Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 31, 2008 17:05:16 GMT -5
I think this whole trooper imbroglio ( WaPo link) is much more potentially damaging to Palin. Even if the Trig story is true, it says nothing about Palin's fitness for the vice-presidency or how she would conduct herself in office, and thus is irrelevant. The trooper story is a different deal. Clearly Obama supporters will hope this becomes a serious problem for McCain/Palin. Here's why it won't: The vetting process for VP is ridiculously broad and deep. Forensic accountants scour personal bank records. Potential candidates sign a release allowing the IRS to send years of tax returns to the campaign for review. University and grad school transcripts are released to the campaign. Personal interviews are conducted with friends, colleagues, extended family, etc. Police records are researched by independent investigative groups. Teams of op researchers conduct Lexis-Nexis searches, pull every single article returned, categorize and cross-categorize by issue, pull every direct quote by the candidate and structure what are called defensible issue positions (these are the candidates issue positions based on the amalgam of their direct quotes in the media, rather than merely what the candidate would post on a website as their issue position. The difference, if there is one, is relevant because the campaign knows that the media will ask the candidate to defend statements on issues, not issue positions posted on websites). This flare-up about the dismissal of an at-will political appointee by the Governor which has already been reported by multiple media outlets is not the type of issue that trips up campaigns. It's already out in the open. The McCain campaign knows about it. Anyone with a newspaper subscription in Alaska knows about it. Anyone with access to the internet knows about it. If it were a big deal -- if it were enough to pull apart a presidential campaign -- she would not be the nominee. Over forty-eight hours after being announced as the VP, with the full force and fury of the 24-hour media focused on her, nothing whatsoever has come of this story. Nothing. Zero. All this assumes Palin was properly vetted. Given that she and McCain barely know each other, I don't think she was. The McCain campaign didn't even talk to the guy who was fired. This is the front page story on today's Washington Post. That's not "nothing". |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 31, 2008 17:38:05 GMT -5
No offense here, but how about just winning this election? If the Democrats need Sarah Palin firing her former brother-in-law in a dispute that sounds like 1) Yes, she had it in for him but 2) Yes, he's an abusive loser who should have been fired, then I don't know what to say.
Eye on the ball guys. Obama's running against the least popular president in history and we're talking about some drunk Alaska state trooper. If this continues, McCain's pick becomes a brilliant distraction.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 31, 2008 18:37:00 GMT -5
No offense here, but how about just winning this election? If the Democrats need Sarah Palin firing her former brother-in-law in a dispute that sounds like 1) Yes, she had it in for him but 2) Yes, he's an abusive loser who should have been fired, then I don't know what to say. Eye on the ball guys. Obama's running against the least popular president in history and we're talking about some drunk Alaska state trooper. If this continues, McCain's pick becomes a brilliant distraction. I agree with GigaFan. Obama needs to stick with his campaign of change, of being the president of the entire country, and of finding solutions to long term US problems, like energy, the deficit, the "war on terror", international alliances, health care, etc. Sarah Palin is a distraction. It is quite clear to everyone she has no business being the VP of the USA. If that is the kind of "Maverick" decision making McCain wants to be known for, it can't do anything but hurt his chances. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 31, 2008 18:44:52 GMT -5
No offense here, but how about just winning this election? If the Democrats need Sarah Palin firing her former brother-in-law in a dispute that sounds like 1) Yes, she had it in for him but 2) Yes, he's an abusive loser who should have been fired, then I don't know what to say. Eye on the ball guys. Obama's running against the least popular president in history and we're talking about some drunk Alaska state trooper. If this continues, McCain's pick becomes a brilliant distraction. She didn't fire her ex-brother-in-law. She fired the guy who wouldn't fire him. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 31, 2008 18:52:57 GMT -5
I continue to be amazed at how all you left-of-center posters are minunderstanding the effect of the Palin selection. Over here in conservative corner, we're bouncing off the walls in glee and those who were considering sitting out the election with McCain are now rushing in to help him get elected. To say the base has been energized is to greatly mis-judge what's happening. We're electrified.
And just as you have the oft-repeated "first African American to be nominated for President from a major party" and are playing that to the max, the Republicans have their first woman VP nominee and they are going to play that to the max. You have symbolism and we have symbolism. You have a Presidential nominee with very little experience and the Republicans have a Vice-Presidential nominee with very little experience. If, as Sir Saxa says Sarah Palin has no business being the VP, then Obama has no business being Pres.
Also, by way of patting myself on the back, many threads ago, after Obama clinched his nomination, I offered a wonder to the effect of "what would be the impact if McCain chose a woman VP candidate?". At that time I suggested Kay Bailey Hutchison so I was wrong on that part.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 31, 2008 18:56:39 GMT -5
I continue to be amazed at how all you left-of-center posters are minunderstanding the effect of the Palin selection. Over here in conservative corner, we're bouncing off the walls in glee and those who were considering sitting out the election with McCain are now rushing in to help him get elected. To say the base has been energized is to greatly mis-judge what's happening. We're electrified. And just as you have the oft-repeated "first African American to be nominated for President from a major party" and are playing that to the max, the Republicans have their first woman VP nominee and they are going to play that to the max. You have symbolism and we have symbolism. You have a Presidential nominee with very little experience and the Republicans have a Vice-Presidential nominee with very little experience. If, as Sir Saxa says Sarah Palin has no business being the VP, then Obama has no business being Pres. Also, by way of patting myself on the back, many threads ago, after Obama clinched his nomination, I offered a wonder to the effect of "what would be the impact if McCain chose a woman VP candidate?". At that time I suggested Kay Bailey Hutchison so I was wrong on that part. The "right" was also energized for George W. Bush. |
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Aug 31, 2008 19:02:23 GMT -5
Clearly Obama supporters will hope this becomes a serious problem for McCain/Palin. Here's why it won't: The vetting process for VP is ridiculously broad and deep. Forensic accountants scour personal bank records. Potential candidates sign a release allowing the IRS to send years of tax returns to the campaign for review. University and grad school transcripts are released to the campaign. Personal interviews are conducted with friends, colleagues, extended family, etc. Police records are researched by independent investigative groups. Teams of op researchers conduct Lexis-Nexis searches, pull every single article returned, categorize and cross-categorize by issue, pull every direct quote by the candidate and structure what are called defensible issue positions (these are the candidates issue positions based on the amalgam of their direct quotes in the media, rather than merely what the candidate would post on a website as their issue position. The difference, if there is one, is relevant because the campaign knows that the media will ask the candidate to defend statements on issues, not issue positions posted on websites). This flare-up about the dismissal of an at-will political appointee by the Governor which has already been reported by multiple media outlets is not the type of issue that trips up campaigns. It's already out in the open. The McCain campaign knows about it. Anyone with a newspaper subscription in Alaska knows about it. Anyone with access to the internet knows about it. If it were a big deal -- if it were enough to pull apart a presidential campaign -- she would not be the nominee. Over forty-eight hours after being announced as the VP, with the full force and fury of the 24-hour media focused on her, nothing whatsoever has come of this story. Nothing. Zero. All this assumes Palin was properly vetted. Given that she and McCain barely know each other, I don't think she was. The McCain campaign didn't even talk to the guy who was fired. This is the front page story on today's Washington Post. That's not "nothing". While I respect the fact that you don't think Palin was properly vetted, she was. Assuming that Palin wasn't properly vetted because you've been led to believe that she and McCain "barely" know each other is a bit nonsensical. The degree to which a potential VP has been vetted is in no way related to the strength of the personal relationship that the potential VP has with the guy at the top of the ticket. And yes, it's on the front page of the WaPo. But what's on the front page? Essentially a regurgitation of already-known facts. And, by the way, while I don't have access to the WaPo in LA, a quick search of the WaPo also returns an article subtitled, "Fellow Maverick Survived McCain's Thorough Vetting Process, Aides Say." Thorough. Whatever. You believe what you believe. In my opinion, this is not and will not become a significant story over the next 60 days. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 31, 2008 19:24:36 GMT -5
The more I think about this, the more I think McCain has made a really great strategic pick here. Think about the DNC. Bill, Hillary, Al Gore...it was just a laundry list of all-stars for Obama. But there is not one living Republican who can help McCain, not one. Bush, Cheney, Bush I, Dole, Quayle...who? If he likes to "go it alone" he definitely got that wish.
So he chooses Palin who is not a hated neocon but a complete retrocon if you will. Suddenly he can start running Clinton years versus Reagan years, the updated versions of course. Distance yourself from Bush, get the gun loving elk-eaters in the mountain west and as mentioned previously, pull in the evangelicals in the upper midwest.
Who knows if it will win him the election but what a move. Say what you want, the Republicans chose the only guy with a chance in hell of winning this thing for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 31, 2008 19:27:21 GMT -5
You have a Presidential nominee with very little experience and the Republicans have a Vice-Presidential nominee with very little experience. If, as Sir Saxa says Sarah Palin has no business being the VP, then Obama has no business being Pres. The more I think about it, the more I hate this comparison. Obama was a U.S. Senator for the last four years, during which time he was 100% in the spotlight. After that 2004 Convention speech, it was apparent Obama would be a factor in the future of the party, and so I think we can safely say that he was treated differently than some first term Senator who just showed up with no expectations that he would ever ascend to a higher office. Prior to that, he spent 7 years as a state legislator in Illinois, during which time he was also on numerous boards of directors. Palin served on a city council for 4 years, then as mayor of Nowhere for 10 years. For 2 years, she has been governor of Alaska. Prior to 4 days ago, I'm finding nothing that indicates an special attention on the national stage or interactions with major federal political figures. (I'm leaving out PTA experience, as well as her "Miss Congeniality" award in a Wasilla beauty pageant.) As a serious question: Who really thinks these resumes are equivalent? Obama is less experienced than McCain and Biden. Palin is CLEARLY FAR less experienced than Obama on matters of major national, federal government. I'm sorry, but these are just NOT equivalent: Entire career in Chicago 7 years state legislature 4 years U.S. Senate following major Convention appearance Has been under national scrutiny for entire campaign --------------------------------------------------------- Entire career in Wasilla/Juno 4 years city council 10 years mayor of Nowhere 2 years governor of Alaska Has never (to my knowledge) given a major national policy speech |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 31, 2008 19:38:50 GMT -5
You have a Presidential nominee with very little experience and the Republicans have a Vice-Presidential nominee with very little experience. If, as Sir Saxa says Sarah Palin has no business being the VP, then Obama has no business being Pres. The more I think about it, the more I hate this comparison. Obama was a U.S. Senator for the last four years, during which time he was 100% in the spotlight. After that 2004 Convention speech, it was apparent Obama would be a factor in the future of the party, and so I think we can safely say that he was treated differently than some first term Senator who just showed up with no expectations that he would ever ascend to a higher office. Prior to that, he spent 7 years as a state legislator in Illinois, during which time he was also on numerous boards of directors. Palin served on a city council for 4 years, then as mayor of Nowhere for 10 years. For 2 years, she has been governor of Alaska. Prior to 4 days ago, I'm finding nothing that indicates an special attention on the national stage or interactions with major federal political figures. (I'm leaving out PTA experience, as well as her "Miss Congeniality" award in a Wasilla beauty pageant.) As a serious question: Who really thinks these resumes are equivalent? Obama is less experienced than McCain and Biden. Palin is CLEARLY FAR less experienced than Obama on matters of major national, federal government. I'm sorry, but these are just NOT equivalent: Entire career in Chicago 7 years state legislature 4 years U.S. Senate following major Convention appearance Has been under national scrutiny for entire campaign --------------------------------------------------------- Entire career in Wasilla/Juno 4 years city council 10 years mayor of Nowhere 2 years governor of Alaska Has never (to my knowledge) given a major national policy speech You leave out two important factors. Obama is at the top of the ticket while Palin is second. And Obama has no executive experience while Palin has experience as a mayor and as the chief executive of a state. And I love your looking down your nose on a town in Alaska. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 31, 2008 19:50:58 GMT -5
First of all, the first/second distinction means nothing to me because the VP is supposed to be a person who the Presidential candidate believes can handle the job FROM DAY ONE. Is McCain picking someone who he thinks could assume the presidency if needed immediately? If he thinks she's ok, then clearly, he thinks that her inexperience isn't a problem. If he thinks her inexperience makes her unfit for the job, then I think his judgment is terrible, and he puts this country at risk.
"Executive experience" is pretty vague. What if Obama ran a business? What if that business had only 5 employees? 100 employees? What if he was on a board of directors? Well, he's been on 8 boards for a total of over 25 years, including founding member of several.
What exactly does one learn from being mayor or a smaller town that he does not learn from a state legislature, U.S. Senate, boards of directors, and all the campaigns involved in the process?
And I'm not looking down my nose at her town. What I am saying is that the culture, challenges, and experiences in small town Alaska are NOT AT ALL representative of the cultures, challenges, and experiences in the majority of this country. This is again an honest question: has she ever dealt IN ANY WAY with (1) urban populations/planning or (2) agriculture? If not, then how on earth can she intelligently address problems in this country?
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 31, 2008 20:58:03 GMT -5
First of all, the first/second distinction means nothing to me because the VP is supposed to be a person who the Presidential candidate believes can handle the job FROM DAY ONE. Is McCain picking someone who he thinks could assume the presidency if needed immediately? If he thinks she's ok, then clearly, he thinks that her inexperience isn't a problem. If he thinks her inexperience makes her unfit for the job, then I think his judgment is terrible, and he puts this country at risk. "Executive experience" is pretty vague. What if Obama ran a business? What if that business had only 5 employees? 100 employees? What if he was on a board of directors? Well, he's been on 8 boards for a total of over 25 years, including founding member of several. What exactly does one learn from being mayor or a smaller town that he does not learn from a state legislature, U.S. Senate, boards of directors, and all the campaigns involved in the process? And I'm not looking down my nose at her town. What I am saying is that the culture, challenges, and experiences in small town Alaska are NOT AT ALL representative of the cultures, challenges, and experiences in the majority of this country. This is again an honest question: has she ever dealt IN ANY WAY with (1) urban populations/planning or (2) agriculture? If not, then how on earth can she intelligently address problems in this country? So the culture and challenges in Hyde Park represent those of the majority of the country? Really? I think Palin's path is actually a decent one (and kind of and old school one) to the presidency. If she were in her second term, I really don't think anyone could say anything. Carter had one term as governor and Bush had just started his second (Note: both s****y presidents). This isn't as "crazy" as people are making it out to be. She's one more term from being a completely plausible candidate and we've definitely voted for similar candidates. Governors have to balance budgets, create jobs, deal with corporate interests, and it's all on them. You don't just cast a vote and go to lunch; you are the leader of the state. And Alaska is a wealthy state and important strategically because of its oil. This is exactly the argument I think the Dems need to avoid. It DOES matter that she gets to learn from the president and Obama would have to learn to be president from day one. A chance at the presidency is not the same as the presidency. If I weren't more than a bit concerned McCain has 50 pushpins marking where he wants to occupy next, I'd vote for him. Obama is not ready for this. No number of national speeches will make that so. |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,913
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 31, 2008 21:28:27 GMT -5
Political issues aside, I think here is some residual Eastern bias to anyone from a state west of Illinois (excluding California) over the issue of experience. A governor from New Mexico or Oregon or Washington can't be as experienced as an Eastern governor, or so the argumetn goes. (I've heard more than a few folks claim that George W. was less than fit because being Governor of Texas wasn't enough experience, as if being Governor of Massachusetts would be any better.)
But how ready are most VP candidates? Would anyone have claimed Spiro Agnew or Sargent Shriver was ready on Day One? How about Dan Quayle or Geraldine Ferraro? Jack Kemp or Joe Lieberman? Roosevelt thought so little of Truman that he spoke to him as little as possible, and when Eisenhower was once asked of something momentous about his vice president, he famously responded, "Give me a week and I might think of something."
I personally see Palin as a risky selection, but let's not rush to judgment on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 31, 2008 22:04:31 GMT -5
I think this whole trooper imbroglio ( WaPo link) is much more potentially damaging to Palin. Even if the Trig story is true, it says nothing about Palin's fitness for the vice-presidency or how she would conduct herself in office, and thus is irrelevant. The trooper story is a different deal. Clearly Obama supporters will hope this becomes a serious problem for McCain/Palin. Here's why it won't: The vetting process for VP is ridiculously broad and deep. Forensic accountants scour personal bank records. Potential candidates sign a release allowing the IRS to send years of tax returns to the campaign for review. University and grad school transcripts are released to the campaign. Personal interviews are conducted with friends, colleagues, extended family, etc. Police records are researched by independent investigative groups. Teams of op researchers conduct Lexis-Nexis searches, pull every single article returned, categorize and cross-categorize by issue, pull every direct quote by the candidate and structure what are called defensible issue positions (these are the candidates issue positions based on the amalgam of their direct quotes in the media, rather than merely what the candidate would post on a website as their issue position. The difference, if there is one, is relevant because the campaign knows that the media will ask the candidate to defend statements on issues, not issue positions posted on websites). This flare-up about the dismissal of an at-will political appointee by the Governor which has already been reported by multiple media outlets is not the type of issue that trips up campaigns. It's already out in the open. The McCain campaign knows about it. Anyone with a newspaper subscription in Alaska knows about it. Anyone with access to the internet knows about it. If it were a big deal -- if it were enough to pull apart a presidential campaign -- she would not be the nominee. Over forty-eight hours after being announced as the VP, with the full force and fury of the 24-hour media focused on her, nothing whatsoever has come of this story. Nothing. Zero. It is becoming increasingly clear that some routine vetting tasks were not completed in this case. Dem operatives have found out that McCain's folks did not go through the newspaper archives in the town where she was Mayor. They apparently did not know (or took action to misrepresent) her position on the Bridge to Nowhere. She flip-flopped on it, and ultimately kept the earmarked money. Even former aides to Palin say that she lacks qualification to be VP, let alone President. Her mother in law had this to say: "I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," McCain could have picked an experienced Republican. Dick Lugar would have been a good pick. I've worked on a Congressional campaign and have seen the kinds of things that opposition research can turn up. There is plenty that campaigns sit on, and chances are that Obama's campaign will have some tough decisions in these regards. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 31, 2008 22:36:50 GMT -5
You would also think that a proper vetting would have allowed us all to avoid the laughably regretable Harriet Miers affair, but that wasn't the case. I'm not saying that Palin is AT ALL as bad or as unqualified a choice as Miers, but it just goes to show that blind faith in a vetting process may be misplaced.
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Aug 31, 2008 22:55:03 GMT -5
Clearly Obama supporters will hope this becomes a serious problem for McCain/Palin. Here's why it won't: The vetting process for VP is ridiculously broad and deep. Forensic accountants scour personal bank records. Potential candidates sign a release allowing the IRS to send years of tax returns to the campaign for review. University and grad school transcripts are released to the campaign. Personal interviews are conducted with friends, colleagues, extended family, etc. Police records are researched by independent investigative groups. Teams of op researchers conduct Lexis-Nexis searches, pull every single article returned, categorize and cross-categorize by issue, pull every direct quote by the candidate and structure what are called defensible issue positions (these are the candidates issue positions based on the amalgam of their direct quotes in the media, rather than merely what the candidate would post on a website as their issue position. The difference, if there is one, is relevant because the campaign knows that the media will ask the candidate to defend statements on issues, not issue positions posted on websites). This flare-up about the dismissal of an at-will political appointee by the Governor which has already been reported by multiple media outlets is not the type of issue that trips up campaigns. It's already out in the open. The McCain campaign knows about it. Anyone with a newspaper subscription in Alaska knows about it. Anyone with access to the internet knows about it. If it were a big deal -- if it were enough to pull apart a presidential campaign -- she would not be the nominee. Over forty-eight hours after being announced as the VP, with the full force and fury of the 24-hour media focused on her, nothing whatsoever has come of this story. Nothing. Zero. It is becoming increasingly clear that some routine vetting tasks were not completed in this case. Dem operatives have found out that McCain's folks did not go through the newspaper archives in the town where she was Mayor. They apparently did not know (or took action to misrepresent) her position on the Bridge to Nowhere. She flip-flopped on it, and ultimately kept the earmarked money. Even former aides to Palin say that she lacks qualification to be VP, let alone President. Her mother in law had this to say: "I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," McCain could have picked an experienced Republican. Dick Lugar would have been a good pick. I've worked on a Congressional campaign and have seen the kinds of things that opposition research can turn up. There is plenty that campaigns sit on, and chances are that Obama's campaign will have some tough decisions in these regards. Ummm...ok. And yet, getting back to the original assertion, I maintain that the dismissal of an at-will political appointee will come to nothing in terms of significant campaign issues. Vetting the woman and sticking a cork in her mother-in-law's pie hole (as tempting as that sounds to many of us...), or expecting every one of Palin's former colleagues to agree publicly that she's, like, totally awesome and, you know, the best possible choice in the universe are, again, not the same thing. I've run two congressional campaigns, two senate campaigns and run the western United States for a presidential campaign. I do not work for McCain and do not work for any of the vendors servicing his campaign. I agree that Palin was not a perfect choice. She would not have been my choice for VP. I could make an argument for Secretary of the Interior in a McCain Administration just to ruffle feathers but I'll refrain. Anyhow, the Obama folks have plenty on Palin. McCain's have plenty on Biden. End of the day, this campaign will break as they all usually do -- who's more compelling? Obama or McCain? The VPs won't carry the tickets. Polling tells us that. The VP debate is usually statistically insignificant. Even a slaughter by Biden -- a distinct possibility given the current roster of moderators and the disparity of VP experience -- provides a two, maybe three, day news cycle. At this juncture, a storm named Gustav is more significant then a woman named Sarah. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 31, 2008 23:03:22 GMT -5
Clearly Obama supporters will hope this becomes a serious problem for McCain/Palin. Here's why it won't: The vetting process for VP is ridiculously broad and deep. Forensic accountants scour personal bank records. Potential candidates sign a release allowing the IRS to send years of tax returns to the campaign for review. University and grad school transcripts are released to the campaign. Personal interviews are conducted with friends, colleagues, extended family, etc. Police records are researched by independent investigative groups. Teams of op researchers conduct Lexis-Nexis searches, pull every single article returned, categorize and cross-categorize by issue, pull every direct quote by the candidate and structure what are called defensible issue positions (these are the candidates issue positions based on the amalgam of their direct quotes in the media, rather than merely what the candidate would post on a website as their issue position. The difference, if there is one, is relevant because the campaign knows that the media will ask the candidate to defend statements on issues, not issue positions posted on websites). This flare-up about the dismissal of an at-will political appointee by the Governor which has already been reported by multiple media outlets is not the type of issue that trips up campaigns. It's already out in the open. The McCain campaign knows about it. Anyone with a newspaper subscription in Alaska knows about it. Anyone with access to the internet knows about it. If it were a big deal -- if it were enough to pull apart a presidential campaign -- she would not be the nominee. Over forty-eight hours after being announced as the VP, with the full force and fury of the 24-hour media focused on her, nothing whatsoever has come of this story. Nothing. Zero. It is becoming increasingly clear that some routine vetting tasks were not completed in this case. Dem operatives have found out that McCain's folks did not go through the newspaper archives in the town where she was Mayor. They apparently did not know (or took action to misrepresent) her position on the Bridge to Nowhere. She flip-flopped on it, and ultimately kept the earmarked money. Even former aides to Palin say that she lacks qualification to be VP, let alone President. Her mother in law had this to say: "I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," McCain could have picked an experienced Republican. Dick Lugar would have been a good pick. I've worked on a Congressional campaign and have seen the kinds of things that opposition research can turn up. There is plenty that campaigns sit on, and chances are that Obama's campaign will have some tough decisions in these regards. Dick Lugar? Who would be Secretary of State, Wilford Brimley? The lady from the life alert commercial? Abe Simpson? |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Sept 1, 2008 0:20:19 GMT -5
Thank God for this election. Finally (though we haven't really expressed it this way) we're over not being able to nominate women and un-whites to the presidency and vice presidency (Ferraro and LaDuke notwithstanding). So let's get over the fact that Obama is part black and Palin was born a woman. Let's just bring it back to the issues. I think Obama-Biden are right on them. I think McCain-Palin are not. Discuss.
|
|
thornski
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 155
|
Post by thornski on Sept 1, 2008 4:41:40 GMT -5
I think this pick said a couple of things.
1) I think McCain must have had some internal polls or some insiders on the ground which said that the race isn't as close as the media polls have made them out to be. As both Chuck Todd and the Politico have said, this does not seem to be the pick you make if you're down by 1 point in the polls (I think that would be Romney or Pawlenty or the like - i.e. similar to the Biden pick), this is the pick you make if if you're down by a lot more. If McCain made this pick in spite of only being "really" down by 1, then I just think it's excessively risky, but that's just me.
2) I think the McCain camp must have also thought the experience / "I'm ready to lead on Day 1" argument had run out of steam. This pick does a lot of things - it energizes the base a lot, it helps his "maverick / outside-the-box" image, it gets a Washington-outsider, and it gets a woman. But the major sacrifice I think is essentially abandoning the experience argument against Obama. (Unless somehow you can argue that Palin has MORE experience than Obama, but I think that's extremely dicey)
3) On a related note, there was a reason that Palin was such a surprise pick. Given the whole Obama-Hillary primary fight, a woman would be a natural choice for McCain to try to get some old Hillary voters. The problem was that there were no women out there that were "perfect" choices - if there was one, then the media would have put her in the same sentence as Romney, Pawlenty, and Ridge.
There are plenty of women with a lot more experience than Palin - Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Elizabeth Dole, Jodi Rell, Linda Lingle, Condi Rice to name a few. But they each have their problems, too - either they're too moderate, too linked to Bush, too old, or too "Washington" (or several of them). McCain I guess made a calculation that getting the base excited and picking a Washington-outsider was more important than keeping the experience argument going against Obama...
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 1, 2008 11:27:23 GMT -5
I just got word from a pretty reliable source--ScreamingHoya--who has a job with a pretty reliable publication, that Palin's 17-year old daughter is pregnant and she's marrying the father. It's a good thing this isn't about a Hoya recruit b/c it is 100% speculation with absolutely no citing to anything. But if it happens to be right, I'll feel pretty cool about saying it first.
Even if it is true, if I were going to vote for McCain, this would mean NOTHING to me. Kids make mistakes, things happen...that's life. But I think that it will matter a ton to the McCain/Palin constituency.
ON EDIT: Here we go--http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26496189/
So for those of you who support McCain/Palin, how does this impact your view of them, and how do you think the rest of their voting base will react to this?
|
|
