Jump to content

McCain picks woman for VP slot


Recommended Posts

With her opinions of birth control and abortion, she will be thought of as a figure for womens rights ?

I suppose Clarence Thomas is going to be though of as a major figure in the civil rights movement ?

Some would regard her as more representative of women than Hillary Clinton who just rode on her husband's coattails.

History will forget that she wanted "creationism" taught in the schools but she will be known as the first woman Vice-President of the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman
History will forget that she wanted "creationism" taught in the schools but she will be known as the first woman Vice-President of the United States.

If "history" were American's main concern, not how their country is being run in their lifetime, perhaps your 'point' would mean something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This past Sunday, I watched the movie `Thirteen` which is about the thirteen days JFK had to deal with the missiles in Cuba. I kept thinking could this VP if elected could deal with a problem like this because it would be even more pressure and stress than back in the 60s. The military kept pushing JFK to attack and thank God he was smart even to talk before acting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "history" were American's main concern, not how their country is being run in their lifetime, perhaps your 'point' would mean something.

No matter how Americans vote they will be making history. Either the first black Prez or first woman Vice-Prez. Whoever makes it might be a flop but will still be a "first". And that of course will happen even as they vote in the here-and-now and not worry about about what future historians might write.

Edited by maldon_road
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears some true conservatives have finally started coming to their senses about McCain's decision:

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0830hm.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postparti...id=opinionsbox1

A Republican consultant on National Public Radio pushed the fact that Palin had declared her Down’s syndrome son “perfection.” Other pundits noted that “she loves her family.” Many people—including Democrats—feel the same about their own families. Palin’s motherly dedication is admirable—though with a 4-month-old infant, and a disabled one at that, to care for, this may not be the best time to audition for the second-toughest job in the world.

Only those with a perfectly healthy family may apply?

Edited by maldon_road
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you agree with my view that putting Rice or Ridge on the ticket would have guaranteed defeat?

Because McCain first and foremost had to choose somebody who can help him win, or at very least not doom the campaign before it even starts.

And Palin has her work as ethics commissioner and chairing the oil and gas committee. Most of this argument boils down to Bobby Jindal having a higher profile than Sarah Palin, and to some degree I suspect that is a result of the "see, there's colored folks in the Republican Party too!" thing that has become an unfortunate necessity due to their opponents' tactics.

Interesting aside, Palin didn't just defeat one governor, she defeated two. She defeated former 2-term governor Tony Knowles in the election, but before she did that, she first defeated the incumbent Republican governor, Frank Murkowski, in the Republican primaries.

Think about that for a moment. How many incumbents, at any level, have been prevented from seeking a new term in office because somebody in their own party defeated them to take the party's nomination? People who have already made up their minds that she is a lightweight might want to reflect on that accomplishment.

Translated: Jindal has a modest amount of celebrity, and Palin doesn't.

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Ralph Klein; if you're not aware of him, he was a former Alberta premier, and a guy with some interesting parallels to Palin.

Like Palin, Klein is from a broadcasting background. She is probably as at home in front of a microphone as Ralph.

Like Palin, Klein had a reputation as a social conservative (though unlike Palin, with Klein the key word is reputation.)

Both seem to have a folksy quality. Klein was known for parking his butt in pubs and downing a few (or more than a few) while shooting the breeze with whoever was handy. Everything about him from his rumpled, portly appearance to his manner of speaking created the sense that this was just a regular guy. Palin seems to carry off the same type of thing, calling herself a hockey mom, talking about hunting and moose-burgers. She has a bunch of kids, she has a husband with a real job.

Like Palin, Klein rose to power in his own party by defeating party insiders who were better connected and better backed by the party brass.

Like Palin, Klein enjoyed absurdly high levels of popularity among his constituents.

Klein's opponents and critics tried to attack his educational background or his general level of intelligence. In Ralph's case, that never worked. In Palin's case, we shall see.

As much as it infuriated Klein's opponents and critics, Ralph Klein was an extremely formidable politician. In Palin's case, we shall see.

-k

No, I don't concede that picking Rice, Ridge or Romney would have doomed the GOP to failure. I don't concede that picking Palin will doom them to failure, either. McCain's one weakness was among evangelicals and I will admit none of the three I named would have been particularly loved by evangelicals, HOWEVER, the arguments in their favor were not insurmountable. Polling before and during the primary showed that southern evangelicals had an unusually high regard for Rudy Giuliani, a man who dumped his wife on TV, is a Catholic, had an extra-marital affair, is estranged from his kids, and who has dubious positions on abortion and gay marriage. Why the love for Rudy? Because he was perceived as being strong on national defense and because he took the threat of terrorism seriously. The GOP could have made a serious play for evangelicals along the lines of national defense and being a steady hand in a troubled world. Evangelicals, when faced with Obama-Biden v. McCain-Ridge... do you think they'd have stayed home on election day? Particularly if some skirmish arises in the world, say tensions between Iran and Israel, between now and November?? With Palin on the ticket, McCain has seriously eroded his "steady hand" argument should an international crisis arise. Sure, everyone will look to see what the top of the ticket says about global events, but the follow up question will continue to gnaw away -- what if this happened while Sarah Palin was in the Oval Office?

About Jindal v Palin, I would argue Jindal was overlooked primarily because he lacked an XX chromosomal makeup. McCain wants to give voters who want the visual of change a way of getting something fresh without having to vote for Obama. Palin gives some on the margins their own way of making history without voting Dem. The second reason Jindal's was by-passed was his race. I'm not saying McCain is racist, what I'm saying is that McCain opted for a kind of diversity (gender diversity) than that offered by the Dem ticket (racial diversity). Now, as for celebrity... I wouldn't say it's fame or celebrity, what it comes down to between Palin and Jindal is that Jindal is more of a known quantity. The GOP prides itself on rewarding and elevating quality, of being a meritocracy. Jindal has been in the news for years as someone on the rise. People know more about him. He's familiar. He'd have been as a good a pick for electoral reasons and would have been a far superior pick for governing reasons. Palin comes in from left field, giving the appearance that this is a move of desperation and not a serious continuation of the GOP's claims of merit. Just about everyone I know who is a McCain supporter is dumbfounded by her elevation from obscurity.

I acknowledge her electoral successes and I've said people underestimate her at her peril. I think she will surpass peoples' expectations (but then, the bar is set so low for her that you could trip over it). What I object to is that McCain has plucked from obscurity and is trusting with all our futures someone who has not even shown the slightest bit of interest in national or international issues. THE issue of the McCain campaign, up until Friday was national security. By picking Palin, McCain is conceding that was a lie. What mattered to McCain in his VP selection was not national security or putting the US in trusted and seasoned hands, it was shoring up his religious base. It was about exciting evangelicals. And the fact that evangelicals and many within the GOP are having a Palin love-fest (seriously, has anyone questioned her credentials or McCain's wisdom???) shows that religious orthodoxy trumps national security as the more important issue for national GOP candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
No matter how Americans vote they will be making history. Either the first black Prez or first woman Vice-Prez. Whoever makes it might be a flop but will still be a "first". And that of course will happen even as they vote in the here-and-now and not worry about about what future historians might write.

You were commenting on the question as to whether or not Palin will be seen as someone promoting women's rights, and as someone who doesn't believe in birth control and doesn't believe in a woman's right to choose whether or not to take a pregnancy to term, one can hardly see her as 'promoting women's rights.' So putting aside the 'here and now,' none of us know how "history" will remember her, so that was merely your projection; your opinion. If the first woman VP doesn't promote women's rights, but does the exact opposite, I rather doubt if history will "forget" that. History very well may not see her as "a figure for womens rights," which is the comment you were responding to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were commenting on the question as to whether or not Palin will be seen as someone promoting women's rights, and as someone who doesn't believe in birth control and doesn't believe in a woman's right to choose whether or not to take a pregnancy to term, one can hardly see her as 'promoting women's rights.' So putting aside the 'here and now,' none of us know how "history" will remember her, so that was merely your projection; your opinion. If the first woman VP doesn't promote women's rights, but does the exact opposite, I rather doubt if history will "forget" that. History very well may not see her as "a figure for womens rights," which is the comment you were responding to.

What I said was:

Sarah Palin immediately becomes a major figure in the struggle for women's rights.

Not that she promotes it; but her election as the first female to the office will be seen as a "landmark". Whether she actually "promotes" women's rights will be seen after November 4th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
I acknowledge her electoral successes and I've said people underestimate her at her peril. I think she will surpass peoples' expectations (but then, the bar is set so low for her that you could trip over it).

I've got to agree with you there. Supassing people's expectations won't mean she's ready for the job.

What I object to is that McCain has plucked from obscurity and is trusting with all our futures someone who has not even shown the slightest bit of interest in national or international issues.

I agree; her admission that she's been 'too wrapped up in state politics' to even be knowledgeable about Iraq should scare people.

THE issue of the McCain campaign, up until Friday was national security. By picking Palin, McCain is conceding that was a lie. What mattered to McCain in his VP selection was not national security or putting the US in trusted and seasoned hands, it was shoring up his religious base
.

And boy, did he do that. All the anti-choice 'one issue' voters are ecstatic.

It was about exciting evangelicals. And the fact that evangelicals and many within the GOP are having a Palin love-fest (seriously, has anyone questioned her credentials or McCain's wisdom???) shows that religious orthodoxy trumps national security as the more important issue for national GOP candidates.

Not all members of the GOP feel that way. Some have expressed the same concerns we have. It shows that religious orthodoxy trumps national security as the more important issue for McCain/Palin-- and for those who are jumping on their band wagon.

I hope this finally wakes some Americans up and gets them out to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
What I said was: "Sarah Palin immediately becomes a major figure in the struggle for women's rights."

Not that she promotes it; but her election as the first female to the office will be seen as a "landmark". Whether she actually "promotes" women's rights will be seen after November 4th.

A "landmark" and "a major figure in the struggle for women's rights" are two very different things. But more to the point, you said that history won't remember her platform, only that she was the first female VP. I disagree. Since she very well may not be seen as promoting women's rights, she may very well not go down in history as "a major figure in the stuggle for women's rights." She may merely go down in history as a "landmark." Furthermore, I doubt whether we have to wait until after Nov. 4th to see if she actually promotes women's rights since winning the election will hardly result in her doing a complete turnabout of her views.

(Just out of curiosity, are you ever able to post without the annoying "barf" emoticon?)

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"human life begins at conception" So you would also confer full human rights to a fertilized egg?

The growth of the fertilized egg into a full human being begins right from the moment it is fertilized, and the DNA blueprint is clearly human DNA. Division of cells, an integral component of the life cycle, begins right at that moment. You are of course welcome to argue that this is not where life begins.

It is life, and it is most certainly not a giraffe life. It is human life, and therefore it posess personhood.

Better shut down all of the fertility clinics then, because they have to produce a surplus of viable fertilized eggs before selecting the healthiest for implanting.
Yes
And shut down embryonic stem cell research.
Yes
And since 50 to 80 % of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted through miscarriage, you, Governor Palin, the Catholic Church and the rest of the dogmatic "life begins at conception" crowd should be calling for a Marshall Plan to pump billiions into monitoring and providing improved prenatal care to save the millions of tiny souls who are lost every year in the miscarriage holocaust!

Talk about being ludicrous. Miscarriages are no more an holocaust than car accidents. That being said, I don't see what's your problem with improved pre-natal care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
I didn't realize it annoyed people. I can just as easily not use it.

Thank you. It made me wonder if you considered every opinion that doesn't agree with yours to be "sickening," if everyone who refutes what you say makes you want to barf, because that's the impression I was getting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. It made me wonder if you considered every opinion that doesn't agree with yours to be "sickening," if everyone who refutes what you say makes you want to barf, because that's the impression I was getting.

No. I apologize if it was read that way. It was definitely not intended to be a commentary on other poster's efforts. It was to add a little color to the gray format of this forum.

It's now a grand total of four days since Gov Palin was selected at Sen McCain's running mate and I'm not sure I have much of a picture of her yet. Sure I read that she is anti-birth control, wants to have creationism taught in the schools (surely not a federal matter) but that she was agreeable to benefits for gay couples employed by the state of Alaska.

I'd like to hear her talk - perhaps answering the questions bound to come up about her social views. And I want to hear her on the economy and on foreign issues - like Russia's warmongering. And of course the debate with Biden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One bit of weirdness associated with Palin concerns the birth of her youngest child. As the Alaskan media reported, Palin was attending an energy conference in Texas on April 18 when her water broke four weeks before her due date. After this happened, Palin didn't head to a hospital or even leave the conference, even though the premature rupture of fetal membranes is normally a cause for an immediate examination by an obstetrician, who will observe the fetus on a monitor to guard against infection and other life-threatening complications. Two other reasons for heightened concern were Palin's age, 43, and the fact that prenatal testing indicated the child had Down syndrome.

Palin stayed at the conference and delivered a 30-minute speech, then boarded a 12-hour Alaska Airlines flight from Dallas to Anchorage, neglecting to tell the airline her water had broken -- most airlines won't fly a woman in labor. The motivation for all of this appears to be the Palins' desire that the child be born in Alaska. Her husband Todd told the Anchorage Daily News, "You can't have a fish picker from Texas."

She chose to become pregnant and to carry her pregnancy to term, she became responsible for that child. She recklessly endangered herself and her child by not taking apropriate precautions the moment her water broke. It is one thing to say "I would sacrifice my life to bring a new life to the world", it is another thing to risk killing both oneself and the child so that "he'll be born in Alaska."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Canadian, I suppose you have the luxury of taking a wait and see attitude.

Correct. I do not approach Palin's choice for veep in a partisan way, same as I am neutral about Obama's nomination for POTUS. I have even stated that whoever the Americans select for the White House is fine with me as I have a lot of confidence in the American election process and American voters to make the right choice for their country.

Wow. So Palin's mother-in-law saying she doesn't agree with all of Palin's views and that she's not sure what she brings to the ticket isn't 'speaking the truth,' it's being "unsupportive of her daughter-in-law" because her 'success' has 'gotten her goat' and she's bitter because she "took her boy away." Good grief. You got all that from her mother-in-law speaking her mind? She's talking about a possible leader of our country, and you think her first priority should be to support Palin no matter what?

You have it right until you get to "because her 'success' has 'gotten her goat' and she's bitter because she "took her boy away". I made the observation tongue in cheek because it is very unusual for a person so close to someone vying for high office to be so negative in public regardless of personal feelings. That's why I added the emoticon after my comment.

Oh, and I'm sure Sarah Palin's husband was charmed by his mother mouthing off that way to the press.

Honestly, if you were the mother in law in question, would you have voiced that opinion to the press?

I guess this attitude is what partisan politics often leads to. Thankfully there are still people who think outside the box.

:huh: Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, misled is just a polite way to say "lied" isn't it?

Apparently, the inexperienced Palin has already been caught in her first public lie. She said she had turned down money for that famous bridge project in Alaska, a project notorious for wasteful pork barrel spending. In fact, she supported the bridge project.

Palin misled republicans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you're wrong. Our gun laws aren't in place to be used against the government.

And amending laws isn't "tyranny."

First of all, the "U.S.," "our government," and "Bush" all different things; and in spite of what Bush has done, I most definitely wouldn't condone "terrorist acts" against him.

But here's the statement I was responding to: "They [sic] day some government agent comes to collect my guns is the day i become a terrorist to the US."

"... a terrorist to the U.S." Now if you think he has the right to become a terrorist to my country because laws were passed restricting gun ownership, you're quite over-the-top insane.

No your insane to completely trust the government to make the best choices for you. Governments that govern the least govern the best. How many innocent people have been convicted by cops who plant evidence just to get a conviction? How many corrupt politicians are there? Yes I believe the US government is the best that humanity has ever come with in regards to civil rights. But if a bunch of peasants rebelled against the British government in 1776 over taxation without representation, how could I not over the violation of the constitution of the United States. and I apologize for the thread jack.

GO PALIN!

Edited by moderateamericain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
No your insane to completely trust the government to make the best choices for you. Governments that govern the least govern the best. How many innocent people have been convicted by cops who plant evidence just to get a conviction? How many corrupt politicians are there? Yes I believe the US government is the best that humanity has ever come with in regards to civil rights. But if a bunch of peasants rebelled against the British government in 1776 over taxation without representation, how could I not over the violation of the constitution of the United States. and I apologize for the thread jack.

GO PALIN!

Where did I say I completely trust the government to make the best choices for me? Of course I don't, and it hasn't. Oddly enough, I haven't become "a terrorist to the US" because of it.

Here's a newsflash; what you consider the best choices for you may not be what others consider the best choices for them. So if you think you are justified in "becoming a terrorist to the US" if the second amendment is democratically overturned, you are a true "gun nut" and your attitude is, as I said, despicable. Anyone who says they'll become a terrorist to their country because they don't like the democratically passed laws has the same mindset as abortion clinic bombers who don't like the abortion laws-- the same mindset as those who have murdered doctors who have performed abortions.

One final lesson for you. Overturning an amendment to the Constitution, lawfully changing the Constitution through our democratically elected government, is not a "violation of the Constitution." It's a right given by the Constitution; and It becomes an amendment to the Constitution. Therefore it is the Constitution, whether you like it or not. If enough people don't like it, they'll vote the government out and vote in a government that will bring things back the way they were. They do not become "terrorists to the US." Try it and see how far it'll get you, because I can guarantee you that you would be joining Timothy McVeigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
No. I apologize if it was read that way. It was definitely not intended to be a commentary on other poster's efforts. It was to add a little color to the gray format of this forum.

It's now a grand total of four days since Gov Palin was selected at Sen McCain's running mate and I'm not sure I have much of a picture of her yet. Sure I read that she is anti-birth control, wants to have creationism taught in the schools (surely not a federal matter) but that she was agreeable to benefits for gay couples employed by the state of Alaska.

I'd like to hear her talk - perhaps answering the questions bound to come up about her social views. And I want to hear her on the economy and on foreign issues - like Russia's warmongering. And of course the debate with Biden.

Thank you for your considerate explanation. It completely clears up my misconception, and I appreciate it. :)

I've read enough of Palin to know she's not up to stepping into the position of POTUS. William Harrison died within a month of assuming the office of POTUS, so it could happen. So far she hasn't expressed any views regarding foreign issues. That's been made quite clear already, so I won't repeat it. It scares me that she's going to develop these views in the two months prior to the election. I would hope she would have given it more thought, but by her own admission, she's been too busy with state issues.

Being anti-birth control brings us back a century or two, and being anti-choice pushes women's rights back, and creationism being taught in the schools isn't a federal matter as you said, and should not be made into one, and saying marriage should remain between a man and a woman does nothing to progress human rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
She chose to become pregnant and to carry her pregnancy to term, she became responsible for that child. She recklessly endangered herself and her child by not taking apropriate precautions the moment her water broke. It is one thing to say "I would sacrifice my life to bring a new life to the world", it is another thing to risk killing both oneself and the child so that "he'll be born in Alaska."

I agree. I think her's, and her doctor's, decision showed reckless disregard for the baby; a baby that was already known to be a "high risk" pregnancy. As it turned out, things were fine; but it could have just as easily turned out differently. If this is an indication of her 'decision making,' I have to say it doesn't speak well for her.

She also showed reckless disregard for herself, as did her doctor, but at least that was her choice. The baby, who could have suffered from her decision, had no say in the matter. As you said, once she decided to become pregnant and carry her pregnancy to term, she became responsible for the baby and her decision was not a responsible one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
...I'm sure Sarah Palin's husband was charmed by his mother mouthing off that way to the press.

Honestly, if you were the mother in law in question, would you have voiced that opinion to the press?

What difference does it make if her husband was "charmed" or not? It's not about them, it's about the country. If Palin and/or her husband can't take her mother-in-law/his mother speaking her mind, if she has to withhold her honest opinion so as not to offend her/him, then Palin isn't up for the job.

If I were the mother-in-law and the press asked me a direct question, I wouldn't hedge it. This isn't "personal" as I've already said, it involves the well-being of our nation. Furthermore, I don't consider her stating her opinion to be "mouthing off," I consider it to be honestly answering a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I say I completely trust the government to make the best choices for me? Of course I don't, and it hasn't. Oddly enough, I haven't become "a terrorist to the US" because of it.

Here's a newsflash; what you consider the best choices for you may not be what others consider the best choices for them. So if you think you are justified in "becoming a terrorist to the US" if the second amendment is democratically overturned, you are a true "gun nut" and your attitude is, as I said, despicable. Anyone who says they'll become a terrorist to their country because they don't like the democratically passed laws has the same mindset as abortion clinic bombers who don't like the abortion laws-- the same mindset as those who have murdered doctors who have performed abortions.

One final lesson for you. Overturning an amendment to the Constitution, lawfully changing the Constitution through our democratically elected government, is not a "violation of the Constitution." It's a right given by the Constitution; and It becomes an amendment to the Constitution. Therefore it is the Constitution, whether you like it or not. If enough people don't like it, they'll vote the government out and vote in a government that will bring things back the way they were. They do not become "terrorists to the US." Try it and see how far it'll get you, because I can guarantee you that you would be joining Timothy McVeigh.

If we Vote out guns we wont be a democracy for long. Next will go your freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to assemble. If you think the only people having guns is the government is a good thing you are clueless. Besides I served this country for eight years, do you think I need you to tell me about democracy? I lived and breathed it. Sweated for it. And if you think I would let people like you take away the freedoms that my friends have shed there blood for you are dead wrong. Timothy McVeigh was a coward who killed women and children because he did not have the ability to really effect change. No maam, take away guns, democracy in the USofA is dead, and everything every soldier fought for for the last hundred years dies with it. For that, I willingly would fight against the government so that every sacrifice that we who have SERVED does not go to waste. http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

Edited by moderateamericain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...