Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

I cannot disprove the article posted, NOG, but I'm not particularly inclined to try either. If there was much merit to this guy's work, why has FOX News not been screaming about this? While I cannot say for certain that it is false, it's the only time I've heard anyone say anything about this, so the voice of one does not, at least for me, override the voice of many others. Plus, even if his father is Arabic, Obama's dad isn't running for President.

NOG, there are several things that McCain's flip-flopped on in the last 15 days. There's no reason to go back years. Let's review the last two weeks. First McCain said the fundamentals or our economy are strong, only to backtrack later that day and say that we are in an economic crisis when Lehman Brothers failed. Next he said that he was against all corporate bailouts, and two days later said he supported the decision to bailout AIG. Then he announced that he was suspending his campaign (even though he never actually you know... stopped campaigning) in order to return to Washington to work on the bailout deal. He went so far as to say he wouldn't participate in the debate until a deal was reached. He arrived in Washington just when it appeared a resolution was ready, only to see it fall apart. He debated anyway. Then, this past weekend he said he supported the newly proposed deal and felt it was "necessary, even if unopopular", because you know - country first! He even identified himself with the bill, going so far as to say he was a major reason a compromise had been reached, because he's a maverick willing to work across party lines. Of course, then the bailout bill failed in the house. So now his reasoning is that it was "Obama and his Democratic allies" that have infused partisanship into the debate that caused the bill to fail. Except that most Democrats voted FOR the bailout package and most Republicans voted AGAINST it. Oh, and Obama hasn't even been in DC since Saturday, and it wasn't him that was telling people how to vote on the bill. McCain can't seem to stay on message for more than a few hours!

Troopergate is an after thought by this point. A recent Newsweek/WSJ poll released yesterday indicated that 37% of Republicans - yes REPUBLICANS have said they would now prefer that Sarah Palin would resign from the ticket. While I'm sure some of this involves the alleged lies, half-truths, and constant drip of scandals surrounding her, it also has a lot to do with the fact that she makes a fool of herself every time she opens her mouth. This same poll found the 49% of REPUBLICANS feel she is not ready to be president. She has also set a record for setting the lowest level of expectation ever for a vice-presidential debate. (OK that last one wasn't part of the poll - I made that one up myself.) I can't wait for Thursday night.

The point being is that while Palin is still very popular among Christian Conservatives because her religious beliefs match their own, she is seen as a disaster by a significant percentage of people within the Republican Party. She certainly gave McCain a bounce at a time that he needed it the most, but now she's turned into an anchor.

 

Trouble is, gang, that unless Palin rapes a dog on national television, bumping her off the ticket would make McCain look like a complete idiot. He'd have no chance at all in the election. They'd have to come up with some sort of really, REALLY fabulous spin that would sell the idea to the swing voting public, and I don't think that is in the realm of possibility, even for the much vaunted / maligned Republican spin machine.

You're stuck with her until at least Nov. 04, my Yankee doodle dandies!

 

Oh that's certain. There's no way Palin will be dropped from the ticket. McCain has a chance to weather this and come out okay, but not if he drops her. He can't. This is kind of what I was talking about a month ago when I said it would eventually sink in even to those who think highly of her what a disastrous pick she was to begin with. You never want to be in a position where dropping your running mate is even being floated as an option 5 weeks before election day. You also shouldn't choose a running mate so woefully out of her depth that you have to hide her from the press for fear that she'll say something stupid. Honestly - hiding a candidate for the vice presidency is absolutely unprecedented in our nation's history. That's hardly a vote of confidence in her abilities.

 

Palin would not be dropped, she would resign for family reasons, of course. She is a mom with a child who requires special needs and they could spin that like a top - IF they want to drop her. But who are they going to pick? Rudy? Huckabee? Not likely.

But I've heard that the trial debates they held for Palin have been so bad, that they brought in everyone they could, and they now have her down at McCain's ranch in Arizona, trying hard to get her ready for Thursday night. The good news for Palin is that the expectations are now so low that if she shows up and can pronounce "Vice President" that it will be considered a success for her.

 

Hey, Bush won with Quayle. Even after the "You're no Jack Kennedy" comment.

 

Yes, but Quayle had the good sense to wait to become a national joke until after the election. Palin wasn't so patient.

 

Is she or isn't she? The talk from the extreme right is that Palin is the "big conservative," making the McCain/Palin ticket acceptable to the hardcore, faithful. Well, an interesting interview displaying a number of interesting sides of the "real" Palin:

1. Although she thinks abortion should be illegal, she believes that no woman should do any time in jail for getting one.

2. She believes that global warming is real, and she sees the effects of it in her state. She claims that she is not sure what is causing it, but she feels that action needs to be taken on the global warming issue. But she also feels that there may be "activities caused by man" that are contributing to it, and that it may also be the result of regular weather patterns. But to her, it "does not matter" because she says that "global warming is real."

3. She has gay friends and she refuses to pass judgment on their choices. She says that it is their choice to be whatever they choose.

4. She is a self-proclaimed "feminist." And she thinks of herself as one.

5. She has respect for the science of evolution and she believes that it is an accepted theory that should be taught in school science classes.

Of course, she made one of her classic gaffes by commenting that she reads "all the newspapers" but could not name a single one to Katie. Really, you have to see it to believe it.

When she talks about what she believes, she comes off as a complete moderate, who is somewhat of an evironmentalist and reformer. NOT, the hardcore wingnut that the Evangelcial right would like everyone to believe. In other words, she is a good politician. It's too bad that she was just thrust into all this in the manner she was, because she is obviously in over her head, while at the same time she is a savvy politician. But judge for yourself. On this board she would probably be disagreeing on the issues with those here who are her biggest supporters...at least that's how I see it. Feel free to disagree but at least listen closely to the "real" Sara. She's in there somewhere.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/30/eveningnews/main4490618.shtml

 

Well, it looks like the media has done it again. The moderator of the upcoming VP debate has a book coming out in January titled "Politics and Race in the Age of Obama."

Anyone want to guess how impartial of a moderator she will be? Oy Veh!

 

You can tell all that just from the title of the book? Wow. Using your logic, Sean Wilentz - major jackass, staunch Clinton (both Bill and Hilary) supporter, and outspoken critic of the Bush administration - is a conservative, since he's the author of a book called "The Age of Reagan".

 

I like the way that one person comes out with a book and "It's the Media." Yeah, the entire media has "done it again." In the "Age of Fox" and AM radio you guys really need a new battle cry.

 

I see Snook is as usual taking his cues from the right-wing blogs and laying the groundwork for the "blame the liberal media" excuse. God forbid if Palin does poorly tomorrow night, it should maybe - just maybe - be considered her own fault.

Oy veh, indeed.

--

Truth be told, I have a bad feeling about the debate tomorrow night. Expectations are set so low for Palin that if she manages to just use complete sentences she'll likely emerge as the winner according to the media. All she knows is canned talking points, and the format of this debate certainly favors canned talking points. Add to that Biden's penchant for gaffes and...well, let's just wait and see. She can't possibly get any worse, and at best may actually help McCain by making her a non issue. That's what McCain's campaign has said they're hoping for, anyway.

It's hard to even comment about this without being reminded of what a farce it all is. Hoping for your candidate to just manage not to be a total disaster. What a state our country is in.

 

I thought that was an interesting article. Appearently, she's even better than President Clinton was.

 

Now I wonder, is that a condemnation or a grudging compliment?

 

I think you'll find that most politicians from both sides of the aisle tend to be able to skillfully dodge or evade questions. Those who rely on statistics, IMHO, tend to not do so well. That comes because I believe that most people today don't trust the bloody things. We all know Twain's comment "there's lies, damn lies, and then statistics!"

When someone starts throwing stats at me, I listen to what they have to say, but I am always wondering about what they AREN'T saying. What methodology was used to collect these stats? How exactly did this fellow word the stats -- is there some semantic loophole that's distorting what is said? As soon as stats start flying, many deeply entrenched people simply start grasping for stats that support their position rather than actually listening to what is being said. Plus, the leaps that some people make with their stats to conclusions that the stats simply do not support can be astounding -- and that can be done by any side of an argument, I hasten to add.

So pee on Palin all you like -- it would appear she knows what the people want to hear, and what they DON'T want to hear. That hardly makes her a horrible person or an ignorant one for that matter.

 

Partially, BTA. But it also says she is more in tune with her audience. Let's face it, there are very few people who listen attentively to details -- most just want to know how something is going to affect them. All the facts and figure in the world don't mean anything if you don't connect with your audience.

 

Yeah, nothing like a good catch phrase to dismiss whatever data gets presented.

 

BTA - Halcro, the guy from your link, was interviewed on CNN this morning. He commented that Palin's popularity in Alaska was that she governed "from the center" and that she was popular even with liberals because of her lack of ideology. He also remarked that now that she is on the "national ticket, she has changed."

His comments were intelligent, in saying that if the moderator of tonight's debate can keep the questions and answers focused that Palin may have to answer in a more direct manner than she has in the past. He feels that voters are looking for specific answers to the problems in this election and that platitudes and personality would not be able to overcome that. I think he's right. This election is too important.