Looks like McCain has picked his VP...

dublinmayflower

Interesting article from Time website...http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837526,00.html

is_that_so

KJ_2008 wrote: »

You couldn't be more wrong, this is a comical choice by McCain - and that's not even taking in to account the as yet unresolved 'state trooper' difficulty she had in Alaska, when she and/or her people tried to get her ex-brother in law sacked.

The notion that Hillary's 18 million supporters will now vote Republican because Palin is on the ticket is, well, moronic. She's anti-choice in the abortion issue, she loves her guns, and she's not all that big in to gay marriages. In other words, she's on one extreme, Hillary and her supporters are on the other. Just because Palin doesn't have a willy doesn't mean they'll vote for her, honest

As one wag on a Democrat forum put it today, "we have a PTA hockey Mom a heartbeat from the presidency"....remember, if McCain wins two terms he'll be 80 in his final year.

A week ago Palin asked: "what is it exactly that the VP does?" She's an accident waiting to happen, Dan Quayle's worthy successor.

A smart move?

PS Seems I'm not alone...from Freerepublic.com....yep, Free Republic.....

The Unfortunate Palin Gamble
GOPublius.com ^ | August 29, 2008 | GOPublius.com

Posted on Fri Aug 29 18:31:47 2008 by americanophile

Don’t kid yourself…John McCain just put all his chips on the table and rolled the dice.

Over the past many months, McCain’s team had skillfully underscored the natural impressions of Americans – that Barak Obama was the lightweight in the race; the candidate of risk. Now, with a single stroke McCain has undercut his most effective argument. He has weakened his case for wisdom and experience, and elevated a one-term governor of a small-population state based on her gender.

McCain had plenty of safe choices. Choices that would have bolstered Americans’ inherent understanding of McCain’s competency and ability; choices that would have underscored the longstanding notion that whatever gimmick the Democrats try, the Republican Party remains the serious one.

With the electorate evenly split, McCain’s first job was to pick a competent running mate that would not undermine his standing, and would reassure voters that should something happen to the oldest man ever to be nominated for president, a competent, experienced leader, ready to serve as commander-in-chief in a time of war, was waiting in the wings.

The former Miss Congeniality, and hockey mom from “the last frontier” is a bizarre choice.

McCain’s pick today has all the hallmarks of a political gimmick and a hail-Mary pass. While it is likely to excite some conservatives, his choice will refocus the entire campaign away from Obama’s status as a political neophyte and will reshuffle the risk calculus in the favor of the increasingly familiar, and always-eloquent Obama. With Biden on the ticket, Obama has lessened the sense that he poses a serious danger to the electorate. McCain’s selection by contrast is likely to shake voters and cast uncertainty on the wisdom and safety of a McCain presidency.

With competent and proven individuals waiting in the wings such as Governor Mitt Romney, the selection of Sarah Palin is a most unfortunate choice.

John McCain may have just lost the 2008 election…cue the hurricane.

Well I prefer my politics "from the horse's mouth" as they say and not quoted verbatim from whatever web site agrees with someone.

I don't know that I am wrong any more than you are right. I think it is an inspired move as I said. It is one that could go either way but given the staid predictability of what is coming from the Dems, it certainly makes for an interesting race.

As for the Clinton comments, well a wee read of my posts and others should have apprised you of the fact that 27% appeared to be leaning towards him before today's announcement.

is_that_so

dublinmayflower wrote: »

Oh I understand the passion but do the 70% of Clinton supporters who have switched to Obama somehow have less passion than the other 30%?

The Times article I linked to explains why this might be the case. Obama is also not trusted in certain demographics and some people may not see him as their candidate.

ixoy wrote: »

So why not abstain from voting at all rather than voting for a party that doesn't represent your ideals? Particularly as Clinton has endorsed Obama.

Who knows what they'll do? She did what a beaten candidate is supposed to do but even she can't necessarily guarantee anything.

bug

Watched some of the footage tonight.

This is a very very stupid mistake by McCain.

They played the "Hilary Clinton" female card.

The marketing campaign up to now was obvious but this is just in your face ridiculous. I don't think the obvious manipulation in this choice would even bybass the less savvy voters.

_Whimsical_

Someone believed in her... yes just the one. He started a campaign in January 2007 to have her as the republican VP nominee.

http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-logo.html <---they created this logo in May. A month after she'd had a baby.

It may owe more to his psychic abilities than his political insight by the looks of things however.

dublinmayflower

is_that_so wrote: »

The Times article I linked to explains why this might be the case.

Okay I read your link now read mine!

KJ_2008

Manic Moran wrote: »

Without addressing the merits of the 'difficulty' itself, as I'm not up to speed on it, this rather detailed article in the Anchorage Daily News from a few months ago indicates that if true, Palin/Palin's people were probably right.

http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html

I'm not sure a Trooper who threatened to kill his father-in-law, tasered his stepson and drinks beer in his patrol car (amongst a slew of other transgressions) is exactly an asset to the State Police.

So why did she feel the need to lie?

As for the pro-Palin folk...I've a feeling they're outnumbered.

KJ_2008

Sand wrote: »

Without knowing the case, this would have been dissected by McCains team and their lawyers. Theyre not idiots.

Are you sure?

McCain met her once (ever) before choosing her for the ticket, so he hadn't exactly a whole bunch of time to look her in the eye and evaluate her, eh, character.

See the link in my last post: she first categorically denied that any of her officials contacted the head of the state troopers, Walt Monegan, to pressure him to sack her ex-brother-in-law.

The problem with that denial? Monegan produced a tape of one such phone call. Palin had to then admit that, yes, it may have happened. In short, she used her power as Governor to try to get her ex-brother-in-law sacked from his job, while he was in the middle of a child custody battle with her sister.

One of his sackable offences, incidentally, was to have shot dead a moose (:rolleyes:)...who was with him on the shoot? Um, Palin's father.

Meanwhile, Palin is sueing the federal government over their decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species.

You couldn't make it up.

Manic Moran

KJ_2008 wrote: »

So why did she feel the need to lie?

I've no idea. As I said, I'm not up to speed on the issue yet. Maybe she honestly didn't know up until that point and her staffer had done it on his own thinking he was doing her a favour. But it seems to me that the Trooper's not a shining example of the Constabulary at its best and that his removal would have likely been a good thing. At least it would be somewhat in keeping with her history of cleaning out bad apples.

Monegan produced a tape of one such phone call

Indeed, according to the local newspaper, it was not Monegan who had the tapes found. It was Palin.
http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/492964.html

Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday revealed an audio recording that shows an aide pressuring the Public Safety Department to fire a state trooper embroiled in a custody battle with her sister.

<snip>

The governor said evidence of what she called a "smoking gun" conversation, and other calls made by her aides, only recently surfaced as the attorney general started an inquiry at her request into the circumstances surrounding her firing of Monegan. Palin wanted the review because a special investigator hired by the Legislature is about to investigate the firing and a legislator has been quoted in a newspaper story talking about impeachment.

Again, it's a pretty long article. (I have to hand it to ADN, they have good articles, not short two-column snippets)

NTM

KJ_2008

is_that_so wrote: »

Well I prefer my politics "from the horse's mouth".

Poor pet, you must be square-eyed from watching Fox News? Do you find their analysis to be profound?

is_that_so wrote: »

I think it is an inspired move as I said.

Indeed. As the CNN contributor put it, it should at least seal the Eskimo vote.

is_that_so wrote: »

given the staid predictability of what is coming from the Dems

Aw, a pity, you missed the speech? Didn't they show it on Fox News?

is_that_so wrote: »

As for the Clinton comments, well a wee read of my posts and others should have apprised you of the fact....

No offence bud, but your posts tell me you've a lot of catching up to do on this election. Perhaps you should flick away from Fox News once in a while.

dublinmayflower

KJ_2008 wrote: »

As for the pro-Palin folk...I've a feeling they're outnumbered.

Just watched the youtube link you posted, that is a hell of alot of backlash already about the veep choice, looks like McCain underestimated Americans, and especially the women, they aren't so dumb after all!

KJ_2008

Manic Moran wrote: »

I've no idea. As I said, I'm not up to speed on the issue yet. Maybe she honestly didn't know up until that point and her staffer had done it on his own thinking he was doing her a favour.

Do you really believe that? Okay, fair enough. So why did she then lie, if she had nothing to hide, about her reasons for sacking the Monegan guy? (see link above).

Manic Moran wrote: »

But it seems to me that the Trooper's not a shining example of the Constabulary at its best and that his removal would have likely been a good thing.

Perhaps, although it is a little troubling that the Palin family only started firing accusations at him when he embarked on a child custody battle with Sara Palin's sister.

Manic Moran wrote: »

At least it would be somewhat in keeping with her history of cleaning out bad apples.

Funny, though, that some of the bad apples - eg Ted Stevens and Randy Ruedrich - were the people who helped her come to 'power' in Alaska, and the 'whistleblowing' began after their transgressions had already been exposed by the media.

KJ_2008

dublinmayflower wrote: »

Just watched the youtube link you posted, that is a hell of alot of backlash already about the veep choice, looks like McCain underestimated Americans, and especially the women, they aren't so dumb after all!

It was good stuff alright! It's been interesting to read a bunch of Republican commentators describing today as the day McCain blew the election - Palin is a catastrophic choice, for dozens of reasons, not least that they they can no longer use the 'lack of experience' line against Obama/Biden....not with a straight face.

McCain is 72, if he wins the election and serves two terms he will be 80 in the final year of his presidency. He has already had significant health problems, including four separate bouts of skin cancer. Palin, who has only been involved in senior politics, in a minor state, since December 2006, will then run America. It's a joke. If he was hellbent on choosing a woman Kay Bailey Hutchison should have been his choice. But she's in her 60s, so she's not a babe......:rolleyes:

Palin has a whole bunch of skeletons in her closet, the state trooper business being the main ticking time bomb. Complaints about her husband sitting in on 'private' meetings between her and sundry Alaskan officials won't help her look the strong, independent type either, nor will her forwarding to him of emails containing confidential state files/documents - can't find the link now, but Google away - this was discovered when some Alaskans used the Freedom of Information Act to get access to her communications, forget the details.

This is where it gets nasty, but Google again and you'll see stuff about doubts that her Down Syndrome child, who she paraded in front of the cameras today, is actually hers. Her staff were astounded when she announced that she was seven months pregnant....her 16-year-old daughter, meanwhile, was absent from school for months.

Don't shoot me, I know this is vicious - but I'm just telling you what's floating about. There's nothing shameful about pretending you are the mother of your daughter's child, but there is when you try to get pro-life kudos for bringing a Down Syndrome child in to the world.

A wild punt: Sara Palin will have to drop out of the race, McCain will have to choose a new VP candidate before the next fortnight is out.

Overheal

heres a turn on for ya:



Thats a VP I could get behind.

KnifeWRENCH

Overheal wrote: »

heres a turn on for ya:



Thats a VP I could get behind.

Mmm not bad! (Although in that pic she reminds me a bit too much of Kerry Weaver, the lesbian doctor from E.R.)

Whether or not Palin is a good choice I don't know (I know very little about American politics) But she's certainly a more intriguing prospect than Biden. She's young, female and Republican. Which is somewhat of a novelty.

There's scarcely a mention of McCain in European media - perhaps Palin will draw some more focus towards Senator Oven Chip's campaign? I know Biden's a long serving senator and probably a very competent running-mate, but his name on the ticket isn't going to be a big talking point.

Manic Moran

KJ_2008 wrote: »

Do you really believe that? Okay, fair enough. So why did she then lie, if she had nothing to hide, about her reasons for sacking the Monegan guy? (see link above).

Hypothetically? She was dissatisfied with his performance as Public Safety Commissioner, and wanted to move him out of the position. To do so without causing public friction, give him a 'sideways promotion' to a position of less import, namely going from PSC to the mentioned 'head of alcohol investigation' (or whatever). When he refused to go quietly, she outright fired him the next week and gave the reasons.

Perhaps, although it is a little troubling that the Palin family only started firing accusations at him when he embarked on a child custody battle with Sara Palin's sister.

One can also argue that it is a little troubling that the honourable and upstanding head of Public Safety didn't mention anything about being pressured until after he was fired.

As the recent incident with the Oregon cop who shot the Irishman, was cleared of the shooting but then got nailed for child abuse demonstrated sometimes other issues unrelated to the initial concern will come to public light. However, in this case, it seems not to be particularly surprising at all. Tpr Wooten crossed the line, the wife filed in court, citing the line-crossing as justification. They obtained a restriction notice, and then notified the police of the notice the next day, as would be normal practise. It's an issue of some controversy, but as it stands, anyone under a domestic order by law must have their firearms confiscated. This includes cops and military.

Funny, though, that some of the bad apples - eg Ted Stevens and Randy Ruedrich - were the people who helped her come to 'power' in Alaska, and the 'whistleblowing' began after their transgressions had already been exposed by the media.

Again I refer to an article in ADN. (Again, very long and detailed. I'm really beginning to like this newspaper)

http://dwb.adn.com/front/story/5572779p-5504444c.html

WASILLA -- Sarah Palin never thought of herself as an investigator.
Yet there she was, hacking uncomfortably into Randy Ruedrich's computer, looking for evidence that the state Republican Party boss had broken the state ethics law while a member of the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission.

OK, a bit sensationalist, as she had an AOGCC tech doing the actual hacking, and was doing so legally, but if you read the full article, you'll note that her involvement was a little more than just going through a formality of filing an ethics violation charge after watching an exposé on CNN. It seems that nothing would have been proven without her involvement.

who was with him on the shoot? Um, Palin's father.

Umm. No. The three people present were Wooten, McCann (Palin's sister) and a chap named Chris Watchus. Mr Wooten, who did not have a moose-hunting license (they're pretty hard to get) shot the Moose. McCann, who had the license, and the use of which was the intent of going Moose-hunting in the first place, claims she was not given the opportunity to shoot the moose.

NTM

GuanYin

Incredibly cynical move that may work but will be disasterous for the US overall.

She has 20 months experience as governer. She has no foreign policy experience, she has no washington experience, she is under investigation for abuse of power, she is pro-life, she has no tax experience.

Just several weeks ago she asked, on live tv, what the job of VP entailed (she said she was waiting for someone to explain to her).

Does America really want a 72 year old man to bring this woman into frame for the presidency?

I personally think it is the most insulting move McCain could have pulled. Does he really think that liberal democratic Clinton suporters are going abandon all thier idealogies to fall in behind a staunch, pro-life, social conservative based purely on the fact she has a vagina?

The benefits for McCain are very shallow. The issues with her nomination are many.

Expect he to be strongly targetted in the election campaign.

MM, the Alaskan legislate have brought an independent body to investigate the "brother-in-law" issue, at the moment all information is sealed until the investigation concludes (in November). Don't expect that McCain had any inside information on it at all.

Manic Moran

Just several weeks ago she asked, on live tv, what the job of VP entailed (she said she was waiting for someone to explain to her).

Not such a stupid question, actually. Do you know exactly what the VP's job entails? Not just the big-ticket stuff like President of the Senate, but all the small sub-taskings, which councils he's head of, what committees he's involved with, any Party requirements, so on and so forth. I know I don't, and it is only prudent to know exactly what one is getting into.

MM, the Alaskan legislate have brought an independent body to investigate the "brother-in-law" issue, at the moment all information is sealed until the investigation concludes (in November).

Which is why Palin held her own investigation after the seeking of an outside investigator was announced. She wanted to know what information was out there to be found and she has access to all the sources that the legislators' investigator has. Since the legislators who brought in the investigator were talking about impeachment before the investigation even started, one of two situations likely existed: That there was some damning information to find, which she's probably found by now, or that there is perhaps a little pre-meditated bias. I'm inclined to think that she's going to ride this storm in the long term. Of course, in the short term (i.e. election campaign season), it's still ammunition to be thrown at her.

NTM

Manic Moran

dublinmayflower wrote: »

Those 30% of Hillary supporters were just swing voters anyway. If they are willing to vote McCain over Obama then they never had any belief in the Democratic party's basic ideals. Palin is a pro life, lifetime member off the NRA and aggressively pushing for drilling in the Arctic region. She is the antithesis of Hillary. As Hillary asked on Wednesday night, Were they voting for her or what she believed in and stood for? These people were obviously just in it for Hillary Clinton.

This may be true. You've got to be a pretty solid HC supporter to be a member of a site like Hillaryclintonforum.net.

Then they have threads like this.
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=26197

and

http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=26179

Just how representative they are of those who voted for HRC in the Primaries, I have no clue. Many of them appear to just want a woman to vote for.

One of them does make a good point, though.

SHE HAS FIVE KIDS!! TRUST ME! SHE KNOWS HOW TO RUN THINGS!

NTM

Hobbes

Lets see,

Creationist. - Check.
No forigen policy experience - Check.
Wants to overturn Roe v Wade - Check.
Promoted to a position she shouldn't be at - Check.
Doesn't believe in global warming - Check.

Yep, what I came to expect from the Republican party.

The only thing that sets her apart from McCain is that she wants drilling in ANWR. Oh and she is a woman (so that all Clinton supporters will choose her :rolleyes: ).

Hobbes

Also turns out McCain picked a VP he only met 6 months ago and only spoke to her once on the phone about VP position.

She also called Clinton a whiner. *whoops!* There goes those Clinton supporters she was brought in for.

axer

It is a very risky move for McCain to choose Palin which one would expect would lead to disastrous results but who can tell for sure. He is 72 and has been hit with cancer before so can she run the country if he dies? She has absolutely no experience on a national level - it is like something you would see on a TV show.

I think it is the best thing to happen to the Obama campaign. They can no longer attack abama on his foreign policy experience nor on experience in general.

Possibly some of the women vote will move but it will be very little - more than likely it will just please the republican women vote and make sure they vote. I doubt that is enough though.

I do think that Obama is too smart to be elected by the American people which is a pity since he does seem like he would be a great president and seems like he is in it for the right reasons.

Sand

Are you sure?

McCain met her once (ever) before choosing her for the ticket, so he hadn't exactly a whole bunch of time to look her in the eye and evaluate her, eh, character.

the Alaskan legislate have brought an independent body to investigate the "brother-in-law" issue, at the moment all information is sealed until the investigation concludes (in November). Don't expect that McCain had any inside information on it at all.

Its unproven that McCain and his advisors are morons. If they werent 100% sure that Palin was blameless she would not have been picked. There are plenty of other choices they could have made, that dont have a investigation behind them. For whatever reason, they have discounted the possibility of an embarrassing, campaign destroying finding against Palin in November. They are that confident shes innocent of any wrong doing that they will risk the entire campaign on it.

Now without you, or I, or anyone outside of the matter under investigation knowing the full details of the case the fact that they are that confident has a lot of weight.

This is where it gets nasty, but Google again and you'll see stuff about doubts that her Down Syndrome child, who she paraded in front of the cameras today, is actually hers. Her staff were astounded when she announced that she was seven months pregnant....her 16-year-old daughter, meanwhile, was absent from school for months.

Jesus wept tbh.

I suppose the hospital doctors who delivered the child all met unfortunate, messy ends shortly after the delivery...just to make sure the secret didnt get out

Palin is a catastrophic choice, for dozens of reasons, not least that they they can no longer use the 'lack of experience' line against Obama/Biden....not with a straight face.

Acctually they can - The McCain/Palin ticket has the experience in the top job calling the shots rather than in a relatively powerless....advisory/ceremonial position. And Palin is a state governor, with the executive experience to match.

Shes got far more executive experience than Obama, who apart from writing 2 books of memoirs, giving a good speech at the 2004 DNC, getting elected to the US senate in 2004 and sealing up the DNC presidential nomination this month hasnt got any executive experience or track record to speak of.

Hobbes

Sand wrote: »

Its unproven that McCain and his advisors are morons.

They seem to be doing a good job of it so far. Take for example his cringeworthy comeback on the Jay Leno show to how many houses does he own. The smart man would of just made a quick joke about it, not gone into a long speech about how they were a POW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OfQH4fJXmU

Seems to be used for the excuse of everything.

Shes got far more executive experience than Obama

Obama has way more experience then her overall. Even a lot of the Republican party agree on this.

Latchy

Dont know much about her cept she's an ex tv presenter and governor of some state but a hell of an improvement on Hillary

Sand

Obama has way more experience then her overall. Even a lot of the Republican party agree on this.

Way more experience writing books and giving good speeches I would agree. No experience whatsoever on running an executive at any level - well, I think he was president of the law review back in university - and hes only a first term senator, whose probably spent more time campaigning for office than actually in office.

The frightening thing is Palin *is* more experienced than Obama. And Obama is the *lead* candidate on his ticket, not Biden.

iguana

I'm worried that focusing on her "inexperience" will backfire on the democrats. She is a state governor, regardless of the fact that it's a small state and she's only been in the job two years. She has served at the highest political rank of any of the 4 runners. Calling her inexperienced along with mocking her for being a beauty queen comes across as sexist.

There are women out there who can be persuaded to vote for her entirely because she is a woman, and if the democrats come across as if they are belittling her because she is a woman, they will lose those voters.

They need to be focusing on the issues. Palin stands against so much that these women are supposed to believe in. She is anti-abortion, pro-guns, anti-gay marriage and happy to rape Alaskan wilderness for oil. There is plenty to say against her politics without belittling her.

Hobbes

iguana wrote: »

I'm worried that focusing on her "inexperience" will backfire on the democrats.

Well it was the Republicans that pulled out the inexperience card first, not the Democrats.

She has just under two years experience as governor, and previously a major for a city of approx 5,000 people. She has a BSc in journalism vs say Obamas J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard. Obama is a civil rights attorney and was a teacher in constitutional law.

She has zero foreign policy experience.

But funny to watch her being compared to Obama instead of Biden as a means of self defense.

Also the fact that McCain only recently knows her, spoken to her briefly and her lack of experience smells more of cronyism then actual picking someone who is best for the country.

axer

Can't wait for the Biden vs Palin VP Debates in October. Foreign policy being on the agenda.

mumhaabu

As I have stated in the AH thread this is one great piece of electoral genius by the GOP.

She has the potential to pull in voters all over as has McCain, whom from just looking at and listening to is a very likeable guy.

The GOP will keep America on track and not derail it into come French high tax socialist nightmare.

Obama-Biden are going nowhere and everybody are focusing on the issues one must not forget Obama is black and this will drive alot alot of White Americans to vote for McCain despite he probably being the complete opposite of their beliefs. Racial politics will play a big part in this. His full name is Barack Hussein Obama II, Americans will never but a person with an Arabic name in control of their country after the terror that was wreaked on their cities during 9/11. Obama will suffer from guilt through association and Fox News will play the greatest role in this election as never before.

Biden is a terrible VP candiadate and he looks like Gerald Ford!, America is the greatest country in the world and this has been majorly down to the GOP and FDR (who deserves credit too).

Like it or Lump it the GOP are the better bet and come January McCain and Palin will be in Washington and the American 21st century will continue, issues which will dominate are energy politcs, Iran will be invaded and continued military spending will reach new levels, America will ultimatly square off with Russia in a minor proxy war which will probably be fought in Eastern Europe, Europe is already moving right as people learn that socialism and its offshoots don't work.

John McCain and Palin FTW