Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Field Researcher
Original Poster
#1 Old 29th Aug 2008 at 7:58 PM
Default Palin for McCain's VP?
Firstly I do have to commend Palin for also taking part in breaking a glass ceiling for women, this is a historic campaign on all sides and I thank her.

But after reading and watching MSNBC this morning:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25970882/?GT1=43001

I'm a bit...mad. Not as a democrat, or any partisan, but just as an american you know? I've watched McCain attack Obama (as he should be, it is an election)on experience, his age, his lack or foriegn policy experience, etc. and in retaliation Obama choose Biden because he realised that those were weaknesses, and knew it would enhance his image. From a political standpoint, it was an extremly smart choice.

But as McCain attempts to do the same, I can't understand how this can be considered a smart choice. The only difference between the two candidates is that Biden helped Obama, Palin doesn't do the same for McCain. What was he trying to prove? He knew people were attacking his old politics, his 'temperment' his political record for being wrong all the time and following Bush in everything, so he probably wanted someone who filled those gaps...but Palin doesn't. Her policies are still influnced by by the big oil companies (isn't her husband part of one? not sure), she is under investigation (that may not be an indictment, but still not good for an election), she is stanch Pro-Life which pardon me for saying is seen as being very anti-women (you can be pro-life and be pro-choice, but ONLY Pro-life come on?!), and yes it is great she is a fresh face in Washington, and probably will go against the grain, but do we want to go on a probably?

We all know McCain is famous for playing the "whatever" card, I mean how many times can you bring up the POW Card, but do you believe he's doing the same here?

I'll tell you what I think, McCain saw that his own strategy on attacking Obama wasn't working....so he decided to go against his very own attacks...yeah I know it sounds confusing to me too...I believe he is making the wrong choice because he's worried. There are plenty of more qualified Republican women in Washington, why her?I think he's choosing her as a woman for the wrong reasons.
Advertisement
Mad Poster
#2 Old 29th Aug 2008 at 8:06 PM
I've got to admit that it's a shrewd decision- all of the disgruntled womens' rights Democrats who were planning on Hilary being the nominee might now be persuaded to vote for McCain because he has a female behind him. He's also old and somewhat likely to die in office, so the presidency would then be handed down to a woman. However, I see Palin as more of a desperate grab for votes on McCain's part rather than a well-planned, logical decision like Biden is for Obama. If McCain does win the election (regardless of the VP), how much help is Palin going to be in office? It seems to me that she's merely a figurehead for more votes and an attempt to balance out his old age. I've been behind Obama from the start as a staunch Democrat, but this news makes me like McCain even less.

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
Instructor
#3 Old 29th Aug 2008 at 8:07 PM
Her husband works on the noth slope. He does not have any influence if he's only working on the field.
Mad Poster
#4 Old 29th Aug 2008 at 8:19 PM
I can't help but wonder what kind of presidency it would be if McCain were to die and Palin took office. I don't know much about her, but from first impressions, she doesn't seem like presidential material. If I had my pick of women, I'd almost rather have Hilary in office... and that's saying a lot .

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
Lab Assistant
#5 Old 29th Aug 2008 at 8:23 PM
Quote: Originally posted by staciew1
I'm a bit...mad. Not as a democrat, or any partisan, but just as an american you know? I've watched McCain attack Obama (as he should be, it is an election)on experience, his age, his lack or foriegn policy experience, etc. and in retaliation Obama choose Biden because he realised that those were weaknesses, and knew it would enhance his image. From a political standpoint, it was an extremly smart choice.

But as McCain attempts to do the same, I can't understand how this can be considered a smart choice. The only difference between the two candidates is that Biden helped Obama, Palin doesn't do the same for McCain. What was he trying to prove?

EXACTLY!!! To me it's a gimmick, a "Look at me! I can make history too." type deal. Palin doesn't do much for him but maybe get him some of the women vote. She certianlly doesn't fill any gaps for him besides being young and ultra conservative.
This whole thing make me so angry. No one even knows anything about her!
When I watched to news this morning before she was actually picked they could barely put a bio together about her let alone get the pronunciation of her last name right.
What I have read of her: being a far right Republican, pro-life, and having ties to the oil industry worries me. There is no way I want her near the white house!

Quote: Originally posted by Rabid
I can't help but wonder what kind of presidency it would be if McCain were to die and Palin took office. I don't know much about her, but from first impressions, she doesn't seem like presidential material. If I had my pick of women, I'd almost rather have Hilary in office... and that's saying a lot .


LOL I'm sure there is a better pick of women than Palin or Hillary. What a shame one of them couldn't be picked.
Field Researcher
#6 Old 29th Aug 2008 at 8:25 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Rabid
He's also old and somewhat likely to die in office.


LMAO!! Too funny.
Mad Poster
#7 Old 29th Aug 2008 at 8:29 PM
Well, it's the truth . I don't care if he was a POW or not, he's still the same unhealthy American that the rest of us are. I think that he should take his age and the possibility of dying into account and CAREFULLY select a good VP rather than try to make history with a ploy for votes just to usher him in office.

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
Top Secret Researcher
#8 Old 29th Aug 2008 at 8:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nova
EXACTLY!!! To me it's a gimmick, a "Look at me! I can make history too." type deal. Palin doesn't do much for him but maybe get him some of the women vote. She certianlly doesn't fill any gaps for him besides being young and ultra conservative.
I agree totally. It makes sense that McCain would want to be seen as a feminist, too, just like the Democrats, but the whole thing seems desperate and a bad choice.

Theorist
#9 Old 29th Aug 2008 at 8:49 PM
Give me a break with the gimmick talk. Obama's entire campaign is a gimmick. I have never seen a Presidential candidate use so many words to tell us absolutely nothing than I have with Barack Obama. How is it gimmicky for McCain to select a VP candidate that fills in the gaps with his perceived weaknesses, but not gimmicky for Obama to do the same? Yeesh. Obama selected Biden because of his weaknesses, so why is it so terrible that McCain do the same?

John McCain actually made a very shrewd pick, that accomplishes quite a lot.


Gives him appeal to women voters, a perceived weakness. (Palin is a woman, obviously)
Gives him appeal to conservative base, also a perceived weakness. (Palin is very conservative)
Gives him appeal to younger generation, also a perceived weakness. (Palin is 3 years younger than Obama)
Gives disgruntled Hillary supporters a woman to vote for, rather than Obama who they feel betrayed by.
Gives him much more credibility with the pro-life crowd. Palin's 5th child was born with down syndrome, something they knew prior, and chose to keep anyway. Palin shows that the pro-life camp is not just about keeping healthy babies, but that it values the lives of the handicapped as well. Palin doesn't just believe in being pro-life for healthy babies, she showed she walks the walk when it comes to handicapped children as well. That will generate nothing but goodwill from the pro-life conservative base.

McCain has been criticized by the Obama camp for being too old and out of touch (ignoring the fact that they criticize one old white man for being an old white man, while their candidate nominates another old white man for VP) and for being too part of the Washington scene...(again, ignoring the fact that Biden has been there even longer than McCain)

McCain reaffirms that he is indeed the maverick from 2000, by selecting someone completely off the radar. His comments about maybe selecting a pro-choice candidate? I suspect it was a swerve, and the media bought right into it, immediately thinking Joe Lieberman...McCain showed he can surprise us, a message that has been all too quiet the last year or two.

What Sarah Palin gives to John McCain is silence. As in, there will be more of it from the conservative base that has been critical of McCain, and whom McCain needs to get behind him to be elected. Just like Obama chose someone to partially silence his critics, that suggest he has very little experience doing anything. Which is the greater faux pas? Having a President with almost no experience and a VP with lots, or having a President with lots of experience, and a VP with less? If I had to choose between experienced candidate with less experienced running mate and a less experienced candidate with a more experienced candidate, I am picking the more experienced candidate.

Fact is, Obama's Vice Presidential nominee is far more experienced than he is, and would make a far more competent President. That is sad. Joe Biden is infinitely more qualified to lead the country than Obama is. Like Obama, Sarah Palin has only been in politics since the 90s, but unlike Obama, Palin has both legislative and executive experience, and is only running for the Vice Presidency.

Criticizing McCain for selecting a woman as VP rings of sexism, just like criticizing him for be old is ageism. You call it a gimmick, when she is in fact, a smart choice. At least I am not going to pretend that there aren't people who are going to vote for McCain/Palin simply because Palin is a woman...of course there are. Just like I am not going to pretend that there aren't going to be people voting for Obama/Biden simply because Obama is black.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Instructor
#10 Old 29th Aug 2008 at 9:50 PM
Personally, I would rather see Palin as president rather than Hilary. I'm not saying I would rather have her as president over Obama. I'm for Obama and don't fully trust McCain. My vote would still go to Obama even though I love Palin.
Lab Assistant
#11 Old 29th Aug 2008 at 10:06 PM
Without going back and completely reading everyone's posts...just off my gut feeling McCain and his camp are playing off Obama not choosing Hillary.....he choose a woman to basically stick it to Obama and get those independent democrat women voters.....thing is she is a "rabid" ultra conservative republican...it will be interesting.....you could see it all over his face...I could only watch their little speech for about 20 seconds.......this is just my opinion whether or not it be educated or not.....last night after my hubby and I watched Obama give a very educated, intelligent speech I said...I betcha McCain chooses a woman.......
#12 Old 29th Aug 2008 at 10:15 PM
I was surprised he chose her. She's relatively unknown has some controversy surrounding her office in Alaska. I think he chose her mainly for two reasons, to get the woman's vote and the sympathy vote. Obviously she is a woman and a lot of women would feel comfortable supporting her I'm sure. And second, she does have a child with downs, and I'm sure that will also appeal to some peoples sensitivities.
Lab Assistant
#13 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 12:15 AM
Quote: Originally posted by migamoo
I was surprised he chose her. She's relatively unknown has some controversy surrounding her office in Alaska. I think he chose her mainly for two reasons, to get the woman's vote and the sympathy vote. Obviously she is a woman and a lot of women would feel comfortable supporting her I'm sure. And second, she does have a child with downs, and I'm sure that will also appeal to some peoples sensitivities.


I agree Migamoo.....His campaign has basically said the same thing.....I do feel alot of republicans will feel this is a poor choice, not a strong choice especially for a man who is 72 years old.....is she right to run the country if he is a heartbeat away...........you get my point.
Field Researcher
#14 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 12:25 AM
Quote: Originally posted by jenny
I do feel alot of republicans will feel this is a poor choice, not a strong choice


... Actually I'm betting a lot of die hard republicans are comforted by this choice seeing as Palin is so conservative and McCain is more liberal minded.
The One and Only
#15 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 12:40 AM
This decision has actually caused me to stop and seriously think about the Presidential election for once, to be honest.

Palin has done for a lot for Alaska during her short time in office - she got rid of the high fuel taxes, passed a law that provides a fuel rebate stimulus plan for Alaskans (to be distributed with the PFD), made major changes to the state's ethical rules, sold off assets purchased by the last governor with state owned funds, finally put into motion what will become the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, entirely reworked our state budget, and made groundbreaking changes to the state education policies and put more money towards our schools (something that Murkowski ignored). Alaska is better off now than it has been in twenty or thirty years and none of this would have happened had Sarah Palin not been elected, so she does have experience and she does know what needs to be done.

And let's be honest here, she's the Governor of Alaska. Here in Alaksa, there is no such thing as "not influenced by the big oil companies." Oil is what makes Alaska one of the wealthiest and arguably the most powerful state in the country. Everything we do and everything we enjoy would not have existed without them, so you can hate them all you want, but they provide a means of living for the vast majority of Alaska's population.

As for her "controversy", people should realize that the state trooper in question has a known history of domestic violence, job ethics violations, and mental instability. He should have lost his job long before Palin's administration took a stab at him, so I certainly will not fault her for it.
Field Researcher
#16 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 1:55 AM
With the exception of Jon and Davious's posts, alot of people seem to think its PC smack-down. Anyone voting for Obama gets the stigma of being anti-feminist and hating people with Downsyndrome. Anyone voting for McCain gets the stigma of hating black people. Having know several Blacks, Downsyndrome suffers, and Women in my life, I'm at a loss of who to vote for. To be fair, I'm probably going to go Obama only because he's not a politician from "within the beltway"... yet. Had this woman been given the Republican nomination instead of McCain (or should she be given it if McCain should die before elections) my vote might swing to her. But right now she isn't going to be president anytime soon so...

To be fair, her detractors have very little against her other than she's a poll grab, which admittedly both sides now have poll grabbers on their side. But its like my father said: the people smart enough to run this country are the ones who are smart enough not to want the job.
Field Researcher
#17 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 2:21 AM
This will be the first Presidential election in 20 years that I will not be voting in. I just can't decide on which side is the greater evil/good. My father insists I should vote just to keep the worst candidate/party out of office, but at this point I see benefits and downfalls to both parties. :shrug:
Theorist
#18 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 2:29 AM
Then vote Libertarian, or for someone else on the ballot. Selene1212, there is no rule that says you have to vote either Republican or Democrat. While it may seem that way at times, there are other choices out there. If you aren't comfortable voting either McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden, you don't have to vote for either ticket if you don't want to. I do recommend voting though. Even if your candidate loses, you exercised your right, and you can always say later "don't blame me, I voted for so and so!" If you don't vote at all, you don't get to bitch about the outcome. Even if you vote for a candidate that only gets 300 total votes, you still voted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Mad Poster
#19 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 2:37 AM
I always say that you should vote for something rather than vote just to keep someone out of office. It's not always practical, but that's just how I feel.

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
Lab Assistant
#20 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 3:05 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Rabid
I always say that you should vote for something rather than vote just to keep someone out of office. It's not always practical, but that's just how I feel.


I agree Rabid
I found this article....
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156258/?GT1=43002
since I know nothing about her like alot of others I found it interesting.....
The One and Only
#21 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 3:17 AM
I personally feel the the issue of the dismissal of a member of her staff is irrelevant.

Mike Wooten should have been fired long before any of this took place. At the heart of this is the fact that Wooten was an abusive husband and a man with serious mental instabilities, as well as an extreme lack of better judgment.

For instance, he used a state issued Taser on his 10 year-old "because the child requested it," has been under investigation by his own institution for heated arguments with his wife, and has shown on many occasions through his duty that his judgment is not fit for a state trooper.

The job of a person in the field of public safety is exactly what it sounds like - to ensure the public remains safe. Mike Wooten is a danger to the public and was a danger to his family. Walter Monegan - who was Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner, failed to do his job. As a result, he was let go.
#22 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 4:29 AM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
Give me a break with the gimmick talk. Obama's entire campaign is a gimmick. I have never seen a Presidential candidate use so many words to tell us absolutely nothing than I have with Barack Obama.


Although I'm voting for Obama, I have to agree. If I never hear the word "hope" in reference to Obama again, it'll be too soon.
Inventor
#23 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 5:54 AM
Quote: Originally posted by staciew1
Firstly I do have to commend Palin for also taking part in breaking a glass ceiling for women, this is a historic campaign on all sides and I thank her.

But after reading and watching MSNBC this morning:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25970882/?GT1=43001

I'm a bit...mad. Not as a democrat, or any partisan, but just as an american you know? I've watched McCain attack Obama (as he should be, it is an election)on experience, his age, his lack or foriegn policy experience, etc. and in retaliation Obama choose Biden because he realised that those were weaknesses, and knew it would enhance his image. From a political standpoint, it was an extremly smart choice.

But as McCain attempts to do the same, I can't understand how this can be considered a smart choice. The only difference between the two candidates is that Biden helped Obama, Palin doesn't do the same for McCain. What was he trying to prove? He knew people were attacking his old politics, his 'temperment' his political record for being wrong all the time and following Bush in everything, so he probably wanted someone who filled those gaps...but Palin doesn't. Her policies are still influnced by by the big oil companies (isn't her husband part of one? not sure), she is under investigation (that may not be an indictment, but still not good for an election), she is stanch Pro-Life which pardon me for saying is seen as being very anti-women (you can be pro-life and be pro-choice, but ONLY Pro-life come on?!), and yes it is great she is a fresh face in Washington, and probably will go against the grain, but do we want to go on a probably?

We all know McCain is famous for playing the "whatever" card, I mean how many times can you bring up the POW Card, but do you believe he's doing the same here?

I'll tell you what I think, McCain saw that his own strategy on attacking Obama wasn't working....so he decided to go against his very own attacks...yeah I know it sounds confusing to me too...I believe he is making the wrong choice because he's worried. There are plenty of more qualified Republican women in Washington, why her?I think he's choosing her as a woman for the wrong reasons.


http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/...ns-perspective/

I find when researching any and all things republicans, it is best to string some garlic around your neck. I would say more, but, I have met my negativity quota already for today! :mute:
Field Researcher
#24 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 12:26 PM
Was saddens me as an outsider is that it seems that a lot of women will be voting for McCain because he has a female VP, and will have moved over from Hilary to Palin just because she's female. Surely you should vote for whoever you feel will do the best in office and not because of their colour, gender, back story or any other factor.
Instructor
#25 Old 30th Aug 2008 at 1:08 PM
In my opinion, Palin is a VERY bad choice. Not only does she lack experience on an international stage, she lacks it in a domestic forum as well. She is also under an ethics investigation in Alaska. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26458400

I believe this choice was made by McCain so that his presidency could be "historic" as well, which is a scary thing considering if something should happen to him (were he in office) our country would be left in the hands of a completely ill prepared and inexperienced individual. Obama's lack of experience is what initially turned me off about him as well.

Lastly, as a woman I cannot and will not ever support a candidate who is Pro-Life. I dont believe anyone should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. I find it offensive that Palin, a woman only a few years older than myself, would be behind the repeal of Roe V Wade. I have to thank Sen McCain for making what was going to be a tough choice for me a thousand percent easier by choosing the running mate he did.
 
Page 1 of 16
Back to top