Looks like McCain has picked his VP...

BenjAii · 05-09-2008 11:09am

jank wrote: »

Saw on CNN that the majority of Delegates attending the RNC earns more then 500k a year! Salt of the earth guys really!:p

And apparently out of over 2,000 delegates, 36 are black; yes, the Republicans, so representative of ordinary Americans .................

is_that_so · 05-09-2008 11:43am

Hobbes wrote: »

Elitism? When you are picking people for possibly the most powerful job in America if not the world then you want the best.

But lets talk Elitism. How does Obama working with the Community come as Elitist? How about not knowing how many houses you own? Is that Elitist? What about wearing $300K clothes to the RNC (Cindy McCain), is that Elitist?

"I do not think that word means what you think it means."

The comments about elitism were directed at you not them. Your list suggests that you are far more impressed by their choice of schools than anything else.

As I've commented long before this I really don't think the Americans have a choice of the best but it's what is on offer. By virtue of who they are, they are part of an elite group of politicians anyway.

As for "materialistic" elitism well none of them are terribly poor either so the point is really moot. They've all got that folk backstory of being ordinary "folks" because that's what the faithful and the populace at large want to hear. It's part and parcel of American elections. Ultimately they are all yarns to get people to believe in them and elect them.

Hobbes · 05-09-2008 12:45pm

is_that_so wrote: »

The comments about elitism were directed at you not them. Your list suggests that you are far more impressed by their choice of schools than anything else.

Well if your going by choice of schools then Palin wins by quantity I guess.

But yes I am far more impressed by their qualifications. McCains school for example is actually a very good one (I checked). Even finishing near the bottom of your class in that school is quite impressive. However if it wasn't for the fact his fathers position he wouldn't of even been placed in that school.

Obama on the other hand didn't have the same free pass and had to earn it.

They've all got that folk backstory of being ordinary "folks"

McCain was never ordinary folk. He got to where he was based on his familys standing. TBH I don't think the RNC is even remotely caring about the ordinary folk unless they redefined ordinary folk as rich religious buddies.

If you want to define based on that then it would probably go.
Obama (least elitist)
Palin
Biden
McCain (most elitist)

is_that_so · 05-09-2008 1:58pm

Hobbes wrote: »

Well if your going by choice of schools then Palin wins by quantity I guess.

But yes I am far more impressed by their qualifications. McCains school for example is actually a very good one (I checked). Even finishing near the bottom of your class in that school is quite impressive. However if it wasn't for the fact his fathers position he wouldn't of even been placed in that school.

Obama on the other hand didn't have the same free pass and had to earn it.

McCain was never ordinary folk. He got to where he was based on his familys standing. TBH I don't think the RNC is even remotely caring about the ordinary folk unless they redefined ordinary folk as rich religious buddies.

You can't beat a good old fashioned rant about the GOP and everything they eh , probably stand for. You also might find it instructive to actually read what I said and not misquote or misinterpret me.

Hobbes · 05-09-2008 2:31pm

is_that_so wrote: »

You also might find it instructive to actually read what I said and not misquote or misinterpret me.

Sure. Point it out, rather then quoting everything I said. You said I was elitist, I said I would take peoples qualifications into account when picking someone for a job. Something Palin does not have. You rambled on about some common folk story which is a load of tosh.

On a separate note I see that McCains camp said that Palin was too busy to return to Alaska to answer questions regarding troopergate but appears she can find time to do it if her son is going to Iraq.

While admirable clearly underlines the total disregard for the law.

Manic Moran · 05-09-2008 4:55pm

Hobbes wrote: »

(6 years to get a 4 year degree)

Not all that unusual in the US if you are working your way through college.

As far as wealth goes, the Ds are hardly immune from criticism. Of the top ten wealthiest members of Congress, seven are Democrats. McCain's not on that list, coming in at a paltry #17. Neither is D House leader Nancy Pelosi, #16. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid: Pathetic, way down the list. Only $1.5million. Obama's even lower. $1.3million.

See http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2006&filter=C

The Congressional Democrats are just as out of touch with the reality lived by the 'common man' as the Republicans are.

NTM

Hobbes · 05-09-2008 5:23pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Congressional Democrats are just as out of touch with the reality lived by the 'common man' as the Republicans are.

I totally agree, but then they are not making it their attack platform. I mean if your going to attack someone for something it is best not to have that trait as well.

axer · 05-09-2008 6:18pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Congressional Democrats are just as out of touch with the reality lived by the 'common man' as the Republicans are.

I wonder is that $1.3m inclusive of anything Michelle Obama could have contributed to e.g. houses, cars etc? In 2006 she was earning $270,000 annually whereas Barrak was earning $160,000 from senate. Then adding money from board of directors work for Michelle coupled with sales and royalties of Barraks books they earned about $900,000 (according to this).

I don't think it necessarily makes you out of touch as long as you are not arrogant and think that someone is middle class if they earn under $5m or don't even know how many houses they own.

is_that_so · 05-09-2008 6:20pm

But yes I am far more impressed by their qualifications.

I see no other way to view this as anything other than elitist. Using it as measure of comparison in my view represents that type of attitude.

Hobbes wrote: »

Sure. Point it out, rather then quoting everything I said. You said I was elitist, I said I would take peoples qualifications into account when picking someone for a job. Something Palin does not have. You rambled on about some common folk story which is a load of tosh.

I feel no need to repeat myself. I am pretty sure I know what I meant and I can't force people to read what I post . So let's leave that one there.

Manic Moran · 05-09-2008 6:25pm

I totally agree, but then they are not making it their attack platform

Fair point.

Going back to Palin, reports are surfacing, though I'm waiting for it to hit something more acceptable than Fox, that Palin did a bit of her speech without the aid of a teleprompter because it stopped pausing during applause breaks and scrolled on ahead. I didn't watch it, though some on other fora do mention that she appear to 'hiccough' a bit about 20 minutes in. Apparently it was fixed by the time the speech ended.

If true, she didn't do that bad a job.

NTM

Otacon · 05-09-2008 6:30pm

is_that_so wrote: »

I see no other way to view this as anything other than elitist. Using it as measure of comparison in my view represents that type of attitude.

Thinking someone is more qualified for the highest job in the (US) land, by having qualifications that actually may be of use, is elitist? Well, then, I must be an elitist too...

Hobbes · 05-09-2008 6:42pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

If true, she didn't do that bad a job.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that. Her previous job was TV sports presenter. Now the speech. That wasn't written by her.

Pocono Joe · 05-09-2008 6:50pm

Hobbes wrote: »

I wouldn't put too much stock in that. Her previous job was TV sports presenter. Now the speech. That wasn't written by her.

I don't think the teleprompter was broke (newest reports). As to her speech not being written by her, either was Obamas'... your point?

Hobbes · 05-09-2008 6:58pm

Pocono Joe wrote: »

either was Obamas'... your point?

Actually Obama writes most of his speeches himself.

Pocono Joe · 05-09-2008 7:14pm

Hobbes wrote: »

Actually Obama writes most of his speeches himself.

I'm sure Obama wrote quite a bit of his speech, along with David Axelrod.

Hobbes · 05-09-2008 7:21pm

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I'm sure Obama wrote quite a bit of his speech, along with David Axelrod.

Not just David. But as I said "most". I doubt Palin had any input in her speech.

Manic Moran · 05-09-2008 9:44pm

It is claimed she did. Of course, it is also claimed that she never saw it before she received the notes an hour before going onstage, but I'm more inclined to go with the former than the latter.

NTM

KerranJast · 05-09-2008 9:50pm

The teleprompter didn't break down, it kept skipping too far ahead. She was not campaigning or doing any media stuff on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday as she was working on the speech with a team of writers as *every* person does including Obama. She practiced the speech on Wednesday afternoon in the hall, there are photos of it in all media. The above has all been reported by the usuals (MSNBC, CNN, Fox, ABC) before I get accused of neocon spin.

Lirange · 06-09-2008 2:58pm

The more I learn about Palin the more I realise that she is a dangerous person.

It isn't just her extreme religious views. It's that she looks increasingly like a cunning demagogue. She uses populism to gain political capital in order to intimidate and if necessary steamroll rivals. She gives people the sack to give the impression that she's "cleaning house" but also to neutralise opposition. Everyone is constantly fearful of losing their post and she consolidates power. She orchestrates a few gimmicky stunts like sacking the governor's mansion chef and putting the gov's aeroplane on ebay but essentially she's a populist. Not a supply side fiscal hawk. She instituted taxes on Oil companies and $1,200 petrol rebates (per person!).

Naegele remembers vividly too a second shockwave that came swiftly after Palin's election [as mayor of Wasilla]. Instead of easing her way into the role, she went in with guns blazing, demanding that six of the department heads of the council - none of them political appointments, several with many years' service - submit their resignations. When Naegele protested through the editorial columns of the paper at what she saw as the new mayor's heavy-handed style, she felt the heat. "It was a difficult time. I was lambasted as a liberal, when in fact I am a Christian conservative Republican, just like Sarah Palin."

More disgusting accounts of her putsch into Alaska Politics

The Guardian

Bush and Cheney have set a worrying precedent for someone potentially even more damaging like Palin to capitalise on.

is_that_so · 06-09-2008 4:19pm

Another slant on Palin, and with a slightly different set of comments from Naegele. It also offers some comments on how she approaches her faith. I suspect the final comments may be why McCain may have thought her the right candidate.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

axer · 06-09-2008 6:47pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Another slant on Palin, and with a slightly different set of comments from Naegele. It also offers some comments on how she approaches her faith. I suspect the final comments may be why McCain may have thought her the right candidate.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

She is scary. God help the world if they win.

is_that_so · 06-09-2008 7:29pm

axer wrote: »

She is scary. God help the world if they win.

Seeing as she has been dismissed so roundly in some quarters you're ascribing an awful lot of potential power to her.
I can see why people in the US might not want her or dislike her but why should the world fear her?

What is it about her that is worse than say Bush/Cheney/Perle or any of the rest of that ilk who've caused so much havoc for most of the last decade?

What exactly will happen to the world if McCain is elected? Will we be back to MAD?

I would have thought that the Medvedev/Putin axis is more of a risk.

Whoever wins they'll need most of the first 2-3 years sorting out the currently tanking US economy so it's not really going to allow much time for any more foreign adventures.

Kotick · 06-09-2008 8:07pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Whoever wins they'll need most of the first 2-3 years sorting out the currently tanking US economy so it's not really going to allow much time for any more foreign adventures.

Ha! That's what you think! If the Democrats win, that's exactly what they would do, but if McCain wins this nightmare we're in now will continue and or get worse.

is_that_so · 06-09-2008 8:32pm

Kotick wrote: »

Ha! That's what you think! If the Democrats win, that's exactly what they would do, but if McCain wins this nightmare we're in now will continue and or get worse.

I reckon McCain would have no choice (The economy stupid, as they say) but curious about the nightmare. Why do you think it will get worse?

axer · 06-09-2008 8:45pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Seeing as she has been dismissed so roundly in some quarters you're ascribing an awful lot of potential power to her.
I can see why people in the US might not want her or dislike her but why should the world fear her?

because she could have alot of power (along with McCain). She mocks Obama for wanting to discuss with the likes of Iran without the precondition that if Iran does not agree with everything the USA says they will kill 'em all. They are asking for more war (if they can afford it). It will effect the rest of the world e.g. oil prices, instability etc.

is_that_so wrote: »

What is it about her that is worse than say Bush/Cheney/Perle or any of the rest of that ilk who've caused so much havoc for most of the last decade?

I don't know if she is any worse but she is definitely not any better. I think people tend to under estimate her which is dangerous.

is_that_so wrote: »

What exactly will happen to the world if McCain is elected? Will we be back to MAD?

Nothing will improve. Don't forget the problems in (or caused by) the USA e.g. economy downturn, 9/11, war, effect the rest of the world too. The USA needs someone with a bit of cop on that will not treaten to blow up anyone who disagrees with them like a school yard bully. They need someone who will build relationships with other countries i.e. diplomacy. Respect is more powerful than fear (which hasn't worked so well for them so far).

is_that_so wrote: »

I would have thought that the Medvedev/Putin axis is more of a risk.

It is and another gung ho president is not going to fix that.

is_that_so wrote: »

Whoever wins they'll need most of the first 2-3 years sorting out the currently tanking US economy so it's not really going to allow much time for any more foreign adventures.

Unless there is another terrorist attack and suddenly it is blamed on Iran or someone. Then they will be invading from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

is_that_so · 06-09-2008 9:51pm

axer wrote: »

because she could have alot of power (along with McCain). She mocks Obama for wanting to discuss with the likes of Iran without the precondition that if Iran does not agree with everything the USA says they will kill 'em all. They are asking for more war (if they can afford it). It will effect the rest of the world e.g. oil prices, instability etc.

Oil prices lately have had more to do with greedy b******s than the US.

The only real power she would have would be to become President. Otherwise she would be at the mercy of the President in terms of what she can do. Conflict with Iran is undesirable. Threatening them with it as a sanction is not. There is plenty of precedent.

axer wrote: »

I don't know if she is any worse but she is definitely not any better. I think people tend to under estimate her which is dangerous.

I take your point but it is only supposition based on your belief that people have underestimated her.

axer wrote: »

Nothing will improve. Don't forget the problems in (or caused by) the USA e.g. economy downturn, 9/11, war, effect the rest of the world too. The USA needs someone with a bit of cop on that will not treaten to blow up anyone who disagrees with them like a school yard bully. They need someone who will build relationships with other countries i.e. diplomacy. Respect is more powerful than fear (which hasn't worked so well for them so far).

Agree with some of this and but I can't see why McCain can't do this. He has offered to reach across the aisle and it's not just words. He has demonstrated bi-partisanship throughout his career. And as he said himself the other night he hates war.

axer wrote: »

It is and another gung ho president is not going to fix that.

There is really no physical evidence of this at all beyond him making noises. Remember Obama foolishly suggested bombing Pakistan at one point.

axer wrote: »

Unless there is another terrorist attack and suddenly it is blamed on Iran or someone. Then they will be invading from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

Again I think you are overlooking the fact that they want to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is not Iraq nor is it Afghanistan. Its influence in the Middle East goes far beyond its borders. It is not in Iran's interest to invite an attack but it doesn't stop them pushing the Americans as far as they can. There are absolutely no benefits to be gained from it beyond appeasing Israel. But with that goes the risk of the whole Middle East going up. The only question here is whether Iran is after nuclear power or weapons. I don't know the answer to that but I suspect the Iranians are having fun leaving people guessing.

Kotick · 06-09-2008 10:27pm

is_that_so wrote: »

I reckon McCain would have no choice (The economy stupid, as they say) but curious about the nightmare. Why do you think it will get worse?

There's always a choice. Bush ignored the better choices, McCain can and most likely will do the same.

I'm a born and raised Californian and have to deal with people bashing Americans in general all the time. By electing someone who isn't going to change things for the better not only are other countries going to hate us even more, but the American citizens themselves will suffer even longer. McCain isn't going to pull out of the war in Iraq any time soon which means more loss of life and more money spent on an unjust war. Leaving us with an even worse economy than it is now.

Our morale is low. Many of us just don't care anymore and are already leaving the country to find jobs or to get better health care. The U.S. is just sad right now and even I'm ashamed to call myself an American (tis why I say I'm a Californian).

axer · 06-09-2008 11:27pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Oil prices lately have had more to do with greedy b******s than the US.

When wars break out in the middle east oil prices are usually affected.

is_that_so wrote: »

The only real power she would have would be to become President. Otherwise she would be at the mercy of the President in terms of what she can do. Conflict with Iran is undesirable. Threatening them with it as a sanction is not. There is plenty of precedent.

Since McCain is 72 and has had bouts of skin cancer 4 times already there is a very real possibility that Palin could take over the reins if they get elected. That is scary thought for the world.

is_that_so wrote: »

Agree with some of this and but I can't see why McCain can't do this. He has offered to reach across the aisle and it's not just words. He has demonstrated bi-partisanship throughout his career. And as he said himself the other night he hates war.

The republicans are always tied to the right-wing nutjobs since they have to get re-elected - the democrats are not tied in the same way. He may say he hates war but he seems to think threats are more important than negotiations just like the current president. The USA will not win friends with that attitude.

is_that_so wrote: »

Again I think you are overlooking the fact that they want to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is not Iraq nor is it Afghanistan. Its influence in the Middle East goes far beyond its borders. It is not in Iran's interest to invite an attack but it doesn't stop them pushing the Americans as far as they can. There are absolutely no benefits to be gained from it beyond appeasing Israel. But with that goes the risk of the whole Middle East going up. The only question here is whether Iran is after nuclear power or weapons. I don't know the answer to that but I suspect the Iranians are having fun leaving people guessing.

The only question of Iraq was had Saddam weapons of mass destruction. It didn't matter that he didn't in the end. What benifit was there in invading Iraq? There were already strong sanctions against the country.

axer · 06-09-2008 11:33pm

Kotick wrote: »

Our morale is low.

Exactly, that is how Bush got re-elected. Keep them frightened and demoralised - tis much easier to control them then.

Kotick wrote: »

Many of us just don't care anymore and are already leaving the country to find jobs or to get better health care. The U.S. is just sad right now and even I'm ashamed to call myself an American (tis why I say I'm a Californian).

Health care alone is just such a joke in the US. Its an awful shame to see elderly people forced to work when they should be retiring in order to pay for their medication.

McCain and Co. with their stupid lines like "do you want a bureaucrat between you and your doctor". Such crap. I'm sure many would rather a bureaucrat between them and their doctor than a bill for a couple of thousand dollars.

Obama seems to have a good idea that keeps the insurance companies for now but offers the same thing via the government thus people get the best of both worlds.

is_that_so · 07-09-2008 10:35am

axer wrote: »

Since McCain is 72 and has had bouts of skin cancer 4 times already there is a very real possibility that Palin could take over the reins if they get elected. That is scary thought for the world.

And what will the whole of the rest of the US government and Senate be doing when this dangerous person is running amok? Where will the money for adventures come from?

axer wrote: »

The republicans are always tied to the right-wing nutjobs since they have to get re-elected - the democrats are not tied in the same way. He may say he hates war but he seems to think threats are more important than negotiations just like the current president. The USA will not win friends with that attitude.

McCain needs those "nutjobs" to stay in the election but to win the election both sides will need to win undecideds and Independents. Seeing as they could plump either way how would these be categorised?

Israel has threatened to attacked Iran at least twice this year. Russia has been muttering under its breath for weeks. Sabre-rattling is part of international diplomacy.

Just because the GOP spawned one of the worst Presidents in US history does not make them intrinsically evil. Carter was pretty inept, Johnson oversaw most of Vietnam and Reagan in common with Clinton produced balanced budgets.

axer wrote: »

The only question of Iraq was had Saddam weapons of mass destruction. It didn't matter that he didn't in the end. What benefit was there in invading Iraq? There were already strong sanctions against the country.

Iraq had been softened up by 13 years of sanctions and a previous war. It had no air force, extremely limited air defences, a demoralised army and any number of factions itching to get some payback on the Ba'athist regime.
The regime was little-loved outside. and the US had enough willing partners to go after them, based on those lies. It was also a war that could be "won" easily. Iran is a very different proposition.

Now the US is involved in two conflicts and has serious economic problems. It is facing a likely Dem double majority in Congress and all of its "friends" are gone. Iran also has a degree of support from Russia. The EU is part of the coalition negotiating with them and China is very unlikely to allow another conflict that would engulf the region. On that basis I think it is extremely unlikely to happen but I suspect we'll just have to disagree on that.

Looks like McCain has picked his VP...

Comments