Sarah Palin- McCain's VP pick?

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: GHook93 (1) She has been a successful state legislator, city councilman and mayor. In fact she over-saw the fastest growing community in the state - Wasilla. If fact she was elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

She did run a town inhabited by 6,000 people. Waw.

Quote by: GHook93 (2) She believes its a priority to reduce greenhouse gases. But she is not ignoring the gas crisis. With rising gas prices she supports more drilling. adn.com | environment : State aims to reduce emissions.

Yay! Another politician who knows a lot but does little. She decided to decrease Alaska's greenhouse gaz emmission (sorry, she THOUGHT about it) but she has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, which means increased greenhouse gaz emmission for the rest of the world. Also, she stated that she didn't believe that global warming was man-made.

Quote by: GHook93 (3) Although she is against gay marriage (something important to the Republican base, but not to me personally), she vetoed a bill that barred the state from granting benefits to gay state employees and their partners. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples Alaska governor won't block partner benefits -- Queer Lesbian Gay News -- Gay.com

Good, but not exeptionnal. A better description would be "adequate" or "required", which means that it was a neutral action.

Quote by: GHook93 (4) She showed fiscal conservatism: She used her veto power to make the second-largest cuts of the construction budget in state history. The US$237 million in cuts represented over 300 local projects, and reduced the construction budget to nearly US$1.6 billion. In an era where the government spends too much money on wasteful projects its refreshing to see someone who cuts that fat. Trust me she must of gotten a huge amount of crap from the special interests for this. http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories...70708005.shtml

This was no good. We must set priorities to avoid "fat"/"crap" project, not cut the ressources. The little she "saved" was spent in perhaps 1-2 days of war in Irak. Was this bettehr than new hospitals?

Quote by: GHook93 (5) She has a high approval rating. 84% approve and only 5% oppose. In an era of poor approval ratings, her approval ratings is awesome! LOL, what is the Democratic Congress approval rating down to - last I heard 16%! KTUU.com | Alaska's news and information source | Stevens may have work cut out in reelection

Irrevelant/Worthless argument.

Quote by: GHook93 (6) $5 billion budget surplus for AK! Yes yes oil prices have helped AK, but even with that the surplus is amazing! Never under-estimate governments apply to squander surpluses and profits. She has shown an ability to balance the budget, cut spending in opposition to special interests and has a history of cutting taxes! Rift over budget surplus widens: Alaska News | adn.com

Granted, given that she increased taxes on oil compagnies, which was a good thing.

Quote by: GHook93 (7) Knows education is important. Let's face it the better educated a country is, the better off the country is. She knows that spending money in education is a SMART thing to do. Rift over budget surplus widens: Alaska News | adn.com

Again, "adequate" or "required" would be better than "smart". Beside that, she believe that creationism should be taught as well as evolution.

Quote by: GHook93 (8) For a 42 yr old, she is HOT!

44 years old. Irrevelant/Worthless argument.

Quote by: GHook93 (9) Has a son in the military and serving overseas. So that makes 2 people on the ticket with children in the armed forces (don't forget McCain has a son serving in the marines!).

Irrevelant/Worthless argument. I'm not there to vote for her sons, and I prefer a good program to medals.

[Nono]

And she's devoting herself full-time to advancing her personal political ambitions despite the fact that she has a four-month-old baby boy (with Downes syndrome) who needs his mother.

A real model of good ol' Family Values.

[maximdewinter]

Palin is a ronpaulie buchananite?:
Palin on Ron Paul: "Right On!'

[barts]

Why is McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as his VP so politically stupid? Because millions of people think it is stupid. I don't recall anyone questioning Joe Biden's qualifications to be VP or President. Spin, spin, spin what you will about Miss Congeniality, millions of people quake at the thought of her becoming the Commander in Chief. Those millions will not vote for the 72 year old, cancer survivor McCain dreading the consequences of Palin becoming President. And nothing anyone can say about Palin will assuage those fears. With Palin, McCain gave Obama the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: maximdewinter In 1984 Ronald Reagan took 49 states with the exception of Minnesota. That means NY State went Republican. In 1972 Richard Nixon carried 49 states with the exception of Massachusetts. That means that NY State went Republican there too. So what are you talking about? Obama doesn't have to carry NY as a given...especially after his dismal, embarrassing performance in the early part of this month.

He leads in NY by over 20 points. As you admit, NY hasn't gone GOP in over a generation - 24 years, and even then was only at the behest of the most popular political figure of the modern era.

McCain himself concedes NY - I haven't seen a single ad for his campaign in my state.

When you talk about a third party president in the USA you're talking about us needing to convert to a parliamentary system since that is what would be necessary to have an effective third party.

Why? The only reason we have a so-called "two-party" system is because the current two parties have made dupes of you and many others in convincing you that we "need" a "two-party" system.

Are you seriously saying that the disparate political views of 300 million people can be fairly represented by two sets of platforms? I trust I don't need to explain to you how silly that is.

Good luck with that since we can't even get tort reform.

Not sure what this has to do with anything, but tort reform is idiotic and anyone who supports it should rip up their voting card. The fact that we can't "get" tort reform points to a small sliver of protection for the "little guy" remaining in our government.

We have no provision for coalition government so even if it ever were to happen that a third party candidate would win a presidential vote, it would be impossible to achieve anything since there is no third party representation in Congress.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Often, third parties agree with one or the other of the two major parties on specific issues... What it would force is for everyone to take each issue separately and consider them on their merits (you know, like our government was supposed to be) instead of just listening to party bosses about what they're supposed to vote for.

The only way it would be possible to have a third party representation in the US Congress would be to slowly "boot up" third party representation by electing third party senators and congressmen so the the president could use that as influence for reform in the legislature. But it would have to be a STABLE third party....not the Ross Perot Reform party one year and the Green Party the next and the Ralph Nader Party the next. Anything short of this would mean that a 3rd party prez who won the popular vote would be doomed to be a lame duck as they were sworn in.

I suggest you educate yourself on the success and stability of the Libertarian and Green parties in particular. Then you can come back and apologize for making such an uninformed statement.

Quote by: GHook93 (1) Voting for a 3rd party is tossing your vote away. Plain and simple.

Circular reasoning. I'm so sick of this stupid circular reasoning being used.

"I'm not voting for a third party because they won't win because they don't have enough votes - in part because I'm not voting for them".

It's wholly illogical and circular. If everyone who said that instead voted for the third party, they WOULD have a chance of winning and your argument becomes null.

By that rationale, everyone should just look at the polls and stay home if their candidate is behind - because, by golly, you're just throwing your vote away if it doesn't end up being cast for the winner.

It's stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.

(2) The Libertarians are who probably represent my views best, but they have Bob Barr on the ballot. Other than his support of the fair tax (which is HUGE in my eyes) he is not a true libertarian or a fiscal conservative. Besides that man eats cheese made from women's tits (Borat anyone)! Then you have the Constitution Party! LOL they won't be on any ballots

In fairness, I rather enjoyed the Borat scene

I think the LP compromised a bit of true libertarian philosophy for greater name recognition, but I also think that for the most part Barr has libertarian policies. His last paid job was, after all, as a consultant for the Marijuana Policy Project.

That said! I am still voting for Bob Barr. Since I live in IL voting for McCain would be useless. McCain has no shot, so I mind as well for for the fair tax guy!

Then why do you say you're throwing your vote away? Imagine if Barr, supporting the Fair Tax, gets 10% of the vote and takes most of it away from McCain, causing him to lose... You don't think Republicans would look at that result and give serious consideration to winning those votes back by supporting the Fair Tax next time around? The Dems have done it to the Greens since 2000 by cautiously adopting some of their liberal stances.

Meanwhile, if he gets merely 3% of the vote, over 20 states have ballot-access laws that would automatically put the Libertarian party and their candidates on the voting machines for anywhere from 5-10 years, saving the LP hundreds of thousands of dollars in ballot access drives that can instead be used to directly support candidates for office in those states.

[6 \ / ) N Da Rm]

Quote by: Nono And she's devoting herself full-time to advancing her personal political ambitions despite the fact that she has a four-month-old baby boy (with Downes syndrome) who needs his mother. A real model of good ol' Family Values.

Way to criticize every parent who works and has a child with disabilities. I really hope the Obama camp plays this card!

[xyzer]

McCain himself concedes NY - I haven't seen a single ad for his campaign in my state.

And well he might. Any state that allows a non resident 'carpetbagger' to come in and run for the Senate is too far gone to be resurrected.

On top of that Senator Clinton did little if any constructive work for her constituency because she spent most of her time campaigniing for higher poltitical office. She doesn't and didn't give a damn about New York. Her political shill Senator Schumer gave her good sendoffs even when not asked to. I figure he was trying to insure himself a place in her Cabinet if she was elected?

Now you New Yorkers have just fired a governor who was fond of using prostitutes for a diversion as he was attacking business leaders for corruption. You have inherited a blind governor, perhaps who wont be able to see the corruption quite as easily. So much for family values?

As you sow so shall you reap.

[barts]

Quote by: 6 \ / ) N Da Rm Way to criticize every parent who works and has a child with disabilities. I really hope the Obama camp plays this card!

Unlikely, the "Obama camp" has run the best campaign so far. And unnecessary. Many will question, and rightly, what kind of woman would put her political ambitions ahead of the needs of her disabled child.

[Nono]

Quote by: barts Many will question, and rightly, what kind of woman would put her political ambitions ahead of the needs of her disabled child.

Precisely.

Y'know, 6, Palin isn't a low-income mother struggling to feed her kids. She could, if she wished, live by her professed principles. But that ain't what she's doing. She's betraying them.

Obama will slip in my estimation if he doesn't blast this example of hypocrisy.

[6 \ / ) N Da Rm]

Quote by: barts Many will question, and rightly, what kind of woman would put her political ambitions ahead of the needs of her disabled child.

So your saying that she shouldn't even be the Governor of Alaska right now? I'll dig around on the net and see if I can find where the people of Alaska called on her to resign after her baby was born......well after a quick look I didn't see anything, so this appeared to be a non issue 3 days ago.

Millions of people all over the world with disabled children go to work everyday and none of them are criticized for doing it. Sarah Palin's job is Governor of Alaska and her future job is Vice President of the United States. Most people think that the kids of politicians have advantages in life because of what their parents do. Don't you think that this child will have more advantages too than if his mother was someone with an average Jane job? Of course he will.

If McCain had picked Romney or Pawlenty we would be hearing about how one of them is a Mormon and neither one of them have any foreign policy experience. McCain rolled the dice and I think it will pay off. Palin will appeal to Reagan Democrats and soccer moms. If she delivers those groups, they'll win.

She's a difference maker. The Democrats and the liberal media knows it. If she was a joke then they would be laughing at her as if she was Dan Quayle. But their trying to tear her down because they see that she is a real threat.

I love how the Democrats are saying that Joe Biden was a great choice and would make a great president if he had to step into that role. Yet just 7 months ago, he couldn't get 1% of their vote for president. That would be like McCain picking Tom Tancredo as his running mate!!

[Nono]

Dig away, 6. She was already governor when her baby was born. That was a risk the good people of AK consciously took when they elected her.

Dropping everything to run for VP is, by contrast, an entirely different matter.

[xyzer]

Here is a good comparison chart between Obama and Palin...
After reading it let us know which one is best qualified to run the country(In her case she will if McCain conks out)

RedState: Tale of the Tape: Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: xyzer Here is a good comparison chart between Obama and Palin... After reading it let us know which one is best qualified to run the country(In her case she will if McCain conks out) RedState: Tale of the Tape: Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama

Hahaha! What a piece of junk! Is it so hard to have neutral, 3rd person pt of view facts?
Gosh I hate representative democracy.

[Jack]

But their trying to tear her down because they see that she is a real threat.

I suggest it's more likely they're attacking her because that's what both sides do in politics. They make each other out to be a fate worse than death during the election, then after it's over they all start working together to screw the average citizen.

[another day]

Like I said before, instead of uselessly bickering about the candidate's personal background and experience and ability to "run the country", you should accept the fact that neither the President or the Vice President will be running the country in any respect, and discuss that because that is what's important. As long as people are voting in candidates that are members of the CFR and other shady non-government organizations, it will be those organizations and their agendas that will run the country and direct it's policies. The reason people like Ron Paul suggest that Obama and McCain are exactly the same is because they must push the agreed upon CFR agenda, not their own personal platform.

As for discussing Palin specifically, even more pointless. She was clearly chosen because she is a pretty WOMAN with an as-of-yet basically untainted public image.

[ArgumentStadium]

The fact that the Obama supporters are complaining that she has no experience is outrageous when the presidential candidate on their ticket is in fact in the same situation.

I love how she has not been in Washington before and will come in with a fresh mind and opinion.

She turned down the "bride to nowhere" money from the federal gov't which is perfect to support McCain's stance on earmark spending.

Overall I think she was a very strong pick and has a chance to shift some disgruntled Hillary supporters.

[Clementine]

I am glad he picked. There is no way he is going to gain Hillary supporters now. McCain is 72. If he dies she would be in charge. How scary. She has no experience and she is completely pro-choice, also a big oil supporter. Who would want her in charge?

[Clementine]

Quote by: ArgumentStadium The fact that the Obama supporters are complaining that she has no experience is outrageous when the presidential candidate on their ticket is in fact in the same situation.

Not true. Obama has been a senator for 3 years. Palin is the Governor of Alaska. That is a different position then senator and she has only been governor for 2 years. Not exactly the same.

[QUOTE=ArgumentStadium;536976]
Overall I think she was a very strong pick and has a chance to shift some disgruntled Hillary supporters
[QUOTE=ArgumentStadium;536976]

There is no way Hllary supporters would swing to Palin. Palin is pro life.

[GHook93]

Quote by: nerdvincent She did run a town inhabited by 6,000 people. Waw.

Still larger than anything Obama, Biden or McCain have ever run. Maybe if that was all it was then yes bash away, but this lead to her becoming governor of I believe the 2nd or 3rd largest state in the union! And so far, according to Alaskans she is doing a he11 of a job!

Yay! Another politician who knows a lot but does little. She decided to decrease Alaska's greenhouse gaz emmission (sorry, she THOUGHT about it) but she has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, which means increased greenhouse gaz emmission for the rest of the world. Also, she stated that she didn't believe that global warming was man-made.

She has taken on the big oil companies numerous times! But I believe, as does she, that drilling domestically off the coasts and in ANWR are not the doom ant gloom the liberals make it to be! Polls have shown that 75% of Americans want more drilling, so her background (at least on this issue) is right in line with the majority of Americans!

Good, but not exeptionnal. A better description would be "adequate" or "required", which means that it was a neutral action.

I would say very good! It goes right in line with the McCain stance that gay's should have the right to create legally binding contracts that are the equivalent of marriage contracts. Again I am for Gay Marriage, but its not the sticking point for me.

This was no good. We must set priorities to avoid "fat"/"crap" project, not cut the ressources.

BS! Pork, earmarks and wasteful spending at the biggest blockade to our government. The only way to prevent corruption in government is not for more government (aka George Jacka$$ Bush), but for less government. That starts with earmarks and pork. McCain has NEVER accepted any pork projects and I believe him that he would veto any. Palin has done the same as the AK governor. Along with lowering taxes and BALANCING THE BUDGET!

The little she "saved" was spent in perhaps 1-2 days of war in Irak. Was this bettehr than new hospitals?

Always the argument of the left when someone points out that the pork spending and increased taxation are a HUGE problem.

Note that an Obama/Biden Presidency will still lead to at least 18 months in Iraq, something that McCain/Palin might not exceed. O/B could lead to military intervention in Sudan. Remember he was a HUGE advocate of it (along with Brownbach). O/B want to increase troop levels in Afghanistan 100 fold (something I am for by the way). And O/B has talked about increased precedence and military operations in Pakistan. The point is all these are expensive military operations, so the argument that spending on military operations will just automatically increase under O/B or the Democrats is a fallacy!

Don't forget that, up until recently, the Democrats have historically been the war-mongers in American History (I will point out that some of our wars needed and should have been fought): Vietnam (JFG/LBJ), Korea (Truman), WW II (FDR), WW I (Wilson), Spanish American War (Cleveland) etc. With the exception of WW II, I am not so sure that America needed to get involved with any of those other wars!

Irrevelant/Worthless argument. ==> in reference to Palin's 84% approval and 5% disapproval rating

That is disingenuous assessment. If her approval rating were the other way around then you would be using this for your argument. That fact is approval ratings by the people she oversees is an instance measure of creditability. I guess you can overlook her approval ratings because you can over look the LOL 16% approval ratings of the Democratic Pork Loving Congress! I put a HUGE amount of stock in approval ratings, since they measure what the people think, not what the politicians says or do!

Granted, given that she increased taxes on oil compagnies, which was a good thing.

A good thing that the left will overlook with their stance that she gets on all 4's for the oil lobby!

Again, "adequate" or "required" would be better than "smart". Beside that, she believe that creationism should be taught as well as evolution.

This can be directed at everyone in government for the state to federal to local governments, since they seem to talk a lot about it, but our public schools seem to get worse and worse!

44 years old. Irrevelant/Worthless argument.

Worthless when you measure her credentials, but important when she goes on TV and/or makes speeches. Talk to any communications expert and people tend to listen better and like attractive people! Its a fact! Yes looks alone do nothing, but looks give you an early edge over ugly people. The main reason why anchor-women are alway attractive!

Irrevelant/Worthless argument. I'm not there to vote for her sons, and I prefer a good program to medals.

True, but this shoots down the disingenuous attack by the left that Republicans make the decision to send other people's children into battle, yet both Palin and McCain have children in the military and in IRAQ!

[domio760]

Obama supporter? I'm not looking forward to either administration. So I'm a neutral party that is amazed buy what the American people are putting up with. Our founding fathers would be ASHAMED!