JK2000 Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 I am more comfortable with someone taking over who has been mayor of a tiny 9,000 person city and a governor for a mere two years than with either of the candidates on the Democratic ticket, neither of whom have ever been responsible for supervising more than 10 people outside of their campaign staff, and neither of whom have ever had to balance a budget, meet payroll, or deal with government crises. Anyone can write legislation to give people rebate checks, cut taxes, and start pre-school programs. Being an executive requires a different kind of managerial experience. Frankly, outside of the National Security issue, I think she is the most qualified on *either* ticket despite her limitations. Actually she's only been a governor for 1 and 3/4 years. Just sayin'.
Taro T 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. It's not 1/2 the Republican party going "huh, who?" right now; it's 90% of it; and 95% of the Dems are doing the same thing. It doesn't appear that Obama's crew had much of an inkling that this choice was coming, or the 1st statement out of the campaign wouldn't have been "cool, experience, or lack thereof, is now officially off the table". Obama and Biden were much more "presidential" in their statement, not surprisingly. I'd be interested in reading what Darin has to say about her, as he probably has actually heard of her; unlike most of the posters in this thread. It is definitely an interesting pick and it has done one thing McCain wanted, it got last night's speech nearly totally off the radar. I'm a little confused though about 1 thing in this thread. If this does, in fact, torpedo McCain's chances why do most of the Democratic candidate supporters seem upset by this? Shouldn't you be elated at this choice? The people on the left and right already have their minds made up. Who wins this one is the one that gets the most independents and Reagan democrats to come over to their side. At 1st glance, this looks like a good choice for McCain. She gave a good speech and would appear to have the right background to help McCain make inroads with Hillary supporters. On the surface, both candidates made good choices for VP.
PastaJoe Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Yeah, there are no women in this country who are against choice. That's why the Democrats are so eager for it to be decided by popular vote instead of in the Supreme Court. They also are against the idea of women with children in politics, for the reasons you cited. It's a Man's job. Good luck with your spin. Women who are pro-lifers weren't going to vote for Obama anyways, this is a play for Democratic Hillary supporters, the majority of whom are pro-choice. I'd be for letting just women vote on abortion rights, since they're the ones more affected by it. Most mothers are more involved with the daily upbringing of kids, especially 4 kids including a baby, then most fathers. I commend them for that. But having all those kids AND being president takes it to another level. I'm a little confused though about 1 thing in this thread. If this does, in fact, torpedo McCain's chances why do most of the Democratic candidate supporters seem upset by this? Shouldn't you be elated at this choice? I'm quite happy with the pick, I think it weakens McCain's chances. And it puts more emphasis on the fact that today McCain turned 72.
The Big Cat Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 I am more comfortable with someone taking over who has been mayor of a tiny 9,000 person city and a governor for a mere two years than with either of the candidates on the Democratic ticket, neither of whom have ever been responsible for supervising more than 10 people outside of their campaign staff, and neither of whom have ever had to balance a budget, meet payroll, or deal with government crises. Anyone can write legislation to give people rebate checks, cut taxes, and start pre-school programs. Being an executive requires a different kind of managerial experience. Frankly, outside of the National Security issue, I think she is the most qualified on *either* ticket despite her limitations. Your logic is retarded.
Chilly Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Why is Obama a gimmick? Explain what you're suggesting with this post. By the criteria that The Big Cat posted, Obama would also be considered 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? Obama certainly wasn't chosen for anything tangible; he was chosen for his seeming ability to speak well to large crowds (which Palin also has, or so I've read).
finknottle Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 I'm sorry but someone from an "oil state" married to man working for BP has to do a lot to convince me of this point. Her husband's not an exec, he's a union worker (steel workers, I think) and she was union too. Should I assume from that she is anti-business? Look up her battles with the oil industry and *then* decide who she takes her marching orders from.
The Big Cat Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 By the criteria that The Big Cat posted, Obama would also be considered a gimmick: Obama certainly wasn't chosen for anything tangible; he was chosen for his seeming ability to speak well to large crowds (which Palin also has). Nothing tangible? He's been in public service for over 12 years. Did you watch his speech last night, or are you conveniently ignoring the fact that he did actually lay out some HOW and WHY to his WHAT? Also, Obama was picked through the primaries, BY VOTERS, not by a political steering/handling committee at the behest of a 72 year old man.
The Big Cat Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 By the criteria that The Big Cat posted, Obama would also be considered a gimmick: Obama certainly wasn't chosen for anything tangible; he was chosen for his seeming ability to speak well to large crowds (which Palin also has, or so I've read). Rather than try and spin what I said to make your point, why don't YOu tell ME why Obama is a gimmick candidate.
finknottle Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Your logic is retarded. So are your rebuttals. You would be great in a debate, it seems to come so naturally for you.
Johnny Coli Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Obama certainly wasn't chosen for anything tangible; he was chosen for his seeming ability to speak well to large crowds (which Palin also has, or so I've read). He wasn't "chosen." He won the primary. And I (and many, many people) didn't vote for him in the primary because he is black or an excellent orator. We voted for him because he most closely represents the positions we have on a majority of the issues.
finknottle Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 I'm a little confused though about 1 thing in this thread. If this does, in fact, torpedo McCain's chances why do most of the Democratic candidate supporters seem upset by this? Shouldn't you be elated at this choice? The people on the left and right already have their minds made up. Who wins this one is the one that gets the most independents and Reagan democrats to come over to their side. At 1st glance, this looks like a good choice for McCain. She gave a good speech and would appear to have the right background to help McCain make inroads with Hillary supporters. On the surface, both candidates made good choices for VP. I have not gotten that same impression. Left posters think she is a terrible choice, but I have not heard much out of the Right. I don't think anybody credible has said she has torpedoed his chances. My own opinion is that she has the potential to completely change the dynamic of the campaign and - critically - the media coverage, and that it was a great move. Her upside is huge in terms of voter positioning, and only if she starts screwing things up in interviews (which is very possible) will she be any worse than a safe pick worth 3 electoral votes.
Chilly Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Nothing tangible? He's been in public service for over 12 years. Palin's been in public service for over 16 years. Did you watch his speech last night, or are you conveniently ignoring the fact that he did actually lay out some HOW and WHY to his WHAT? I think you've got the timeline here wrong, he was chosen to be the nominee before his speech last night. Also, Obama was picked through the primaries, BY VOTERS, not by a political steering/handling committee at the behest of a 72 year old man. By voters who were moved by his ability to give good speeches about hope and change.... Rather than try and spin what I said to make your point, why don't YOu tell ME why Obama is a gimmick candidate. Because using your own criteria is more fun. When the theme of your campaign is grandiose ideas like "Hope" and "Change" (two ideas that don't mean all that much), and your best qualification is that you can act Presidential, you just might be a gimmick candidate.
finknottle Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 He wasn't "chosen." He won the primary. And I (and many, many people) didn't vote for him in the primary because he is black or an excellent orator. We voted for him because he most closely represents the positions we have on a majority of the issues. And maybe in 2012, he'll actually get more votes (actual votes, not delegates) than his closest competitor!
Chilly Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 He wasn't "chosen." He won the primary. He wasn't chosen by the people of the Democratic party, and in some states independents and Republicans? That isn't winning the primary? And I (and many, many people) didn't vote for him in the primary because he is black or an excellent orator. We voted for him because he most closely represents the positions we have on a majority of the issues. And many, many more did.
Mike in Syracuse Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Palin's been in public service for over 16 years I'm sorry but being the Mayor of Podunk doesn't make you qualified to be Vice President of the United States.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 When the theme of your campaign is grandiose ideas like "Hope" and "Change" (two ideas that don't mean all that much) Yeah, you're right, because the two things this country really needs right now are cynicism and stubbornness, like yours, and the previous administrations.
VABills Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 I'm sorry but being the Mayor of Podunk doesn't make you qualified to be Vice President of the United States. Neither does running a neighborhood watch program and being a senator for 9 months before you anounce you're running.
JK2000 Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Neither does running a neighborhood watch program and being a senator for 9 months before you anounce you're running. Obama announced he was running for president in 2004?
VABills Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Obama announced he was running for president in 2004? He pretty much announced he was running in 2004 before he was even a US senator. Prior to that he was in state and local politics. Again, he has actually managed nothing ever. He was a lawyer and legislature, not actually in charge of anything. At least Palin has managed something for a while.
Taro T Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 I have not gotten that same impression. Left posters think she is a terrible choice, but I have not heard much out of the Right. I don't think anybody credible has said she has torpedoed his chances. My own opinion is that she has the potential to completely change the dynamic of the campaign and - critically - the media coverage, and that it was a great move. Her upside is huge in terms of voter positioning, and only if she starts screwing things up in interviews (which is very possible) will she be any worse than a safe pick worth 3 electoral votes. I was referring directly to Mike's claim that this "candidate just threw away the election". I didn't mean to imply any of the "talking heads" from the media or either side had said it was a terrible choice. Again, if she IS a horrible choice as a running mate, I'd expect Mike and others from the left thinking that she was a great choice. It seems to me that he doesn't necessarily think that McCain threw the election away.
Recommended Posts