McCain picks woman for VP slot

[Argus]

I completely disagree. Comparing the inexperience of a possible VP, to the inexperience of a possible President, is a debate the McCain campaign is comfortable having.

If McCain wasn't 2 years away from statistical death, maybe.

[Liam]

There is absolutely no candidate on earth who the Obama enthusiasts would not have considered a poor choice.

Not true. Not at all. I work in a very red industry but in a very blue state and I can say that the majority response among coworkers and friends is disbelief and concern. This has been the talk of the weekend and I have yet to meet a single person who is happy about Palin. No one.

I know several very active Obama supporters -- one I spoke to last night just after she got back from the DNC in Denver. Most would have respected the selection of Tom Ridge or Condi Rice. Mitt Romney would have earned some jokes, but I think people would have understood the pick. Actually, Ridge scared the bejesus out of the Dems I know. Any of those guys (and woman) would make everyone think McCain picked someone who can be trusted in his or her own way. Palin, on the other hand, is viewed with shock. Not shock and awe, just complete shock, like this has to be a joke, right?

As I said, I work among very Republican types (admittedly, Wall Streeters and not social conservative) and the overwhelming response is "what was he thinking?" They understand his need to get evangelicals on board, but not one person I've spoken to about this thinks Palin is even remotely qualified to step in to the presidency should she need to. I'd say the overall reaction among the McCain supporters I know is total dismay.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=Shady: I completely disagree. Comparing the inexperience of a possible VP, to the inexperience of a possible President, is a debate the McCain campaign is comfortable having.

If McCain wasn't 2 years away from statistical death, maybe.

You're right. With Americans concerned over McCain's age, Palin's inexperience is going to be a concern.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. [said] "On his 72nd birthday, is this really the one-heartbeat-away he wants to put in the White House? What does this say about his judgment?"

Edited August 31, 2008 by American Woman

[Drea]

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

Yes, they are.

This is from YOUR constitution is it not?

Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia

Edited August 31, 2008 by Drea

[Shady]

As I said, I work among very Republican types (admittedly, Wall Streeters and not social conservative) and the overwhelming response is "what was he thinking?"

You sound like the same type of Liberals who "didn't know one person who voted for Reagan" during his 49 state landslide in '84. And your observations aren't reflected in the polls. The fact is, the Republican VP nominee has as much experience as the Democrat Presidential nominee, and attacking Sarah Palin can't cover it up, no matter how many times he voted "present" in the Illinois State Senate, or how many of the 120 days he worked in United States Senate before deciding to run for President.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, they are.

This is from YOUR constitution is it not?

Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia

No. That's not in our constitution. This is what the second amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's what's in our Constitution.

Edited August 31, 2008 by American Woman

[Stephen Best]

Here is a test. Go look at all the liberals who were critical of Biden as unfit.

I'm not aware of anyone--right, left, conservative, liberal--who suggested that Biden was unfit. Perhaps there was someone (maybe you could enlighten us), but it seems to me that there was a broad consensus that Obama picking Joe Biden as his running mate was an excellent choice. Consequently, who Obama's running mate is, is not an issue, never has been, never will be.

However, across the political spectrum, there are many people questioning McCain's choice, for good reason. Maybe, Palin will prove herself. But for now, McCain's choice--his first important decision as a potential President-- has made his competency and judgment an issue. That's not an issue a presidential nominee needs.

In my view, the only reason Palin got the nod is that helps shore up the Republican uber-conservative base. Without the base, McCain has no chance. There's also the "Hail Mary" notion that some of Hillary's supporters will support McCain because he nominated a "girl" (in matters of Sarah Palin the term "woman" doesn't resonate). So, in Palin we have proof that McCain puts his personal political success before the needs of his country. Isn't that what McCain once accused Obama of doing?

[Drea]

Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

So you are saying that this is wrong?

No wonder your country is so screwed up -- you have too many versions of your constitution...

At any rate -- keep your guns America! You are going to need them very soon. Mark.My.Words.

[Guest American Woman]

Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

So you are saying that this is wrong?

You want me to refute an opinion from Wikipedia? I'm saying that's not the purpose of the second amendment. There was distrust of a federal army, so the states wanted to be able to have their own militia to protect themselves against an attack if need be. It wasn't so individuals could take up arms against the government should they disagree with the laws.

The Second Amendment is the most misunderstood provision contained in the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the states' ability to maintain independent militias composed of state residents available to be called upon to defend the country should its security be threatened. The Founding Fathers' reliance on state militias to perform this military task stemmed from their deep distrust of a standing federal army. link

No wonder your country is so screwed up -- you have too many versions of your constitution...

Fyi, Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a "version" of our Constitution.

[Drea]

You want me to refute an opinion from Wikipedia? I'm saying that's not the purpose of the second amendment. There was distrust of a federal army, so the states wanted to be able to have their own militia to protect themselves against an attack if need be. It wasn't so individuals could take up arms against the government should they disagree with the laws.

So when the fascists take over, you will just go willingly? They love people like you.

The Second Amendment is the most misunderstood provision contained in the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the states' ability to maintain independent militias composed of state residents available to be called upon to defend the country should its security be threatened. The Founding Fathers' reliance on state militias to perform this military task stemmed from their deep distrust of a standing federal army. link

Fyi, Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a "version" of our Constitution.

then provide a link and stress (use bold, italic or underline) the important parts. And no, I am not going to wade through pages of "legaleeze" so you can prove yourself correct.

I, and many Americans believe that the 2nd Ammendment gives Americans the right to bear arms in the face of a fascist goverment take-over. The founders were well aware that an unarmed populace could easily be overtaken by corrupt government.

In Canada we don't have the right to bear arms. I wish we did, we are going to need our guns too! (I can't believe I am saying this but in today's volatile politcal climate... I wanna gun!)

Edited August 31, 2008 by Drea

[bush_cheney2004]

You sound like the same type of Liberals who "didn't know one person who voted for Reagan" during his 49 state landslide in '84. And your observations aren't reflected in the polls. The fact is, the Republican VP nominee has as much experience as the Democrat Presidential nominee, and attacking Sarah Palin can't cover it up, no matter how many times he voted "present" in the Illinois State Senate, or how many of the 120 days he worked in United States Senate before deciding to run for President.

You are correct Sir....that is the bottom line. As others have stated, any critic of Gov Palin's nomination must be even more critical of the Democrat's nominee as head of the ticket, not just VP. Choosing Palin was a well calculated strategy given the dynamics of this election cycle and the electorate. If this were chess, we might call it a queen's gambit (i.e attack her at great risk).

Edited August 31, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

So when the fascists take over, you will just go willingly? They love people like you.

Yes, because of course in our democratic elections, fascists are going to be voted into power.

Try to wrap your head around this: If someone were to take up arms against the government because they thought the government was made up of "fascists," if they were to become a "terrorist against the U.S." because they didn't like a law that was passed, they'd find out pretty quickly how little the second amendment would work towards their defense.

Edited August 31, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

....In Canada we don't have the right to bear arms. I wish we did, we are going to need our guns too! (I can't believe I am saying this but in today's volatile politcal climate... I wanna gun!)

Hell, Canada didn't even have a constitution of it's own until 1982. I think those rebel Founding Fathers did a fine job over 200 years earlier, and that includes provisions for the office of president and shiny guns!

Go Sarah!

[Drea]

so no link then?

My.Point.Proven.

Thanks for the "valuable input". pfft

Clue Bat says "fascist governments take away human rights".

Clue Bat asks "how many provisions have occurred over the past eight years which guarantee your rights?" "How many intrusions such as the "Patriot Act" does it take before you realize you have a corrupt government? Do they have to round you up in camps before you believe it could happen?"

The right to bear arms is the only teeth the American people have -- don't let them take it from you -- fight for your right to fight your government (maybe not today or next week, but its a comin' and you will need to arm yoursleves)

[bush_cheney2004]

....The right to bear arms is the only teeth the American people have -- don't let them take it from you -- fight for your right to fight your government (maybe not today or next week, but its a comin' and you will need to arm yoursleves)

....says a person without the right to any such thing. Amazing!

[Guest American Woman]

so no link then?

My.Point.Proven.

Thanks for the "valuable input". pfft

The underlined word that says "link" in my post is a link. Sorry if that was too confusing for you, but I really don't know how to make it any clearer.

[Drea]

....says a person without the right to any such thing. Amazing!

Holy Crap -- BC2004 and AW have found a common enemy -- ME!

See how easy it is to get Americans with opposing view points to agree? Just give them a common enemy!

Booga Booga! I'm gonna getcha! I am New-and-Improved-Common-Enemy-to-Pull-the-American-Populace-Together

The most easily manipulated people on earth -- Americans.

[bush_cheney2004]

Holy Crap -- BC2004 and AW have found a common enemy -- ME!

See how easy it is to get Americans with opposing view points to agree? Just give them a common enemy!

Booga Booga! I'm gonna getcha! I am New-and-Improved-Common-Enemy-to-Pull-the-American-Populace-Together

The most easily manipulated people on earth -- Americans.

Got guns?

[Drea]

The-Most-Easily-Manipulated-People-On-Earth -- Americans!

But we love you guys with your Individual-Rugged-Loner-Heroes and Hollywood and everything that's Good , like MacDonald's in the world.

The world is laughing at you, how's your Self Esteem ?

[bush_cheney2004]

The-Most-Easily-Manipulated-People-On-Earth -- Americans!

But we love you guys with your Individual-Rugged-Loner-Heroes and Hollywood and everything that's Good , like MacDonald's in the world.

The world is laughing at you, how's your Self Esteem ?

Yep...Americans...stars again even on a Canadian forum. Sit back and watch our show....we know what you have to watch otherwise (cue crickets).

[Drea]

Yep...Americans...stars again even on a Canadian forum. Sit back and watch our show....we know what you have to watch otherwise (cue crickets).

Honey, entertainment is frivilous. Like the Twinkies and Big Macs you live on it provides no substance but sure tastes good. Yummy!

[kimmy]

Maybe they liked both of their policies; after all, they're both Democrats. So in that instance, why not go with the one you identify with more?

Hence my comment that Obama will have to tread carefully with regard to women.

I can feel empathy for Palin and want women to have a bigger role in politics without wanting to see her elected. It makes no sense that I would actually vote for someone who would go against the things I want for myself and my family and my country just because she's a woman.

Nor would I. But if things got to the point where I didn't think it actually mattered which party was in power, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for the female candidate just because I think there is an intrinsic value in breaking the "glass ceiling". Obama just has to make sure never gives anyone reason to doubt whether he's really any different from his opponents.

I would hope he was talking to all of America.

I'm sure he was, in a general sense. But when both Obama and Biden make statements about how positive it is to have a woman nominated for vice president and breaking barriers, their message is really tailored to women who want to see women succeed in politics. They're saying "hey, we understand, we feel the same way."

Blogs don't mean anything to me. How would a blogger know what Obama has had to say to his staff? What was his/her source? That I would be interested in.

I will try and find it. However, I don't doubt for a moment that Obama understands extremely well what a fine line he has to walk. Note Obama's public statements regarding Palin, and the Democrats' first commercial regarding her, don't have actually discuss her specifically. "Great to have a woman in the race, she seems like an excellent person, but it's really all about McCain and let's get back to discussing him." The only official Democrats discussing her in negative terms are people who are geographically far away from Obama and discussing her entirely in terms of her political background. I'd bet money that you won't hear an official representative of the party say the words "beauty queen" or "beauty pageant" during the entire campaign. They'll leave that side of things up to bloggers and youtube and gossip websites and message board nerds.

I'm sick of the tone of attacks made against all candidates and have been for some time. I seriously hate election time. Her getting called "miss congeniality" is no different from Reagan being called a movie star. As for those links, they most definitely are disgusting. But what candidate hasn't had disgusting attacks directed at them? I avoid stuff like that and stick to the mainstream. I'm very selective about what kind of garbage I'll subject myself to.

No male politician has to deal with the sort of stuff that's being directed towards Palin.

I don't want to see Palin win just because she's a woman. In fact, I believe if she were a man and had the exact same qualifications and experience, McCain wouldn't have looked twice at 'him.'

That sort of argument, whether coming from the Democrats themselves, or from their supporters, would be an extremely bad idea. It'll just make people wonder how the "change!" message would sound if it was being delivered by a light-skinned fellow named Barry Dunham instead of a dark-skinned fellow named Barack Obama.

-k

[WIP]

How is it any business of yours what she does when she decides to have a family or not?

How absurd that you think you can control others birth control rights.

And how ironic.

Is that the best you can come up with? Who said anything about controlling birth control, you fool! And in typical conservative fashion, you don't deal directly with the issue of women over 40 having babies because they are opposed to abortion and birth control -- instead, your fascist ideology demands that no one ask the question! Well, other people outside of the conservative echo chamber that you live in are asking, so stay inside your fortress of FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, FreeRepublic, the Pajamas Media and the Townhall bloggers if you can't deal with it!

[WIP]

WIP never thinks of himself, only what is good for humanity and the collective good. Certain Eugenicists of the twenties and thirties thought we should engineer the gene pool as well. It's popularity seems to be making a comeback.

And here's the other conservative tactic from mindless conservative drones: just pile on with despicable potshots, smears, and character assassination rather than addressing any points or responding to questions.

[Liam]

You are correct Sir....that is the bottom line. As others have stated, any critic of Gov Palin's nomination must be even more critical of the Democrat's nominee as head of the ticket, not just VP. Choosing Palin was a well calculated strategy given the dynamics of this election cycle and the electorate. If this were chess, we might call it a queen's gambit (i.e attack her at great risk).

Not true. Obama put himself out there as a candidate to be judged and assessed by the public. By winning his party's nomination, he has passed the test and closed out the experience matter. I'm not saying the GOP wouldn't still raise it, but his grasp of issues and his being vetted and approved by his party makes it a very tough sell -- and now an impossible sell with Palin on the ticket. I just don't know why McCain would throw away his best argument against Obama.

News reports out in the past two days seem to indicate that Palin was barely vetted. People within the GOP establishment in Alaska have been quoted as saying that if there was any vetting going on, no one in Juneau, a small town as any, even heard of it. I say these things to question McCain's judgment, not Palin's qualities.

I have no problems with Palin as a person. I disagree with her on many issues, like the teaching of creationism in public schools and that birth control should not be used even by married couples. I disagree that abortion should be outlawed in all circumstances and hearing that she once asked the local librarian about censoring books in the public library concerns me. Her complete lack of knowledge about even domestic issues is a huge worry. I'm sure she's a bright and engaging person. But when picking a VP the issue for conservatives should be about the ability to be president. Conservatives always boast that they have higher standards than liberals, that they believe in merit. Palin's nomination shows how hollow that claim is. Palin is the benefactress of identity politics. That's all. Her selection has the potential to be "Heckuva Job Brownie" on steroids. She's not just running FEMA or building levees. She's being put in a position of being on call to step in if McCain dies. Is no conservative even slightly concerned?

I have yet to hear a single Republican state unequivocally that Palin was the best choice. They'll say things like it was a bold decision (bold can be bad), or historic (which it obviously is), but no one is praising this choice beyond its impact on November 4th. That scares the hell outta me. Not one person has said they believe she can command our troops in Iraq and be the de facto leader of the free world, the person who is going to take the 3 am call or decide to engage in covert ops in Pakistan. OK, she hunts and fishes and she's a soccer mom and is now governor of her state. What makes her qualified? Conservatives used to be reliable for their skepticism and caution and reason, but they seem to have completely lost credibility in an orgy of denialism.

What does her selection say about the man who chose her to be the replacement commander in chief? Palin could probably be a valid candidate for a lesser cabinet position (Interior or Education Secretary, maybe), but any conservative who says she would make a better commander in chief than Tom Ridge or Condi Rice is either lying or is trying to rationalize and justify McCain's reckless decision.