TheScout Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Well, guess he figured since Obama chose an old white guy he'd go after the female vote! This is one of the main reasons I hate politics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisabob Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Pandering. That's how this will be viewed by a lot of people. If he thinks Hillary Clinton's supporters will blindly switch over to McCain just because he chose a woman, I think he's seriously mistaken. About the only things Palin and H Clinton have in common are their race and their gender. As for her sterling ethics record, the only reason for this is because she's so darned inexperienced. Her only political experience prior to becoming Alaska governor in 2006 comes from being a member of a city council and mayor of a town of about 8000 people. Th-th-th that's all folks, as Porky Pig might say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 The decision wasn't pandering for the liberal womens votes, it was an effort for the conservatives who are not energized by McCain. As for her experience, well I guess three years in the Senate might trump that. Barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Well, I guess I was wrong in predicting in the other thread that McCain would pick another "white guy". I had never heard of her, but just looked up her article on Wikipedia, which admittedly is not always a source of accurate information, but what I am about to mention seems to be properly referenced and written in a reasonably neutral manner. Her "sterling ethics record" may not be so sterling. As governor she fired her police commissioner and he has alleged that she did so because he would not fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper who was in a nasty divorce/custody fight with her sister. There is also an allegation that she improperly released the trooper's personnel file. There is an active legislative investigation going on now. It looks like there are definitely two sides to the story, but it puzzles me that McCain would pick someone where there are any sides to a current ethics investigation. I know there are going to be jokes about her having been the runner-up in the Miss Alaska contest when she was younger. (I am watching her first speech as the candidate on tv right now.) I think it is interesting that right after Obama picked someone whose son is being deployed to Iraq in October, McCain picked someone whose son is being deployed to Iraq in September. (Hey, there are a bunch of Boy Scouts and Scouters standing behind her, at this political rally, IN UNIFORM! Is that allowed??) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hops_scout Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 "she's so darned inexperienced. Her only political experience prior to becoming Alaska governor in 2006 comes from being a member of a city council and mayor of a town of about 8000 people." Would you rather have an inexperienced VP or an inexperienced President? That's what it looks like we're gonna get! Mr. Obama has done next to NOTHING for the State of Illinois during his time as a US Senator. He's pretty well been campaigning for the President spot since becoming a Senator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisabob Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 hops I suppose we could debate that. And usually I'd have to agree that the presidential candidate is a zillion times more important than the VP pick. But thinking carefully here, one of the big fears voters (even many Republicans) have about McCain is that he's old and he might die in office. This elevates his choice of VP to a much more important level than normal. All partisanship aside, I don't think that picking someone with such a minimal background and no foreign policy credentials at all, will assuage people's fears on that ground. Further, by choosing someone with such limited experience it effectively hamstrings McCain's attempts to paint Obama as unready to lead. All Obama needs to say back is, "Hey, you picked someone far less qualified (on paper at least) and you seem to think SHE'S ready to lead." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Wow, the reporter on CNN just said of Sarah Palin, "she's a woman, but she's a gun-toting woman." And viewers just learned (as I already read on Wikipedia) that her nickname as the point guard of her high school basketball team was "Sarah Barracuda". It's going to be an interesting few months. And I still want to know why those guys were on stage at a political rally wearing their Boy Scout uniforms! Isn't there a specific rule against that? And holy cow, a reporter on CNN just asked McCain's press secretary, Doesn't McCain's pick of Palin take the issue of Obama's experience off the table? And the press secretary's first words were basically, Oh come on, McCain's first choice was Joe Lieberman anyway. Um... doesn't that sort of take the glow off the announcement that McCain just made 15 minutes ago? And out of the mouth of his own press secretary? It's going to be a really interesting few months. Oh well, I'd better stop watching tv and get back to work.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulldogBlitz Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 "That's what it looks like we're gonna get! Mr. Obama has done next to NOTHING for the State of Illinois during his time as a US Senator. He's pretty well been campaigning for the President spot since becoming a Senator. " that is not exactly true. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/77500/barack_hussein_obama_jr_defends_partialbirth.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 >>And I still want to know why those guys were on stage at a political rally wearing their Boy Scout uniforms! Isn't there a specific rule against that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted August 29, 2008 Author Share Posted August 29, 2008 Well I must admit I knew very little about the woman before today. It seems she gained statewide noteriety in 2003 after launching a vigours ethics campaign against state Republicans including the state party chairman while serving on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. She ran for Governor without much support in the Republican party as a result and won. She appears to be a good fiscal and social conservative. She killed the infamous bridge to nowhere in her own state and apparently has been a big fighter of pork. She opposes abortion, gun control, gay marriage. Has executive experience as Governor of Alaska and mayor. Something Mr. Obama lacks. As a hard core conservative I like the pick. A good bio I found: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7588542.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Eagledad, I did not say I felt shame at seeing uniformed Boy Scouts at a political rally, cheering on the candidates. Nor did I say I felt pride. What I felt was that there was a possible violation of the rules about wearing the uniform. If there were Boy Scouts on stage at a previous Democratic Convention, they should not have been there either. Nor should anyone have been booing them. But they shouldn't have been there. (This is assuming I am correct on the regulations, which I have not looked up.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 If he would have chosen a Black man or a woman of any kind, he would be called pandering, if he would have selected another white guy he would have been accused of "more of the same". I think they call that a no win situation It is at times like this its good to remember that the president is not the CEO of the Country, he is head of one of three branches of government and like Baseball Mangers, Presidents get more credit than they should when things go well and too much blame when they do not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted August 29, 2008 Author Share Posted August 29, 2008 "Presidents get more credit than they should when things go well and too much blame when they do not" Amen to that. My favorite one is when Presidents take credit/blame for the economy. Even the President has so little effect on the cyclical nature of our economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 >>This is assuming I am correct on the regulations, which I have not looked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now