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

 

Some will argue that Palin would not have been selected as his VP but for the fact she is a woman. The truth is that Obama would not have been nominated by the Democrats but for the fact he is black (well, sort of ). Good Lord, he's a first term U.S. Senator that spent 6 years or so in the Illinois legislature and is smart and eloquent; big blooming deal. I'm not impressed. I work with lots of smart educated Harvard lawyers that could sell ice to Eskimos in January. Yet he somehow managed to beat what was one of if not the most powerful names in Democratic politics. People need to stop kidding themselves about Obama's appeal. The media did indeed do every think they could to make Obama the nominee because they wanted "history" to be made. They wanted the world to see that "we" have attoned for our past slavery sins. H is right, the Presidency isn't Little League, yet way too many people are going to vote for him because of the desire to make history. They are going to tell the Little League coach to start the black pitcher in the biggest game of the year because 100 years ago, black kids were not allowed to play in the Little League. That is simply dumb and much more scarier to me than the "heart beat away" concerns particularly when McCain is in great health. Frankly, I could understand Hillary and Bill telling the media and the DNC to shove it, and if they did I'd respect them for doing so.

There are different shades of conservative. I doubt that 60% identifies with the extreme end.

 

 

 

Americans don't like Wright. It doesn't mean Palin will be overlooked.

 

Liberals sure seem scared of the prospect of facing Palin on the ticket. I have never seen so much smearing of a VP candidate in such as short time.

 

How do you know if McCain and his staff know little about her? You say such in such an absolute manner, which I find hard to believe that you know. Heck, even a non-political junkie like me has been following her for the last couple of months. I have a feeling that McCain and his staff know just about every thing about her.

 

On another point, her lack of experience is a valid concern for some. If you are confident that McCain will die in office and she would become President, I can understand why such could be a concern. However, keep in mind that if such was to occur, Palin would as President then nominate her desired VP and that person would have to be approved by a majority vote of both houses of Congress. My guess is that, given her lack of foreign policy experience, she and Congress would want the new VP to be well versed in foreign policy matters.

 

But that only happens if McCain dies in office and I don't see why some people think that is likely. From what I know, McCain is in great physical shape and remains very mentally sharp. I realize that the Presidency brings a lot of stress, but all this talk about McCain not being able to survive a term is a bit much. But even if it was to occur and a VP had to be nominated and confirmed, assuming that the person confirmed was very strong in foreign affairs, would that be any different than what the Democrats are currently offering?

 

In other words, the Democrats offer a definite Pres with little foreign policy experience and a VP with strong foreign policy experience. Only if McCain dies in office, does the Republican choice result in the same. If McCain survives, then the Republican choice (from a foreign policy perspective) is much stronger.

 

And I do have to say that Palin's lack of DC experience is a positive to me (and my guess many others). While I want the President to be someone very in tuned to foreign policy, intel and military affairs, it will be somewhat refreshing to have someone in the "inner circle" that isn't too far removed from what life is like for the every day American. My guess is that many women would find it refreshing that the VP is dealing with tough family issues that they are dealing with as Moms, is trying to balance a career and raising a family and is still changing diapers, even if they disagreed with some of her political stances. All women, no, but some women, yes.

 

Would I vote for Palin for President? Probably not at this point in her political "career". But I think she is perfect for the role of VP. And please, no one bother with the heart beat away stuff. It happens so rarely that I don't even listen to those concerns. But for argument purposes, even if it did, I'm confident that she would nominate and Congress would confirm a VP that had the background that she is missing.

LN, you may already realize this but it was late last night when I quoted another poster, Habib, I believe. When I realized that I had copied and pasted my own name in, it was too late to change it. It think that all of the sexist mudslinging that is coming from the left wing smear sites and those in the media who are trying to lend it legitimacy will backfire on Obama. I have already heard some liberal women expressing anger over some of the so-called issues that have been brought up on MSNBC, CNN, etc.

 

I would enthusiastically cast a vote for Palin because, like you I favor candidates who have not spent a lifetime inside the beltway. McCain's claim that the fact that he has "run" a national campaign gives him more executive experience than Palin is hilarious. If I began running for president in 2012, that would give me more than four years of executive experience by Obama's reckoning. Of course I would need to find one volunteer so that I would have somebody to whom I could delegate the execution of my decisions.

[quote=Habib;2945317

Would I vote for Palin for President? Probably not at this point in her political "career". But I think she is perfect for the role of VP. And please, no one bother with the heart beat away stuff. It happens so rarely that I don't even listen to those concerns. But for argument purposes, even if it did, I'm confident that she would nominate and Congress would confirm a VP that had the background that she is missing.

 

Seven of the 43 presidents have died in office. Not exactly rare. An eighth would likely be replaced under current law due to incapacity (Wilson). The heartbeat away argument is quite valid, especially with the oldest man ever elected.

Aces - you replied to #117 but not #116?

Aces - you replied to #117 but not #116?

iI will reply tho posts in the order in which I decide to do so, which is not necessarily the order in which they are received. In fact, I sometimes choose not to respond to posts at all, as others sometimes decline to address questions that I pose to them. If you want an answer sooner, than I respond or are afraid of being ignored, then I recommend Google.

 

I would not agree that Palin "lied" about the bridge. She canceled the bridge project after she became governor after supporting it earlier. I would like to hear Palin clarify her comments.

iI will reply tho posts in the order in which I decide to do so, which is not necessarily the order in which they are received. In fact, I sometimes choose not to respond to posts at all, as others sometimes decline to address questions that I pose to them. If you want an answer sooner, than I respond or are afraid of being ignored, then I recommend Google.

 

I would not agree that Palin "lied" about the bridge. She canceled the bridge project after she became governor after supporting it earlier. I would like to hear Palin clarify her comments.

 

As expected.

 

What have you read that would cause you to not use "lied?"

 

Do you not believe the quotes attributed to her? Is there a vast left wing conspiracy?

 

Do you wait to hear Obama clarify comments or issues before posting?

As expected.

 

What have you read that would cause you to not use "lied?"

 

Do you not believe the quotes attributed to her? Is there a vast left wing conspiracy?

 

Do you wait to hear Obama clarify comments or issues before posting?

1. She obviously changed her position. Changing one's position is not tantamount to lying. She canceled the bridge project, so to assume that she lied seems to be jumping the gun on your part.

 

2. See above.

 

3. I have no reason not to believe the quotes attributed to Palin.

 

4. I would absolutley love to see Obama try to justify his lie. It was a whopper on a matter of life and death.

 

Obama publicly branded the people liars who presented documentation to prove that he had lied. He then change the justification that he had offered since he decided to run for the US Senate. In other words, he lied, accused those who were telling the truth of lying, and then invented another excuse for allowing babies at Christ Hospital and other Illinois facilities to gasp for air until their tiny hearts stopped beating.

This isn't Little League where everybody gets to try regardless of how good they are. The selection of a Vice Presidential running mate should be based on readiness to assume the Presidency if called upon (and with McCain's advanced age and prior bouts with cancer, that scenario is entirely plausible).

 

America is also all about being a meritocracy, where people are judged based on their qualifications before being put into positions of power and authority. Millions of American voters made the judgment that Barack Obama is qualified. How many people made that determination about Sarah Palin?

 

The bolded is an ironically funny statement when O has said that we need change in DC. We have to have change to do what this country needs to do.

He has said that McCain is just more of the same in DC.

And his choice for VP is a senator that has been in DC for 38 years.

 

If O TRULY BELIEVES that we need a change in DC and to quit doing what has been done in DC, HOW IN THE WORLD, does he think Biden is ready to serve the way O would serve if something, God forbid, would happen to O?

 

Biden and McCain and Hillary is what O was campaigning AGAINST.

 

What he is campaigning AGAINST is what he chose for VP???

As far as the change on the earmarks, I am glad to see we got a candidate who got into office and realized the damage that is being done by earmarks to this country and changed her position for the benefit of the country all the while realizing the true risk that it might cost her votes.

 

I am glad to see we have two candidates (both have a R behind their name) that have spoke out AGAINST earmarks.

As far as the change on the earmarks, I am glad to see we got a candidate who got into office and realized the damage that is being done by earmarks to this country and changed her position for the benefit of the country all the while realizing the true risk that it might cost her votes.

 

I am glad to see we have two candidates (both have a R behind their name) that have spoke out AGAINST earmarks.

 

Just for future reference, if one party changes their mind (or "realized the damage that is being done") its being enlightened but if the other does its "flip flopping?"

 

Can you give me some instructions (outside of the obvious) as to when its one vs the other?

As far as the change on the earmarks, I am glad to see we got a candidate who got into office and realized the damage that is being done by earmarks to this country and changed her position for the benefit of the country all the while realizing the true risk that it might cost her votes.

 

I am glad to see we have two candidates (both have a R behind their name) that have spoke out AGAINST earmarks.

 

You do realize that despite her "enlightenment" on the Bridge issue she didn't actually give the money back , right? She used that money to build a road on an island that will link to said bridge.

 

So how is that not using earmarks?

Just for future reference, if one party changes their mind (or "realized the damage that is being done") its being enlightened but if the other does its "flip flopping?"

 

Can you give me some instructions (outside of the obvious) as to when its one vs the other?

 

1. If you have a pattern of doing that over a period of time. There is definitely a limit to how many times you can do it without losing credibility.

2. You do it right before an election when the voters you are trying to appeal to have the position contrary to the one that you did have.

3. Your reasoning does not reveal any true convictions on the manner. (Ex. I think Mitt Romney's response to why he changed his position on abortion was filled with conviction. Now, he could very easily have snowed me on it but it seemed filled with conviction.)

You do realize that despite her "enlightenment" on the Bridge issue she didn't actually give the money back , right? She used that money to build a road on an island that will link to said bridge.

 

So how is that not using earmarks?

 

Don't be offended but you have indicated you tilt slightly to the left on these issues, so I am not going to take what you have said as fully accurate.

 

I will try and research that and get back to you.:thumb:

Don't be offended but you have indicated you tilt slightly to the left on these issues, so I am not going to take what you have said as fully accurate.

 

I will try and research that and get back to you.:thumb:

 

Let me save you the time.

 

The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding.

 

In fact, the Palin administration has spent "tens of millions of dollars" in federal funds to start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said.

 

"She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money," said Elerding about her applause line.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10216

 

So?

1. If you have a pattern of doing that over a period of time. There is definitely a limit to how many times you can do it without losing credibility.

2. You do it right before an election when the voters you are trying to appeal to have the position contrary to the one that you did have.

3. Your reasoning does not reveal any true convictions on the manner. (Ex. I think Mitt Romney's response to why he changed his position on abortion was filled with conviction. Now, he could very easily have snowed me on it but it seemed filled with conviction.)

 

Would #1 be for Sen. McCain? The former "Maverick?"