Once the initial defensiveness re: Palin dies down...

Originally Posted by groverat

What the fuck are Republicans going to say to justify this obviously-political pick?

Joe Biden... nothing needs to be said about Joe Biden on the "experience" front.

So she's an unknown quantity, which can be fine. If McCain picked a person he knew and trusted as a legitimate presidential stand-in for him based on personal knowledge of the candidate, even if the candidate didn't have the obvious bonafides, I'd understand...

But McCain doesn't know this woman. He's "known" her for 6 months, and I put that in quotation marks because he hadn't talked to her in those 6 months except an initially meeting and a phone interview 6 months later asking if she wanted to be his Vice President.

No matter what Palin turns out to be, and I don't want to prejudge her, what on earth does that kind of decision-making process say about John McCain as a potential president of the United States?

Originally Posted by Jubelum


[edit] OMG. I just heard Palin say "nukular."

Originally Posted by groverat

What the fuck are Republicans going to say to justify this obviously-political pick?

I don't know much about her, and that isn't for lack of trying. She's been on the short-list rumor mill for months now and there's just nothing about her. Say what you will about Obama, but he has over a decade of documented political philosophy easily available, including 2 books outlining his ideas about the world, one of those specifically dealing with policy issues (and another one coming). Joe Biden... nothing needs to be said about Joe Biden on the "experience" front.

So she's an unknown quantity, which can be fine. If McCain picked a person he knew and trusted as a legitimate presidential stand-in for him based on personal knowledge of the candidate, even if the candidate didn't have the obvious bonafides, I'd understand...

But McCain doesn't know this woman. He's "known" her for 6 months, and I put that in quotation marks because he hadn't talked to her in those 6 months except an initially meeting and a phone interview 6 months later asking if she wanted to be his Vice President.

No matter what Palin turns out to be, and I don't want to prejudge her, what on earth does that kind of decision-making process say about John McCain as a potential president of the United States?

What the fuck are Republicans going to say to justify this obviously-political pick?

Originally Posted by jamac

She's already practicing to be in the white house:
yup, yup, yup I am ready

Food choices: Caribou and Moose burgers are everyday dinner.
Wolves must be eliminated from the landscape ( I wonder how all this goes with gods creation ...) God hates wolves and bears and nature. God only likes hunters and war and the mentally ill.

Originally Posted by jamac

She's already practicing to be in the white house:
yup, yup, yup I am ready

Originally Posted by mydo

That trooper used a tazer on a 10 year old. Not exactly your ideal victim. If this is the best scandal we can come up with then it aint looking good.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Ladies and gentleman, the 45th president of the US:

Originally Posted by jamac

Mayor of Wasilla is by far the most demanding executive job in the US (Hawaii, Guam and Puerto Rico included).
Wasilla

Originally Posted by Jubelum

As opposed to Milhouse, who has never been an executive at all... sa-weet.
I'm all for the Dems bringing up the experience issue. 142 days. 142.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

I'm all for the Dems bringing up the experience issue. 142 days. 142.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Hillary supporters should be outraged at this shallow tactic by McCain.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Dems won't bring it up. But apparently the theme for the RNC convention - and presumably the rest of the election - was going to be how "dangerously inexperienced" Obama is. I don't see how they can keep this theme now. Dems are very happy simply to talk about issues. Every election, Dems believe Americans agree with them on the issues, but Repubs succeed in instead making it about how Gore is a liar and Kerry is an elitist and Obama is inexperienced. If that is taken off the table, and it makes the media stop chattering about it, Dems will be happy.

Originally Posted by jamac

linky?

Originally Posted by jamac

Bush used the US army on an imbecile (Saddam) he is still in office.

Originally Posted by Akumulator

I agree. In fact, I'd go as far as saying John McCain is sexist for choosing his VP based soley on her sex. It's like choosing the only black guy to be on your basketball team without even knowing if he can play based soley on his race.

Originally Posted by mydo

Please don't take this the wrong way and with all due respect I suggest that you do your own research on Palin so that you know the basic details of the discussion. This woman is running for VP and and it's worth knowing about her no matter which side you are on. Within a short night of google searching I read about Palin's "TrouperGate" and learned that although she may have abused her power it can be easily deflected.

So go find your own "linky".




Yea. That's the guy that got reelected! So I don't know why everyone thinks Obama is a slam dunk when Bush was reelected.

Originally Posted by mydo

Please don't take this the wrong way and with all due respect I suggest that you do your own research on Palin so that you know the basic details of the discussion. This woman is running for VP and and it's worth knowing about her no matter which side you are on. Within a short night of google searching I read about Palin's "TrouperGate" and learned that although she may have abused her power it can be easily deflected.

So go find your own "linky".

Yea. That's the guy that got reelected! So I don't know why everyone thinks Obama is a slam dunk when Bush was reelected.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Absolutely! Obama could have taken the low road by picking Hillary to hedge his bets.

However this would have contrasted with his platform of " Change " on many levels.

Originally Posted by addabox

I have seen, however, a lot a thought to the effect that, in a better world, Obama ought to be a slam dunk, given the grotesque clusterfuck of recent Republican "governance."

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Hillary is the low road. That ought to keep the PUMAs going.



As opposed to the six term liberal lion who is the very antithesis of "change" that he did pick?

This is so dumb... this talk about the purely political calculation that McMoron made in his veep choice. Einstein in a bathrobe, people, this is a political race, you know, in politics. Do you see that Obama chose that inside-the-beltway-solid-old-DNC-liberal Biden to add something to his ticket as well? Obama needed gravitas, he got it. McCain needed a conservative, he got her. Nothing to see here.

What a pathetic critique... "Waaaaa waaaaaa he chose someone that is attractive to the women and conservatives he'll need to win!"

Originally Posted by addabox

Have you ever noticed that you only get the "it's all politics" religion when the right does something stupid? When the left practices politics, it seems to strike you as a sign of demonic possession.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Hillary is the low road. That ought to keep the PUMAs going.



As opposed to the six term liberal lion who is the very antithesis of "change" that he did pick?

This is so dumb... this talk about the purely political calculation that McMoron made in his veep choice. Einstein in a bathrobe, people, this is a political race, you know, in politics. Do you see that Obama chose that inside-the-beltway-solid-old-DNC-liberal Biden to add something to his ticket as well? Obama needed gravitas, he got it. McCain needed a conservative, he got her. Nothing to see here.

What a pathetic critique... "Waaaaa waaaaaa he chose someone that is attractive to the women and conservatives he'll need to win!"

Originally Posted by jimmac

A VP is supposed to balance the ticket. You know! To satisfy those people who aren't sure about new ideas and want a background of experience also.

If you aks me it's much more valid than just choosing any woman to catch what little votes you can. It's a poor addition to an already poor platform with McSame.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

I think it is a bit sexist how you are paying 100% attention to her gender, and not her conservative credentials. McMoron needed that MUCH more than her gender. Please be aware of how the single-minded focus on her chromosome shape is a bit of a put down, because it emphasizes a physical trait over deeds or character. That's a big no-no.

Biden brought experience.
Palin brought the conservatism that McCain lacks in a huge way.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Calm down adda. You need to reread my post.

You did not see me on this board slamming Obama re:Biden as a "purely political pick." The simple fact is that this is the political realm, where people are competing for votes, so it should come as no surprise that candidates make POLITICAL decisions in the course of politics. This has nothing to do with partisan anything, and you've obviously missed my point in the hope of calling me out on something you've conjured yourself. You make it sound like I'm trying to cover for some deviant behaviour for "my side" by saying "everyone does it." There is nothing deviant or wrong about picking a veep that helps you make a better case to the voters. You are smarter than that, adda. I think you know full well what I meant.

Let me try this again. My point is regarding the stupidity of people who call out one party for making a "political pick" in the course of politics... after the other party just did the same thing. There is nothing to see here. The fact that a Prez candidate picks a person who will benefit his or her ticket should not come as some scandalous surprise. It's common fscking sense. Every cycle, in every party... Presidential candidates pick veeps that bring something to their ticket. What a huge "DUH."

Originally Posted by addabox

What is surprising is when a presidential candidate names a veep choice for purely political reasons, as in the case of McCain's pick.

Originally Posted by addabox

What is surprising is when a presidential candidate names a veep choice for purely political reasons, as in the case of McCain's pick.

Certainly there is political component to the Biden pick, but does anyone doubt that Biden could step in and do a credible job as president, if need be? Does anyone doubt that Biden brings genuine foreign policy expertise to an Obama administration? You can claim that it's merely "politics" when Obama seeks to "shore up" his foreign policy credentials, but notice it's a type of politics that hinges on his admins competency in a core aspect of governance. Palin shores up..... a demographic. There is literally no thought there to a McCain administration's ability to govern. Which is, of course, right in keeping with the last eight years.

Eight years of one of the most vacuously political administrations in American history has forced the right to pretend like there's no such thing as substantive policy, no such thing as a genuine desire to "do good", no such thing as the actual ability to use government, competently, as a tool for national betterment. There are only politics, and the deeper the right goes down the rat-hole of a fact free Rovian shit world the more strenuously they must declare that nothing more is possible or even desirable.

To mitigate the astonishing disaster of the Bush administration, it becomes necessary to declare all of American politics, all of American governance, all hope, all possibility, and all desire for something better to be stupid myths. The smart money is on ever more cynical manipulations, ever less competence, ever shriller divisions.

I wonder if most folks on the right even think McCain would be anything more than a mediocre president, at best. The things is, I don't think they really care.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

I think that claiming that it is purely political, again, misses the point. She is a conservative that would bring perspectives and values to the McMoron administration that it currently lacks. Another... "duh."

To hear some intellectually shallow hacks claim that "its a woman for the woman's vote" is a bit over the line and demonstrates some sexist tendencies... i.e., seeing physical trait over values and action. Who she is, not what she is.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

I think that claiming that it is purely political, again, misses the point. She is a conservative that would bring perspectives and values to the McMoron administration that it currently lacks. Another... "duh." She's spent more time in an executive capacity than Obama has, if experience is your beef.

To hear some intellectually shallow hacks claim that "its a woman for the woman's vote" is a bit over the line and demonstrates some sexist tendencies... i.e., seeing physical trait over values and action.

Who she is, not what she is.

Originally Posted by addabox

What do the Vice President's "perspective and values" have to do with running the country

Originally Posted by Jubelum

I pause to wonder if you have ever thought or posted anything even remotely like that in the last seven years with regard to Dick Cheney.

Originally Posted by addabox

I'm less interested in Dick Cheney's values, terrifying thought they may be, than in what he does. What he has been doing is plenty bad for me, without exploring the fundament of the man's psyche.

If you want to talk about Palin's "values" in the same context as Cheney, I would need to know her stance on foreign entanglements, free trade, monetary policy, taxation, energy use, immigration, etc. I would have to know if she has any interest or aptitude for addressing those issues legislatively.

"Values" are a bullshit distraction cooked-up by a Republican party whose policies are relentlessly fail.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

He's been rather terrifying in both thought and action, that much is certain.

Some of those can be addressed legislatively... by not legislating or repealing exist law. Such is her conservative position. Making a law is not the answer to every problem. I, too, want to hear more about her substantive positions on the issues you listed. And more.

No, real "values" guide behaviour. Every politician, even Saint Barack, use the term "values" in their schtick. Pelosi even uses "American values" to justify wealth redistribution. Behaviour matters, as you stated about the Big Dick. "Values" is just another door-to-door, Fuller-brush style device, like "change" or "fairness" or "common sense." It's how politics is now the process of populist semantics, not simply policy execution.

Originally Posted by addabox

We've had years of an administration, and a party, which shouts its values from the roof-tops while behaving like feral pigs, so you'll forgive me if I find that term a little suspect when it comes to evaluating the mettle of a nominee.

Originally Posted by addabox

You must have special Google that reveals how being shown to have abused one's power can be "easily deflected." Does that Google also indicate the triviality of having lied about abusing one's power? I ask because I know how the right is very adamant that lying about one's misdeeds is far worse than the misdeeds themselves.

Originally Posted by addabox

I think it's kind of funny that you think it's now the job of every American to dutifully go Google Palin's bio to fill themselves in on the basics. I would have thought that would have been McCain's job.

Originally Posted by addabox

But, I guess when you have political points to score, you can't waste any time with silly stuff like due diligence.

Originally Posted by addabox

I don't know anyone that thinks Obama is a slam dunk. I've encountered guarded optimism ranging to transfixed terror.

I have seen, however, a lot a thought to the effect that, in a better world, Obama ought to be a slam dunk, given the grotesque clusterfuck of recent Republican "governance."