCain's Houses"
tracilicious
08-21-2008, 03:42 PM
Ha! Have to laugh at that. Bush hesitating or stumbling over words is seen as stupidity. Obama stammering with "uhh..." "errr...." "ummmm..." over and over is seen as gathering an unpackaged response. That's hysterical.
Ummm...you're not seriously comparing Bush's speaking abilities with Obama's...are you?
scaeagles
08-21-2008, 05:38 PM
No, but I am saying that Obama, when not on a teleprompter, says "err", "uhhh", and "ummm" with amazing frequency. All I was doing was laughing that when Bush does similar things, he's called stupid. When Obama does it, he's searching for an unpackaged answer.
JWBear
08-21-2008, 06:14 PM
No, but I am saying that Obama, when not on a teleprompter, says "err", "uhhh", and "ummm" with amazing frequency. All I was doing was laughing that when Bush does similar things, he's called stupid. When Obama does it, he's searching for an unpackaged answer.
It's not the "ummms" and "uhhhs"... It's what comes out after them. When it's Obama, what comes out is intelligent.
And Bush also does them a lot in prepared statements as well.
scaeagles
08-21-2008, 06:28 PM
That is true. I'm not comparing oratory skills....not in the least, as that would be ridiculous. I'm just comparing the analysis of certain aspects of their oratory skills.
Cadaverous Pallor
08-24-2008, 07:15 PM
unfcukingbelievable (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/john-mccains-gr.html)
scaeagles
08-24-2008, 07:18 PM
Yeah - that's Kerry-esque indeed. Don't know how to answer or don't want to, so bring up Vietnam. Lame.
Ghoulish Delight
08-24-2008, 10:48 PM
Yeah - that's Kerry-esque indeed. Don't know how to answer or don't want to, so bring up Vietnam. Lame.If he had left at the bit about his own military experience it would have been fine. A weak response, but at least honest. "Nope, I don't really no crap about the economy, but I'd hire people who do and I'm confident that I'd know how to manage them properly." Not a strong position to be in, but it's the reality of it.
But to turn it into, "I'd make up for my lack of economic experience by killing some towel heads in the name of national security."?!?! WTF is that?
sleepyjeff
08-25-2008, 12:56 AM
Where in the constitution does it say that the President is in charge of the economy?
wendybeth
08-25-2008, 01:06 AM
Pshaw, like you cons really care about the Constitution.....
The Prez appoints just about everyone who will have any sort of impact on it, directly or indirectly. You know that. No disavowing Bush's complicity in this mess now, mister. Entirely too late in the game.
sleepyjeff
08-25-2008, 01:10 AM
Pshaw, like you cons really care about the Constitution.....
We actually do.
The Prez appoints just about everyone who will have any sort of impact on it, directly or indirectly. You know that. No disavowing Bush's complicity in this mess now, mister. Entirely too late in the game.
What mess?
wendybeth
08-25-2008, 01:15 AM
Jeff, that is exactly why you all are going to lose this election. Oh, and 'Constitution' should be capitalized- it's a respect thing, you know.
sleepyjeff
08-25-2008, 01:28 AM
Jeff, that is exactly why you all are going to lose this election. Oh, and 'Constitution' should be capitalized- it's a respect thing, you know.
No, we're going to lose this election because most Republicans have not acted like republicans since the mid-90's and the people are pretty sick of it.
scaeagles
08-25-2008, 04:51 AM
Jeff, that is exactly why you all are going to lose this election.
I believe this country loses no matter which of these two wins the election. Even if the republicans win, conservatives have lost.
Ghoulish Delight
08-25-2008, 08:41 AM
Where in the constitution does it say that the President is in charge of the economy?Have you ever had to work for a manager that is utterly clueless about your field of work? It's a horrible experience and rarely results in good management.
But that's beside the point. Like I said, if all he'd said was, "I don't really need to know that, it's not my job directly and I'd keep people around me who would know enough to keep things working," I'd have been fine with it. I do think it's important that a President understands the economy as, directly or not, the office does have influence on it, but I also understand that they can't know everything and that's why they have a cabinet and advisers.
It's the absolutely shameless use of the "radical Islamists" bullsh*t that makes that answer so utterly heinous.
It actually strikes me as a fairly normal political debate answer. They are usually predicated on what the candidate wants to say rather than the question that was actually asked.
Sohrshah
08-25-2008, 10:55 AM
Well, only insanity if you don't count Korea, Japan, Germany or any of the other places we've established the military outposts of our world-wide empire.
I'm no McCain fan ... but I hate people's statements being misrepresented. OF COURSE we will have a permanent military presence in Iraq. That's going to happen whether McCain wins or not.
But, yeah, he's still a dunce on timelines, defense, countries, tribes, and the internet.
At least McCain does not claim to have invented the internet. Just Sayin'
BarTopDancer
08-25-2008, 11:09 AM
Neither did Obama. McCain doesn't know how to use the internet.
Just sayin'
Motorboat Cruiser
08-25-2008, 11:13 AM
At least McCain does not claim to have invented the internet. Just Sayin'
Neither did Gore. Just sayin...:)
sleepyjeff
08-25-2008, 11:17 AM
My sister works at one of the Nations premiere childrens hospitals.....she says that many of the doctors there don't know how to use the internet.
Just sayin;)
Ghoulish Delight
08-25-2008, 11:31 AM
My sister works at one of the Nations premiere childrens hospitals.....she says that many of the doctors there don't know how to use the internet.
Just sayin;)
I'll be sure to not vote for them for President either.
sleepyjeff
08-25-2008, 11:34 AM
I'll be sure to not vote for them for President either.
Of course not, but would you refuse to let them operate on a love one based on the fact that they don't know how to use the internet?
Ghoulish Delight
08-25-2008, 11:37 AM
Of course not, but would you refuse to let them operate on a love one based on the fact that they don't know how to use the internet?
No because I don't consider the internet to be a vital part of their job.
The President's job is to be involved in the world. The internet is a HUGE part of what's going on in the world. At this point, it would practically be like having a President who said he doesn't know how to use a telephone.
sleepyjeff
08-25-2008, 11:46 AM
No because I don't consider the internet to be a vital part of their job.
The President's job is to be involved in the world. The internet is a HUGE part of what's going on in the world. At this point, it would practically be like having a President who said he doesn't know how to use a telephone.
I am sure Alex will correct me here if I am wrong but didn't Truman not know how to use a telephone?
Ghoulish Delight
08-25-2008, 11:50 AM
I am sure Alex will correct me here if I am wrong but didn't Truman not know how to use a telephone?
How about a better analogy: A President that doesn't know how to read a newspaper.
JWBear
08-25-2008, 12:12 PM
I am sure Alex will correct me here if I am wrong but didn't Truman not know how to use a telephone?
Source?
BarTopDancer
08-25-2008, 12:19 PM
I am sure Alex will correct me here if I am wrong but didn't Truman not know how to use a telephone?
How about a better analogy: A President that doesn't know how to read a newspaper.
I think the telephone analogy fits as well. In this age, not knowing how to use the internet, or a computer shows how out of touch with reality one is. He doesn't need to know how to program a website, but he should know how to access email, the media and do basic web searches.
At this point in time I would have some serious doubts about a surgeon who claimed to have zero familiarity with the internet. Even in that profession it has become a near vital source of access to current information.
If they're still relying solely on print journals then I would question their currency within their field.
I actually care far less about a president's familiarity with and use of the internet. As an information resource the president, more than probably any other person on the planet has hundreds of people who sole purpose in life is to get him whatever information he needs at any particular time.
In terms of policy, I think it is far enough down the food chain of expertise that I'm not bothered by what the president knows or doesn't know himself and am more ok with worrying about who he appoints as his proxy for the issues. Similarly, I don't care if the president knows much about space science, research, and programs. I'll care who it looks like he'd appoint to NASA and various other governmental research groups.
Ghoulish Delight
08-25-2008, 01:12 PM
I disagree. As BtD says, it's not about a lack of knowledge about the technology or about policies regarding the technology that bothers me about McCain being completely internet ignorant. It's not even about not himself being able to actively communicate with it. To me, it really is the equivalent of a Presidential candidate saying, "I've never picked up a newspaper in my life." It paints a picture of someone entirely out of touch with the country he's trying to lead, making decisions for all of us without even an inkling of what any of our lives are actually like.
McCain is 3rd generation military. He has essentially never had to provide for himself. Nor had his father. Nor did his grandfather. I find that a life even more out of touch with the average American than George Walker Silver Spoon Bush. His family has not, for generations, seen a medical bill, an education bill, had to worry about a mortgage. His disconnection from the single most vital communication tool on the planet right now is just another symptom of that.
I'm not saying that makes him a bad human being or citizen. I am saying it is not the kind of person I consider to be qualified as President.
I simply disagree with you. In fact, I'd turn it around and argue that you're overestimating the importance of the internet in the average American's life.
Not using it may make him disconnected from your reality (and mine) but I don't think it is a huge disconnect from the average person's. And among elderly professional types it really isn't a disconnect.
For a huge amount of people the internet remains essentially nothing but a new channel of entertainment. So I think a closer equivalent (for the average American reality) would be saying "I don't really watch TV" which wouldn't be regarded as all that shocking.
Now, that is not to say that he is well connected to the life experience of an average American. I just don't think the internet is a vital part of such a connection.
Ghoulish Delight
08-25-2008, 01:25 PM
I'm not necessarily saying that using the internet is part of the average American's life. All I'm saying is that the internet, and particularly the affect on how information is disseminated globally, has a marked impact on on the average American's life. And, more importantly, it's having a major impact on world culture at a level that the President should be aware. Whether or not a President or the average American is using the internet, the result of any action taken by the President is shaped in part by how it is received, distributed, and perceived on the internet. The course of world-changing events has already been altered by how it's gotten exposed online. For a President to be completely cut off from that speaks to a level of ignorance of the world, in my eyes.
And what has McCain said about the internet? That he doesn't use it or that he doesn't know anything about it? I'm not familiar with the specifics of this particular comment.
But still, in regard to the responsibilities of the presidency I just don't much care beyond the level of his proxies.
sleepyjeff
08-25-2008, 01:35 PM
Source?
I looked and looked and looked and couldn't find a source.....until I remembered one key factor
I got the wrong President:blush:
It was Eisenhower, not Truman, who didn't know how to use a telephone(Ike came in after Truman so that's even worse when you think about it).
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0711/p09s02-coop.html
I think he did ok for some old guy who never placed a phone call while in office.
Really, this whole internet thing is beyond silly......it's not like John can't bowl or anything:rolleyes:
Strangler Lewis
08-25-2008, 01:44 PM
I don't especially believe him when he says he's never used the internet. (Where does he get his porn?) I think he's reaching out to my mother and striking a pose in opposition to Obama's pose of hipness.
If it is true, I suppose I find it somewhat troubling that McCain has never used the internet. On the other hand, I own no video game consoles, and I hope that doesn't detract from my political viability or perception of my surgical skills. Further, to my mind, the lamest thing in this arena was Obama's big decision to announce his VP choice by text message, as if that somehow showed he was ahead of the curve in any meaningful way.
While the Obama campaign (I don't necessarily credit this to Obama himself) has made amazing use of the internet as a tool, I think there's a reason the text message thing garnered so much attention despite its boringness:
It garnered attention because it touched on an area the press cares most about and therefore they talked about it the most: preferred access. The idea that a vital piece of campaign news would be distributed to the public without using the press as the intermediary is threatening to them. So it was presented with a sense of outsized importance.
Ghoulish Delight
08-25-2008, 01:56 PM
If it is true, I suppose I find it somewhat troubling that McCain has never used the internet. On the other hand, I own no video game consoles, and I hope that doesn't detract from my political viability or perception of my surgical skills. Last I checked, video games have not become a vital communication channel in matters international.
Further, to my mind, the lamest thing in this arena was Obama's big decision to announce his VP choice by text message, as if that somehow showed he was ahead of the curve in any meaningful way.That use of the internet was particularly uninspired but made for a flashy headline. His campaign has been far more net savvy than that from the start, he's done an excellent job of using it to address that audience, not just the gimicky things that get coverage.
Strangler Lewis
08-25-2008, 02:04 PM
It seems like a big false alarm. What if half the television airwaves were like a do it yourself car wash--except it cost $2 million instead of $2 to use the tools? We might get our broadcast of raw facts over such a medium, but we'd still turn to the media owned channels for the analysis that most of us are often too busy to do ourselves. To my mind, it's not a story until it's wrapped in at least the illusion of context and criticism. It's just a press release.
Ghoulish Delight
08-25-2008, 02:11 PM
. To my mind, it's not a story until it's wrapped in at least the illusion of context and criticism. It's just a press release.
Which is exactly what Obama's done right with the internet. He hasn't attempted to force people who don't want to use it into using it. He continues to interact with traditional media just as effectively as he would without the internet. But he's supplementing it by presenting himself online in ways that the people who prefer that outlet appreciate.
If you're not the type that cares about internet communication, you're not "missing" anything by not seeing it. And if you're not the type that cares about traditional media, you're not missing anything either.
Strangler Lewis
08-25-2008, 02:21 PM
Well, I've now signed up on the Obama web site and the McCain web site. Bring it on.
Ghoulish Delight
08-25-2008, 02:48 PM
And what exactly would your criteria for judging the results be?
Strangler Lewis
08-25-2008, 03:14 PM
Since we tend to vote for candidates who make us feel good about ourselves and the positions we hold, I guess I would have to vote for the one whose use of the Internet to run his campaign makes me feel best about myself in my relation to the Internet.
Ghoulish Delight
08-25-2008, 03:34 PM
Since we tend to vote for candidates who make us feel good about ourselves and the positions we hold, I guess I would have to vote for the one whose use of the Internet to run his campaign makes me feel best about myself in my relation to the Internet.But are you someone who regularly uses the internet for information gathering beyond adaptation of traditional media (i.e., more than reading news sites as you would read a newspaper)? Are you comfortable and accustomed to following blogs, social networking, or online activism?
Keep in mind, Obama's online campaign is not designed to lure people away from traditional media onto the internet. He is simply trying to reach those who already prefer it and has done a more than admirable job of structuring his message online to appeal to them. So just jumping in as someone not in that target market may not be a particularly accurate way to judge the effectiveness.
€uroMeinke
08-25-2008, 07:10 PM
re: the Obama VP text message - I heard praise for it's brilliance in bringing even more people to his website to sign up for it. Old marketing ploy but it brought more eyes to his message, and added to his contact list - how much that results in votes and dollars, I don't know but it probably created somewhat of an uptick in that regard.
BDBopper
08-27-2008, 07:39 AM
Assuming that nothing in the next 48 hours changes I have made my decision this November. I will not be throwing my support behind or giving my vote to Senator John McCain. I am sure a lot of you around here will be happy to hear that. You can thank me later.
I have sat here and watched Hillary Clinton, who finished in 2nd place be catered to almost every whim, except be named running mate by Barack Obama. I have also watched as Governor Mike Huckabee, who also in finished 2nd place, be almost completely ignored. There would be no problem if the same treatment was being given to other candidates who ran against McCain but that is simply not the case (Romney and Rudy have gotten way more attention and much more catering to). The only small scrap being thrown Mike's way is a speaking slot at the convention which may not even be during Prime Time. It is a complete insult to me, to the thousands of people who worked long hours supporting him, and to the 4 million people who voted for him.
John McCain, my friend (sarcasm) you are making a huge mistake sir.
You can thank me later.
Even though I'm a yellow-dog Dem, on the level, you have to do what you know is best. It has to be so frustrating, BDBopper. Here's to happier days for you.
BDBopper
08-27-2008, 08:10 AM
Even though I'm a yellow-dog Dem, on the level, you have to do what you know is best. It has to be so frustrating, BDBopper. Here's to happier days for you.
Thanks. It is very frustrating. However we have only just begun our fight to reform the Republican Party. The GOP establishment wants to kick us off the island. Our will is stronger than theirs is I can tell you that right now.
We may not agree on the issues very much, 3894, but I have a great respect for you because you are doing what you feel is right and are involved in the political process. Too many Americans just sit on the sidelines and just watch it all happen and don't care.
Gemini Cricket
08-27-2008, 03:01 PM
Any ideas on who McCain will pick to be his VP?
BDBopper
08-27-2008, 03:14 PM
I am thinking it will be Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. It is a very "safe choice" but he is practically unknown. The media is really trying to grasp at straws during this process. A source on the conservative website, Townhall is sharing a claim that someone saw a McCain sign on the convention site that has room for 8 letters. Pawlenty would be the most likely to fit that bill but Giuliani, Huckabee,and even Gingrich have 8 letters in their last name.
sleepyjeff
08-27-2008, 11:53 PM
Intrade.com has Romney at 2-1; Pawlenty is 4-1; Hutchinson is 7-1; Huckabee is 20-1; Giuliani is 20-1; and way down the list the darkhorse......Hillary Clinton is at 34-1:)
Gemini Cricket
08-28-2008, 04:00 PM
Reuters is saying that Pawlenty canceled several obligations in Denver which makes them think he's McCain's choice for VP...
Hmmm.
Prudence
08-28-2008, 04:07 PM
What are the odds on Lieberman?
McCain is running an ad during tonight's speech congratulating Obama on his achievement. Good for him.
You can see it here (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/McCain_offers_tip_of_cap_to_Obama.html?showall).
What are the odds on Lieberman?
Reportedly, Republican members of Congress were told today to expect a traditional selection, so that would presumably not be Lieberman.
innerSpaceman
08-28-2008, 04:52 PM
Yep, "Tomorrow we'll be back at it, indeed." If his campaign hadn't sunk so low from the one he promised, this would have been less of a meaningless Thanks, But NoThanks abberation.
sleepyjeff
08-28-2008, 05:04 PM
This is the first mention of Governor Pawlenty on the LOT boards: Posted by myself(toot toot) back in mid-May of this year:) Excuse my lack of modesty but just give me this moment in the sun:blush:
I still think McCain should go for Pawlenty(+10) and see if he can be the first Republican in like forever to take Minnesota
^From the random political thoughts thread post #3267
Gemini Cricket
08-28-2008, 06:11 PM
McCain is running an ad during tonight's speech congratulating Obama on his achievement. Good for him.
You can see it here (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/McCain_offers_tip_of_cap_to_Obama.html?showall).
I think it's a great ad. Good for him.
:)
BDBopper
08-28-2008, 07:09 PM
It is now 100% official. Governor MIke Huckabee let his supporters know he will not be McCain's running mate. Not only was ne not on his short list he was not vetted or considered. I'm am so pissed off right now. :mad:
So yes I WILL NOT even think of voting for John McCain on November 4th.
scaeagles
08-28-2008, 07:12 PM
I would figure you are parallel to a Hillary supporter and I wonder how long your anger will burn within you, and if you'll end up eventually supporting him after anger subsides or if you won't.
You can be our little spurned political experiment.
BarTopDancer
08-28-2008, 07:38 PM
The man was running against McCain. Why did he (and his supporters) expect McCain to consider him? Does he run parallel with McCain on his beliefs?
BDBopper
08-28-2008, 08:15 PM
A good point but Joe Biden ran against Obama right? John Edwards ran against John Kerry, Jack Kemp ran against Bob Dole, Al Gore ran against Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr. ran against Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale ran against Jimmy Carter etc..
I'll be very honest. I would not be upset if McCain's other rivals were not being considered (or seem to be at least).
At the end of the day is it possible that I will hold my nose? Maybe. Will I be making phone calls, waving signs, knocking on doors, and doing everything else I did for Huckabee. Of course not. McCain better hope he does have a large group of people that are willing to do that. At this moment I doubt he will have a group of people like that.
I would have been ok with Huckabee as vice president because, unless McCain were to win and then die, Huckabee would be unable to do any of the harm I think he'd be inclined to do (and I know that what I see as harm you wouldn't) since the vice president has no power and McCain's flirting with the fundamentalist crowd probably wouldn't survive inauguration day and then would breifly rekindle in 2011.
BDBopper
08-28-2008, 09:03 PM
You do realize that that not all of Huckabee's supporters are fundamentalists (I'm definietly not one of those) and didn't even get half of their vote during the primaries (although he did have more than anyone else but not by a wide margin)?
Yes, I know that not all of Huckabee's supporters are fundamentalists. Huckabee is a fundamentalist.
BDBopper
08-28-2008, 09:29 PM
Does he run parallel with McCain on his beliefs?
Sorry I forgot to answer this question. They definitely have their differences on the issues. They match on foreign policy, protecting the environment (though they differ on the reason why), and health care reform. They agree on tax reform (bur differ on the method). They disagree somewhat on the economy and definitely on immigration and (duh) campaign finance reform.
However they never attacked each other. In fact the spent the Primary season in mutual respect, even defending each other against the mudslinging from other candidates. During debates they could be heard complimenting each other Until the end of the line whenever there was a concession or victory speech by the two of them they always included compliments on running clean and respectful campaigns against each other.
BDBopper
08-28-2008, 09:30 PM
Yes, I know that not all of Huckabee's supporters are fundamentalists. Huckabee is a fundamentalist.
That I cannot argue...disagree is a better word in this case. You are spot on.
And please know that I am not snapping at you. I'm just putting it out on the table.
Be interesting to see if Pawlenty can actually deliver Minnesota. Minnesota has voted Republican (for president) only once in the last 12 elections (1972) and was the only state Reagan didn't win in '84.
Morrigoon
08-28-2008, 11:35 PM
I would have been ok with Huckabee as vice president because, unless McCain were to win and then die, Huckabee would be unable to do any of the harm I think he'd be inclined to do (and I know that what I see as harm you wouldn't) since the vice president has no power and McCain's flirting with the fundamentalist crowd probably wouldn't survive inauguration day and then would breifly rekindle in 2011.
The VP has as much power as he allows the president, just look at Darth Cheney.
(yes, that sentence was deliberately written that way)
BDBopper
08-29-2008, 04:57 AM
Cue the Imperial Death March
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 05:17 AM
Pawlenty has said it isn't him.
link (http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/27640824.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs)
BDBopper
08-29-2008, 05:35 AM
The media is reporting that Pawlenty and Romney are out and that it may be Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. That pick is both surprising and acceptable to me. Wow.
Why is she acceptable? She represents the new brand of the Republican Party. When she ran for Governor of Alaska she ran on a platform of anti-corruption. She's also a populist (like Huckabee).
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 06:07 AM
I was quite surprised that Romney was out, but do understand it. I know nothing of Sarah Palin, though.
However, it is being reported that Palin is in Alaska, not Ohio. It seems as if there is going to be a complete surprise pick - perhaps someone who hasn't even been discussed.
All I'll say is if it is Leiberman the election is over and Obama wins by 20+ points.
it may be Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. That pick is both surprising and acceptable to me.
If that's who it is, unsure Hillary voters just say no to identity politics.
BDBopper
08-29-2008, 06:20 AM
All I'll say is if it is Leiberman the election is over and Obama wins by 20+ points.
I agree whole heartedly with that!
Ghoulish Delight
08-29-2008, 07:49 AM
MSNBC is reporting Palin.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25970882/
Women, we are better than this.
I sure hope they vetted her well and she has no risk of being caught in the suction of Ted Stevens going down.
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 08:10 AM
Women, we are better than this.
Perhaps to some women breaking through to a new level is the highest priority in terms of what they are interested in.
innerSpaceman
08-29-2008, 08:12 AM
I have no idea who she is. I wonder if she's at least partially miffed to be chosen simply for her gender.
Shrewd pick on the part of McCain, who - perhaps wisely - never ceases to underestimate the intelligence of Americans.
Morrigoon
08-29-2008, 08:14 AM
Hahah... well played McCain!
(I'm still voting for Obama, but I admire a good chess move)
Ghoulish Delight
08-29-2008, 08:19 AM
Perhaps to some women breaking through to a new level is the highest priority in terms of what they are interested in.While others will say that she's just riding McCain's coattails.
Strangler Lewis
08-29-2008, 08:20 AM
And she apparently comes with a ready-made scandal.
If picking unknown female VP candidates was the key to victory, former President Mondale would have addressed the convention this year.
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 08:23 AM
I hear there are questions around as to whether she is qualified to be the VP, and the Stevens scandal is an interesting twist on it. one would have to figure the McCain couldn't be so stupid as to select someone who is tied in anyway to him, though.
Not that I even know what Stevens has done. Just that something is going on. Haven't cared enough to reserach.
Strangler Lewis
08-29-2008, 08:25 AM
Her own scandal is that she supposedly fired the state's public safety head because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law as a Highway Patrol Officer.
Well, seems to me this should at least slow down the Republican argument that Obama is disqualified since he hasn't the experience to be commander-in-chief and it isn't an on-the-job-training type position.
Obvious debate question now is "Sir, you have suggested that Mr. Obama is not ready to be president on day one. In the hypothetical situation of your death in office, in what way is Ms. Palin qualified to be president on day one that Mr. Obama is not? And if she is not qualified to be president in the event you vacate the office are you not putting political gamesmanship ahead of principal considering that assuming the presidency is the sole official responsibility she'll have?"
Ghoulish Delight
08-29-2008, 08:27 AM
I'll be interested to hear what my brother in law, living in Alaska for the past 5 or 6 years, has to say about her. She was apparently elected under a climate of, "We're sick of old politics," so it would seem McCain's doing the inverse parallel of Obama, counteracting his image of entrenched politico with a relative newcomer.
Morrigoon
08-29-2008, 08:30 AM
Well, here's a lil' scandal
Under investigation for firing
But Palin’s seemingly bright future was clouded in late July when the state legislature voted to hire an independent investigator to find out whether she tried to have a state official fire her ex-brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper.
The allegation was made by former Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, whom Palin fired in mid-July.
Morrigoon
08-29-2008, 08:33 AM
Whoa, hold on a sec... he's running with a woman who named her kids Track and Trig? Dare we ask what the other three are called?
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 08:37 AM
I would figure Obama would like the entire "lack of experience" issue to go away at all levels. However, it would certainly seem to have an affect on McCain using Obama's inexperience in the campaign. I could see a spin (definitely spin) that there's a difference between inexperience as VP and inexperience as President.
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 08:37 AM
Whoa, hold on a sec... he's running with a woman who named her kids Track and Trig? Dare we ask what the other three are called?
Football, Geometry, and Shop.
Perhaps to some women breaking through to a new level is the highest priority in terms of what they are interested in.
I thought conservatives were against Affirmative Action. But if McCain wanted a woman veep, there just aren't that many truly qualified choices in the Republican Party.
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 08:40 AM
He picked Sarah Palin. Interesting.
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 08:45 AM
I thought conservatives were against Affirmative Action. But if McCain wanted a woman veep, there just aren't that many truly qualified choices in the Republican Party.
I'm not. I'm suggesting that it may be an issue to some women that you are encouraging not to vote for McCain.
I'm suggesting that it may be an issue to some women that you are encouraging not to vote for McCain.
That has to be McCain's sad reasoning. Prepare to lose big, Republicans.
Scanning her wikipedia page...
So both VPs will have sons in Iraq at election time.
Cynical inappropriate comment coming:
Election goes to whichever campaign loses a son first.
A newborn (currently 5-months old) so as VP she'll essentially be a stay-at-home mom which should make the family values wing of the party happy.
Admits she smoked pot, but it was legal when she did.
Resigned her first state political position in protest of Republican graft. Good.
At least publicly she has called out Stevens. Good.
Anty-gay marriage. Bad but she has allowed Alaksa to move forward on giving benefits to same sex couples so not fully homophobicly bad.
The firing scandal seems to be not much of an issue.
All in all, after 5 minutes of research I see nothing particularly objectionable about her
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 08:49 AM
I have no doubt it comes into play. I'm also sure it isn't the only reason, but I (and I don't know of your knowlege of Palin, which is probably more extensive than my complete lack thereof) can't say for sure.
McCain may lose big. This choice is better than, say, Leiberman along those lines, though.
Moonliner
08-29-2008, 08:51 AM
I guess I'll have to google her some. Right now it just feels like. "Hillary had a lot of supporters", "Hillary is a woman", "Palin is a woman", "Palin can get their votes".
I would figure Obama would like the entire "lack of experience" issue to go away at all levels. However, it would certainly seem to have an affect on McCain using Obama's inexperience in the campaign. I could see a spin (definitely spin) that there's a difference between inexperience as VP and inexperience as President.
I do agree they'll be done anyway. Logical consistency is not a hallmark of inter-campaign bickering (in either direction).
They just have to be very careful how they do it. McCain questioning Obama's readiness in a debate and then getting the question I posed above would, I think, make for devastating TV.
Morrigoon
08-29-2008, 09:00 AM
Either candidate only needs a small edge to win this. Safest move is to find someone not particularly objectionable (eg: won't lose them votes over anything) who just might pick up a few (otherwise throwaway) votes for some stupid reason or another.
And I hate to say it, but ya gotta admit there ARE people who would vote the McCain ticket because he played the female-in-office card. Maybe not "many" but it isn't going to take "many" to win this election.
Morrigoon
08-29-2008, 09:02 AM
I guess I'll have to google her some. Right now it just feels like. "Hillary had a lot of supporters", "Hillary is a woman", "Palin is a woman", "Palin can get their votes".
As per my post above, that might be exactly what it is. And it might work, even if she only picks up a fraction of the female vote.
Strangler Lewis
08-29-2008, 09:03 AM
Here's a theory: The majority of folks on the short list all have presidential aspirations. They have concluded 1) that McCain can't win, and they don't want people in 2012 to remember their most recent significant accomplishment as being a losing VP candidate; 2) that even if he does win, he's a one-termer and 2a) even if he does win and is a one-termer, the odds are against anything good happening in the next four years. Thus, McCain was left with the Hail Mary option.
Listened to NPR on my drive in. They'll be dismissed as slanted but they were rather perplexed by the choice not seeing much benefit to McCain in it (except for possibly shoring up centrist-right women and being some mollification for the pro-life crowd) and a fair amount of questions (similar to what I was saying in that many of the barbs they throw at Obama would apply to Palin).
Didn't hear her entire speech (got to work) but was pleased that she didn't milk her new child having Down's Syndrome -- let the media do that for you -- and did milk her son going to Iraq (which is smart and I still wonder why Biden didn't do it). She also did not, though I'm guessing she literally could right now, milk herself.
People who get pissy at nukular and Eye-rack and Eye-ran will be grinding their teeth.
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 10:05 AM
I was directed to a video on YouTube from Wiki. This is it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pak-rH0dCeA) I wanted to hear her speak, see what she was all about. This was not the best clip to see of her, I think. At about 1:54, after she is asked a question, she says:
As for that VP talk all the time, I tell you I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does everyday.Shouldn't she know? Maybe have an inkling? Maybe look up "Vice President of the United States" on Wikipedia?
After that answer, the host's response was an attempt at humor but it sounded like he was treating her like a kid. Which was lame.
Not Afraid
08-29-2008, 10:07 AM
The only thing I know about her is an article I read in Vanity Fair a few months ago. I was actually impressed with her based on the one article. I actually think it is a smart choice and I think it makes him a bit dangerous.
I can't watch the video. But I think it is a perfectly valid question. The vice presidency, as an office, does not have anything they're supposed to do every day. Officially, they just sit in their comfy living room over at Observatory Circle and wait for the president to die.
So each president gets to define what, if anything, the vice president will get to do. Presumably McCain has offered Palin a role she finds satisfactory (hopefully it is beyond "I want you because you'll shore up some of my female support and you have a very similar chin as my wife")
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 10:29 AM
I suppose. But Cheney seemed to be pretty busy as VP.
innerSpaceman
08-29-2008, 10:33 AM
Yes, because he quickly got Georgie used to loving his tongue up there, and had him hooked from Day One. Could write his own ticket.
Palin? Dunno, is she young and beautiful? I don't think McCain's immune to such obvious charms.
Strangler Lewis
08-29-2008, 10:34 AM
A bucket of warm piss. Or not even.
Yes, but as far as the vice presidency goes, the political involvement of Cheney and Gore are the extreme outliers. And I think it is fair to say that Palin wouldn't expect anybody to want her to be the political hachetman that Cheney is.
It isn't for nothing that John Nance Gardner (FDR's first vice president) said the office isn't worth a warm bucket of spit. George Bush spent his 8 years as vice president attending funerals. Walter Mondale was the first president in history to be given so much as a cubicle in the White House.
Motorboat Cruiser
08-29-2008, 10:36 AM
This (http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm) is pretty interesting. I have a feeling that Biden is going to tear her to shreds in a debate.
BDBopper
08-29-2008, 10:41 AM
It is very clear to me what this pick has done. I don't think the Hillary crowd will go for McCain regardless. What this pick has done has almost immidately charged up the base that was very tepid and unexcited. The reaction of the Huckabee supporters that I know has been pleasnt suprise and excitement. Regardless if this ticket wins or not the turnout will definitely increase in his favor and for races below him on the ticket.
Only time will tell what the net result will be.
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 10:44 AM
Will be looking at more vids, interviews with her. Curious as to why McCain thinks she's a good choice.
BDBopper, what about her excites them?
Excuse my lack of modesty but just give me this moment in the sun:blush:
Boy that McCain is a real asshole stealing your moment in the sun. Will this change your vote?
Cadaverous Pallor
08-29-2008, 10:58 AM
My (female, pro-Obama, anti-McCain) perspective seems to be aligned with Helen's. I'm insulted. The very idea that droves of women will swing over to vote for McCain simply because he picked an unknown woman to run with him...grrr. What does she really bring to the table in terms of "something McCain doesn't have"?
Regarding "family values", whatever that means - she returned to work three days after giving birth to her Trig (the one with down syndrome) saying (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-10-4082128881_x.htm)"My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected." I run a bit conservative on those lines, and I'm sure there are plenty of McCain supporters who would be troubled by the working mom mystique.
BarTopDancer
08-29-2008, 11:02 AM
and did milk her son going to Iraq (which is smart and I still wonder why Biden didn't do it).
Perhaps Biden didn't because it doesn't make him that different from a lot of America these days. Though it could have been done in a "I'm a parent with a child in Iraq like you folks with kids over there" way instead of a feel sorry for me, my child is in Iraq way. Or perhaps it's because his child isn't on the front lines and it could alienate people or prompt people to start claiming special treatment for his son (though if I understand correctly, his son is a JAG lawyer, which generally isn't a front line position and isn't obtainable through favors).
Strangler Lewis
08-29-2008, 11:05 AM
I'm sure there are plenty of McCain supporters who would be troubled by the working mom mystique.
The what?
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 11:06 AM
I find it disappointing that a good percentage of Hillary supporters may be voting for McCain. I understand the desire by some Clinton supporters to see a woman in the White House. I get it. But putting McCain in office in the hopes to see Palin someday become president seems counter-productive to me in terms of women's issues. Palin is pro-life. She would be okay with the government telling her what she can or can not do with her own body. How is this liberating for women? I'd be interested to see where she's at with contraception, but I'm thinking that she doesn't know what that is with all them kids she has. (That part is me joking.)
Also, I find it hypocritical for someone to be pro-life and pro-death via capital punishment. "Life is sacred... sorta."
I also find it hypocritical for someone to say they have gay friends and love their gay friends but would stop them from getting married to someone they love. That's wishy-washy to me.
This is just me venting.
Motorboat Cruiser
08-29-2008, 11:14 AM
I find it disappointing that a good percentage of Hillary supporters may be voting for McCain. I understand the desire by some Clinton supporters to see a woman in the White House. I get it. But putting McCain in office in the hopes to see Palin someday become president seems counter-productive to me in terms of women's issues.
This brings up an interesting point. I would imagine that Hillary is pretty furious at this choice, and there is no way that she is going to simply sit back and let this woman potentially steal her future chances at being the first woman President.
And while I think Biden will be very hard on her in the debates, he still has to take great caution to not appear sexist. Hillary is under no such pressure. And by the time she gets done with this woman, I think it is going to be very hard for her supporters to vote for McCain in good faith.
Hillary might have considered staying out of the spotlight, had McCain chosen anyone else. Not now. Hell hath no fury, and all that.
innerSpaceman
08-29-2008, 11:19 AM
Heheheh, good point, McCain just ensured she's going to campaign like a runaway truck for Obama.
Idiot.
* * * *
I was listening to a radio show last night with a bunch of 20-something guests, and by a large margin they thought Obama was full of crap and were going to vote for McCain! I was astounded. I thought Obama had the young voter block locked up??? What's going on?
(ok, it was the puny sample of kids on SuPerR K!'s Downstairs Mixup, but I was astounded nonetheless.)
Strangler Lewis
08-29-2008, 11:20 AM
Unless you're taking orders from the Pope or the Patriarch, I don't see anything hypocritcal about being anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. The key distinction typically is "innocence."
Not Afraid
08-29-2008, 11:21 AM
Palin has 5 children, one that is 4 months old with Down's Syndrome. Her husband is not a stay at home Dad. She has time to be VP?
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 11:23 AM
MBC, that's a great point. If Hillary is truly an Obama ally, she will speak out against Palin.
I believe there is a way for Biden to debate Palin effectively without coming across as being sexist. But any Biden response to something she says could be spun that way (by the media, by the GOP etc) with enough creativity.
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 11:29 AM
Oh, and Happy 72nd Birthday, Senator McCain! Good thing the media is not talking about that, eh John?
Strangler Lewis
08-29-2008, 11:31 AM
I think Hillary can cattily say that it's nice to see that the Republicans have picked a candidate for vice president who would not be the de facto president. Beyond that, she should focus on John McCain.
Palin has 5 children, one that is 4 months old with Down's Syndrome. Her husband is not a stay at home Dad. She has time to be VP?
So much for family values.
I believe there is a way for Biden to debate Palin effectively without coming across as being sexist. But any Biden response to something she says could be spun that way (by the media, by the GOP etc) with enough creativity.
Women want a level playing field. Think Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher. Biden should go after Palin with everything he's got and she should go after him likewise. The fact that it was even brought up shows the perception of a less-qualified candidate in McCain's running mate.
I have also admittedly not researched Palin much, but my initial reaction is that this is Geraldine Ferrarro redux. A female candidate with little experience or name recognition who comes with a scandal waiting in the wings. What is most surprising is that after running even in the polls for several weeks, McCain makes what feels to me like a choice born of desperation. Not unlike Ferrarro.
I also wonder if the Democrats will be able to use her status as a Miss Alaska runner-up to blunt the celebrity attacks on Obama? "You say Obama's a lightweight celebrity but put a beauty queen a heartbeat away from the presidency?" (Not saying I agree with that sentiment, but I think it's as relevant as the initial attack on Obama was.)
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 11:46 AM
I think Hillary can cattily say that it's nice to see that the Republicans have picked a candidate for vice president who would not be the de facto president. Beyond that, she should focus on John McCain.
At some point, Hillary will have to publicly point out how she is vastly different from Palin. And I hope she will do that.
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 11:57 AM
Okay, this is mean but I laughed.
It was a comment posted to a Cafferty piece on CNN.com.
Jack,
I think John McCain just wants Sara Palin available for CPR.
Mike C
Wethersfield, CTLooking at comments on YouTube, MySpace etc, (yeah, I know not very reliable, credible etc.) a lot of the comments there are about how she's a MILF and about how f*ckable she is.
Oy. Grow up, people.
:D
Motorboat Cruiser
08-29-2008, 12:04 PM
Women want a level playing field. Think Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher. Biden should go after Palin with everything he's got and she should go after him likewise. The fact that it was even brought up shows the perception of a less-qualified candidate in McCain's running mate.
I'm not sure if you were referring to the fact that I brought it up, but that certainly isn't how I feel, at least not in regard to her being a female. But, I do expect the Republicans to call sexism at the slightest hint of an attack towards her, deserved or not. Personally, I would like to see Biden treat her no differently than a male candidate. That would be equality. But I'm certain that there will be much feigned outrage the first time anyone says anything derogatory about her in the campaign that could be even remotely construed as being sexist. And as a result, Biden will be watching his step.
But I'm certain that there will be much feigned outrage the first time anyone says anything derogatory about her in the campaign that could be even remotely construed as being sexist. And as a result, Biden will be watching his step.
I'm sure you're right, MC. One way around that is to send out some women surrogates to soften up the ground before the debate.
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 12:13 PM
I remember Hllary in a debate with....whomever it was for NY Senator, and the media played up quite a bit when the male opponent appeared to be to harsh on her.
I thought that was crap then and it will be crap now should it be played.
Chernabog
08-29-2008, 12:13 PM
So much for family values.
Wow a 4 month old with Downs? Won't that child require a LOT of extra care in the next 8+ years? I guess the nanny is a practically perfect member of the family, so sure.
As long as there's one straight christian mommy and one straight christian daddy that occasionally comes to pat the kid on the head, family values are saved. Hallelujah.
Motorboat Cruiser
08-29-2008, 12:13 PM
I'm sure you're right, MC. One way around that is to send out some women surrogates to soften up the ground before the debate.
You lost me there. :)
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 12:15 PM
I might say that should a democrat woman with children (downs syndrome or not) be attacked by the right for being the VP candidate because of that there would be hell to pay.
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 12:18 PM
I might say that should a democrat woman with children (downs syndrome or not) be attacked by the right for being the VP candidate because of that there would be hell to pay.
Has someone picked on her for that already? That would be uber-lame.
BDBopper
08-29-2008, 12:27 PM
BDBopper, what about her excites them?
Them (We) see Palin as one of us, one of growing few trying to reform the Republican Party away from the corrupt country-club cronyism that is rampent in the establishment We are trying to bring the party back to the people, caring for them practicing what Mike calls "Vertical Politics" Palin is one of a list of people we hoped would be considered (including Huckabee, Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal, former Maryland Lt. Governor Michale Steele, and others). If you want to pin them down as anything they are Conservative Populists.
As a note of reference most of us are young and very new to politics. We voted for and supported Mike Huckabee for the same reasons others in our generation vote for and support Barack Obama. Our political ideology is just a bit different. However we all voted for change.
Motorboat Cruiser
08-29-2008, 12:31 PM
I might say that should a democrat woman with children (downs syndrome or not) be attacked by the right for being the VP candidate because of that there would be hell to pay.
Perhaps. I still think it is a valid question though. If you have a special needs infant at home, and you are going to spend the next few months in the busiest, most hectic atmosphere one can imagine, it isn't such a stretch to consider that maybe the child is going to have substantially less parental interaction. And when you are running on a platform of family values, I think it is only natural that it raise a few eyebrows.
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 12:34 PM
Oh, I agree. Completely. I just think this an example of because she's a republican it's OK to say it. If a republican dared say this about a dem female they would be attacked.
Chernabog
08-29-2008, 12:35 PM
Perhaps. I still think it is a valid question though. If you have a special needs infant at home, and you are going to spend the next few months in the busiest, most hectic atmosphere one can imagine, it isn't such a stretch to consider that maybe the child is going to have substantially less parental interaction.
Also, to a candidate for a party whose platform touts Christian family values, it seems strangely hypocritical to be a pro-life magnet by bringing a special needs child into the world despite the diagnosis, and then entering that sort of environment. Who is taking care of the baby? It is 4 months old -- I'd feel a lot differently if the child was older.
BarTopDancer
08-29-2008, 12:38 PM
I remember Hllary in a debate with....whomever it was for NY Senator, and the media played up quite a bit when the male opponent appeared to be to harsh on her.
I thought that was crap then and it will be crap now should it be played.
Agreed. It's pathetic that the media focuses in on the male being harsh to the female when they wouldn't bat an eye if they were both men. If they were both women it'd be a declared a cat fight or bitch fest. If women are going to be in politics they better have "tough skin".
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 12:40 PM
Something tells me the family will certainly be moving to Washington and that Dad will become a stay home dad....but I certainly don't know. I don't have time as a father of three non-special needs kids with just a normal job to give them all the attention they need/deserve, so I understand the argument wholeheartedly. I just think ANY criticism coming from a republican to a dem in the same situation would result in an uproar of how the republicans didn't understand.
Chernabog
08-29-2008, 12:41 PM
If they were both women it'd be a declared a cat fight or bitch fest. If women are going to be in politics they better have "tough skin".
Though you have to admit, it would be fun seeing Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole pulling each others hair and tearing off each others smart pantsuits.
And that's when the mud started to pour in the ring... wooooooohooooo
BarTopDancer
08-29-2008, 12:43 PM
I might say that should a democrat woman with children (downs syndrome or not) be attacked by the right for being the VP candidate because of that there would be hell to pay.
The Republican party (or its members) are cite family values and the lack thereof for the decline of society. They impression given is that one parent should stay at home with the children. Having this VP candidate with young children and a husband who works comes across as hypocritical of their "agenda".
I don't recall the Democratic party citing the same thing when it comes to family values. It seems the Democratic party is content with parents who love their children and make ends meet even if that means having a 2 parent working household.
BarTopDancer
08-29-2008, 12:43 PM
Though you have to admit, it would be fun seeing Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole pulling each others hair and tearing off each others smart pantsuits.
And that's when the mud started to pour in the ring... wooooooohooooo
Um ew. But whatever floats your boat dude...
:p
Tenigma
08-29-2008, 12:45 PM
I could see a spin (definitely spin) that there's a difference between inexperience as VP and inexperience as President.
uh huh, you betcha!
Happy 72nd Birthday Mr. McCain!
Tenigma
08-29-2008, 12:47 PM
The Republican party (or its members) are cite family values and the lack thereof for the decline of society. They impression given is that one parent should stay at home with the children. Having this VP candidate with young children and a husband who works comes across as hypocritical of their "agenda".
Well obviously she wears the pant(suit) in that family and the husband stays home to be the stay-at-home dad to their five children, right? Especially considering their youngest one has Down Syndrome.
BarTopDancer
08-29-2008, 12:47 PM
Well obviously she wears the pant(suit) in that family and the husband stays home to be the stay-at-home dad to their five children, right? Especially considering their youngest one has Down Syndrome.
Except her husband works too.
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 12:54 PM
Saw this on another discussion board I belong to...
Old Man and MILF 2008:D
You lost me there. :)
Sorry I wasn't clear! The way to circumvent the sexism defense is to send out some senior senator women Dems to poke Palin, then have Biden simply repeat those pokes in a debate with her. My .02, anyway.
Considering the uproar (on the left) at every remote sexist slight of Hillary Clinton, I hope the people doing it quickly realize how silly they end up looking with this MILF and shaggable stuff.
Fair question as to whether she has enough history to warrant VP let alone potential presidency. But it almost makes me want to vote for her simply as a form of apology for the number of people who's second response to her nomination (after "who?") was an evaluation of her ****ability.
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 01:12 PM
Between the two, who would I want as president if something awful were to happen? The person with the experience or the person without? I'd say the former.
Between the two, who do you want to be president if nothing happens? The one with the experience or the one without?
While I think this blunts McCain's ability to criticize Obama's relative lack of experience since it would now rebound on McCain, I think Obama and supporters have to be very careful to not criticize Palin for lacking experience since that rebounds on them as well.
scaeagles
08-29-2008, 01:15 PM
Yeah, I think the experience thing is still a losing proposition for Obama. Unless he wants to talk about death or assassination, which would be really kind of creepy.
Of course, my answer is that I don't consider "experience" to be that significant a factor in choosing a president and it certainly hasn't be a great indicator of presidential success in the past.
Motorboat Cruiser
08-29-2008, 01:17 PM
Considering the uphoar ...
Phonetic Fruedian slip?
You posted that while I was fixing it (and noting it).
BarTopDancer
08-29-2008, 01:18 PM
Of course, my answer is that I don't consider "experience" to be that significant a factor in choosing a president and it certainly hasn't be a great indicator of presidential success in the past.
:snap: :snap: :snap:
Motorboat Cruiser
08-29-2008, 01:19 PM
Sorry, it was somewhat irresistible.
Chernabog
08-29-2008, 01:20 PM
Um ew. But whatever floats your boat dude...
:p
I said "fun" not "sexually exciting". Um ew. ;)
innerSpaceman
08-29-2008, 01:22 PM
Yeah, I think the experience thing is still a losing proposition for Obama. Unless he wants to talk about death or assassination, which would be really kind of creepy.
Yeah, except that I've never before found the VP choice to be so important, precisely because both candidates have a very increased chance of dying in office, imo.
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 01:25 PM
Between the two, who do you want to be president if nothing happens? The one with the experience or the one without?
While I think this blunts McCain's ability to criticize Obama's relative lack of experience since it would now rebound on McCain, I think Obama and supporters have to be very careful to not criticize Palin for lacking experience since that rebounds on them as well.
No, I see what you're saying.
Palin: 4 years in the City Council. Then she was Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for 1 year. And then Governor of Alaska for 2 years.
Obama: Was in the Illinois Senate from 1997-2004. And was a Senator for 3 years.
Ghoulish Delight
08-29-2008, 01:28 PM
I have never really understood the focus on the VP. They have no official authority over anything. As mentioned already, anything they have involvement in is only because the President has decided to put them in that role. Which the President could do for anyone, VP or not. The VP is just another glorified adviser at best, the President's got tons of those no matter what. I'm not swayed by the "heartbeat from the Oval Office" angle. Over 58 Presidential terms, only 8 have not been completed by the person elected. No matter who MIGHT, in the rare, ~15%, instance of the elected President not finishing the term, take over, it's not going to make me want to vote for or against someone who would definitely be in the office if I wasn't going to vote for or against them before.
Chernabog
08-29-2008, 01:31 PM
I have never really understood the focus on the VP. They have no official authority over anything.
Well except as President of the Senate under the US Constitution.
But besides that, they're basically a Presidential lackey :)
Bornieo: Fully Loaded
08-29-2008, 01:32 PM
I don't like her. She reminds me of an old Boss of mine and she was a bitch...
Tenigma
08-29-2008, 01:33 PM
http://www.bobagirl.com/lj/politics/babypolarbear.jpg
Alaska's Palin misrepresented state's polar bear findings (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38509.html)
A newly released e-mail from last fall shows that Alaska's own biologists were at odds with the administration of Gov. Sarah Palin, which has consistently opposed any new federal protections for polar bears under the Endangered Species Act.
The state's in-house dispute seems to refute later statements by Gov. Sarah Palin that a "comprehensive review" of the federal science by state wildlife officials found no reason to support an endangered-species listing for the northern bears. The governor invoked the state's own scientific work both in a cover letter to the state's official polar bear comments, and in an opinion piece published in the New York Times.
But the Oct. 9 e-mail, which was released this month to a University of Alaska scientist who had filed a public records request seeking information on the state's polar bear decision-making, shows that the head of the marine mammals program for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and two other staff biologists agreed with the conclusions of nine polar bear studies that the federal government was citing to justify a threatened-species listing for the bears.
"Overall, we believe that the methods and analytical approaches used to examine the currently available information supports the primary conclusions and inferences stated in these 9 reports," Robert Small wrote.
Alaska officials have expressed concern that a threatened-species listing gives environmentalists more leverage to oppose oil and gas development in Arctic Alaska and poses risks to Native subsistence. The state's efforts to raise contrary scientific arguments have been met with derision by some environmentalists, who liken it to efforts from the tobacco industry to raise questions about the dangers of smoking and delay regulatory action.
innerSpaceman
08-29-2008, 01:33 PM
I'm not swayed by the "heartbeat from the Oval Office" angle. Over 58 Presidential terms, only 8 have not been completed by the person ...
You don't think the chances are increased for these particular nominees?
A 72-year old (btw, Happy Birthday, John) in an office that ages you at an alarming rate?
A black man who's going to bring out every crazy with a rifle to take pot-shots at him?
Yes, it's morbid. But assassination attempts will quadriplicate if Obama wins, and McCain can't take the first term's 10 years of aging without expiring of natural causes.
Motorboat Cruiser
08-29-2008, 01:35 PM
I'm not swayed by the "heartbeat from the Oval Office" angle. Over 58 Presidential terms, only 8 have not been completed by the person elected. No matter who MIGHT, in the rare, ~15%, instance of the elected President not finishing the term, take over, it's not going to make me want to vote for or against someone who would definitely be in the office if I wasn't going to vote for or against them before.
McCain is 72. The life expectancy of a male in the US without a history of melanoma is 75. I think it is a valid concern.
Yeah, I think the experience thing is still a losing proposition for Obama.
I don't think that Obama will start going out of his way to attack McCain-Palin for a lack of experience. It just gives him a ready-made comeback anytime Republicans bring it up.
Ghoulish Delight
08-29-2008, 01:38 PM
Well except as President of the Senate under the US Constitution.
But besides that, they're basically a Presidential lackey :)Where the whole of his duties is breaking tie votes which happens a little less than once per year on average.
You don't think the chances are increased for these particular nominees?
A 72-year old (btw, Happy Birthday, John) in an office that ages you at an alarming rate?
A black man who's going to bring out every crazy with a rifle to take pot-shots at him?
Yes, it's morbid. But assassination attempts will quadriplicate if Obama wins, and McCain can't take the first term's 10 years of aging without expiring of natural causes.Higher odds? Sure. But so? I still can't base my vote on a hypothetical. I am voting for President of the United States, not "The person who might become President if something happens." If I disagree with a candidate, at what point do I stop caring about how much I disagree with the person I'm voting for just because they've got someone who would take over and be a little more to my liking? It seems nonsensical to me.
But it almost makes me want to vote for her simply as a form of apology for the number of people who's second response to her nomination (after "who?") was an evaluation of her ****ability.
Level playing field requires we discuss McCain's ****ability. On a scale of 1 to 10, -50.
Gemini Cricket
08-29-2008, 01:41 PM
I'm sorry but Bill's first term and Obama now... totally f*ckable.
:blush:
Tenigma
08-29-2008, 01:42 PM
Level playing field requires we discuss McCain's ****ability. On a scale of 1 to 10, -50.
Wow, you actually gave a number.
btw we should ask Ms. Cindy. Alex said there's talk that he uses Viagra.
I want to be clear, I never said he uses Viagra.
I said, I think that is part of why he handled the question about Viagra insurance coverage vs. birth control insurance coverage so poorly (that one where he sat for 10 seconds rubbing his face trying to come up with an answer and just looked really stupid).
He was trying to think of a way to answer without discussing Viagra and giving sound bites that could be used for ridicule as would be inevitable every time a 70+ man talks about Viagra.
I'm with GD, the risk of vacancy is higher but VP still only comes into play for me if I am not able to make a decision based on the top of the ticket candidates themselves. I'd never say "you know, I like candidate X better than Y, but I wouldn't care for X's veep as president so I'm going to vote for Y."
So unless everything else really were equal, it is moot. I'm interested in who they choose, it just doesn't have an impact.
BarTopDancer
08-29-2008, 02:00 PM
I know of one person (http://loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=236095&postcount=1833) who thinks that the woman angle is good. To bad he doesn't promote women in his own workplace.
innerSpaceman
08-29-2008, 02:55 PM
Well, I don't usually give a rat's ass about V.P., but I happen to like Joe Biden. I'm not sure why. I don't particularly like his record. And he shoots himself in the foot more often than not when he shoots off his mouth.
But I think I love that he's so free with shooting off his mouth.
So ... since i get barely a pulse-increase from Obama and am mostly voting for him, as I always do, to prevent the far worse Republican from getting the job, I think I will for the first time be voting for the ticket because I like Joe Biden ... and I think his son Bow is totally hot.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.