McCain's VP Pick?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mary

I don't think I attacked anyone...just a post - and its a bit unfair to accuse me of being antagonistic in the political forum, don't ya think?

I think you're "unless you think poverty is a great idea" is pretty attacky. Snide and attacky.
and well, nanny, nanny, boo boo, then if that's all we want to do in this forum.

I honestly don't see the connection between eliminating trade and improving our industries.

I didn't ask if you did (you've already answered that clearly enough). I asked if you thought he did - hoping to get at whether you thought our industry was a problem, and if you think would be a better way to fix it.

[mary]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think you're "unless you think poverty is a great idea" is pretty attacky. Snide and attacky.
and well, nanny, nanny, boo boo, then if that's all we want to do in this forum.




I didn't ask if you did (you've already answered that clearly enough). I asked if you thought he did - hoping to get at whether you thought our industry was a problem, and if you think would be a better way to fix it.

Geesh, UL, who's the one being snippy here?

I thought it was pretty clear from his post that he thought protectionist policies would lead to a positive result.

I disagreed, and thought it was dumb, even for hyperbole.

Furthermore, I reallly didn't mean to be snippy. I'm just sitting here watching tv and browsing the internet. When I read wbmnn's post "world wide economic depression" is what came to mind, not "industry reform". So I made a comment about it. I have little interest in attacking anyone here, and certainly not you. Its true that I'm not normally know for my bright and cheery disposition. But this should be a surprise to no one.

If I was off base, you could've just said so....I wouldn't have taken it personally.

As to whether or not industry is a problem and needs to be reformed - I guess it depends on what industry we're talking about.

The health care industry? Yes, but I don't think that's what he was referring to.

The manufacturing sector? Perhaps - but we'd probably have to make some systematic changes to our economy that are rather unsavory (like ditching the minimum wage).

Or, are you asking me if I think we need to be self-sufficient in the manufacturing sect? In that case, no. Those days are far gone and over with.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mary

Geesh, UL, who's the one being snippy here?

well, I certainly am. But that's a different story.

I thought it was pretty clear from his post that he thought trade restrictions would lead to a positive result.

He definitely suggested such, but wasn't clear about his reason or hoped for result.

I disagreed, and thought it was dumb, even for hyperbole.

as sad as it is, I rely on a few of you for my economic education. I'm still a fan of the 'buy american' thing - It's just a good idea to hype pride in what we do (whatever it is we do) though doing it in the face of open markets would do more for us than closing those markets so that we don't have to get better at what we do (whetever it is we do).

When I read wbmnn's post "world wide economic depression" is what came to mind,

yeah. I think the quicker we move away from any post suggesting any one of us should be written in as a candidate the better. Except maybe for Evilmav. A series of political ads starring the Aztec Pyramid Death Skull might be just what this country needs. Or maybe we could just write in the Aztec Pyramid Death Skull. That would an inauguration for the ages.

The manufacturing sector? Perhaps - but we'd probably have to make some systematic changes to our economy that are rather unsavory (like ditching the minimum wage).

Or, are you asking me if I think we need to be self-sufficient in the manufacturing sect? In that case, no. Those days are far gone and over with.

That and farming is what I imagined when I read it. I've got a bunch of poorly formed notions of the current economy that all involve giant corporations that do nothing but buy and sell loans (I don't even know how that occurs), and people that got in over their heads with a million dollar 2 bedroom in the burbs of Southern California, and I was wondering what people thought about things like manufacturing and farming, which I always pictured more as the foundation of our economy (maybe I'm wrong about that). Probably a good idea to improve those, I thought, but then again, I don't really know if they need improving.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

A post is a post!!!!!!!!! Dont sit here and think that all of your posts have been by your thoughts alone. You have posted my times with words from others that you have read or heard. I posted the FACTS!!!! Get off that so called high horse of yours and do your job of moderating the board for people who are breaking the forum rules. Dont sit here and try to spin my post. I could check your posts many times. Those set of facts did not come from a source I found on the internet. I got those facts from emails that have came to me in the past. So, there you go. I posted the fact that those are FACTS, and I posted it here on the "POLITICAL ARENA" that is talking about this Presidential race.

Do I really have to explain to the difference between posting facts and copy/pasting an entire narrative and not giving any indication that you did so? C'mon Silk. Just say "here is a post/email I thought was good". That's all I'm asking. And really I'm just asking, there's nothing in the guidelines that says you have to, it's just a good thing to do.

Same goes for wmbwinn and his email. And just in case anyone was actually wondering, Bill Cosby did not write/say those things.

[Flacolaco]

You hardly posted facts, silk.

If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

Is not a "fact"

Barrack Obama has been married for 19 years, has raised two daughters, and has attended Protestant churches during that period of time.

Is a fact.

It's a pretty clear distinction. What you posted was someone else's sarcastic biased comments, which is great. Post away, that's what we're here for. But use the stinking quote button. It looks like this

[mary]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Same goes for wmbwinn and his email. And just in case anyone was actually wondering, Bill Cosby did not write/say those things.

I need to stop posting at night. I didn't realize that was a cut n paste job.

[rabbitproof]

Lol. Full circle...

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NkemPwvi_qY

[Some Guy]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yes, it's pointing out that the mccain campaign ran an advertisement mocking obama for the crowds that came to see him. it ridiculed him.

now, the mccain campaign is giddy they are able to use palin in the very same manner that they just a few weeks ago criticized obama's campaign of doing.

funny, they aren't running the obama ad, and they seem to have forgotten their previous negative statements about these mega events of obama.

don't you see the irony?

Maybe the defense of Obama's celebrity convinced the McCain campaign?

Do you see the irony in Obama supporters now mocking Palin for the same thing they defended Obama for?

I don't trust either side to be fair, honest, or consistent.

[rabbitproof]

is it transparent enough?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...-camp-let.html

[rabbitproof]

while not certified, this selection has all the symptoms of EPIC FAIL...

is she using notes??
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

while not certified, this selection has all the symptoms of EPIC FAIL...

is she using notes??
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec

Wow. At the one-minute mark, that thing took off like wildfire.

I will give Palin credit where credit is due, which is to say that she certainly effected a brand of reform in Alaska, and that she can give a hell of a speech. But she is in way over her head right now.

And I will give the McCain credit where it is due, which is to say that her selection will probably end up being a net-positive move politically, and that despite my doubts they will probably be able to get away with their strategy of carefully crafting her public appearances. After all, the initial buzz is gone, and if she doesn't do a single interview between now and the election, not a lot of swing voters will notice.

But to me she reinforces all the reasons why I am moving away from the Republican party for the first time in my life, this campaign. I believe that government is serious business, and I'm not seeing any seriousness from the Reps this time around. I see a lot of gamesmanship, but very little in the way of governance.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

while not certified, this selection has all the symptoms of EPIC FAIL...

is she using notes??
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec

After having seen this linked to on some other sites tonight, and watching it a couple more times, this is one of the most remarkable interview answers I've ever seen. What the hell happened midway through it?

I mean, this is a Saturday Night Live skit waiting to happen. It would be funny if it weren't so important.

I'll admit it, though...it is still pretty funny.

[chumdawg]

I wonder how shake-voice Palin will deal with this:

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=jj0bEzW7v1E

[rabbitproof]

Jesus, Tina Fey is just smasing on Palin! I just saw her latest SNL skit and ouch. It takes quotes straight from the Palin-Couric interview and just clowns circles, squares and triangles around that hiliariously tragic exchange.

*cue gladiator crowds: "merrcyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!"

If the Obama camp replaces Biden with anybody, it should be Fey. That'd be a debate worth watching.

[Mavdog]

it's hard to tell the difference between the real couric/palin interview and the skit on snl...in fact, wasn't the bailout answer almost word for word what palin told curic?

tina fey does palin

couric interviews palin pt 1

couric interviews palin pt 2

palin on foreign policy

wonder if palin knows how to pronounce "caricature"? "mock" appears to be a word she can handle tho.

you know, having palin as veep would guarantee 4 years of good material for fey and other writers...unfortuantely, it would also be extremely embarassing for our country.

[chumdawg]

You know, when Putin raises his head and flies over our airspace, it's Alaska he is flyin' over. You do know that, right?

[Mavdog]

you know, it's only those "prep school" grads who "put on their backpacks" that should get a passport. the rest of us just don't need one, we can read books about other lands rather than actually travel to them. you can get such a bettter grasp by the books, travelling is such hard work and you actually would have to talk to foreigners if you went there!

[ShaggyDirk]

McCain needs a mulligan.

[chumdawg]

McCain needs an enema.

[mary]

What it's like to debate Sarah Palin

I know firsthand: She's a master of the nonanswer.
By Andrew Halcrofrom the October 1, 2008 edition

Anchorage, Alaska - When he faces off against Sarah Palin Thursday night, Joe Biden will have his hands full.

I should know. I've debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do.

On paper, of course, the debate appears to be a mismatch.

In 2000, Palin was the mayor of an Alaskan town of 5,500 people, while Biden was serving his 28th year as a United States senator. Her major public policy concern was building a local ice rink and sports center. His major public policy concern was the State Department's decision to grant an export license to allow sales of heavy-lift helicopters to Turkey, during tense UN-sponsored Cyprus peace talks.

On paper, the difference in experience on both domestic and foreign policy is like the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing a bullet. Unfortunately for Biden, if recent history is an indicator, experience or a grasp of the issues won't matter when it comes to debating Palin.

On April 17, 2006, Palin and I participated in a debate at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks on agriculture issues. The next day, the Fairbanks Daily News Miner published this excerpt:

"Andrew Halcro, a declared independent candidate from Anchorage, came armed with statistics on agricultural productivity. Sarah Palin, a Republican from Wasilla, said the Matanuska Valley provides a positive example for other communities interested in agriculture to study."

On April 18, 2006, Palin and I sat together in a hotel coffee shop comparing campaign trail notes. As we talked about the debates, Palin made a comment that highlights the phenomenon that Biden is up against.
"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.

While policy wonks such as Biden might cringe, it seemed to me that Palin was simply vocalizing her strength without realizing it. During the campaign, Palin's knowledge on public policy issues never matured – because it didn't have to. Her ability to fill the debate halls with her presence and her gift of the glittering generality made it possible for her to rely on populism instead of policy.

Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she's met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges.

In one debate, a moderator asked the candidates to name a bill the legislature had recently passed that we didn't like. I named one. Democratic candidate Tony Knowles named one. But Sarah Palin instead used her allotted time to criticize the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski. Asked to name a bill we did like, the same pattern emerged: Palin didn't name a bill.

And when she does answer the actual question asked, she has a canny ability to connect with the audience on a personal level. For example, asked to name a major issue that had been ignored during the campaign, I discussed the health of local communities, Mr. Knowles talked about affordable healthcare, and Palin talked about ... the need to protect hunting and fishing rights.

So what does that mean for Biden? With shorter question-and-answer times and limited interaction between the two, he should simply ignore Palin in a respectful manner on the stage and answer the questions as though he were alone. Any attempt to flex his public-policy knowledge and show Palin is not ready for prime time will inevitably cast him in the role of the bully.

On the other side of the stage, if Palin is to be successful, she needs to do what she does best: fill the room with her presence and stick to the scripted sound bites.

• Andrew Halcro served two terms as a Republican member of the Alaska State House of Representatives. He ran for governor as an Independent in 2006, debating Sarah Palin more than two dozen times. He blogs at www.andrewhalcro.com.

Find this article at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1001/p09s01-coop.html

[jthig32]

Ok, look, she clearly lacks substance. That interivew from a few days ago was painful, no doubt about it.

But you do realize you could take the sections talking about her "presence", replace "Palin" with "Obama" and it would still ring true, right?

Really, you can take this entire article, and put Obama in Palin's place and McCain in Biden's place, and the whole thing would still ring true.

[mcsluggo]

uh.....

No.

[Flacolaco]

...the glittering generality...

Sounds like the junior senator to me.

But remember thig, your opinion is wrong. Please stop thinking your opinions.

[jthig32]

Look, I can admit Palin's faults. Clearly she's far from perfect.

But anyone trying to deny that Obama is going to win this election because he speaks well and has a good presence is fooling themselves.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Look, I can admit Palin's faults. Clearly she's far from perfect.

But anyone trying to deny that Obama is going to win this election because he speaks well and has a good presence is fooling themselves.

Do you actually listen when he speaks? I mean, to the words and not just the sounds.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Do you actually listen when he speaks? I mean, to the words and not just the sounds.

I'm not saying he is completealy lacking in substance.

What I am saying is if he spoke like W, he would not be about to win an election.

[mcsluggo]

It is very true to say that his speaking ability is a true core strength. Agreed, he wouldn't be close to being the nominee without it. (It was also Reagan's primary core strength)

but that is very different from arguing that he doesn't have any substance...

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Ok, look, she clearly lacks substance. That interivew from a few days ago was painful, no doubt about it.

But you do realize you could take the sections talking about her "presence", replace "Palin" with "Obama" and it would still ring true, right?

Really, you can take this entire article, and put Obama in Palin's place and McCain in Biden's place, and the whole thing would still ring true.

Once again, you spill extremely silly comparisons with Obama. There is no comparison between public policies with Obama and Palin. She is extremely underqualified for the VP position. But, I will give her this, she is the right person in a state that wants to be separate from the United States. Not only that, but it showed when she finally decided to get a passport, she went overseas ONLY to visit with the Alaskan troops. Once again, proving she wants nothing to do with the other 49 states.

I really cant see how anybody could defend the Palin pick, unless you have other motives. Before the Palin pick, the anti-Obama groups talked about how his lack of experience was what made him such a bad pick. But the same anti-Obama groups are now trying to sell Palin as the model of perfection for the VP position, and even as President if need be.

The real issue is between McCain and Obama and who is best for the United States during these times. It is very clear "Change" is needed, and it is even more clear that Obama provides "Change". if Hillary was the pick, she would be "Change", but on the other hand, she would not be total "Change", because she had her time with her husband in office.

To be very honest, a Pre-2000 McCain, would be the best pick for President right now. I would put Obama right behind him, and Hillary as 3rd best pick. The current McCain is indeed "McSame". We can all agree, that a McSame is not the answer.

Palin is indeed a disgrace pick to any political party as a running mate for VP. She is just fine in Alaska. The Palin pick was a slap in the face to the Republican party, and a Pre-2000 McCain would utterly be offended with a Palin pick.

[Kirobaito]

Word on the street is that the mysterious missing question from the Palin-Couric interview is how Palin couldn't name a major Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.

[rabbitproof]

Is she just being a politician or is she obtuse?

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Is she just being a politician or is she obtuse?

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

I think the answer is: neither. I think she is seeing monsters in the closet, as it were.

See, that was a pretty simple question. It would have been pretty easy to answer at face value and not make much fuss about. But I think she has been handled and over-handled, and also shaken by the feedback from the Gibson interview, so much so that she is now...again...seeing monsters in the closet. She is poised, now, to see every question as an attack on her qualifications.

Look at what she did in that answer. She started off with some odd rhetorical tactic about the integrity of the press (no need to do that there, as the question was very benign), and she ended up with a staunch defense of Alaska's place among American politics (no need to do that, as this wasn't at issue here until she herself brought it up).

A shrewd politician would have said something like: "I read the same papers that everyone else reads...the Times, the Post, the Journal...you know, we do get those in Alaska, just so you know. [Optional: I read Magazine X, Magazine Y, Magazine Z.] You asked about my worldview. I don't let any single one of these publications shape my worldview, because I recognize that each of them approaches world events from a certain perspective. But you're right that it is important to stay informed, and though it might surprise you, even all the way up here in Alaska I've been able to that."

That would have been very, very easy to pull off. Of course, that may not actually be the truth. In itself, that's not necessarily a problem. She could have gone the George Bush route and thrown it out there that she doesn't read the papers and if you don't like it you can go f*** yourself. But again, those monsters in the closet. What if that would be a mistake? Steve Schmidt, were are you? What should I say?

That's how train wrecks like these happen. You don't have genuine answers that will suffice, and you don't have a candidate skilled enough to give the politican's answer. So you are left with "I read 'em all."

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

Once again, you spill extremely silly comparisons with Obama. There is no comparison between public policies with Obama and Palin. She is extremely underqualified for the VP position. But, I will give her this, she is the right person in a state that wants to be separate from the United States. Not only that, but it showed when she finally decided to get a passport, she went overseas ONLY to visit with the Alaskan troops. Once again, proving she wants nothing to do with the other 49 states.

I really cant see how anybody could defend the Palin pick, unless you have other motives. Before the Palin pick, the anti-Obama groups talked about how his lack of experience was what made him such a bad pick. But the same anti-Obama groups are now trying to sell Palin as the model of perfection for the VP position, and even as President if need be.

The real issue is between McCain and Obama and who is best for the United States during these times. It is very clear "Change" is needed, and it is even more clear that Obama provides "Change". if Hillary was the pick, she would be "Change", but on the other hand, she would not be total "Change", because she had her time with her husband in office.

To be very honest, a Pre-2000 McCain, would be the best pick for President right now. I would put Obama right behind him, and Hillary as 3rd best pick. The current McCain is indeed "McSame". We can all agree, that a McSame is not the answer.

Palin is indeed a disgrace pick to any political party as a running mate for VP. She is just fine in Alaska. The Palin pick was a slap in the face to the Republican party, and a Pre-2000 McCain would utterly be offended with a Palin pick.

I totally agree Silk. Even McCain before 2000 was a good choice. Palin is way out there. I figure her and Ron Artest or even Dennis Rodman good get together and maybe understand each other. I think even Artest might have settled down these days and makes more sense than Palin. I have seen those radical things you have mentioned about her, among other things on her. After all this is over, i wonder and hope they tell in the reps party, who actually picked her. It makes me wonder if Rove is losing it or who did this. They say big Mac wanted Libberman and i am not a fan of his but he would have been alot better than Palin. Palin sometimes gets caught up with a different policy than McCains. She doesn't know any difference. She doesn't know McCain and the word was out awhile back, she didn't care for him much, before she was ever picked for vp. She thought it was good and funny that Obama was making nice gains in Alaska. This was before she was picked.

Even Libberman knows McCain like a book. If Mac forgets anything or makes a mistake, Libberman is by his side correcting him and right on cue. I mean Libber & Mac are almost the spitting image of twins. Palin, hmmm now sure where she fits in on politics. She did good at the rally(convention) where they told her what to read.

I was somewhat worried when Obama didn't pick Hillary because i knew it was a win for him with her. I thought Biden was a good pick and a safe pick but what if Mac would have picked a conservative republican likes Roms? Roms could have possibly picked off some northern dem states and probably would have. Roms is an economics man. He sure wouldn't hurt right now as the talks are economics. I know he did what Obama did, the heat was was just to much for Obama to get Hillary and maybe deal with Bill and the same with Mac not liking and having to deal with Roms.

I also feel what hurt Hillary was "change" and thinking how can the Clinton's, Bush or McSame be change? Whoever gets it is going to have one huge mess on there hands but i feel in the end Obama can get us back on the right path but you talking about a coutry strapped for money now, this adm sure knew how to spend. I have never seen anything like this. I just hope we can have a huge break out in jobs and technology here and get the money flowing again here and people back to work. The sooner the better.

[Windmill360]

Can't wait until Thursday!

[mcsluggo]

she will do fine thursday...

[Dirkgreatness]

Aren't any of you guys terrified of the idea that she can potentially become the president?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Dirkgreatness

Aren't any of you guys terrified of the idea that she can potentially become the president?

Beyond freakin' belief. I can't imagine what a Palin presidency would look like. Hollywood couldn't write the script.

I think it's probably true that if you flipped Biden and Obama, not a game-changing amount of votes would change...but if you flipped Palin and McCain, the Dems would win in a landslide. Hell, if you flipped both tickets, then I'm not sure the Reps would win more than ten states.

That is scary stuff, man.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Dirkgreatness

Aren't any of you guys terrified of the idea that she can potentially become the president?

Why? Does she completely lack any executive experience? Does she have campaign managers that were formerly execs at Fannie and Freddie and made millions from them while helping steer them down the path for which we're now paying? Did she have a racist bigot pastor who says "god damn america?" Does she have a long history of relations with an unrepentant domestic terrorist? Did she support legislation to teach sex ed to 2nd graders? Does she think it's ok to have partial birth abortions? To suck a babies brains out when it's half born? Does she think that babies surviving an abortion attempt should just be left alone to die? Does she think her daughter that made a mistake shouldn't be "punished" with a a baby? Does she want to cut military spending in a post 9/11 world? Does she want to raise Social Security taxes, windfall profits taxes, taxes on small business, capital gains tax, the cap on payroll taxes, and income taxes, knowing full well that it would be extraordinarily unhealthy in an economic downturn such as this? Did she chair a subcommittee that never even went into session? Voted "present" over 100 times in the IL senate? Does she think americans are bitter, clinging to their guns and religion? Did she somehow serve in politics in Chicago, notoriously corrupt, and yet not out any of that corruption at all, or was that her that risked her career to out corruption in her own party? Did her own clown of a running mate say on several occasions that she is not ready to be president? Did she ever vote on a tax increase for those making only $42,000 a year? Has she voted to raise taxes 94 times? Does she think that the trillions of barrels of oil beneath america should be replaced by air in your tires? Did she receive any dirty campaign contributions from Tony Rezko? Does she think that "little countries" like North Korea and venezuela are not a threat? Did she say she'll agree to meet with leaders of terrorists countries without pre-conditions? Did she say our troops are just "air raiding villages and killing civilians?"

...no, that was Barack Obama.

Doesn't that scare you a little bit?

[chumdawg]

Does Flacolaco listen to Rush Limbaugh? It would certainly seem so!

[Mavdog]

flac, you need to spend some time here at factcheck.org, there's a whole lot of incorrect items in that rant.

[Flacolaco]

Enough of it is true (the vast majority) to be scary. He is a dangerous man, with dangerous ideas, dangerous associations, and no experience. It will be a very sad "I told you so" in 8 years when he's done.

And chum, I don't listen to Rush. I wish he would shut his mouth....he's so in love with himself it's nauseating and it takes up his entire show. Every time I catch a few minutes of it he's praising himself. It's awful.