All About McCain

[Alex]

A follow up question I'd ask (there's one bit in your response that I consider outright false but it isn't that relevant so I'll leave it be): Without engaging in comparisons to Barack Obama, I'd ask you to answer the following: Palin has no power to do the things that you like about her unless she becomes president (she may be a partner to McCain or at the first sign of disagreement he could put her in a closet to not be seen again for four years). If John McCain dies the day after inauguration, would you consider the country in capable hands?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

If John McCain dies the day after inauguration, would you consider the country in capable hands?

Short answer - No.

Slightly extended answer - No. However, I do not consider Obama capable either.

A bit more extension - This is why I love the comparisons constantly made between Palin and Obama in terms of experience.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Short answer - No.

So she can't actually follow through on the things that make you want to vote for McCain and her. And you don't think she's capable of doing the one thing she might actually have to do. And yet it makes you more likely to vote for McCain. I don't quite understand.

[BarTopDancer]

Let's see where everyone is. The majority of LoTters are in CA.

Arizona is going to McCain
CA is going to Obama.

I think Moonie is in MD (but I may be wrong)
Steph is in NY
Couple people in WA

Where do those three states typically trend?

[Alex]

So, my follow up question is: If Palin is not capable leadership for the country, and she really doesn't have any power to do the things you like unless she is put in that position, why does she bolster your support for McCain? Why does "not a good president" get trumped by "says she'll root out corruption"?

Again, Barack Obama is irrelevant to the question because we already know that even if he'd spent 20 years as the governor of Alabama you'd still not consider him an acceptable choice for president for policy reasons.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

So, my follow up question is: If Palin is not capable leadership for the country, and she really doesn't have any power to do the things you like unless she is put in that position, why does she bolster your support for McCain? Why does "not a good president" get trumped by "says she'll root out corruption"?

Again, Barack Obama is irrelevant to the question because we already know that even if he'd spent 20 years as the governor of Alabama you'd still not consider him an acceptable choice for president for policy reasons.

Oh, indeed. Hopefully my answer above may shed some light on your follow up a bit.

Yes, Obama is irrelevant to the question, but if the issue is experience and readiness of Palin, I cannot help but makes comparisons to the Presidential side of the dem ticket.

I would not have voted for Bill Clinton for policy reasons. I did not doubt his readiness.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Betty

I'm curious if there is anything at this point, that could be revealed, that would cause you those of you that ARE voting McCain / Palin to NOT vote for them?

If a scandal came out - that was atrocious and seemed likely but couldn't be proved before the election, would you reconsider?

Or is it a democrat/republican thing and you would never in a million years vote for "the other side".

Ultimately, it is a Dem/Rep thing........some scandal, whether it be personal or not, won't change the fact that I believe McCain/Palin will do a better job advancing my concerns for this nation then Obama/Biden. Now, I suppose, if the "scandal" was something along the lines of McCain is secretly planning on pulling the US out of NATO or raising the tax on the top tax bracket to 50%.....then yes, I would change my vote

Btw: The media has shown that they will indeed "uncover" some story that can't be proved right before the eleciton......I'd bet money on it....thankfully, the public is quite use to it now and unless they really can prove it they won't fall for it.

Originally Posted by Alex

A follow up question I'd ask (there's one bit in your response that I consider outright false but it isn't that relevant so I'll leave it be): Without engaging in comparisons to Barack Obama, I'd ask you to answer the following: Palin has no power to do the things that you like about her unless she becomes president (she may be a partner to McCain or at the first sign of disagreement he could put her in a closet to not be seen again for four years). If John McCain dies the day after inauguration, would you consider the country in capable hands?

More capable on the domestic side of things(imho).....on foreign policy, I would assume McCain will already have his team in place(unless he like dies before Christmas...in which case Bush already has people she can use) and can lean on them until she can swim on her own----worked so well with our current President.

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Let's see where everyone is. The majority of LoTters are in CA.

Arizona is going to McCain
CA is going to Obama.

I think Moonie is in MD (but I may be wrong)
Steph is in NY
Couple people in WA

Where do those three states typically trend?

Maryland usually goes to the Dems(I think Reagan took it in 84' but no rep since)

New York usually goes to the Dems(I think Reagan took it in 84' but no rep since )

Washington has gone to the Dems the last few times but the race is usually close.

Oregon(hello ) has gone dem since 92' I think.

Here's a good site:


http://www.electoral-vote.com

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I would not have voted for Bill Clinton for policy reasons. I did not doubt his readiness.

Exactly!

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

and can lean on them until she can swim on her own----worked so well with our current President.

All about perception, I guess! I'm not finding or remembering much of the Bush presidency that has worked so well. But, that's me, ymmv.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Btw: The media has shown that they will indeed "uncover" some story that can't be proved right before the eleciton......I'd bet money on it....thankfully, the public is quite use to it now and unless they really can prove it they won't fall for it.

Um, are you for reals? McCain/Palin got onstage and blatantly lied about Obama's policies and the republican base swallowed it whole. Apparently, the public will fall for anything and half the country will vote for someone who doesn't even have enough confidence in their base to assume that they are educated about both sides. Which sadly, they apparently aren't.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

Um, are you for reals? McCain/Palin got onstage and blatantly lied about Obama's policies and the republican base swallowed it whole. Apparently, the public will fall for anything and half the country will vote for someone who doesn't even have enough confidence in their base to assume that they are educated about both sides. Which sadly, they apparently aren't.

Um not sure what you are getting at here; I was saying the media will "discover" some bit of shocking news right before the election(just like they have in at least the past two elections) and you ask if I am for real

What's McCain/Palin lying(not that I am conceding that) on stage at the convention got to do with what I said