Sarah Palin to be McCain's VP!!

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I strongly doubt you have read any 'liberal media' in a very long time. Our mainstream media is broadly right-wing and corporatist.

:shocked:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: Farang
Also how is this at all "Country First?" There are much more qualified candidates who share similar values. McCain put McCain first in picking someone to appeal to Clinton voters.

Are you sure about that? This thread is full of people saying that Clinton supporters would NEVER vote for her.

I was (am) a Clinton supporter.

You are suggesting that I would jump ship from Dem to Rep just because Palin is a woman? From the (very) little we do know she has opposite policy view points compared to Hillary.

Honestly this is a joke of a VP pick. Obama is too young and inexperienced to be President but your going to make some one with NO NATIONAL political experience second in line to be President? For real this woman had her husband as acting chief of staff for her office (because that wouldn't cause a conflict of interest).

I am guessing Condi Rice refused the VP spot and McCain figured all women are the same.

I hope most of the Clinton supporters see through this charade as well as you have! :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Craig234
I strongly doubt you have read any 'liberal media' in a very long time. Our mainstream media is broadly right-wing and corporatist.

:shocked:

Well the media itself isn't really right or left leaning. It certainly is corporatist though, but that's what happens when the reporting of the news is subject to the demands of the marketplace.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You might be right that he didn't have any appealing choices and he picked the best of a bad lot. Palin might hurt him less then say... Romney. It still seems like it hurts him pretty badly in terms of strategy.

I dont see how. I just dont. When she a) has arguably as much if not more experience (and definitely more RELEVANT experience) than the guy at the top of the ticket for the other side, b) is much more conservative that McCain, and c) let's face it, there are women out there that WILL vote Republican because of her, I dont see how its a bad pick at all.

ESPECIALLY with the liberal media saying it was a bad pick. That makes me like her even more.

Definitely more relevant experience? Are you kidding me? Obama worked in the United States Senate and passed through legislation, I don't care if it is executive power being the governor of Alaska doesn't prepare you for operating Washington as well as being a senator. At the very least it is an arguable point, so I remove your "definitely."

Please name this great legislation that Obama authored and/or pushed through the Senate. Just one bill would suffice...

If you bothered to inform yourself about both presidential candidates you'd know about this, for example: http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind..._and_government_policy

for someone trying to push what their candidate did, after reading that website it should be about the last one you should link to.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Farang
Also how is this at all "Country First?" There are much more qualified candidates who share similar values. McCain put McCain first in picking someone to appeal to Clinton voters.

She doesn't appeal to Clinton voters, she appeals to only the ones that voted for clinton because she was a woman. Palin appeals to true conservatives and was chosen to energize the base, She was chosen because she has hardly any of the negatives the others have and won't split the base.

Hardly any of the negatives? What role does she fill? She has no foreign policy experience, no national policy experience, and not even very much State policy experience (and her state experience was in Alaska at that).

How can McCain with a straight face tell the public that Obama does not have enough experience to lead and then pick a VP with less experience?

McCain has lost a huge line of attack to gain what? A woman as a VP? Some one would have to have been voting based solely on Gender to jump ships. I suppose their are people that stupid out there but I assume they are in states that McCain was going to win any way.

again, because most people have requirements higher for presidents than VPs.

Do you think Cheney had any shot to even come close in an election, Gore couldn't win without Clinton.

We just have higher standards, we expect the president to have more experience than his counterpart. I think the Obama ticket would hold more relevence if they were reversed and Biden was the president and Obama the VP(not that I would vote for them that way, but I wouldn't question their experience in that case).

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Farang
Also how is this at all "Country First?" There are much more qualified candidates who share similar values. McCain put McCain first in picking someone to appeal to Clinton voters.

She doesn't appeal to Clinton voters, she appeals to only the ones that voted for clinton because she was a woman. Palin appeals to true conservatives and was chosen to energize the base, She was chosen because she has hardly any of the negatives the others have and won't split the base.

Hardly any of the negatives? What role does she fill? She has no foreign policy experience, no national policy experience, and not even very much State policy experience (and her state experience was in Alaska at that).

How can McCain with a straight face tell the public that Obama does not have enough experience to lead and then pick a VP with less experience?

McCain has lost a huge line of attack to gain what? A woman as a VP? Some one would have to have been voting based solely on Gender to jump ships. I suppose their are people that stupid out there but I assume they are in states that McCain was going to win any way.

She does not have LESS experience than Obama... she has MORE experience than Obama at the executive level.

Add to that fact that she is running as the VP, where a little on-the-job training is expected, while Obama seeks to be Commander-in-Chief, having the thinnest resume of foreign-policy and executive experience.

She is also a true conservative, which helps shore up his base-- his biggest problem thus far.

If a few extra women cover over to vote for him simply because Palin is a women, that is just icing on the cake.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: QED

She does not have LESS experience than Obama... she has MORE experience than Obama at the executive level.

Add to that fact that she is running as the VP, where a little on-the-job training is expected, while Obama seeks to be Commander-in-Chief, having the thinnest resume of foreign-policy and executive experience.

She is also a true conservative, which helps shore up his base-- his biggest problem thus far.

If a few extra women cover over to vote for him simply because Palin is a women, that is just icing on the cake.

Where did you hear that on the job training is expected for a VP? You just totally made that up. McCain's biggest problem is not his base. McCain's biggest problem is that his base has shrunk significantly from what it was 8 or even 4 years ago.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Corbett
I see someone missed my very carefully chosen words. I said "republican voters" not "republican elected officials"

Seriously? I understand there's slime on both sides but that's your defense? Who do you think elected those republican officials?

Are you aware of what happened in 2006 because of the actions of those republicans?

Sure, but the victory for the (D)'s in 2006 was due to the failures of the Bush administration and and effort to eliminate his 'rubber stamp'.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Farang
Also how is this at all "Country First?" There are much more qualified candidates who share similar values. McCain put McCain first in picking someone to appeal to Clinton voters.

She doesn't appeal to Clinton voters, she appeals to only the ones that voted for clinton because she was a woman. Palin appeals to true conservatives and was chosen to energize the base, She was chosen because she has hardly any of the negatives the others have and won't split the base.

Hardly any of the negatives? What role does she fill? She has no foreign policy experience, no national policy experience, and not even very much State policy experience (and her state experience was in Alaska at that).

How can McCain with a straight face tell the public that Obama does not have enough experience to lead and then pick a VP with less experience?

McCain has lost a huge line of attack to gain what? A woman as a VP? Some one would have to have been voting based solely on Gender to jump ships. I suppose their are people that stupid out there but I assume they are in states that McCain was going to win any way.

She does not have LESS experience than Obama... she has MORE experience than Obama at the executive level.

Add to that fact that she is running as the VP, where a little on-the-job training is expected, while Obama seeks to be Commander-in-Chief, having the thinnest resume of foreign-policy and executive experience.

She is also a true conservative, which helps shore up his base-- his biggest problem thus far.

If a few extra women cover over to vote for him simply because Palin is a women, that is just icing on the cake.

She was a better choices than that Masshole Romney or that Religious Nut Job Hukabee.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

He she was a better choices than that Masshole Romney of the Religious Nut Job Hukabee.

I don't really buy the 'best of a bad lot' deal either. I honestly believe that McCain has bought into the media story about Hillary voters and jumped in with both feet.

 

[Zedtom]

The evaluation of a candidate's resume is amusing when you look at the mistakes made at all levels in the hiring of executives. The business community is always bringing in new CEO's to replace others who were inept, unprepared and in over their heads. The office of Vice President is too important to be run by someone who was selected for reasons beyond personal qualifications. (I'm not excluding Obama here, either.)

Oh, I'm just waiting for that commercial with one of the Hillary sore losers declaring that she will now vote for McCain because he has a woman on the ticket.

 

[heyheybooboo]

It amazes me that people pump-up 'MORE experience than Obama at the executive level' without recognizing the nuance of the experience.

Yes. She was guv'nor of the Biggest State in the Union (and mayor of Moose Jaw).

Yall keep pumping that 'executive experience' in the Biggest State in the Union. It makes you look even more delusional than the last 8 years ...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
It amazes me that people pump-up 'MORE experience than Obama at the executive level' without recognizing the nuance of the experience.

Yes. She was guv'nor of the Biggest State in the Union (and mayor of Moose Jaw).

Yall keep pumping that 'executive experience' in the Biggest State in the Union. It makes you look even more delusional than the last 8 years ...

Hey if McCain somehow wins and if he dies of cancer, stroke or a heart attack she'll have enough experience to do the job.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

He she was a better choices than that Masshole Romney of the Religious Nut Job Hukabee.

I don't really buy the 'best of a bad lot' deal either. I honestly believe that McCain has bought into the media story about Hillary voters and jumped in with both feet.

I dunno. I definitely agree McCain picked a woman for that purpose but given that he was the best candidate the (R)'s could come up with I wonder if it wasn't partly a lack of better/willing candidates?

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Farang
Also how is this at all "Country First?" There are much more qualified candidates who share similar values. McCain put McCain first in picking someone to appeal to Clinton voters.

She doesn't appeal to Clinton voters, she appeals to only the ones that voted for clinton because she was a woman. Palin appeals to true conservatives and was chosen to energize the base, She was chosen because she has hardly any of the negatives the others have and won't split the base.

Hardly any of the negatives? What role does she fill? She has no foreign policy experience, no national policy experience, and not even very much State policy experience (and her state experience was in Alaska at that).

How can McCain with a straight face tell the public that Obama does not have enough experience to lead and then pick a VP with less experience?

McCain has lost a huge line of attack to gain what? A woman as a VP? Some one would have to have been voting based solely on Gender to jump ships. I suppose their are people that stupid out there but I assume they are in states that McCain was going to win any way.

She does not have LESS experience than Obama... she has MORE experience than Obama at the executive level.

Add to that fact that she is running as the VP, where a little on-the-job training is expected, while Obama seeks to be Commander-in-Chief, having the thinnest resume of foreign-policy and executive experience.

She is also a true conservative, which helps shore up his base-- his biggest problem thus far.

If a few extra women cover over to vote for him simply because Palin is a women, that is just icing on the cake.

She was a better choices than that Masshole Romney or that Religious Nut Job Hukabee.

I agree... I didn't care for either one of those two.

Romney is smooth and succesfull-- almost too smooth and too succesful-- like a good used car salesmen. Huckabee is a nut-- a Pat Buchanon for the 21st century.

 

[Vic]

PaliMessiah 😉

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Vic
PaliMessiah 😉

Trademark?

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Vic
PaliMessiah 😉

She has more experience than Obama, but I don't think you should start worshiping her just yet. 😎

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Corbett
I see someone missed my very carefully chosen words. I said "republican voters" not "republican elected officials"

Seriously? I understand there's slime on both sides but that's your defense? Who do you think elected those republican officials?

Are you aware of what happened in 2006 because of the actions of those republicans?

Sure, but the victory for the (D)'s in 2006 was due to the failures of the Bush administration and and effort to eliminate his 'rubber stamp'.

Really? Is that why the dems ran a campaign full of conservative democrats? Is that why they ran against the "culture of corruption"? Get a clue.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Vic
PaliMessiah 😉

She has more experience than Obama.

No kidding, despite what the Republican Hacks say Obama's never been entered into a Beauty Contest. She definitely is prettier than old Joe Biden.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Farang
Also how is this at all "Country First?" There are much more qualified candidates who share similar values. McCain put McCain first in picking someone to appeal to Clinton voters.

She doesn't appeal to Clinton voters, she appeals to only the ones that voted for clinton because she was a woman. Palin appeals to true conservatives and was chosen to energize the base, She was chosen because she has hardly any of the negatives the others have and won't split the base.

Hardly any of the negatives? What role does she fill? She has no foreign policy experience, no national policy experience, and not even very much State policy experience (and her state experience was in Alaska at that).

How can McCain with a straight face tell the public that Obama does not have enough experience to lead and then pick a VP with less experience?

McCain has lost a huge line of attack to gain what? A woman as a VP? Some one would have to have been voting based solely on Gender to jump ships. I suppose their are people that stupid out there but I assume they are in states that McCain was going to win any way.

She does not have LESS experience than Obama... she has MORE experience than Obama at the executive level.

Add to that fact that she is running as the VP, where a little on-the-job training is expected, while Obama seeks to be Commander-in-Chief, having the thinnest resume of foreign-policy and executive experience.

She is also a true conservative, which helps shore up his base-- his biggest problem thus far.

If a few extra women cover over to vote for him simply because Palin is a women, that is just icing on the cake.

Thanks for the help guys.

She doesn't need foreign policy experience, that is McCain's strength. She fills in his holes... She has executive experience (Mayor and Governor), even if it's a small budget, any state budget is small in comparison to the nations. The point is she ran a mini-US. She also fills in the holes in McCain's domestic policy weakness.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Let me spell this out very simplistically. The job of the president is three fold, to influence congress and the rest of the world to pass laws and/or policies that are favorable to the US, be CiC and to defend and uphold the constitution.

Now, point one is pretty clearly a strong point of Obama's. Point two is what McCain is touting as the end all, be all.

That leaves point three. Now, who would you feel is the stronger of the candidates at this one? A former POW (since that is what he seems to be putting the emphisis of his campaign on so will I) or a former constitutional law professor that was president of the Harvard Law Review? Do you think that Palin is able to match Obama there when that is one of the primary duties of the job? Did getting out and moose hunting help her form a deeper understanding of the Bill of Rights? We know that the NRA helped her with the 2nd amendment. What about the other 26?

What huge influence has Obama had on Congress thus far in his career?

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QED

She does not have LESS experience than Obama... she has MORE experience than Obama at the executive level.

Add to that fact that she is running as the VP, where a little on-the-job training is expected, while Obama seeks to be Commander-in-Chief, having the thinnest resume of foreign-policy and executive experience.

She is also a true conservative, which helps shore up his base-- his biggest problem thus far.

If a few extra women cover over to vote for him simply because Palin is a women, that is just icing on the cake.

Where did you hear that on the job training is expected for a VP? You just totally made that up. McCain's biggest problem is not his base. McCain's biggest problem is that his base has shrunk significantly from what it was 8 or even 4 years ago.

The base has not shrunk... it seems like it. The Bush Repubs have shrunk. True conservatism is alive and well and will come back stronger than ever, I am sure of it.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What's so baffling? Democrats have never said experience was important, McCain did. McCain has harped for months about how important experience is, and then picked one of the least experienced VP candidates in US history. I for one don't care about experience, but it does provide some insight into McCain that apparently even HE doesn't believe his own bullshit.

Still pretending that the Presidency and the Vice Presidency are the same thing, eh?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Corbett
I see someone missed my very carefully chosen words. I said "republican voters" not "republican elected officials"

Seriously? I understand there's slime on both sides but that's your defense? Who do you think elected those republican officials?

Are you aware of what happened in 2006 because of the actions of those republicans?

Sure, but the victory for the (D)'s in 2006 was due to the failures of the Bush administration and and effort to eliminate his 'rubber stamp'.

Really? Is that why the dems ran a campaign full of conservative democrats? Is that why they ran against the "culture of corruption"? Get a clue.

You need the clue Reverend, the Dems , whether Conservative, Moderate or Libera,l did win because they ran against the failures of your Poster boy Bush.