One heart beat or a million heart beats, this is a "gut feeling" choice for all of us. Personally, I feel much more comfortable with the McCain/Palin ticket than the Obama/Biden one.

 

This election is more about candidates than it is about policy or record or anything else.

 

OK TA, let's take a look at the 8 that died in office:

 

Harrison Died 1841 of pneumonia

Taylor Died 1850 of gastroenteritis

Lincold Died in 1865 by assassination

Garfield Died in 1881 by assassination

McKinley Died in 1901 by assassination

Harding Died in 1923 of heart attack

FDR Died in 1945 of cerebral hemorrhage

JFK Died in 1963 by assassination.

 

Of the 8, 4 were assassinated and their deaths had zero to do with their physical condition. The 4 that did die in office due to health reasons died so long ago, before the medical arts progressed to any where near the advanced state of today, that one could logically argue that if they had been alive today, they would have not died because of much better health care available to them.

 

Since the "issue" here involves McCain's ability to survive his first term because of health related issues, your citation of the fact that 7 (its actually 8 I believe) of the 43 Presidents died in office either is intended to be misleading for partisan, political reasons or wasn't thought out very well. I don't know you so I won't venture a guess as to which one is accurate.

 

What I do know is that we haven't had a President die in office for health related reasons since FDR in 45; that the practice of medicine has progressed to an amazing degree since then; and that McCain is in good physical health. Folks, 72 is not old any more. I know many people that are as sharp a tack at that age. And you can be assured of one thing: the President gets the best medical care in the world.

 

The "heart beat away" argument is a red herring designed to scare people into voting for Obama. And if people really think about it, for despicable reasons Obama is more likely than McCain not to survive his first term. Unfortunately there are a bunch of bigots and racists still in America. In my opinion, Obama is the more likely of the two to not survive his term if elected. And I cringe when I think of the repercussions in this country if Obama gets elected and is assassinated. It will be ugly like we have never seen. For the record, such circumstances are not valid reasons to not vote for Obama as such would be in effect giving into the racists and bigots.

 

If you believe Obama is experienced enough or is smart enough to overcome that inexperience; if you believe in the policies he supported when he was in the Illinois legislature and in the U.S. Senate, then by all means you should vote for him. But lets not try to cloud things by citing illogical concerns about McCain like the "heart beat away" silliness. It greatly takes away from the legitimate reasons why you should support Obama in my opinion :thumb:.

 

I pretty much agree with your points. The only thing is that Roosevelt would not have mattered if he were alive in the 21st century or 1945. His health was always poor, particularly in the last few years. It was a matter of time for something like his hemorrage to happen. McCain is in advanced years as Roosevelt was but despite being a former POW he is probably in better health by far than FDR was (Polio, Smoking, Drinking, etc.).

 

Age is a legitimate discussion in this but not to the point of a reason for voting for or against someone. :thumb:

Consider this: Why would McCain take such an extreme risk on an unknown pick if he were leading in the polls? I mean, I thought it would have been Pawlenty because the polls were so close and McCain would go the safe route. Instead, he threw the Hail Mary. It isn't a selection a confident campaign would make.

You have convinced me that Palin was the longshot and the riskiest choice. One question though- was it the wrong choice?

 

Even if it was risky- and potentially, his motives were desperation- I still like the choice...simply because people who I have talked to who were thinking 3rd party are once again considering McCain.

 

If you are arguing that it could come back to bite him, then I agree. But right now, I see it as a good selection.

Fair question. Although I don't consider it to be the extreme risk that you must and the talking heads do. I don't consider it a Hail Mary at all. I think it was a very smart and calculated selection. If we want to consider the football analogy and we want to analogize it to throwing a pass, if the strength of your offense is throwing the ball and you are in a close game, do you all of a sudden abandon the pass just because some people think you should run the ball? I don't. She shares a lot of the conservative principles that McCain and R's share, plus she is a DC outsider that probably looks at things a lot more similar to the way the average American looks at them. While you and others may think it a weakness, I like the fact that just a few years ago, she was living in a small Alaskan town dealing with Main Street, not Pennslyvania Avenue, issues affecting small business and average Joes like me (and maybe you).

 

I certainly see where you are coming from here. But, there are as many questions about Sarah Palin as there are facts about her. She has a great story; she's a social conservative - although to the right of McCain (there is a reason talk-radio was clamoring for her); she is a reformer; and so on. But, where does she stand on foreign relations, the economy, education, etc? Are there stones yet to be unturned in Alaska? What if women totally reject her? What if the elusive middle-of-the-road vote says "thanks, but no thanks" to McCain after this selection? Keep in mind, those in the middle, and even weak Democrats aren't entirely sold on Obama. These are all important questions that I ask, not only as a voter but as an observer of the campaign. Yet, the answers are far from being determined when they should have been known long ago. If the McCain campaign were serious about Palin, they would have really beefed her up over the summer, tested the water with her to see how voters respond and had concrete polling on which to base their decision. The way I see it, they've just sort of rolled the dice and crossed their fingers.

You have convinced me that Palin was the longshot and the riskiest choice. One question though- was it the wrong choice?

 

Even if it was risky- and potentially, his motives were desperation- I still like the choice...simply because people who I have talked to who were thinking 3rd party are once again considering McCain.

 

If you are arguing that it could come back to bite him, then I agree. But right now, I see it as a good selection.

 

You could be right, but even if Barr were polling well as it is, I remain unconvinced those conservatives protesting McCain would go into the booth with the election too close to call and pull the trigger for a candidate that will only help Obama. And, like any gamble, the payout could be big, but it is just as likely, if not more so, that you do the walk of shame back to the ATM.

Pawlenty is not better qualified than Palin to be president. I have watched both in interviews and speeches and I am sure that Palin's dynamic personality tipped the scales in her favor. Pawlenty would not have been nearly as an effective a campaigner.

Pawlenty is not better qualified than Palin to be president. I have watched both in interviews and speeches and I am sure that Palin's dynamic personality tipped the scales in her favor. Pawlenty would not have been nearly as an effective a campaigner.

 

I agree, Pawlenty is just sort of mediocre. He has, however, been on the national scene for quite a while; people know him. A lot less questions would be need to be asked. He also has moderate appeal, which I think is important this election.

How is the religious right going to handle this? I think it is hypocritical at best for them to say a woman can not lead a church, but hey she can lead our country (which the VP would do if the P passes away)

I certainly see where you are coming from here. But, there are as many questions about Sarah Palin as there are facts about her. She has a great story; she's a social conservative - although to the right of McCain (there is a reason talk-radio was clamoring for her); she is a reformer; and so on. But, where does she stand on foreign relations, the economy, education, etc? Are there stones yet to be unturned in Alaska? What if women totally reject her? What if the elusive middle-of-the-road vote says "thanks, but no thanks" to McCain after this selection? Keep in mind, those in the middle, and even weak Democrats aren't entirely sold on Obama. These are all important questions that I ask, not only as a voter but as an observer of the campaign. Yet, the answers are far from being determined when they should have been known long ago. If the McCain campaign were serious about Palin, they would have really beefed her up over the summer, tested the water with her to see how voters respond and had concrete polling on which to base their decision. The way I see it, they've just sort of rolled the dice and crossed their fingers.

 

 

You may be right about rolling the dice. Then again, I have no idea what type of polling the McCain people and the RNC may have been doing over the last several weeks without naming names (i.e. issue polling with questions like: do you think you would vote for a candidate without extensive DC connections, etc, etc). They do those quite often and do them in a way so as not to tip why they are asking or who they have in mind when they ask the questions. I do not know if they did that in re Palin, but then again, knowing those scheming, sneaky Rove like RNC types , it would surprise me if they hadn't done so. Palin is a surprise to many, but from what I'm told she has been discussed quietly for quite some time. Heck, she's been on my radar screen for at least the last couple of months (which I why I chuckled when the talking heads called her a surprise pick coming out of no where). Heck, she's been mentioned on here by some as being a great choice from probably a couple of weeks before she was announced (perhaps we have better insight than the talking heads:thumb:). I know that when I was in Scottsdale AZ in April and got an "insider's briefing", her name came up as someone supposedly being seriously considered (whether that's true or not, I don't have a clue). I have a feeling the Rove's and Hannity's of the world have known what has been going on and are just being coy. Then again, that's pure speculation on my part.

 

And you are right that the general public probably has a lot of questions about her stances; and at least McCain is confident that her answers to those questions will be popular with the American public (or at least a large share of us). Again, the pollsters generally have a very good feel for the issues and I just have to believe that McCain felt she would match up nicely with a significant segment of the public's positions on those issues. Stay tuned, you're going to learn a lot about her over the next couple of months.

I also think that is interesting.

 

Why isn't your task to expose problems not just with the Republican side, but with the Democratic side? While I realize that we have some rather "aggressive" Republican posters on here, we also have a lot of aggressive Democratic posters that likewise use flawed logic.

 

Are you new?:laugh: Have you not noticed the overwhelming number of anti-Democrat posts on here? Its hard enough keeping up with their flawed posts without also trying to straighten out the "minority."

 

However, while I won't agree with "a lot" you are correct that its a universal problem.

 

I'm only one poster.

Pawlenty is not better qualified than Palin to be president. I have watched both in interviews and speeches and I am sure that Palin's dynamic personality tipped the scales in her favor. Pawlenty would not have been nearly as an effective a campaigner.

 

Sometimes you make it too easy.

 

If we were talking about Obama you would say that there's nothing behind his personality or speaking ability. On the other hand, you use it to justify a Republican selection without ever mentioning anything regarding policy.

I agree, Pawlenty is just sort of mediocre. He has, however, been on the national scene for quite a while; people know him. A lot less questions would be need to be asked. He also has moderate appeal, which I think is important this election.

 

I disagree. I knew much more about Palin than I did Pawlenty before she was selected. With this election, I think getting the full support of the conservative base is much more important than the moderates.

I disagree. I knew much more about Palin than I did Pawlenty before she was selected. With this election, I think getting the full support of the conservative base is much more important than the moderates.

Me too, but IMO that is because I (and I assume you?) get most of my political info from BGP, and AcesFull has been pushing her for months....

Me too, but IMO that is because I (and I assume you?) get most of my political info from BGP, and AcesFull has been pushing her for months....

 

I get quite a bit here, but I do a lot of reading up on different politicians from a bunch of other places as well. I found her to be interesting, and Pawlenty to be quite the bore.

Are you new?:laugh: Have you not noticed the overwhelming number of anti-Democrat posts on here? Its hard enough keeping up with their flawed posts without also trying to straighten out the "minority."

 

However, while I won't agree with "a lot" you are correct that its a universal problem.

 

I'm only one poster.

 

Nah, I'm not new. I've been here for a week or two.

 

I've never taken the step to count the "aggressives" but it seems to me that we probably have as many D aggressives as we do R aggressives (although we have more R posters than D posters; which is the way God intended it to be:banana:). Now I am challenging to you be Fair and Balanced in your duties!