Johnny Coli Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 The Obama camp is running around crazy right now wondering, "How do we attack her?" They don't have to "attack" her. McCain picked an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-evolution, pro-gun candidate with no experience and scandal baggage. I doubt anyone swayed by this pick to vote for McCain would have been voting for Obama, anyway.
Bishop Hedd Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 You sure are obsessed with my party affiliation. Find my "attacks" on Obama's experience since you know so much about me. I'm not praising her. I don't know jack about her. Maybe I'll like her. Maybe I won't. So far I said she gave a good speech--the one she needed to hit out of the park. She did it. She's principled from what I read. She's an outsider, whcih to me, is GREAT news. I'd rather have an inexperienced VP and an inexperienced P, but that's just me. Let us see, the announcement was only made official a few hours ago and already you've said she'll dominate the whole news cycle for days to come and everybody will watch her speak at the RNC. Even forgiving the hyperbole here I sort of find it hard to believe you and others here aren't just a wee bit smitten....for the shallowest of reasons.
Chilly Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Half of the Republican party right now is going "WHO"? For six months we've been hearing about the "experience needed to lead". You're really going to tell me that if something unfortunate does happen to Sen. McCain that you're comfortable with a completely inexperienced unknown taking over the reigns. Maybe the Bills can start pulling players out of the stands during games when people get injured. Hell, if experience or capability don't matter we'll just pick a random fan as long as they support the team. Your candidate just threw away the election. He aint my candidate.
John Adams Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 They don't have to "attack" her. McCain picked an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-evolution, pro-gun candidate with no experience and scandal baggage. I doubt anyone swayed by this pick to vote for McCain would have been voting for Obama, anyway. Her administration is the first to give benefits to same sex unions. Just saying--I know we're all finding out this stuff at the same time. Maybe it doesn't "steal" votes from Obama. But she may be an actual Conservative, if any of these people still exist. Without ties to Washington, she might be suited to shake it up a bit. So she could appeal to a true Conservative and Independent. As we discussed elsewhere, my wife is a Liberal and her initial reaction to Palin is positive.
John Adams Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Let us see, the announcement was only made official a few hours ago and already you've said she'll dominate the whole news cycle for days to come and everybody will watch her speak at the RNC. Even forgiving the hyperbole here I sort of find it hard to believe you and others here aren't just a wee bit smitten....for the shallowest of reasons. My, aren't we sexist too? "Shrill" and "smitten?" Well played Mr. Open-minded. Don't you know I'm gay? Haven't you seen the stuff about the health club I belong to? You already know my party affiliation. I thought you knew so much. It's hardly "ejaculation" as you called it earlier to predict she's going to dominate the news shows over the weekend. The lead story on all the talk shows will be her. Not Obama's speech. That's a coup considering what a good speech he gave last night. Is there any reason in your brain or are you all lib-knee-jerk?
Mike in Syracuse Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Let us see, the announcement was only made official a few hours ago and already you've said she'll dominate the whole news cycle for days to come and everybody will watch her speak at the RNC. Even forgiving the hyperbole here I sort of find it hard to believe you and others here aren't just a wee bit smitten....for the shallowest of reasons. You're probably right cause nobody's going to turn in to watch John McCain slog through 45 minutes of fear mongering crap while saying "my friends" 246 times.
Chilly Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Obama's position stays the same. That "judgment", not experience, is the key. He can still believe that, and stay with that with Palin. He can easily say that Palin would be ready, IF, she showed this solid judgment, and had some experience in foreign policy (which is even far less than Obama). But if McCain is saying that experience "doesnt" really matter, what is his selling point? His main selling point is experience and bona fides, IMO, not being a maverick. I think he's gonna argue that experience only matters for the top dog, not the VP. Though, I agree that McCain doesn't have many selling points (Obama doesn't either, but I digress )
Johnny Coli Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Her administration is the first to give benefits to same sex unions. Just saying--I know we're all finding out this stuff at the same time. Not entirely true. Her administration was of record when same-sex union benefits were instituted, similar to that of that pig Romney who was the governor of record when we allowed actual gay marriage here in Mass. Looks like she just complied with the Alaskan Supreme Court, and consulted with the AG prior to vetoing a ban. From Wiki (Yeah, yeah, but it's all we've got right now.) She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[13] While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with an Alaskan state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.[35] Palin disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling[36] and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[37] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.[38] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.[13]Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.[36]
Bishop Hedd Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 My, aren't we sexist too? "Shrill" and "smitten?" Well played Mr. Open-minded. Don't you know I'm gay? Haven't you seen the stuff about the health club I belong to? You already know my party affiliation. I thought you knew so much. It's hardly "ejaculation" as you called it earlier to predict she's going to dominate the news shows over the weekend. The lead story on all the talk shows will be her. Not Obama's speech. That's a coup considering what a good speech he gave last night. Is there any reason in your brain or are you all lib-knee-jerk? "My wife really liked the speech" "Don't you know I'm gay" Like I said I don't care what the hell you are but I think you might have some issues you should deal with. Another one would be calling people who don't agree with your unique worldview 'sexist" because they use such offensive to women terms like "shrill" and "smitten".
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 I don't care what the hell you are but when you make a moronic ecstatic premature ejaculation over this shrill woman saying "Everyone will tune in to see her speak at the RNC" it tends to undermine the small amount of credibility you have here. This from the person who has NO credibility to undermine!
John Adams Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 "My wife really liked the speech" "Don't you know I'm gay" I'm a top. What can I say?
Fewell733 Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Shows what a joke the Republicans think this country's government is. Basically choosing a gimmick VP candidate. They really think that's good for America? A VP is a serious position, especially when you have a man in his mid-70s, not in the best of health potentially as the President. It makes them look like they don't really care about America's future, only that they are elected. It's also a slap in the face to all the Hillary supporters out there. McCain and Rove are betting again on stupid. This time I don't think it'll work. It's too obvious.
SilverNRed Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Shows what a joke the Republicans think this country's government is. Basically choosing a gimmick VP candidate. They really think that's good for America? A VP is a serious position, especially when you have a man in his mid-70s, not in the best of health potentially as the President. It makes them look like they don't really care about America's future, only that they are elected. It's also a slap in the face to all the Hillary supporters out there. McCain and Rove are betting again on stupid. This time I don't think it'll work. It's too obvious. Hilarious that the Obama supporters are suddenly obsessed with experience, accomplishments, and candidates who are only "gimmicks."
John Adams Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Shows what a joke the Republicans think this country's government is. Basically choosing a gimmick VP candidate. They really think that's good for America? A VP is a serious position, especially when you have a man in his mid-70s, not in the best of health potentially as the President. It makes them look like they don't really care about America's future, only that they are elected. It's also a slap in the face to all the Hillary supporters out there. McCain and Rove are betting again on stupid. This time I don't think it'll work. It's too obvious. Why is Palin a gimmick?
The Big Cat Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Why is Palin a gimmick? Why is she a good choice for VP? Certainly not because of her long and upstanding political career. So, if she wasn't chosen for her accomplishments, what was she chosen for?
Fewell733 Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Why is Palin a gimmick? because she was plainly chosen only because she was a woman. Get real.
Chilly Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Hilarious that the Obama supporters are suddenly obsessed with experience, accomplishments, and candidates who are only "gimmicks." Gimmick President = good Gimmick VP = bad Hmm...
JK2000 Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Shows what a joke the Republicans think this country's government is. Basically choosing a gimmick VP candidate. They really think that's good for America? A VP is a serious position, especially when you have a man in his mid-70s, not in the best of health potentially as the President. It makes them look like they don't really care about America's future, only that they are elected. It's also a slap in the face to all the Hillary supporters out there. McCain and Rove are betting again on stupid. This time I don't think it'll work. It's too obvious. Wow Karl Rove is slamming the Palin pick! "I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president." "So if he were to pick Governor Palin, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? Ooops, my bad. This was Karl Rove slamming Obama for possibly picking Tim Kaine. I'm sure he'll be on Hannity tonite ripping McCain as well then, right?
The Big Cat Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Gimmick President = goodGimmick VP = bad Hmm... Why is Obama a gimmick?
Bishop Hedd Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Shows what a joke the Republicans think this country's government is. Basically choosing a gimmick VP candidate. They really think that's good for America? A VP is a serious position, especially when you have a man in his mid-70s, not in the best of health potentially as the President. It makes them look like they don't really care about America's future, only that they are elected. It's also a slap in the face to all the Hillary supporters out there. McCain and Rove are betting again on stupid. This time I don't think it'll work. It's too obvious. And that's exactly what it is! There's nothing interesting, great, or risky in this pick at all. Ridge would have been risky, Rice would have been good, Lieberman might have restored his "maverick" label but he went for the most politically motivated pick he could find to heal "The Base" and to show that the right can also put a woman on a ticket about 25 years after the Democrats did. Bfd.
Recommended Posts