This is my argument, or theory, I suppose:

• Palin was considered early as a possible shake-up pick, but was eventually ruled out in favor of a more traditional pick.
  
• The vetting either stopped short or never reached an intense level, so some things had slid under the radar.
  
• A strategists decided to toss a Hail Mary after Obama's speech, thinking, especially with the hurricane coming in, that they would have a tough time recovering.
  
• Palin was then selected, last minute, on the less than thorough vetting.
  
• Had she have been seriously considered before the zero-hour, news of some of the less than savory aspects would have been made public well in advance, while she wasn't in center stage, so as to dampen their effect once she claimed that position. The McCain campaign would have also had pre-prepared statements on each.
  
• More news has come to light that Palin was extremely effective in gathering earmarks for her city as well as flip-flopping on one of the most famous pork-barrel spending scenarios in current politics - all a hallmark of McCain's platform to oppose such frivolity and on which Palin's selection was praised.
  

 

Coupling all of this with the fact that she is much more conservative than McCain in many aspects, the ticket lacks cohesion. In my eyes, she was poorly vetted, the campaign is desperate, or, most likely, it was both.

 

Now, some of us are capable of divorcing our positions and opinions from various analyses, including campaigns, and as such, I do not feel this is an effective pick, but one that smacks of desperation. On the other hand, as a Republican (albeit moderate) and a long time supporter of John McCain, I do not like the pick either, as she is too conservative for my taste and lacks any stances or probable understanding of the complex issues that are most important to me.

 

I will add a quote by Jame's Baker to explain some of my logic. Though, I'm not attempting to distort Baker's comments as he was talking about the nomination of Dan Quayle and had written it well before the Palin nomination. Regardless, I find it apropos here.

 

The best way to handle a proposed vice presidential nominee who has not been tested in national or big-state politics or high appointive office—and I have the obvious benefit of hindsight—is to float the name a few weeks before the convention and let the games begin. By opening gavel, the candidate will have run the gauntlet of press scrutiny or opposition research, or have dropped out. This approach wouldn’t necessarily work in a contested convention, and, unfortunately, it eliminates the drama of dropping the name at the convention. But it would pretty well guarantee that the news from the convention would not be dominated by questions about the vice presidential selection.

You float the name like mentioned and you don't counter the O convention bounce.

Who will be running this country on the day after the inaugration if McCain is elected?

Do you trust McCain to have a knowledgeable Cabinet that knows what they are doing?

 

 

 

A week ago, I would have said yes to this question. Now, I'm not at all sure.

Sarah Palin hasn't had the help from the media that Obama has. He was media made, plain and simple IMO.

 

 

:cry:

 

Cue up the violin music. Someone get a box of Kleenex. That's the saddest story I've ever heard.

:cry:

 

Cue up the violin music. Someone get a box of Kleenex. That's the saddest story I've ever heard.

 

It's straight from the Clinton's. Bill called him a "fairytale, give me a break," didn't he?

Don't be offended but you have indicated you tilt slightly to the left on these issues, :

 

You fall into the same trap that Aces does. I've stated on here that my voting record since I've been 18 has been Republican in the Presidential elections.

 

My task on here is to try to present the other side and expose flawed logic and to expose intentional turning of a blind eye to problems with the Republican side.

You fall into the same trap that Aces does. I've stated on here that my voting record since I've been 18 has been Republican in the Presidential elections.

 

My task on here is to try to present the other side and expose flawed logic and to expose intentional turning of a blind eye to problems with the Republican side.

 

 

So are you saying you don't even believe a lot of the stuff you type on here?

So are you saying you don't even believe a lot of the stuff you type on here?

 

I post things for all to consider. If not, you would have to believe that the R side is squeaky clean with no questionable relationships or shady dealings. Some would have you believe that's only reserved for the D side.

 

Unlike certain posters I don't care how you vote. As I said in another thread as long as you're logical in your presentation and consider all sides I'm good with whatever you do. Its the one-sided crap that gets under my (and many others ) skin.

 

Certain posters intelligence jumps off the screen at you when they choose to actually put thought into what they post. The rest of the time it comes off as childish and petty.

I post things for all to consider. If not, you would have to believe that the R side is squeaky clean with no questionable relationships or shady dealings. Some would have you believe that's only reserved for the D side.

 

Interesting....

Interesting....

 

I doubt all will agree with you.:laugh:

I doubt all will agree with you.:laugh:

 

I don't agree with it, or think you necessarily do it, but it is an interesting way of looking at things.

Not only was she once a member of the Alaskan secession party in the 90's, she sent a video to their convention THIS YEAR.

 

 

The NYT has said that they erred in saying she was a member of the AIP and that she later joined the Republican party.

This is my argument, or theory, I suppose:

• Palin was considered early as a possible shake-up pick, but was eventually ruled out in favor of a more traditional pick.
  
• The vetting either stopped short or never reached an intense level, so some things had slid under the radar.
  
• A strategists decided to toss a Hail Mary after Obama's speech, thinking, especially with the hurricane coming in, that they would have a tough time recovering.
  
• Palin was then selected, last minute, on the less than thorough vetting.
  
• Had she have been seriously considered before the zero-hour, news of some of the less than savory aspects would have been made public well in advance, while she wasn't in center stage, so as to dampen their effect once she claimed that position. The McCain campaign would have also had pre-prepared statements on each.
  
• More news has come to light that Palin was extremely effective in gathering earmarks for her city as well as flip-flopping on one of the most famous pork-barrel spending scenarios in current politics - all a hallmark of McCain's platform to oppose such frivolity and on which Palin's selection was praised.
  

 

Coupling all of this with the fact that she is much more conservative than McCain in many aspects, the ticket lacks cohesion. In my eyes, she was poorly vetted, the campaign is desperate, or, most likely, it was both.

 

Now, some of us are capable of divorcing our positions and opinions from various analyses, including campaigns, and as such, I do not feel this is an effective pick, but one that smacks of desperation. On the other hand, as a Republican (albeit moderate) and a long time supporter of John McCain, I do not like the pick either, as she is too conservative for my taste and lacks any stances or probable understanding of the complex issues that are most important to me.

 

How on God's green earth can you theorize "the campaign is desperate" when in some polls McCain is winning? Just stop and think about that for a second.

:cry:

 

Cue up the violin music. Someone get a box of Kleenex. That's the saddest story I've ever heard.

Best you could come up with? :walk:

You fall into the same trap that Aces does. I've stated on here that my voting record since I've been 18 has been Republican in the Presidential elections.

 

My task on here is to try to present the other side and expose flawed logic and to expose intentional turning of a blind eye to problems with the Republican side.

 

You are then making the assumption that Ace and I are taking a blind eye instead of investigated and have dismissed it.

 

At least in my case, your assumption is wrong.

 

From all I have read at this point, I am very comfortable and excited about the pick.

 

Now, that is at this point.

 

She has to come through in the next two months and build on it.

 

I will not be satisfied if in 2 months she has not been able to answer some of the questions posed about her.