Page 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 271

Thread: McCain Chooses Palin as Running Mate

  1. #1
    Zohar Yeshayahu
    Guest

    McCain Chooses Palin as Running Mate

    McCain Chooses Palin as Running Mate

    DAYTON, Ohio — Senator John McCain astonished the political world on Friday by naming Sarah Palin, a little-known governor of Alaska and self-described “hockey mom” with almost no foreign policy experience, as his running mate on the Republican presidential ticket.

    Ms. Palin, 44, a social conservative, former union member and mother of five who has been governor for two years, was on none of the widely discussed McCain campaign short lists for vice president. In selecting her, Mr. McCain reached far outside the Washington Beltway in an election year in which the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, is running on a platform of change.

  2. #2
    I am David
    Guest
    Well McCain just proved himself to be a complete fraud.

    McCain's main criticism of Obama is that he's inexperienced and not ready to lead the country. So what does he do? Knowing that he's 72 and possibly on death's doorstep, he picks a VP with significantly less experience than Obama, knowing of course, that the primary job of VP is to serve as a backup president for the regular one.

    So this essentially proves McCain doesn't even care that Obama is inexperienced, and doesn't even think experience is important for president, but is still willing to lie to the whole country that he thinks it does. And worse, he's arrogant enough to display his dishonesty to the whole country by openly making this choice.

    Just to get an idea of how insane this VP pick is (for the country, not for McCain's campaign), this is Palin's experience in summary:

    ~6 years as mayor of a town of ~6,500 people
    ~2 years governor of one of the smallest states in the country (pop.)

    Being that Palin's first set of experience as mayor of a town so small doesn't even count as experience, as the job is too small in scope, she has nothing but 2 years of "experience", which isn't even enough to judge how she's doing on the job, nor enough for her to learn significantly from any of her mistakes.

    This means, in short, Palin has ZERO relevant experience for being president, meaning McCain doesn't give a damn about the safety of the country, only getting himself elected.

    (BTW, Obama has around 12 years of experience in high level government, so there's no use comparing him to Palin)

  3. #3
    KettleWhistle
    Guest
    Doesn't matter, really. Obama's image is already established. Now McCain has beaten Obama at his own game. If the polls are more or less true, it's really down to who will take Pennsylvania. Now Obama has a 5% lead there, which is not too bad. If McCain manages to swing PA with it's 21 electoral votes, he'll win the election. Michigan and Minnesota are also worth fighting for. So it's really a matter of whether his campaign planners realize that and can focus on the states where Obama has a fairly narrow lead.

  4. #4
    I am David
    Guest
    The thing is if the Obama campaign is smart, they could really demolish McCain with this pick, for the reasons I outlined above. Yes it's true that VP picks don't tend to make a difference, one way or the other, but in this case its about McCain's judgement, not the VP herself, that will be criticized. Pointing out to the whole country that McCain picked a zero-experience politician to be his presidential failsafe, essentially proves how little McCain cares about America and how much he cares about attaining personal power. If that isn't enough, the choice also makes him a giant hypocrite, obviously.

    The case against McCain couldn't be more clear, but it all comes down to how well Obama can make this point clear to American voters.

  5. #5
    KettleWhistle
    Guest
    Heh, just hours after my post above, the AP published this piece. (They must be reading IF, too! )

    Pennsylvania, Michigan crucial to fall election

    By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer 20 minutes ago

    Keep your eyes on Pennsylvania and Michigan.
    There are battleground states in the presidential election, and then there are these two, looming larger than most others because they offer such a rich opportunity for Republican John McCain and potential peril for Democrat Barack Obama.
    What worries Obama, and gives McCain hope, is that both states have hundreds of thousands of white, mostly working-class Democrats who seem wary of Obama. In the Pennsylvania primary they gave Hillary Rodham Clinton a big win over Obama, and now McCain is wooing them hard.
    "I need Pennsylvania," Obama told a crowd of several thousand at an outdoor rally in Beaver on Friday night. "I need Beaver, Pennsylvania. I need you to stand up beside me and say now is the time to bring about change in America."
    In the crowd, Kim Stelmach of Pittsburgh cheered, and fretted a bit. Despite having young twins at home, she finds time to volunteer for Obama, and is well aware that Pennsylvania is a must-win state.
    "I'm extremely nervous," she said of Obama's standing with white working-class Democrats. "That's why I'm volunteering."
    Pennsylvania and Michigan have thousands of white working-class voters who call themselves Democrats but sometimes vote Republican.
    If McCain carries either state, he could lose several states that President Bush won and still claim the White House. For Obama, a loss in either would put him in a deep hole, forcing him to win numerous states that have voted Republican in recent elections to have any hope of prevailing on Nov. 4.
    It's no coincidence that Obama and his running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, made Pennsylvania their first stop Friday after leaving their party's convention in Denver, with several Michigan stops scheduled for Sunday and Monday. Their campaign released a new TV ad for northeastern Pennsylvania noting that Biden was born in Scranton.
    McCain and his new running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, campaigned Saturday in Pittsburgh and Washington, Pa., and they have promised to visit both states repeatedly.
    There are plenty of other vigorously contested states: Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado and Virginia, to name a few. But Michigan and Pennsylvania are different.
    John Kerry and Al Gore carried both in their losing campaigns in 2000 and 2004. So they form an almost must-win minimum for Obama. He would start with the base those two men had, and then try to pick up enough Bush-carried states to put him over the top.
    They're being told by Obama's people that their personal and political interests should trump any qualms about voting for a black man in his first Senate term.
    Polls show Obama slightly ahead in both states, but McCain may be within striking distance.
    To be elected, Obama must win 18 more electoral votes than Kerry did four years ago. If he loses Pennsylvania, his deficit jumps to 39 electoral votes. If he loses Michigan instead, the gap is 35.
    Those are big numbers, because the Bush-won states that look most promising for Obama tend to be small, with few electoral votes.
    The possibilities and math can get complicated.
    Suppose Obama carried every state that Kerry did, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, and then added Bush's states of Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada, all prime targets this year. He'd still lose to McCain.
    But if he grabbed one more state that Kerry lost — Colorado, for instance — then he would be president.
    McCain, on the other hand, could lose Ohio or Florida (both won by Bush in 2000 and 2004) and essentially offset it with a win in Michigan or Pennsylvania. Swapping Florida for Michigan would cost McCain 10 net electoral votes, but he'd still win the election if all other states followed 2004 results.
    Obama's challenge becomes far greater if he loses either Pennsylvania or Michigan. Even if he won all the other Kerry states from 2004 and added the Bush states of New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa and Virginia — a state with 13 electoral votes that Democrats haven't won in decades — he would lose the election.
    Michigan and Pennsylvania have been hit hard by the long decline in heavy manufacturing jobs, especially in the steel and auto industries. Obama tells workers (and unemployed people) that Republicans have abandoned them. He promises to invest in technologies that will create jobs, and to cut middle-class taxes to help families pay their bills.
    McCain also promises to bring more jobs to the heartland. He places more emphasis on across-the-board tax cuts and greater flexibility in finding health insurance.
    Obama did not campaign in Michigan during the primary because a Democratic Party dispute essentially negated the state's primary election. He needs to make up for lost time, says Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
    He needs to "come, come, come to Michigan," she said. The state's wary voters, she said, need "to feel him, see him, touch him."
    McCain, too, would love nothing better than to win them over, which could give him a victory in Michigan and a huge step toward the White House.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080830/...faS_3LYN5h24cA

  6. #6
    Steven
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by I am David View Post
    The thing is if the Obama campaign is smart, they could really demolish McCain with this pick, for the reasons I outlined above. Yes it's true that VP picks don't tend to make a difference, one way or the other, but in this case its about McCain's judgement, not the VP herself, that will be criticized. Pointing out to the whole country that McCain picked a zero-experience politician to be his presidential failsafe, essentially proves how little McCain cares about America and how much he cares about attaining personal power. If that isn't enough, the choice also makes him a giant hypocrite, obviously.

    The case against McCain couldn't be more clear, but it all comes down to how well Obama can make this point clear to American voters.
    Let them bash an accomplished mother of five. They will bury themselves, she was a good choice and has more experience them Obama.

  7. #7
    I am David
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven View Post
    Let them bash an accomplished mother of five. They will bury themselves, she was a good choice and has more experience them Obama.
    What do you mean she has more experience than Obama? Based on what data? She absolutely has much less experience than Obama. As I outlined above, she has almost no applicable experience, and Obama has 12 years.

    And what do you mean by bashing? Criticising one's lack of experience is not bashing and is not a reflection or related to their parenthood whatsoever.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    Palin was a major supporter of Pat Buchanan's presidential bids in 1996 and 2000. That odious neo nazi bastard.

    From "Harry's Place"

    To bring you up-to-date on the Sarah Palin-Pat Buchanan connection, which we posted about below:

    It appears that Palin did not officially support Buchanan’s 2000 campaign for president, although as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she did wear a Buchanan button when Buchanan visited the town. She wrote in a letter to the editor of an Anchorage newspaper: “As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.” (I can’t help wondering if this would have applied to David Duke if he had run for president and visited the town. After all Buchanan’s and Duke’s views on a number of issues– immigration, race, “Jewish power” and Israel– are not a million miles apart.)

    Pat Buchanan said on MSNBC that Palin and her husband were involved in his 1996 campaign. So far there is no confirmation or denial of this from Palin. I think she owes an explanation of precisely what (if anything) she did for Buchanan’s campaign and how much she knew of his obnoxious positions.

    Bloggers and journalists have raised plenty of other doubts and concerns about Palin– some valid, others not– and again, she needs to respond to reasonable questions. I suspect that once the initial excitement over her selection fades away, those questions– which seem to be popping up by the hour– will become much more urgent.

    But in this post, my concern is less about Sarah Palin than with what John McCain’s selection of her says about him. I can’t find it on YouTube yet, but according to Ezra Klein, CNN has run a pre-selection clip of McCain proclaiming that his top criteria for a vice president would be “finding the person most qualified to step in and assume the presidency.” Does even the most fervent McCain supporter think Palin meets– or even comes close to meeting– this requirement?

    Even McCain’s own people aren’t pretending.
    “She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he’ll be around at least that long,” said Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s top advisers, making light of concerns about Mr. McCain’s health, which Mr. McCain’s doctors reported as excellent in May.
    Even assuming that Palin is a fast learner and prepared to sit at McCain’s feet, isn’t that something of a gamble? If elected, he will be the oldest man ever to become president. And remember that Ronald Reagan was shot and nearly killed after only two months in office.

    In July I linked to a Time magazine article about the respective gambling habits of Barack Obama (a cautious but winning poker player) and McCain (a risk-taking crap shooter). His selection of Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from leading the most powerful country on earth is of a piece with that.

    I have posted favorably here about McCain a number of times over the years. Until yesterday, I was not unduly frightened by the possibility of him becoming president. But putting aside every other consideration, isn’t it reasonable to compare Obama’s most important and possibly fateful choice so far– Joe Biden– with McCain’s? And isn’t it reasonable to draw some conclusions from those choices?

    Update:
    Jim Vandehei and John F. Harris at Politico write about some of the things we can learn about McCain from his selection of Palin: most notably, he’s desperate and this is not the choice of a self-confident candidate.

  9. #9
    Steven
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by I am David View Post
    What do you mean she has more experience than Obama? Based on what data? She absolutely has much less experience than Obama. As I outlined above, she has almost no applicable experience, and Obama has 12 years.

    And what do you mean by bashing? Criticising one's lack of experience is not bashing and is not a reflection or related to their parenthood whatsoever.
    The far left bashes and they will effect the opinion of what people think of democrats.

    I will get back on experience data. Obama has been a Senator for not that long and has spent a lot of that time campaigning. She is not running for President, he is. There is big difference.

    People see her as a family woman who has accomplished a lot while raising 5 kids. That is very good.

  10. #10
    Steven
    Guest
    “We may be seeing the first woman president. As a Democrat, I am reeling,” said Camille Paglia, the cultural critic. “That was the best political speech I have ever seen delivered by an American woman politician. Palin is as tough as nails.”


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

  11. #11
    I am David
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven View Post
    The far left bashes and they will effect the opinion of what people think of democrats.

    I will get back on experience data. Obama has been a Senator for not that long and has spent a lot of that time campaigning. She is not running for President, he is. There is big difference.
    Well, actually there shouldn't be any difference at all. Remember, the Vice President's only official job according to the constitution, is to serve as a backup president for the regular one. What you have to visualize is that Sarah Palin could actually become the real, acting President the day after McCain's nomination, if something happens to McCain. She has to be 100% ready for that. Therefore it is just as important that the VP be a great president as the presidential nominee.

    Now Palin, as I described before, has zero relevant experience for the presidency, which means McCain doesn't actually care about the safety of this country. He proved that with this decision.

    And yes, Palin has a lot less experience than Obama. You don't get to include being mayor of a ~6,500 pop. town as presidential experience. Sorry, just not relevant with so few people in the town. Her two years as governor, once again, is not enough for her to learn anything significant or even judge her performance. She's a complete unknown. McCain's OK with that.

    Obama has 12 years relevant presidential experience. 12 compared to 0. Plus, Obama is actually smart.

    And popping out lots of babies, does NOT make you immune to criticism of your pathetically inhumane political beliefs, and people should know that.

    McCain is lame.

  12. #12
    Steven
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by I am David View Post
    Well, actually there shouldn't be any difference at all. Remember, the Vice President's only official job according to the constitution, is to serve as a backup president for the regular one. What you have to visualize is that Sarah Palin could actually become the real, acting President the day after McCain's nomination, if something happens to McCain. She has to be 100% ready for that. Therefore it is just as important that the VP be a great president as the presidential nominee.

    Now Palin, as I described before, has zero relevant experience for the presidency, which means McCain doesn't actually care about the safety of this country. He proved that with this decision.

    And yes, Palin has a lot less experience than Obama. You don't get to include being mayor of a ~6,500 pop. town as presidential experience. Sorry, just not relevant with so few people in the town. Her two years as governor, once again, is not enough for her to learn anything significant or even judge her performance. She's a complete unknown. McCain's OK with that.

    Obama has 12 years relevant presidential experience. 12 compared to 0. Plus, Obama is actually smart.

    And popping out lots of babies, does NOT make you immune to criticism of your pathetically inhumane political beliefs, and people should know that.

    McCain is lame.
    Obama is actally a socialist which is not what America is about and Obama is naive with plenty of shady friends.

    The polls show an approval of her, so sorry.

    Yea Obama has presidential experience.

    It is foolish for anyone in Israel to support Obama, he will not do damn thing to help Israel.

  13. #13
    I am David
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven View Post
    Yea Obama has presidential experience.
    You know, I cited actual facts supporting Obama's level of experience. Why do you think that a little bit of vacuous sarcasm is sufficient enough to over-rule the reality of facts?

    And if you want to make a logically valid claim that Obama is "socialist", you first have to define what socialist means in terms of American politics, and come up with some arbitrary threshold criteria that considers some people socialist and others not, and then justify that arbitrary threshold using the factors that should be important in determining "socialist or not", and THEN provide the facts that show Barack is above that threshold. Because just throwing around claims like "he's socialist" does not provide the logical support necessary to prove that's the reality, and not just some talking point propaganda which the Republicans are so good at cooking up.

    (responsible politics ain't so easy is it?)

    Ditto for him not supporting Israel.

  14. #14
    Steven
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by I am David View Post
    You know, I cited actual facts supporting Obama's level of experience. Why do you think that a little bit of vacuous sarcasm is sufficient enough to over-rule the reality of facts?

    And if you want to make a logically valid claim that Obama is "socialist", you first have to define what socialist means in terms of American politics, and come up with some justification for an arbitrary threshold that considers some people socialist and others not, and then provide the facts that show Barack is above that threshold. Because just throwing around claims like "he's socialist" does not provide the logical support necessary to prove that's the reality, and not just some talking point propaganda which the Republicans are so good at cooking up.

    (responsible politics ain't so easy is it?)

    Ditto for him not supporting Israel.
    Did your liberal professor teach you how to conduct a scientific study?
    Look he wants a $600 billion poverty bill and he wants to take from the rich to give to the poor, to try and even it all out. That is socialism, is that to hard for you to figure out? But I know liberals have to live in a world of a million shades of gray.


    Do you really think he will actually be able to talk things out with the President of Iran?
    Oh I know the meeting he said he will have with Islamic leaders is going to magical transform the Islamic world and agenda.

    BTW she is more favorable then Biden.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...bly_than_biden


    Why do you think the Palestinians want Obama in? Because they, unlike you know he is weak.

    Hamas endorses Obama and so does I am David.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../04/020315.php
    Last edited by Steven; 08-31-2008 at 09:52 PM.

  15. #15
    I am David
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven View Post
    Look he wants a $600 billion poverty bill and he wants to take from the rich to give to the poor. Tot try and even it all out. That is socialism, is that to hard for you to figure out?
    That's called fairness, not socialism. The lower class generally have much more dangerous, physically demanding jobs than the wealthy. The rich get rich because of the work of the lower/middle classes. And often the rich CEOs don't do enough to protect their employees even though all it would cost them is some chump change. Why shouldn't middle America get free health care? Because then the decadent wealthy class will have to give up manicures for their pet pony?

    But I know liberals have to live in a world of a million shades of gray.
    Unfortunately, that's how the world works.

    Obama has stated clearly many times he is willing to use the military against Iran if the need arises. What's wrong with at least trying to avert a war and gruesome death if it's possible?

    Hamas endorses Obama and so does I am David. LOL!!
    That's Hamas's mistake then. Is it so hard to believe they could simply be wrong about what's best for them? No it's not. Mean spirited debating tactic though. Typical of Republicans.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •