All About McCain
 

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)

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?

I'm not sure what you are referencing, but it wouldn't surprise me if I had disagreements with him on that as well.

And courtesy of Fab in another thread -

That's another one.

You aren't going to find me complimenting McCain. Very often anyway.

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

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.

He's had trouble discerning between Taliban and Al-Qaeda too.

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.

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.

Why?

You expected anyone to defend him for the other stuff?

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.

IC... Sorry, that wasn't something I thought needed to be said.

You illustrated that quite adequately in your first post.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

That's a matter of opinion.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

McCain has voted anti-women's rights something like 186 times. And he looks like the reanimated dead.

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).

Um, no. Ad hominum is allowed ..... in the wisdom of Roger Rabbit, "as long as it was funny."







reanimated-dead qualifies.

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.

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?

He's changed his stance on everything he leaned left on in order to appease his conservative captors.

*tap tap tap* I this thing on?

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.

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.

No big....I was attempting to be sarcastic and funny and that probably didn't go through.

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?

I am also wondering how this compares to Obama changing his positions to move toward the center and if that's acceptable.

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.

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.

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).

Paris responds to McCain's Celebrity ad

Okay, I can't stand her. But this is pretty funny. Snaps to her for being funny.
:)

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.

She's a good actress. Her SNL appearance proved that.

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.

Such as????

I'm not her, but immigration reform, for one off the top of my head.

Waterboarding

Wiretapping

Talking to "enemy" countries

Abortion

Here's a nice list, though there are plenty more. "mccain flip flop" came up as a common search.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Whaddaya think, minor gaffe, or worthy of raking over the coals?

So we can count on him to bring our troops home starting the day he is inaugurated, if he wins. Right?

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?

Well, clearly there's control control, and then there's liberating control. Which is what we do.

CNN.com has an editorial 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:

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).

That piece is a misrepresentation. As one example of that, here 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.

Indeed. Agreed.

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).

I LOVE McCain... they make the BEST potato wedges..


....oh, not that McCain? My Bad.

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!!

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.

Never mind.....I misread your post, Tom, so I edited out my response.

My favorite headline of the day:

"Democrats Jump on McCain's Houses"

Ummm...you're not seriously comparing Bush's speaking abilities with Obama's...are you?

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.

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.

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?

Where in the constitution does it say that the President is in charge of the economy?

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.

We actually do.


What mess?

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.

I believe this country loses no matter which of these two wins the election. Even if the republicans win, conservatives have lost.

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.

At least McCain does not claim to have invented the internet. Just Sayin'

Neither did Obama. McCain doesn't know how to use the internet.

Just sayin'

Neither did Gore. Just sayin...:)

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.

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.

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.

Source?

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

Last I checked, video games have not become a vital communication channel in matters international.

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.

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.

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.

Well, I've now signed up on the Obama web site and the McCain web site. Bring it on.

And what exactly would your criteria for judging the results be?

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.

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.

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.

Any ideas on who McCain will pick to be his VP?

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:)

Reuters is saying that Pawlenty canceled several obligations in Denver which makes them think he's McCain's choice for VP...
Hmmm.

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.

Reportedly, Republican members of Congress were told today to expect a traditional selection, so that would presumably not be Lieberman.

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.

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:

^From the random political thoughts thread post #3267

I think it's a great ad. Good for him.
:)

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.

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?

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.

Yes, I know that not all of Huckabee's supporters are fundamentalists. Huckabee is a fundamentalist.

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.

The VP has as much power as he allows the president, just look at Darth Cheney.

(yes, that sentence was deliberately written that way)

Pawlenty has said it isn't him.

link

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.

If that's who it is, unsure Hillary voters just say no to identity politics.

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.

Perhaps to some women breaking through to a new level is the highest priority in terms of what they are interested in.

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.

Hahah... well played McCain!

(I'm still voting for Obama, but I admire a good chess move)

While others will say that she's just riding McCain's coattails.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

Well, here's a lil' scandal

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?

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.

Football, Geometry, and Shop.

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.

He picked Sarah Palin. Interesting.

I'm not. 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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

I was directed to a video on YouTube from Wiki. This is it. 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:
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.

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")

I suppose. But Cheney seemed to be pretty busy as VP.

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.

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.

This is pretty interesting. I have a feeling that Biden is going to tear her to shreds in a debate.

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?

Boy that McCain is a real asshole stealing your moment in the sun. Will this change your vote?

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 "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.

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).

The what?

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.

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.

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.)

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."

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?

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.

Oh, and Happy 72nd Birthday, Senator McCain! Good thing the media is not talking about that, eh John?

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.

So much for family values.

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.)

At some point, Hillary will have to publicly point out how she is vastly different from Palin. And I hope she will do that.

Okay, this is mean but I laughed.
It was a comment posted to a Cafferty piece on CNN.com.
Looking 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

You lost me there. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

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.

Um ew. But whatever floats your boat dude...




:p

uh huh, you betcha!

Happy 72nd Birthday Mr. McCain!

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.

Saw this on another discussion board I belong to...
:D

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.

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.

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.

Phonetic Fruedian slip?

You posted that while I was fixing it (and noting it).

:snap: :snap: :snap:

Sorry, it was somewhat irresistible.

I said "fun" not "sexually exciting". Um ew. ;)

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.

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.

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.

Well except as President of the Senate under the US Constitution.

But besides that, they're basically a Presidential lackey :)

I don't like her. She reminds me of an old Boss of mine and she was a bitch...

Palin vs. Teensy Baby Polar Bears
 

Alaska's Palin misrepresented state's polar bear findings

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where the whole of his duties is breaking tie votes which happens a little less than once per year on average.

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.

Level playing field requires we discuss McCain's ****ability. On a scale of 1 to 10, -50.

I'm sorry but Bill's first term and Obama now... totally f*ckable.
:blush:

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.

I know of one person who thinks that the woman angle is good. To bad he doesn't promote women in his own workplace.

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.

Does anyone else find it odd that Hillary supporters, who supposedly were ready to boycott Obama if he dared put any woman other than Hillary on the ticket with him, now are supposed to flock to McCain because he put a woman other than Hillary on the ticket with him?

(Note: This post engages in hyperbole for comic effect)

Oh god now I'm picturing GC dressed like Marilyn Monroe, and it's quite funny! :D

Brad: "Why do the always look like unhappy rabbits?"
Cherny: "Because that's what they are. Now go and make Barry happy."

:D

Just to be pedantic ('cause I can)... It's nappy rabbits.

Assuming there's a certain percentage of complete nimrods in every population, it would only take a portion of them to swing this very close election. As long as she doesn't carry with her anything that would detract from McCain's campaign, a small benefit can make for a huge win.

Just saw and interesting factoid and it hadn't occurred to me. This morning, John McCain brought to an end a very long streak in Republican presidential politics:

2004 - George W Bush/Dick Cheney
2000 - George W Bush/Dick Cheney
1996 - Bob Dole/Jack Kemp
1992 - George HW Bush/Dan Quayle
1988 - George HW Bush/Dan Quayle
1984 - Ronald Reagan/George HW Bush
1980 - Ronald Reagan/George HW Bush
1976 - Gerald Ford/Bob Dole

Thus ends the streak of 8 straight Republican tickets with a Bush or a Dole on them.

Another thing I just noticed. Palin's second child is a 17-year-old named Bristol (female).

Keith Olbermann tonight noted that at one time Palin aspired to be a ESPN sportscaster.

ESPN is headquartered in Bristol, Connecticut. Maybe a connection? Has that been commented on at all today?

Likewise. Not that I would vote McCain anyways, but it so happens that pretty much every first world country besides US offers paid maternity leave. Doesn't sound like she'd be pushing women's rights in that direction. Her 3 day return says to me that she doesn't value family all that much.

According the the script, it's posted online:
Source

Obama now has a campaign taunt available to him that probably hasn't been heard since the days of James Buchanan:

"First I'm going to beat you. Then I'm going to f*ck your vice president."

True, but if you were Buchanan would you have been able to resist the allure of William Dayton?

And to think that one image just replaced my entire porn collection. :eek:

To me, that's a woman in patriarchal Alaska overdoing the I'm-tougher-than-a-man. And speaking of Alaska, Palin is governor of a state with a population of 670,00 or, as the Dallas News says here, Alaska = Memphis.

So if she could go back to work after 3 days, the job of governor of Alaska can't be that demanding.

Palin is a Dan Quayle pick.

As I've thought about this and read about her, I 've come to the decision that she is a great choice for a few reasons.....

She solidifies the conservative base that has been wavering on McCain.

She is a pick that cannot be portrayed as just another white guy republican.

She has been a reformer in Alaska, where the government had been quite corrupt taking on the leadership within the republican party. Seems like she's tough.

She can appeal to those Hillary voters that (much to the chagrin of 3894) want to see a female on the ticket.

She is really a fiscal conservative, slashing unnecessary projects and cutting taxes in Alaska.

This is of course, without ever having seen or heard her outside a news clip or a sound bite.

To call her a Dan Quayle pick may be effective, but I am also of the opinion that calling Obama a Jimmy Carter pick can be effective.

It seems she has about as much experience as Spiro Agnew did when he was selected in 1968, so I assume that angle will die down fairly quickly, and we'll focus on the folks at the top of the ticket.

As for women, well, as we see here, womens is haters. Plenty of women will find reason to dislike her.

Regardless of whether the labels are warranted, I'd point out that Jimmy Carter candidates and Dan Quayle picks aren't exactly shining examples of presidential election failure.

Now, since I did it for Obama's selection of Biden I felt compelled to do it with McCain's selection Palin. So I watched several hours of talking head coverage across many channels and once again found a startling pattern.

Those commentators and analysts who align with the Republicans are close to universally claiming to be of the opinion that Palin is a good to great selection as running mate. Those commentators and analysts who align with the Democrats are close to universally claiming the opinion that it is at best an indifferent and at worst a sign of desparation on McCain's part.

And once again I am sure this party divide is completely coincidental and that each analyst reached their conclusions after careful personal consideration that has nothing to do with the memorizing the bullet points on their parties' various press releases.

In fact, I am so shocked by these patterns seen in response to the Biden/Palin selections that I will be submitting them as a topic for coverage in the next revival of Ripley's Believe it Or Not!

But a female who wants to outlaw all abortions in every circumstance ... But then, working and middle- class Republicans vote against their self-interest all the time.

You're equating Biden with Palin? You need more sleep.

Perhaps to some voters an election is all about SELF interest. For example, if Obama wins and the Obama tax cut link posted by CP is accurate, I stand (assuming the cut happens, which is indeed not a gauruntee in the least if he wins) to get a HUGE tax cut. However, because I don't think his tax policies are best for the country overall, it doesn't affect my selection.

What are the sources for those scripts? There is nothing to say where they came from; no copyright acknowledgments; no credits; no nothing. Also, it's hosted on a Russian server (that's never a good sign).

If you watch the movie, she clearly says "nappy" (which makes more sense than "unhappy" in the context).

She can appeal to them, only if they are willing to compromise every other issue that they believe in. This is a woman who thinks that creationism should be taught in school, that is pro-life, pro-drilling in ANWR, anti-environment, etc.

If one was a supporter of Hillary, then it seems a fair assumption that one also agreed with her policies. And yet, all of those must be discarded to vote for this woman. I just don't see them being successful in that regard. People didn't just want to see "a woman" on the ticket. They wanted to see a specific woman on that ticket. If the Pubs threw Mariah Carey on the ticket, I don't think you are going see Hillary supporters flocking to support her.

Perhaps you need some sleep. I made absolutely no comment on either Biden or Palin in that post and certainly did nothing to compare them.

My comment was purely on the obviousness partisan nature of the responses by the nattering class to the selections. And that, therefore, they are essentially meaningless since they come from no attempt at actual analysis but rather are overt spin.

But if you'd like, here is my comparison of them:

In terms of the impact they have on how I am going to vote they are equal. I don't particularly give a damn who is selected as vice president because, though a non-zero chance, my views of the actual candidates for president are never so equal that I need to go to the twelfth tie-breaker.

As to which I would prefer be president if I had to choose between Biden and Palin, Biden would obviously be the choice. As to which I think would make a better advisor to the president, again I would say Biden.

That said, for me to say that I would not vote for Palin as president does not require me to decide she is a horrible person, or a horrible mother, or an idiot, or an empty shirt, or minimize her by calling her a MILF, or emphasizing that she once did well in a beauty pageant.

It is perfectly possible to think she is not cut out to be president while still thinking that she is likely a decent, intelligent, articulate person with whom I have significant political differences. 24 hours ago half the commentators on TV were still struggling to find the proper pronunciation of her name and yet by noon they had all set their opinions of her in Quikcrete. Opinions, that just oh so conveniently fit the narrative for success by their preferred candidate.

She may be the return of Dick Nixon or she may be the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln. It doesn't matter, she is on the underside of a political ticket lead by a candidate I'm not gonig to vote for regardless.

True that. I have a hard time envisioning many women that will vote solely on possession of a vagina. Hilary is a bad-ass in many ways. I wouldn't have been too unhappy if she had got the ticket. Palin is so clearly patriachy's b!tch that I can't imagine many empowered women giving their vote to her. All this does is give people who were already gonna vote McCain a warm fuzzy feeling that they're voting in as radical a way as those of us voting Joebama.

Anti-environment? Is pro-drilling automatically anti-environment? Or is there something else....I bet her website says she's for dirty air and water and the The Exxon Valdez was her dream ship. :)

In the same way that there are many one issue voters when it comes to abortion or tax policy or whatever, I would figure there are many one issue voters when it comes to a woman breaking through the "glass ceiling" and becoming VP.

Those people are idiots and should be made to wear signs stating such.

Are you referring to one issue voters in general or one issue voters on the glass ceiling aspect?

I don't understand one issue voters, personally, or one issue making someone a great candidate or party member vs. someone being a horrid candidate or a traitor. One issue (Iraq and terrorism in particular....I guess that's two, so i'll call it national defense to make it one) has separated one Joe Leiberman from the democrat even though he is a big time dem party line voter on every other issue. Does that mean the dems are stupid for black balling him over one issue? The same can be said for republicans that black ball a candidate who may not be as staunchly pro-life as they would like.

Just Sayin'

I mean one issue voters, but particularly this issue. Her being a woman isn't even an issue. It's genetics.

Though I will say that I find voting for someone with whom you staunchly disagree with on all but one issue to be ridiculous, but voting against someone that you generally agree with but staunchly disagree with on one issue to be perfectly understandable. If my politics are generally aligned with someone, but they are intent on criminalizing abortion, no way in Satan's hell are they gonna get my vote.

I don't know who the people are but an amazing likeness to McCain and Palin!

You say you mean one issue voters, but then go on to say it is understandable, particularly with your one issue.

To you it may seem like an issue of genetics. To other women, it is symbolic of the obstacles women have faced in their lifetimes.

I was going to say the same thing but then thought I might seem culturally illiterate or something. No clue who they are.

It's more about deal breakers. If someone has ten deal breakers, but one issue that I'm aligned with, I'm still not voting for them. If someone has ten issues that I'm aligned with and one major deal breaker, I'm still not voting for them. Abortion is one, but there are others.

But to vote for someone solely because they have the right anatomy even if you wholly disagree with their politics is just offensive. To all women. I mean, I'm down with pvssy pride and all that, but to vote in such a way implies that you don't think a woman will come along with the brains, power, and leadership abilities that you normally look for in a candidate, so you have to take the first pair of tits on any ticket, regardless.

They are characters from Battlestar Gallactica, believe it or not!

Well, there is nothing to suggest that Palin isn't smart or a leader. If someone disagrees with you it does not mean they are not smart or a good leader.

I disagree politically with....well, the vast majority of people here....but don't think they are stupid. Well, not all, anyway. ;)

At least with Palin we don't have to worry about her shooting anybody in the face accidentally, she's quite a hunter/ice fisher.

I haven't seen any woman in this thread who agrees with this assesment.

She's also trying to remove polar bears from the endangered species list.

If there are so many women who will vote for a woman candidate only on that basis, then Elizabeth Dole's run for the presidency in 2000 wouldn't have flamed out before the first primaries. I don't think any significant number of Hillary supporters will be drawn to Palin.

Oh... for the record... My mother, a diehard life long Republican, does not like the choice of Palin. She thinks McCain was "stupid" to pick her because "He just did it to try and get Hillary supporters to vote for him".

True. Out of the ....7 women? or however many that are posting in this thread, you are certainly correct.

I dont' think i said "so many women". I agree with Morrigoon's assessment that in a close election it doesn't take a whole bunch to turn the tide. Even 3894 must think it is a possibility because she almost immediately posted "women, we are better than this".

True, and Palin may well be all of those things. But voting for her solely because she's female implies that you don't even care whether she's all those things. If someone thinks she's smart and a good leader and agrees with her politics then her being female should only be a bonus (if it factors in at all).

I was hoping McCain would have picked Jaleel White as his running mate - nobody would vote against Urkel. :D

I agree with you in principle, tracilicious. Remember, I said that I don't understand single issue voters.

As a support for my case, I'm going to (and I can't believe I'm doing this) talk about Geraldine Ferraro, who says she believes that Palin could be the difference maker exactly for the reason I'm talking about. Just so I'm not accused of becoming a Ferraro fan all of the sudden, I will say that I am only citing her to show that there are hard code democrat women that certainly see this along the same lines I do.

Honestly, that's not at all what I meant. Her pick was a cynical move. McCain and his team must actually disdain the intelligence of women. That's what I was thinking.

I'll accept that you meant that. However, it goes beyond that in terms of why she was selected....she isn't just a woman, she is a woman that has the effect of consolidating the conservative base. I don't pretend that being female, though, wasn't a major consideration on McCain's part.

Any person who votes for a ticket based on the VP is not thinking clearly. Any person who votes for a VP based on their gender, or the fact that they have a mentally challenged child are thinking even less clearly.

Of course this doesn't change the fact that they will vote the way they vote, which is why getting ACTUAL information out there is so important.

I'm not surprised that we have heard wack-job extremists online saying "I'll vote for any woman". Um, they're the most vocal crazies.

All I know is, Hillary better have her best speech writers working on this one. After her convention speech I'm sure she can put something good together in a few days.

You're assuming Hillary wants Obama to win. I still do not believe she does and is in the very difficult position of trying to act like she does without really helping him. The Clintons are very, very dirty politically and I am certain they have minions working behind the scenes to undermine him.

She wants to run again in 2012. She won't run against a democrat incumbant (unless he wins and is so completely inept that she thinks she can get away with it).

That seems to be a very prevalent Hillary theory. So, I'm wondering ... will she garner some respect from Obama supporters, and even some from Conservative Hillary Tin-Hatters ... if she wholeheartedly uses her unique position and status to destroy the threat Palin's gender politics?

OK, so if I understand what you're saying, you think Hillary gains political strength by campaigning harder for Obama by going after Palin? I agree that could definitely happen, but I wonder what it gains her considering her ultimate goal is the Presidency. Hillary will be.....69 in 2016? Is that right? Something like that anyway. I don't know if she believe she can wait that long, particularly not knowing what other young dems (like Obama) will be coming into the national mix.

I don't see Hillary being content with anything less than the Presidency. A cabinet position, and ambassadorship....nice, certainly, but not what she wants. If she resigns herself that she'll never have the Presidency and gives up on that, it certainly changes the near term political structure.

Whether that's her goal or not, she's smart enough to know she doesn't have the power to sabotage Obama's bid. The only thing she can do in her own best interests is to maintain her status in the Democratic party and bide her time. That's best done by putting on a happy face and campaigning as hard as possible for Barack.

As big an ego as she's got, I bet she's even self-aware enough to know she doesn't have the power to tilt the election his way, so she's really got nothing to lose and everything to gain by appearing to do her party-loyal best.


She's been given a golden ticket to do that more in the public eye by being a perfect foil for McCain's chosen ticket-mate. She'd be stupid to pass that up, and she's anything but stupid.

Besides that, call me naive, but I think Hillary might actually want what's best for the country. More Republicans are not what's best.

I think more Republican governing is what the country needs, but not in the guise of McCain/Bush types.

The last good Republican president was Bill Clinton.

Exactly. I never understood why the Republicans didn't adore him.


To me, that's when the Republicans revealed their true nature. Nothing to do with their principles of governance. Simply bickering party politics of competitive gamesmanship.


Bill Clinton was a Republican president through and through.

It depends. If she had something really, really bad on him she would have used it in the primaries. So she may not be able to sabotage him. It's really, then, about what her state of mind is and how burning her desire for the power of the Presidency is.

With Gustav storming toward the gulf coast and specifically New Orleans, McCain has said he may delay the start of the convention. I think he should, really.

Micheal Moore said that Gustav coming to shore at the start of the Republican convention is proof there is a god in heaven. While I think understand what's he's meaning, it's still pretty sick to say considering the how strong the storm currently is.....almost as if he's gleeful that one is about to wreak havoc. He was quick to add that he doesn't want anyone hurt, but being that I thnk he is a sick individual I wcan't help but think he's hoping there is widespread destruction. That may be unwarranted on my part.

Anyway, I wonder what is going to happen. First, is anyone going to be stupid enough not to evacuate this time when ordered, and will local authorities actually do anything to help them get out, particularly those who may not be able to? I really doubt it will be as mishandled as Katrina was, but I know, sadly, it will be used politically on both sides whether it is or not....great federal relief will be used as a proclamation by McCain that republicans do care, and will be spun by dems that only because they had to this time did it go well and they will constantly talk of the failures of Katrina (without talking about the failings of the locals pre Katrina). If it doesn't go well, the dems will, of course, use it to their advantage. And I do think that would be legit.

With the exception of being very disappointed, I think her state of mind is just fine. I didn't see any irregular face twitching or uncontrolled manic laughter. Just someone trying to keep a smile on their face, while being disappointed inside.

And as far as her "burning desire for the Presidency," since when is that a bad thing? Personally, I like seeing determination in a person. And just because she is determined, it doesn't seem reason enough to start painting her as if she is some sinister character in a political novel.

If McCain wins, two things happen - First, Hillary almost certainly runs again in four years. And second, the country is subjected to another four years of Republican policies. And that likely means a severe shifting of balance on the Supreme Court, not to mention all of the other impending damage that four more years of failed policies would mean. Hillary understands that the implications of the latter outweigh the gains of the former.

Hillary realizes that this was her best chance, and that part is sure to be eating at her. But she also understands that it is imperative that a Democrat get elected, if things like Roe V Wade are important to her, or alternative energy, or health care, or anything else she holds dear. And were she to sabotage the Obama campaign, it would inflict far more damage than any positive gains. She isn't that stupid.

I would like to see her gain a cabinet position. And who knows, maybe Biden will only stick around for 4 years, then she could slip into the VP role and be ready for 2016. I don't know. What I do know is that she's not this bloodthirsty vampire that she is made out to be. And even if she were, she still isn't stupid.

There is also, as someone mentioned earlier, the thought that Clinton will redouble her efforts to see Obama elected so that some other woman isn't the first female VP or President....

Haha, excellent points, JW and MbC. :cool:

Who all is saying that Clinton will sabotage Obama's campaign? The Fox News pundits?

Anyone who is pro-Creationism is off my list immediately. I hope women are not that shallow that they vote for her just to get a woman in the VP seat.

That's a brilliant bit of irony given what was "purported" by some to be the cause of Katrina.

The speeches both Clintons gave at the Dem Convention were clear enough. Continuing to say that she is going to sandbag the campaign doesn't make sense in the light of those speeches.

I don't think Hillary is as concerned with policy as she is concerned with power. I may very well be wrong. It seems to me as if she has always put her own ambitions ahead of what was in the best interests of party and others.

Should we, then, teach about the Tooth Fairy in dental schools? Or astrology in astronomy classes? How about teaching chemistry students that, with the correct ingredients, they can turn lead into gold?

I was actually thinking of this from another aspect. In 1996 Bob Dole was the republican nominee because no one wanted to run against Clinton. It could be that the school of thought is that McCain is going to lose so no one with future Presidential aspirations wishes to be on a losing ticket....whether that be Pawlenty, Romney, whomever. Instead of others being rejected BY McCain, perhaps the others rejected McCain. It actually may make sense since McCain had only met with Palin one time.

I'll buy that. Makes sense.

Oh sure. No one here ever buys my theories unless they bode ill for the republican...:)

You got a problem with that? ;)

They may have to put off the convention (and blame Gustav) while they sort out this scandalous rumor:

Sarah Palin's 5th child is actually her oldest daughter's

Don't know if it has an ounce of truth, but that won't stop the speculating.

I am not sure about the insurance fraud implications, but the juicy-ness of it alone make for excellent conjecture. And who is the dad I wonder? Inuit? Maybe not so Down's Syndrome after all... Or worst yet - a Chinatown scenario! "He's my brother" He's my son!.."

But then again, this is just my demented brain talking.

Hey, now- back off, mister. Astrology served the Reagan's very well during their tenure.;)

So supposedly her whole pregnancy as governor was faked? That would be a trick.

If not true (and I'm suspecting it isn't), it's rather despicable.

What if it were true?


I find it a bit unbelievable, but it is odd that she didn't announce it until she was nearly due, and that no one noticed. Oh, well- true or not, it's not the sort of thing one can hide for long. I'm more interested in the fact that she's in the midst of a scandal that could get her impeached, yet she's chosen to run as VP?:confused:

I didn't mean that as a response to you specifically, but as a general thought on one of the supposed rationales for the pick. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

And I expect that Palin won't draw any measurable amount of women to the Republican ticket, at least not when you also consider those she will drive away. But we'll find out soon enough if that's the case.

I think it is primarily that this is the news of the day. In another two months when it comes time to vote I think there'll be very few people who claim the VPs had much impact on their decision.

If your professor said that, then he was wrong.

I've already read that people who don't have the means to leave are staying. I hope the local authorities do step up this time, and offer everyone who needs one, a ride out of harm's way.

Not the hurricane thread, I know, but I wanted to comment.

Hurricane, John McCain. Hmmm.

You had an Astrology professor?

"Economics is the 'science' that makes Astrology look good."
-my dad

Sorry folks...I meant Astronomy...not astrology LOL

Wow that was quite the gaffe! :eek:

Must have missed that, Strangler. My thoughts were original in my mind.:)

You can say this over and over, but it might be better if you actually listened to what she said in her speech.

I read it.:)

Seriously, though, one speech to me does not mean that her political history goes out the window. I somewhat doubt that if Bush came out with a speech contrary to what your current viewpoint is of him that it would sway you much. You'd wait to see what he actually did rather than what he said.

One thing that does not seem to be good for Obama at present is that while Gallup had him up by 8 immediately after his speech, a recent poll by Zogby has McCain up 2 and CNN has Obama only up one. The reason I say that does not look good for Obama is that there will be a (small) bounce for McCain after the republican convention. McCain's announcment of Palin immediately after the Dem convention seems to have negated the expected Obama bounce (which it seems like he got - going up 8 in the Gallup poll) when Gallup had had it tied for the previous couple of days.

Granted, it's still very, very close, but I'm sure Obama and his team expected a lead to hold for a bit before the Republican convention.

Why?

Hey, ABG- you're a chick! You're supposed to vote for the side with the woman on it, don't you know that?;)

She missed the memo.

I was discussing polling today and I think this may be the year that the major polls gets bit in the ass by a major demographic change: the abandonment of landline telphones combined with the fact that it is illegal to poll cell phone numbers.

Those demographics most likely to have no landline and just a cell phone are going to be underrepresented in these polls and there is little the poll takers can do about it. This has been discussed in the last two elections but it is a trend that has really accelerated since the last one.

As of December 2006 the number was already up to nearly 30% of people 30 or younger no longer had a landline. And this is an age group that skews in Obama's favor. As does that fact that cell phone only is much more common in urban than suburban or rural areas.

Of course the polling companies attempt to balance their surveys to account for this but they are just guessing and guessing with a number that is changing quickly. On top of that they are also having to make guesses on how much they need to change the definition of "likely voter" since if Obama can deliver the youth vote he appears to be inspiring that is also uncounted since many will not have the historic voting pattern that surveys look for in defining "likely voter."

I'm not saying they will get it wrong, but I see a huge potential for it. And it could go either way, if they overweight for cell phone only or if they overstimate Obama's ability to get young people to vote rather than just wearing t-shirts then they'll be underestimating McCain.

Very interesting....apparently Palin's 17 year old daughter is currently pregnant. 5 months. Apparently this shoots down the rumor of the 4 month old Trig being her daughter.

Apparently her support of abstinence only sex education didn't work out too well for her.

17, pregnant, not married... tsk tsk tsk. Good thing Palin's a Republican or else there'd be controversy.
:D

The speech itself was insistent and made its point over and over and over. "Think of the future", "this isn't about me", "the issues are what matters", "every vote matters", "no one should wait on the sidelines", "can't afford 4 more years", "I'll campaign as hard as I can for O", etc etc etc. Not word one of it was contrary. I guess you can ignore the speech entirely if you like, but I can't, because it happened.

I've read about this too, though when you mention it to doubters and conservatives all you get is "that's spin, wishful thinking, blah blah." Basic fact - many young people don't have landlines at all.

Sigh. Not ignoring her speech. Just trying to say that one speech does not change my opinion of her as someone who is concerned primarily with herself rather than her party. I believe the proof will be in what happens over the next two months, not what she said in one speech.

I would add , since McCain has moved significantly to the right on tax cuts and other such things, that I believe McCain, once in office, will act upon what he has been saying. Campaigns make people do and say all sorts of things that don't really mean much.

I don't regard this as wishful thinking at all, I just think pollsters have typically been pretty good at their craft, and since it is their livelihood, none want the stigma of getting it completely wrong. I figure they are doing all sorts of things to get the numbers right. This is certainly a new twist, and they may be completely wrong.

You Republicans: always a spare arrow in the quiver.

HA! I have three and three is FAR too many for me.

Sorry to quote myself - wanted to point out that I did not type what I intended. I meant to say that I do NOT believe McCain will act upon what he has been saying during the campaign, and will go back to pre campaign mode, as evidenced in his voting record and pre campaign speeches.

Nothing matches the glee I feel when someone so socially conservative has to eat a big piles of public humiliation. I love watching the little dance they always seem to do to get out of it.

Are you talking about her daughter being pregnant? How has she danced regarding this? She's come right out and addressed it and asked for privacy for her daughter....and in fact brought it forth herself due to the quite spiteful and vicious left wing rumors that Trig is not hers.

Did McCain choose Palin or a Lohan for VP?

Does her daughter have a deal for her own Disney Channel series yet?

That could perhaps be one of the most offensive posts I've ever read, alphabassetgrrl. Sorry I asked.

I think ABgrrl's post was not offensive at all and just illustrates the disdain with which some (don't know how many or what percentage) progressive women view McCain's VP choice.

The submittal of this n00b Alaskan to answer/entice disappointed Hillary supporters?
That is the real offense.

I cannot speak to what she said regarding the firings and all. I don't know anything of it...there could be something to it, i don't know.

It was her third and fifth pargraphs, particularly the fifth, that I find to be offensive and ridiculously ignorant. I'm a conservative and don't happen to think my wife's place is in the home, and if you think my wife is stupid and doesn't think for herself as a conservative, than you obviously don't know many conservative women. My wife teaches at a Christian school where she was (gasp!) even allowed to remain as a teacher after giving birth! Can you believe it?!?!?! ABG has insulted every conservative female I know. How dare they NOT think like her! That must mean they are under the thumb of a domineering male who has brainwashed her into thinking that way.

On top of that, I don't know personally know any conservative leaning men that like stupid women nor any who have chsined their wives to a stove.

Yep - pretty insanely insulting.

And Sub, she offers a lot more than being just a woman in terms of consolidating a very shaky conservative base for the republicans.

Keep it coming, ladies. My mother, who was going to vote for McCain, now says she'll vote for Obama because of McCain's selection of Palin, this pretty nobody. My wife's elderly great aunt, who's never voted for a Democrat, will sit this out. (Frankly, I think they'll both change their minds again by election day.)

I don't think too much sport should be made of Bristol's pregnancy. I am interested in learning if Levi is a 17-year-old Michael Cera type or a 30-year-old oil worker. Will we see him before the election? As far as the possibility of covering up Trig, I'm mildly sympathetic to a misguided attempt to protect her daughter. What concerns me on the "what kind of person are we electing here" front is whether Palin made/is making decisions that are actually damaging to her family in service of her own political ambition.

I also don't like seeing people who campaign in terms of moral absolutes not being able to live up to them. However, like Reagan and Clinton, she may be one of those people who can milk sympathy and approval by projecting herself as a sinner of personal limitations. We'll see.

But as with Clinton and all these dogs, the truth comes out. Would I object to seeing some trumped up legal proceeding where Palin and all involved have to answer questions under penalty of perjury? Not at all.

So, are you admitting the candidate would likely not have revealed this little Family Values gaffe if there were no rumors that could be squelched only with this uncomfortable truth?

Sometimes, scaeagles, i have to wonder what planet you're on. alphabassetgrrl put it all together concisely, with conviction, and quite patriotically. :)




Are you saying none of that stuff about Palin is true? Using her office to fire people for personal reasons has been well-documented in the press. You asked here for a follow-up example to her disregard for the environment, and you were provided one.

What are you trying to claim about Ms. Palin??? That's she's not a corrupt hyprocrit lacking in experience and stewardship??? On.What.Planet?




E.T.A.: scaeagles has already expanded on his position while i was typing this, so disregard as necessary

Sorry, dude. Maybe you're not aware of any- you're not a Neanderthal and I've no doubt you and your spouse have a reasonably equitable relationship. I live in a very conservative area, and I know a lot of couples where the dynamic is exactly how ABG describes. Not a one of them is liberal. Most of the women are very unhappy as well, but their hubbies remain blissfully unaware until they leave them. Working in the business I do, and living in the neighborhood I do (predominantly Mormon), I see and hear things I doubt very much you are privy to. You want to know how women really feel? Ask their hairdresser.:D

Palin is a joke, and McCain will be sorry he chose her over the many others (male or female) that were better suited for such an important job. I'd say I am glad he chose her, as it only helps our side, but I care about my country enough to be very concerned that someone like that is even in the running.

Oh, and I just had to say that yesterday we at a festival in our downtown park, which draws people from all over the area. The Democrat's booth was swamped, while the Repub's was deserted. The guy running the Dem booth said it had been that way since the start of the festival. As I stated before, this is a very conservative town and it was really cool to see so much interest in the Dems for a change. There are Obama/Biden stickers and signs everywhere. It's nice to have hope for once.

What does "someone like that" mean? Someone who is conservative? She obviously has helped rally the conservative base who is less than thrilled with McCain. Someone with so little experience? If it experience that matters, then why be excited about Obama? Someone who has a track record of eliminating spending and opposing the party leadership, and calling out corrupt Republicans?

I really have no idea what is offensive about this woman in the least.

I have no doubt there are people exactly as have been described. I know people who support abortion because abortions have a higher rate among the african american population, and they are racists and want fewer african american people around. Pretty disgusting. But they exist. I don't think it would be a good idea to come on this board and say that people who support abortion do so for that reason. I think that mught rile a few people up. Apparently, though, painting with a broad brush like that is completely acceptable here when it comes to conservatives. It is offensive.

Didn't you guys have Tip O'Neill there? He was from Spokane, right?

And while I realize there is doubt as to the polling, here is some Zogby stuff taken after the selection of Palin.

Nope- Tom Foley. And the idiots voted him out, while he was House Speaker (although he would have been minority leader should he have been re-elected) and voted in George Netherbutt, who ran on a term limits platform. Of course, he changed his mind about term limits when his was up, and ran again. Dick.

Sorry - duh. Wrong speaker.

Oh, and "someone like that" refers to her hypocrisy with regards to 'family values', her activities regarding her ex-brother-in-law, her determination to take away MY reproductive rights, and the fact that she obviously wears the pants in her family yet pretends that hubby is the Fearless Leader of the Clan. I'm sick of strong women having to take a backseat to their husbands for fear of emasculating them- why can't they just be partners? Why does someone have to be the leader, and if it is necessary, why would the person in the leadership role have to sit in the backseat and play all meek and mild just to make the other look and feel like the stronger one? This goes both ways- I know lots of men who do everything for their wives, yet present as a true couple without the whole leader/follower dynamic. I only wish they would teach their wives how to survive after they are gone. (Speaking about one of my clients in particular who just lost her hubby, and is absolutely helpless about even such simple things as check writing.)

Interestingly enough, while that story was inaccurate (and it was never reported as anything more than speculation) it did bring out an interesting concern about Palin's judgment that is certainly more than a rumor. It's based on what she said after she gave birth.

As she tells the story, she was in Texas when she felt herself leaking amniotic fluid. Rather than check into a hospital immediately, which is what I understand is pretty standard procedure, she not only went on to give the speech, but then proceeded to board an 8-hour flight back to Alaska because "her and her husband didn't want the baby of an Alaskan Governor to be born in Texas." Landing in Alaska, they then made another 45 minute drive to small hospital, rather than go to the medical facilities that were close to the Anchorage airport.

She says that her doctor gave her the OK for the flight, but a number of doctors have weighed in on this and said that no doctor in his right mine would have. Besides the risk of the baby being born premature while in flight, there is also a very serious risk of infection setting in once the water has broken. Quite a few babies have died from these infections, which can set in within hours. No matter how you slice it, she put the baby at extreme risk by making this flight, rather than seeking medical attention at the location she was at. And if nothing else, I would say this falls under the category of extremely poor judgment as well.

You said it....but no, I am happy with his new choice.

Biden would be wise to lay off discussing experience or qualifications.......Palin has more executive experience(and the office of President is an executive position) then Biden, McCain, and Obama combined;)

In a close state(such as Florida 2000) it won't take but a few score of such voters:D

I have seen no solid documentation in the press that she abused her position in regards to her ex-brother-in-law. I have seen plenty of documentation that there are accusations she has.

As I'm sure we're all aware, legislative "independent investigations" are easily spawned for purely political reasons with little merit in reality. I have no idea if the accusations have been true, I just haven't seen any strong evidence either way besides gleeful liberals saying "it's been accused, and since I oppose the candidate, it must be true!"

What I've found most interesting about this line of argument that has solidied in the last couple of days is that everybody is trying so hard to sell it that if bought into one must inevitably come to the conclusion that Palin is the most qualified presidential candidate on ticket. To that I ask, if rather than being selected for VP she had actually tried to campaign for president, would a single Republican anywhere in the country have bought the idea that her mayorship and 18 months as governor were great qualifications?

Now, I am fine with her qualifications because I don't think there is any such thing when it comes to being president; and generally the definition of suitable experience changes from person-to-person to magically align with whatever candidate they are currently supporting. I just think the facility with which Republicans are (on average) buying this line is a particularly amazing example of the art.

Sorry to quote a Democrat but I think Michael Kinsley said it well yesterday (and I apply this to both sides):

So ABG implies that Palin is weak (she said that Hillary supporters like strong women, not this Palin), but you WB say she is strong but likes to pretend she isn't.

If she is taking a backseat to her husband, who do you suppose wants it that way - Palin herself, who is obviously wanting leadership in that she is the Governor of a state, or her husband, who may not want to appear as weak? I would suppose it would be her husband (if indeed thisis taking place), who is, I've read, a democrat. But wait! I thought only republican men thought in such ways!

What is her hypocrisy in the whole family values area?

MBC, I haven't read the account of which you speak, but that would definitely be seriously poor judgmet on her part.

And that was very well put by Kinsley.

Thinking about this more I wonder if sleepyjeff and others would agree that David Paterson, Governor of New York for these last 5.5 months is more qualified than John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden to be president since he has executive experience?

I would argue that McCain and Biden are the most "qualified", with Obama and Palin running so far behind that it's tough to tell who would be third and fourth.

And while what I'm about to say is good for Obama and should be a talking point for him, no one person has enough experience to be President. Not possible. Too many things to be expert on. One must surround ones self with smartt, trusted, and knowledgable people in various areaa of expertise. With that being said, I do regard foreign policy credentials as the most important thing for a head of state.

Yes, I would.

Then again, I am still stunned that we have to choose between 2 US Senators(one of which chose another US Senator for his running mate) for President. .....and they have the gaul to say they are agents of "change".

I've no doubt Palin is a strong woman- no way she could have gotten this far without being so. She is weak because she allows herself to be perceived as something less than she is. Some women may be content to be the power behind the throne, so to speak, but if you are putting yourself out as a leader of people it's going to go over very poorly with a good segment of the population. It's dishonest and it propagates that sort of old world attitude. There is no doubt Hillary is her own person, as was Thatcher and Meir and nearly all the other great female leaders that come to mind. (I don't have to agree with them politically to acknowledge their role in women's history). Even Benizir Bhutto, who hailed from one of the most patriarchal of societies, was a strong woman. Palin is not.

I find her family values skewed from my perspective due to the above- the willingness to be submissive in order to gain power is sad, and a bad example to her girl and others as well. Now, her child is with child, and luckily she has a family who will support her in this ordeal- I'm sure she will be fine, but what of all the other girls (and boys) who engage in unprotected sex? Is she going to help them out as well? Not with the party she's affiliated with- they are well known for cutting social services and casting unwed (or even young wed but poor) kids in a negative light. I agree with Obama- the best way to end abortion is to educate kids and provide access to birth control. Just hope you don't get a pharmacist who is sure Jesus doesn't want him/her to dispense said controls.

I could go on and on, but really- you don't care about my opinion, and this could just be yet another thread where we all do the same dance ad nauseaum. Suffice it to say that this is one woman who does not consider Palin a role model, in any way.

Not trying to be a putz about this, but you start off saying you have no doubt she's a strong woman, then a few sentences later say she isn't a strong woman. Granted, after you say this you say is she is weak because she doesn't want to appear strong. I don't understand that, but OK. I dont' understand how she is trying to appear weak....obviosuly she's the governor of a state.

Like Alex has alluded to, I think those who dislike her politically will find all sorts of reasons to slam on her, and those that so will find all sorts of reasons to praise her.

But you're right....no one is going to convince anyone of anything here. I do care about your opinion, though. Why would I continue to question what you think if I didn't care why you think it?

You are being a putz, or disingenuous- you know perfectly well what I mean and are nitpicking to elicit a reaction. I reiterate: she is a strong woman, but she is allowing herself to play a role antithetical to her character to achieve her aims. No doubt a hangover from her beauty pageant days, but it makes me ill. Oh, and your silly 'Gotcha!' regarding her husband does not provide support to your position. Perhaps she would not be where she is at if he were a Republican.;) Seriously, though- I mean how she projects her image outwardly- obviously they have a relationship that works, but she would have you and everyone else believe that they have a very different relationship: a good old fashioned Hubby rules the roost one. Do you seriously think that is the case? (Especially if she is elected VP, but even when considering her current job). If he were to tell her "No way you're going to that work related event- you're fixng me dinner, woman!" do you really think that would go over well? I get the feeling she's kick his ass from Juneau to Ketchikan.

Whatever, WB.

Apparently she was gaining notice 13 months ago.....quite a write up about her (I know, I know, doubters will shout Weekly Standard, blah, blah, but the facts are the facts).

"Whatever?"

I thought you cared about my opinions there, Scaeagles.:p

I sort of stop when I am called a "putz" (granted I suggested the word first) or disingenuous. ;)

Oh, was that when you called yourself a putz, or when I agreed?

(Typically, I don't use that term, but when you posted it I kind of had to agree. I had just said I didn't want to continue, and then you posted and I bit. So, following my first instincts, I'll bow out like I intended).

Anyone who is against safe sex ed and ends up with a pregnant 17 year old in the house has some serious 'splainin to do. Anyone who goes back to work 3 days after they have their child can't claim to be on the "traditional family values" side of things. Even the craziest of feminatzis supports a 6 week minimum maternity leave.

Did someone post this already? Too true.

If Palin represents what the majority of women of this country believe, then women haven't come as far out of the dark ages as i thought we had.

I wouldn't vote for Palin - or anyone else touting her brand of extreme, dark ages, social conservatism - ever. Was Dan Quayle even this socially conservative?

Boy, as quickly as news about Palin is breaking, you have to wonder if she'll make it to November. It's come out that she has tight connections to an Alaskan political party that strongly advocates secession and is strongly anti-American:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9...477/878/581881

The New York Times

Disclosures on Palin Raise Questions on Vetting Process

I still do not consider raised risk of assassination/natural cause death of particular import when looking at VP.

That said, I picked a bad time to see Oliver Stone's JFK for the first time.

So, I wonder if the wags who came up with the 57 star lapel pin in response to Obama's slip of the tongue



will come up with a 49 star pin for McPalin.

I will be surprised if she lasts the week.

I feel I must ask our conservative friends here... Do you really feel comfortable voting for a presidential candidate who has shown such an alarming lack of judgment, in both himself and in the advisers he surrounds himself with? If you truly want what's best for the country, why would you vote for someone who has already demonstrated such a high level of incompetence? Can you honestly - deep down in your heart - believe McCain would be a better, more competent leader than Obama? Or are you only voting for him because he's Republican?

I would figure you're basing that largely on the choice of Palin?

I don't consider the Palin choice to show a lack of good judgement, so I can't really comment as to that. The only other thing I can think of is the advisor who said somehtng like "the economy is fine, Americans are whiners", which was certainly ill advised and ignored the fact that many Americans are hurting (however, there is always a segment of the population that is....while I loved Reagan, my dad was serially unemployes during the 80s).

So I am voting based on the policies I think are best for America. Fiscal conservatism (please understandthat I know Bush is no fiscal conservative).....well, no need to list tham all. I have before.

And honestly, what she did almost two decades ago as far as her political affiliations doesn't matter much to me, nor does a drunk driving charge 22 years ago, nor does the fact she smoked marijuana when it was legal (and she at least admitted to inhaling), nor does a pregnant daughter.....

I don't care about her husband's DUI or about the mere fact of her daughter's pregnancy. As we learn more about her family, and we will, I may conclude that her handling of the matter reflects poorly on her as a) a person, b) a politician or c) both.

I do think that her apparent support for Pat Buchanan's candidacy is pretty close to supporting David Duke's and merits questions. (Maybe she just liked his isolationism.) The same with her membership in a group advocating Alaska's secession as there is no mechanism for state secession in the U.S. Constitution.

Well, i can't fault her for that. I'm a STRONG supporter of California secession ... but of course, I'm not running for any office of the (I-don't-want-them-to-be-) United States.

Well, 20 years ago (well, 18 technically) is a long time ago. If she still thinks it's a good idea, then I might see an issue.

And i wouldn't mind seeing CA secede either, Ism.

For what it is worth, a Rasmussen poll shows women view Palin's candidacy notably less favorably than men.

Ah, the MILF factor.

In our backwards country where republican men think women are lesser creatures, I'm actually surprised by this. I'd figure democrat men are solidly in the Obama camp, and republican men would be threatened by a woman in leadership.

Her association with the AIP did not end 18 years ago. She still has ties, and she sent a video greeting to their annual convention earlier this year, praising them.

He picked her without doing a thorough vetting. It was an impulsive choice aimed at pandering to women and the religious right extremists. That was very poor judgment.

I find it offensive that she is OK with the government telling her what to do with her body. I find it offensive that she wants to tell other women what to do with their bodies. I find it offensive that she probably didn't promote safe sex, and instead promoted no sex with her child and now has a pregnant teen. I only find the previous offensive because it's proven that abstinence only education does not work. I don't care that her daughter is pregnant. Sh*t happens. I care about the hypocrisy in toting abstinence only education as the best method and having a pregnant daughter.

Would you be offended by drug couselors who have addicted children? Or teachers or school administrators who have children who are poor students?

I get the whole abortion thing (with the caveat that the governent has numerous restrictions on what one can do to their bodies, even if I concede that abortion is just about a woman's body). The whole pregnant teen when she touts something else is to basically blame anyone who promotes one thing while their children do something else.

Nope, wouldn't be offended by drug counselors who have addicted children or teachers/school administrators who have students who are poor children. I don't even put those in the same category. Didn't Regan have a son who was addicted to drugs? And wasn't Betty Ford an alcoholic?

The problem with abstinence only education is toting that it works, when in reality STDs are on the rise and teen pregnancy is up again for the first time in several years. Instead of being told that STDs can also be spread through oral sex teens are having unprotected oral sex because it's not 'real sex'. The Republican party says abstinence only education is the way to go, when obviously, it isn't. If they want to be on the high horse that it is the way to go, they shouldn't have ended up with a VP candidate who has a minor pregnant child. I wonder if the father is going to get busted for statutory rape. He's 18.

I'm not offended by Bristol's pregnancy or any of your examples. I am offended by politicians who speak in moral absolutes and who do not temper their pronouncements with the recognition that sh*t happens.

Now, as I've said before, I think this style appeals to a certain constituency that likes to be lectured from the mountaintop but still manages to fall self-servingly short because we are all sinners.

And even if she was a member of the secession group 20 years ago, the statute of limitations on Clinton's youthful "disloyalty" did not run after 20+ years.

Well, the drug counselor I would find to be in the same category, though I don't think either are deserving of criticism for what their children do. The whole just say no of drug counselors seems to be similar to the abstinence issue, but that's neither here nor there, nor am I trying to bring up a debate about drugs vs. sex.

And Strangler, those questions were directed specifically at BTD based on her post.

I find moral absolutes coming from the left all the time. I suppose it depends on whether the particular moral absolute happens to be agreed with or not.

Many leftist moral absolutes/sweeping generalizations are quite silly.

scaeagles: but even in the "just say no" program, they teach you about the specific drugs involved.

I see the parallel you're drawing, but given the dangerous and addictive nature of drugs, I don't think teaching "safe" drug use will fly. There is a safe way to have sex, there is not a way to do drugs where you aren't interacting with/touched by the chemicals involved.

But you're right... there's a VERY thin line between the two. My point is that there is a line.

(And of course, the drug counselor is in favor of educating their kid on drugs - the kid is deciding to use in spite of it, not in ignorance, as with kids who are not taught about safe sex)

What tickles me is that Palin made the revelation to quelch rumors that her teen daughter had a child out of wedlock. So, um, now her teen daughter is having a child out of wedlock.

WTF? It doesn't even make Palin that much less of a liar, since she only came out with the "truth" to quelch the other rumors that differed from the truth by a hair's width.

I'm sorry, but if you want fiscal responsibility, you’re not going to find it in the current Republican Party. The last eight years have proven that!

One of the reasons I’m voting for Obama is that I feel he will actually do something about digging us out of the economic hole Bush and co. have dug for us.

I think she came out with that to deny that Trig was not her child as was being reported....well, rumored on blogs, not really reported. I don't think it had anything to do with her teenage daughter having a child out of wedlock.

You may not be familiar with my criticisms of Bush that I have posted. Indeed you are correct. Bush spends money in a fashion that would embarrass druken sailors. I hate it. The republican congress he held in his first term went along with what he wanted and it is embarrassing. Honestly that's one of the reasons I like Palin. Her line item veto record in Alaska is impressive in terms of eliminating spending.

Well said, scaeagles.

I can't say that I necessarily believe Obama can "dig us out" financially. However, that's not why I'm choosing to vote for him.

I'm not entirely confident McCain can "dig us out" either. I hope that if he does make it into office, he'll shed his sheep's clothing of pandering to the party and stick to who he originally said he was. But I'm also hoping it doesn't get to that point, because my biggest reason for not voting for him has to do with letting the rest of the party (eg: congress) know that 'business as usual' isn't acceptable. Whereas I think if he gets voted in, it'll be taken as a vote of approval for the way they've been doing things, and we'll see more of it. After all, if the Republicans can't be beaten on the heels of a Bush presidency, when CAN they be?