Masterdan wrote:
I think shes a retard. She used to be a beauty queen aparently, now shes a lapdog republican who simply votes the direction her party wants.

She's been a governor and a mayor; she has cast no votes in the direction her party wants. Granted, she supports certain political positions that align with some GOP voters.


Also she has a year of experience, a YEAR. Yeah okay obama has 7 and a harvard education and a lifelong list of achievements, this girl is a tart with no idea what shes doing and you think she can take the Presidential spot if john mccain dies? (and he probably will!).

Apply the litmus test fairly. If you want to downgrade Palin for relative inexperience, then surely you must upgrade McCain for relative experience.


Terrifying, at first i was like wow thats a good political move, then i realized how shallow and obviously pandering it is to the hillary supporters.


It's pandering, but it's not shallow. The "glass ceiling" rings very true for most women in the workplace.


Its so hypocritical to say obama isnt ready and then appoint as your VP a woman who has actually no experience whatsoever and nobody has even heard of.


Yeah, agreed. All of those "not ready" commercials really won't have any bite.


What does this girl bring to the table besides votes? she has no skills, she has no knowledge,


Careful, all of your inexperience points would be ones that could also be pointed at Obama.


she doesnt have any good ideas or bring any sort of young blood to the republicans.


We'll have to wait and see what pockets of the US vote McCain/Palin because of Palin. It's already clear that fundraising has spiked because of her selection; so if anything, she's brought new MONEY to the table.


Her voting policy so far and attitude has shown shes a bigger lapdog than Bush administration mccain (and thats saying something.)


100% untrue.

im glad to hear that theres more to this woman than what i was exposed to so far. However i still dont think shes anywhere near leader material for the free world.

I think being a good public speaker is a huge aspect to president. Having moderate views that are able to represent america as a whole and not just one party is also important. Obama achknowledges issues like abortion and gun control as divisive and says he still beleives you can keep ak47s out of the hands of criminals while still preserving rights to hunt in southern states. That type of middle ground compromising is what makes a good leader. Also, you gotta be a person with good accomplishments in life, you know a history of success and a good show of character. Obama and Mccain all have that, but how you run a race and how your willing to drop your values to win is telling of a person, Mccain was more high ground when hillary was bashing obama, and now that shes taken his side hes started slandering him in really obnoxious and silly ways. Experience is sort of important, but it doesnt make or break a nominee, i liked Clinton personally and he had the same critisims. You gotta be smart, you gotta speak for the entire population of the country (not carry a 33% approval rating like a certain president i know) and be able to have that charisma and moderate judgement to be figurehead.

Mccain isnt a very good speaker, and his platform is more of the same which kills me, change is an obvious necessary action at this point, the Bush administrations policies are failed and thats not really up for debate.

Obama is a good speaker and his platform makes sense to me.

Then you have the VPs, i dont know much about paulin but she bothers me, i think its the way she directly aims for hillary supporters in a really obvious way. Joe biden is simply a good man with a good record who covers the weaknesses of obama well and who could do the job no problem because he has nothing but experience as a democratic senator.

Thats just my opinion.

Deadron wrote:
Masterdan wrote:

Also, you gotta be a person with good accomplishments in life, you know a history of success and a good show of character.

Sounds great -- what success has Obama had again (aside from getting elected)? I'm very interested to learn more about the legislative achievements and if there's an example of a way he's positively impacted any institution he's ever belonged to.

You are walking a fine line here. When you talk about positive impact, it can be incredibly subjective. You can take a statist's POV or a constitutionalist's view or perhaps a humanitarian's view. Consider two major pieces of legislation : McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy. From a statist's view, these have a positive impact. From a constitutionalist's view, these have a negative impact.

I would not recommend assigning values to legislation when trying to convince someone to vote.

Also, what do you think of his association with the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers? Does that show good character?


Weak straw man. And you know it.

Since McCain disagrees with George Bush and/or the Republican party on:

- Supporting torture

True

- How the Iraq war was run pre-surge

Since you're using "How", 99.99% of all people disagree with "How" the Iraq was run. It's normal human discourse; you have to be nearly brain dead to agree 100% on "the how".

- Trade policy

Uncertain how McCain's trade policy differs from Bush's. I know McCain even travelled to Colombia in clear support of the CFTA. Come to think of it, I'm struggling to find more than 50%, let alone 10% in McCain's trade policy that differs than Bush's.

- Immigration

Differs from the hard right wing of the GOP, does not differ from Bush's

- Teaching creationism in schools

Cannot find reference to this claim. He has publicly stated that he believes in evolution, but I do not see where he wants to ban teaching creationism/intelligent design in schools.

The right has been hesitant to support McCain because of how frequently he breaks with their core issues. The "more of the same" bit is campaign rhetoric without much fact behind it.


Actually there are quite a number of facts behind it. I mentioned perhaps a year ago that the main travesty that Bush as done to the GOP as a whole is move the party to some of the hardest to defend territory. Foreign policy has been perverted, economic policy has been perverted; and there is nothing different about McCain's platform.

What you are suppposed to highlight is that Obama also has nearly the exact incorrect foreign and economic policy. Embrace the fact that McCain is indeed more of the same; just hammer home that Obama is too.


Which is fine...I hope you won't mind having your opinion challenged (and possibly broadened) with additional facts you may not have been aware of.


At some point in time, you probably should consider doing the same.

Hrm, I can't help but wonder if Palin's speech along with Giulliani's, was such a great thing. The base loved it, to be sure, but it also reinforces the image of Republicans as dividers only interested in blaming Democrats. It did not address economic issues, such as out of control federal spending, that both McCain and Palin seem to support but were anathema to classic fiscally conservative Republicans. Indeed, while some observers seem to think the speech showed strength, it seems that a large segment of uncommitted voters viewed it as patronizing and more typical political mudslinging. (Thompson and Giulianni were even worse- they weren't even remotely good speeches.) The Republicans seem to have fully embraced the negative this convention as contrasted with the talk of unity and change at the DNC. I suppose part of this is due to the Republican position as the incumbent party. And partly because they needed to get off the defensive (Palin was getting hammered pretty bad for her inexperience and seemingly contradictory family values/actual family issues). Hence the current strategy of blame the media and Dems.

But I wonder how effective it will be. Attacks don't tend to draw more votes, which is what McCain needs. It also plays right into the Obama camp's message that McCain only offers the same old politics. I guess we'll see!

I did think Huckabee did brilliantly and am once again wondering how McCain managed to squeeze him out (well, besides him and Romney splitting the conservative vote). Huckabee just seems to connect so much better on the issues and had built in conservative creds and executive experience.

Bootyboy wrote:
And if you're looking at a model of bipartisanship, you REALLY have to consider McCain. Both he and Joe Lieberman have been exceptional in their efforts of "reaching across the table".

Well, in all fairness both are political opportunists who have consistently pursued personal agendas at the expense of their party, earning much ire. Witness McCain 2000 and his subsequent transition to earn the current nomination. Ironically, I would have voted McCain 2000, but will not do so after the subsequent lack of character shown toadying to Bush (who attacked both McCain and Kerry's service record) and the RNC. Additionally, his mismanagement (especially with finance and personnel) of his primary and presidential campaign reinforce that despite his brave service and experience as a senator, he is not the best choice for the presidency.

Deadron wrote:
Also, what do you think of his association with the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers? Does that show good character? I think someone has been listening to Limbaugh a little too much! This is like asking to asking why McCain turned his back on POW rescues from Viet Nam. A very tenuous link through the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Even a Fox News report concluded Obama didn't seem to know him well (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/17/ fact-check-obamas-relationship-with-william-ayers/). Also interesting is that Ayers seems to have reformed from his radical youth and is now a respected professor active in social service. Should we now begin to question why McCain associates with felon G. Gordon Liddy.... I am surprised, and a bit disappointed, by such a question.

I agree that experience is a legitimate issue. But the Ayers thing is a non starter and Obama has condemned Ayers' (and Dornes) action! Even if he knew a guy that did bad things, it doesn't mean he supports those things. That is called guilt by association. The Rezko stuff is more pertinent. But even that doesn't go anywhere. Like I said, are we worked up that McCain is buddies with Liddy, a man who plotted murder? No, because it's a non issue. It's just a smear.

But if you want shady association, look a bit closer at McCain. His father in law is linked to some of Arizona's most notorious crimes and has funded his career with liquor money (to which McCain has responded by helping with legislation that would restrict alcohol advertising). How about Keating? And the Abramhoff investigation is another interesting one. How did key players investigated end up in McCain's camp with only a slap on the wrist? Same key players who worked with GWB to take down McCain in '08. Hmm.... Guess if the high road didn't work, time to try what did.

I certainly do not think the attacks on Palin related to her family have added anything useful. However, do you think it would have been any different if Chelsea had gotten prgenant? Or one of Obama's daughters? (Heck, McCain even joked about Chelsea being ugly when she was younger.) You would have had conservative pontificating on how the evil, immoral liberal Democrat lifestyle leads to that. And one can argue that a politician who preaches a certain lifestyle should not be surprised when people are curious why that politician's lifestyle doesn't seem to match. And, again, Obama directly criticized it and said the family is off limits.

Jmurph wrote:
Hrm, I can't help but wonder if Palin's speech along with Giulliani's, was such a great thing.

On it's own, I know that my wife really liked Gov Palin's speech. Along the same line, she was pretty much just appalled at Giuliani's; just a constant stream of "anti-Obama" as opposed to trying to connect to the generic public. I do think that Palin's speech did stand on it's own.



I did think Huckabee did brilliantly and am once again wondering how McCain managed to squeeze him out (well, besides him and Romney splitting the conservative vote). Huckabee just seems to connect so much better on the issues and had built in conservative creds and executive experience.


You're dead on right. Romney and Huckabee were splitting the social right wing vote. I think Huckabee would have made such a great candidate; he's very well spoken and a proven bipartisan track record. I remember doing a checkdown of candidates, and I had it whittled down to Huckabee and Paul.

Bootyboy wrote:

Well, in all fairness both are political opportunists who have consistently pursued personal agendas at the expense of their party, earning much ire.

I think you have it somewhat backwards. The backlash against Lieberman in the 2006 Senate primary effectively kicked him out of the party. And conservative talk radio has been pretty negative on McCain, costing him in 2000 and nearly killing his campaign in NH in 2008. I don't think those two _wanted_ the ire; I would assume that they were truly looking to enable legislation to have some traction. They may have been opportunists, but did it at a significant risk to their careers.


Witness McCain 2000 and his subsequent transition to earn the current nomination. Ironically, I would have voted McCain 2000, but will not do so after the subsequent lack of character shown toadying to Bush (who attacked both McCain and Kerry's service record) and the RNC.


My sentiments exactly. I think McCain's policies are marginally better than Obama's. But, the ones that he is so wrong on (the war/foreign policy) and undereducated on (economic/currency policy)... just make me cringe.


Additionally, his mismanagement (especially with finance and personnel) of his primary and presidential campaign reinforce that despite his brave service and experience as a senator, he is not the best choice for the presidency.


Who do you believe is the best choice for presidency?

Jmurph wrote:

I agree that experience is a legitimate issue. But the Ayers thing is a non starter and Obama has condemned Ayers' (and Dornes) action! Even if he knew a guy that did bad things, it doesn't mean he supports those things.

No, but he lied about the degree of association, which was a bad idea. He should have just plain said they were associates at times due to being in Chicago politics and condemned the actions, instead of doing a song and dance about Ayers just being a "guy in the neighborhood".

In the same way, it took him a long time to finally condemn his pastor. The reticence to clearly distance himself from people with some pretty unsavory views and backgrounds until he's absolutely forced against the wall is unfortunate.

Given multiple people like this in his background, it is at least inescapable that he has been willing to associate with such people, for decades in the case of his pastor, without calling them on their ugly views. I suspect that is the reason he didn't own up to his associations with Ayers -- he was trying to avoid such a pattern. The result is dragging out the situation.

Again, if McCain were hanging out with KKK-style people over a period of decades without condemning them, then the left (nor most of the right) would not be letting him off if he gave the same weak responses when initially pressed on it.

The general question of how to deal with unsavory people in your same political circle, especially when you have to rub shoulders in local activities, is a tough one. I think the best you can do is be honest about whatever degree of association you had, say you worked with who you had to to get things done, and unequivocally condemn the unsavory aspects (preferably in language stronger than "views I've never had").

But if you want shady association, look a bit closer at McCain.

I will be looking closer at McCain, Palin, and Biden starting now. Up to now I'd mostly been evaluating Obama to see if he's someone I could vote for. I wasn't too interested in looking into McCain until he chose a VP candidate. In 2000 I found McCain, just on the face of it, to be someone who weirded me out a bit; he has less of that effect on me now, either because he's changed or because I have learned more about him. In any case, there wasn't a point for me to spend much time researching him, because if he chose Huckabee, which seemed quite possible for a while, then there was no way I could vote for McCain. If he chose Leiberman, I would be quite disposed to voting for him (assuming I didn't discover something disqualifying).

Since he chose someone I had minimal knowledge of, he's making me work more. I don't know enough about Palin for it to strongly influence me the way Huckabee or Leiberman would, so now I gotta really dig into both of them.

However, do you think it would have been any different if Chelsea had gotten prgenant?

Would people have said that they were faking who actually had Chelsea's baby? I kinda doubt that, that seems a uniquely weird conspiracy theory.

In any case, when people make such claims in either direction, I find them repulsive.

(Heck, McCain even joked about Chelsea being ugly when she was younger.)

This is perhaps one of the things, on a personal level, that most annoys me about McCain. It's not substantive enough to change a vote, but it's definitely an unattractive side of him.

And, again, Obama directly criticized it and said the family is off limits.

Which was a good thing for him to say. I disagree with him, though, that Michelle Obama is off limits. You can't have your wife give speeches and actively campaign, then say that she's off limits. Doesn't work that way.

It was equally silly when Hillary had Chelsea (who is now an adult) campaigning for her but made her off-limits to the press.

If you family is off limits, then they are off limits for your use as well, other than for "photos with the family" type stuff.

Worldweaver wrote:
No thanks on socialized healthcare, Obama. Debt is already at 65% of GDP, when social security and medicare start to fail debt will be at 240% of GDP and we will have a failed state in the USA.

What needs to happen is government programs need to be cut, adding healthcare is the exact opposite of what we need.

And Masterdan thinks Obama has a solid economic plan...

And to put it into proper perspective, Medicare is already a form of nationalized health care. Without drastic reform... well, the math is simple. We're f***ed.

McCain voted against the $9T Medicare expansion in 2003, Obama supported it. Point McCain.

Jp wrote:
I find it disturbing that the idea of universal healthcare can be a bad thing in an ostensibly developed nation.

It's also disturbing to some that vendors can charge anything they want for any product they sell, even if it's something you really need, like food or water. So disturbing that, in the name of fairness in general or in a time of emergency, countries will impose price controls so everyone can afford what they need.

Resulting in things like Carter's gas lines in the 70s.

It turns out that controlling the price of something is basically impossible...if you control the price, you lose control of supply, and supply dries up, so you aren't really controlling anything. If you control supply, you lose control of price (prices goes through the roof or plummet, depending on whether you reduce or increase supply).

When it come to gas, the US has learned the hard way that even if the price of gas is spiking, the best thing is to stay out of the way, and let the market resolve the situation. The result? Even with huge spikes in gas price, we encountered no gas lines.

Universal health care has a cost, and if structured in the usually-proposed ways, means it's a cost with no associated competition (or insufficient competition) to help keep the cost under control, and most importantly, to ensure that the recipients of the health care are getting what they want.

Universal health care, often as not, results in "universally crappy healthcare", often resulting in wait times; the equivalent of gas lines, except these are lines that kill you.

There are many complexities and subtleties to all this, and I understand how well-meaning people think we should "just do it". But no one should pretend that Universal Health Care is a magic fix for anything.