Palin's Choice for VP

I expected that my wife, a Hillary supporter who had been "on the fence" about who she was going to vote for after Hillary wasn't invited to be Obama's VP, would react favorably to McCain's selection of Palin. Wrong (not the first that that has happened...)
She finds it offensive that McCain apparently made a calculated decision to go with an inexperienced pick over a more qualified candidate just because she's a woman, with the goal of attracting those like her who are still smarting over the Hillary sleight.
If McCain did in fact pick Palin over, say Romney, because he believes what Rush Limbaugh says (did any other right wing talk show host even mention Palin prior to the announcement of her selection?) one has to wonder what kind of judgment the man possesses...

Huh...I didn't know you were a Limbaugh listener...I guess there are all sorts of things I don't know about you huh?

You might just be surprised at my reading and listening habits. That's how I've become such a well educated thinker, as I'm sure you'd agree....

Although not a talk radio host, Newt Gingrich did mention her name, as a long-shot, on Fox News a couple of months back. Really, I don't think she's such a bad choice, she's almost as conservative as Ronald Reagan, which offsets McCain's bipartisanship (which I don't see as a bad thing, but more hard nosed Republicans did view as a negative).

No question about the fact she's a conservative.
But so is the cashier where I buy my groceries, but no one's suggesting she's got the experience to be a heart beat away from being President.

I think should McCain win Palin will do just fine. From what I can gather she has run Alaska well, has already had to deal with budgets, other such things as far as running a state include-which to be honest, are likely to be more like the Presidency than being a senator-which requires none of these things. A governor, for all intents and purposes, is the "President" of his or her state, complete with its own budget, social programs, educational system, and even military forces...and I think comparisons to such are fair.
There is also something to this, not because she is a woman, but because she is a conservative. As far as I can tell, she'd be the only one on the ballot from either party.
At any rate, this bears watching. While it's possible some Hillary supporters would be drawn to her just because she is a woman, it will likely only be a few, those who would have voted for Hillary-just because she is a woman. The ones who supported Mrs. Clinton because of her political standings will not likely find Gov. Palin palatable.
Personally I think she shows promise, and if she has really done as well in Alaska as I gather, perhaps I would still be interested if the ticket were flipped and she were the lead spot.

This election has just started getting interesting again. Prior to this it was a left wing Democrat against a left wing Republican, and no conservatives.


John P.

I live in new mexico which has over twice the population of Alaska and the entire government process is basically a part time affair. the legislature meets for just 60 days ayear and is unpaid and the governor is absent most of the time anyway. I don't think being Governor of a state like this or Alaska gives anyone qualifications to be a possible president. And what was that see said she didn't even know what the V.P did. Good start.

She will be a refreshing force in the White House, unless she gets relegated to counting paper clips, which is what I suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

I live in new mexico which has over twice the population of Alaska and the entire government process is basically a part time affair. the legislature meets for just 60 days ayear and is unpaid and the governor is absent most of the time anyway. I don't think being Governor of a state like this or Alaska gives anyone qualifications to be a possible president. And what was that see said she didn't even know what the V.P did. Good start.

---

And yet...have you looked at what a typical senator congressman does, and how much it (isn't) like being President? For that matter, at least she's run an economy, had some insight into the processes involved, albeit at the state level, and the like. What has the typical congressman or senator done? let's see....oh yeah, investigate baseball, and wax teary eyed over the new senator they hope will be President. Some other stuff, went home turned off the lights before the job was done.
Yeah, I'd take almost any successful state governor over most of them. Even ones you consider to be "part time".
What definition of "full time" do you see Congress fulfilling?
I wax old and cynical as the years pass...


John P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

I expected that my wife, a Hillary supporter who had been "on the fence" about who she was going to vote for after Hillary wasn't invited to be Obama's VP, would react favorably to McCain's selection of Palin. Wrong (not the first that that has happened...)
She finds it offensive that McCain apparently made a calculated decision to go with an inexperienced pick over a more qualified candidate just because she's a woman, with the goal of attracting those like her who are still smarting over the Hillary sleight.
If McCain did in fact pick Palin over, say Romney, because he believes what Rush Limbaugh says (did any other right wing talk show host even mention Palin prior to the announcement of her selection?) one has to wonder what kind of judgment the man possesses...

---

CNN's Glen Beck did about a 10 min. interview in June. It was reaired this past Friday Aug 29 08
She will do great because she is a fast learner. I think she has the left wing liberal baby killers wetting the floor!

Anyone who thinks we have anyone left-wing running for office doesn't know what the word means. Obama is not left wing, and as a person over 50 years old I can't recall anyone that is left-wing ever being a nominated for the office of the President. I believe McCain's choice for V.P shows how desperate he is to get any press no matter how short lived. He only met her once before the nomination, who is running his campaign, I thinks he loks very uncomfortablle with her, as we all should be.

I think McCain has made a foolish mistake with this choice. As far as I'm concerned, he has disqualified himself as a serious candidate for our highest office. Palin is a VERY right wing conservative and VERY anti-choice. She has done a good job running Alaska, but she is nowhere near being qualified to be VP. McCain chose her as a means to pick up the Hillary voters. The media is on the way to picking this woman to shreds. I'm very sure that there are many other women out there that have worked very hard and that would be far more a better choice than Palin. McCain has underestimated women's intelligence and will lose their vote. As I see it, McCain has committed political suicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmag

Anyone who thinks we have anyone left-wing running for office doesn't know what the word means. Obama is not left wing, and as a person over 50 years old I can't recall anyone that is left-wing ever being a nominated for the office of the President. I believe McCain's choice for V.P shows how desperate he is to get any press no matter how short lived. He only met her once before the nomination, who is running his campaign, I thinks he loks very uncomfortablle with her, as we all should be.

---

I would argue that your definition of "left wing" is a little off from that currently in use...
I'm not accusing any of the candidates of being a Montagnard after all. They are still almost all (IMHO) left wing. What can the Government Do for YOU? We assure you, we'll only tax rich people to pay for it... All modern left-wing stances.

Another thing to consider...if at least ONE of the candidates isn't *extremely* distasteful to you and your views...it's a good bet the opposite side of the spectrum isn't represented in this election, likewise vice versa if at least one isn't appealing.

John P.

Maybe McCain hopes Palin's looks will attract the maile vote.

Her highest degree, a BA, is in journalism, thus her lack of awareness of what role the VP plays. Her journalistic endeavors were limited to sports, again suggesting a reason for not knowing the role of the VP. While a Senator does not govern, Senators are constantly exposed to the entire workings of government. Also, the executive branch has to work closely with (aka shmooze) Congress and a former Senator will have a better chance at doing that. At least a Senator knows how the Washington scene actually functions. Despite all the claims of superiority of Washington outsiders, it's the insiders who get the back-door deals made and that's how our government functions.
Moose-hunting skills do not get agendas moved forward.

Palin's selection amounts to a Hail Mary pass -- in the first quarter, no less. It's a desperation move.

I suspect that she was jammed down McCain's throat by the party orthodoxy -- just as Dan Quayle was forced on ol' H.W 20 years ago. If you recall, Bush 41 was also considered insufficiently "conservative" by the people who really run the party, and just as obviously, Quayle wasn't his choice.

I do think McCain deserves more respect from his own party.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denmason

I think McCain has made a foolish mistake with this choice. As far as I'm concerned, he has disqualified himself as a serious candidate for our highest office. Palin is a VERY right wing conservative and VERY anti-choice. She has done a good job running Alaska, but she is nowhere near being qualified to be VP. McCain chose her as a means to pick up the Hillary voters. The media is on the way to picking this woman to shreds. I'm very sure that there are many other women out there that have worked very hard and that would be far more a better choice than Palin. McCain has underestimated women's intelligence and will lose their vote. As I see it, McCain has committed political suicide.

---

She may not be experienced enough for veep, but I don't believe Obama is nowhere near being experienced enough for President either. I'd rather have an inexperienced Veep than an inexperienced Prez. Of course the Obama media is going to try to pick her to pieces, he's their "chosen one". I think she balances McCain out nicely, as the Repubs were concerned that he wasn't conservative enough, and who wouldn't love a gun toting frontier lady from Alaska?

I really don't know where this idea came from that Obama is "inexperienced." True, he's not a Washington insider, but I think everyone will admit that "Washington Insider" is normally considered a negative -- right up to the point where the "insider" is one's own choice. We're all guilty of that.

Obama has a long, successful history, in community organizing, state government, law, and teaching, and lest we forget, he's running a stunning campaign. He faced off with the "inevitable" winner, a senator with a huge organization, lots of friends, and lots of money, and he took her to school. This is a guy who gets things done.

I'd suggest that anyone with questions should read "Dreams From My Father." It tells a lot about who he is and what he is. Did you know that he's probably to the right of most Republicans on the issue of personal responsibility?

As far as Palin is concerned, she's only there for the demographic. Her job is to calm down the ultra-right and perhaps draw a few women. She's obviously not McCain's choice -- he's only met her once before, fer crissakes. And we should also remember the two main jobs of the Vice President -- to run the United States Senate, and to take over for the President in the case of death or incapacity.

Can you really say she's the best they could find for either?

j

Uh....unless I am mistaken, Barak Obama ran for a uncontested senate seat, has never written any significant law..........and two years later he feels qualified to be the PRESIDENT?:roflmao

Ok first... She has fought corruption in her own party and is a normal person... This is a fact. Everyone is always saying that they want someone who is not a billionaire in office who is in touch with the people and that are as honest as a politician can be. This woman exhibits all those qualities en mass. Bush is wealthy, Clinton is wealthy, Kerry was a Forbes and married to the Heinz family for God sake, McCain's wife is wealthy, and Obama, the middle class man of the people who has never held a real job outside education and politics made $4 million last year. Would anyone like to tell me how someone on a senator's salary makes $4 million?

Second, She is conservative and if you don't like that, well that is your political view so get over it. She is running in a party that likes conservative and that was a thing McCain was lacking. However she is also a maverick and a reformer which fits with McCains history and allows them to work together. She has bucked the American Oil industry in their pipeline deal when that is unthinkable in politics, she has tried to have numerous currupt politicians thrown out of office, she has RAISED taxes on oil companies and caused a major budget surplus. That is something we need right now and yet those are not conservative principals... Yet they are all things Reagan did which is why the conservatives like her anyways.

Finally to all you you who are on the experience bandwagon and harping on her quip about what does the VP do. THE VP EFFECTIVELY DOES NOTHING IN OUR GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The jobs of the VP are the following. To be the tie breaking vote in the senate, To certify teh official vote of the electoral college, and to take over the duties of president should the president be unable to perform them. Oh and to do whatever other duties the president tells him/her to do.

THAT IS IT! Really. No kidding. It is the cushiest job in washington. A VP is only really there to get someone elected. In the case of Lindon Johnson, he was an instant lame duck and the only policies he could advance were those championed by JFK. If Obama or McCain were to die then Biden and Palin would be nothing more than a place holder until a new election could be held unless there is a serious crisis.

And beyond that, wouldn't you rather have your most seasoned players on the field? With Obama, the Junior Varsity squad is the one playing for the title with the Varsity squad on the bench. With McCain, the best player is on the field with the lesser players on the bench learning what they need to be the varsity squad later. Doesn't that make more sense? Palin will have plenty of time to learn foreign policy and washington. She has shown an aptitude and with even a year of being around the presidency from the second seat, she will have more experience that all but the most experienced politicians in Washington.

Right now she is not ready to be president. That is for sure. But with some time as VP she will be.

"The presidency does not lend itself to on the job training." -Joe Biden Yet that is what the VP position is best for. So why does the Democrats have their most expericenced guy on the bench and the new guy in the hot seat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidM

Uh....unless I am mistaken, Barak Obama ran for a uncontested senate seat, has never written any significant law..........and two years later he feels qualified to be the PRESIDENT?:roflmao

---

Look, I appreciate it if you simply disagree with the guy, but this response tells me nothing. Can you answer the points I made above? Do you believe that only Washington insiders should be president?

The guy has lots of experience at lots of things, he's proven himself to be highly effective, especially in the political arena, and he's a thoughtful, brilliant guy who communicates extremely well. Can you argue with that?

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Look, I appreciate it if you simply disagree with the guy, but this response tells me nothing. Can you answer the points I made above? Do you believe that only Washington insiders should be president?

The guy has lots of experience at lots of things, he's proven himself to be highly effective, especially in the political arena, and he's a thoughtful, brilliant guy who communicates extremely well. Can you argue with that?

j

---

And yet Palin, who has "lots of experience at lots of things", isn't qualified? Obama was trounced when he ran in 2000 for the Il State Senate. Any bill he has written/sponsored, has never been passed. He has voted "Present" when ever there has been a tough vote in the US Senate. Obama has a lot of experience being a candidate, because that is what he has done for longer than he has held any office. Additionally, every Democrat should be peeved because when he was elected to the US Senate, he assured Illinois and the Party that he would not run for President in 2008.

I take it we're not talking about Michael Palin?

He could make a good VP. He's travelled a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denmason

McCain has underestimated women's intelligence and will lose their vote.

---

Never underestimate the stupidity of morons.
(not to say that all women or all conservatives are morons, just implying that those who like this pick for VP look suspicious)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

... no one's suggesting she's got the experience to be a heart beat away from being President.

---

Shouldn't we say "heart stop"? I think it'd be more accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmag

Anyone who thinks we have anyone left-wing running for office doesn't know what the word means.

---

Oh yeah!? And what would you in Seattle know about the left wing, huh? HUH!?

X :D

OK I will respond

Lots of people communicate really well, are men of the people, and are not Washington insiders. The last one to be President was Jimmy Carter who was one of the most abismal presidents in history. I know some people love the man and that he is a nice person but he was a terrible president and I will provide examples if you want but I don't want to hijack this thread into what Carter did wrong.

Barack was a community organizer which is not an elected position and has no bearing on being president. Now I will suggest that it shows a certain amount of leadership and a dedication to a cause, though they have not said what cause he was organizing for, but I am on the board of my local chamber of commerce and do many of the same things for the purpose of furthing local business and you don't see me claiming to be presidential material.

He was a college professor. So was Condeleeza Rice. Infact, she is tenured at Stanford and was their Provost for some time and you folks hate her. I remember my professor of system dynamics... he used to walk around mumbling to himself and telling jokes with no punchline. The man was just like Milton in office space. Or how about my english professor who used to sleep with his students or the law professor who held his office hours at the local pub? These are not the sort of people who I would want running anything. Being a professor by itself is not a qualification for any sort of job because being a professor isolates you from reality. College campuses are special places where thought can exist without the need for usefullness or practicality. There are tons of people who would never survive in the real world because of the shelter that universities provide. May I remind you that the founders of the Weatherman and Weather Underground, a terrorist organization that FBI files show are responsible for riots, 25 bombings of police military and civilians, and for being directly trained in Havana Cuba by the KGB, are currently college professors. Not only that but Bill Ayers is a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois and is connected to Obama, Mark Rudd is a math professor at a community college in New Mexico and HE SPOKE AT THE RESURECTION CITY AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION AT A KEY NOTE SPEAKER, and Bernadine Dohrn who is a board member of the ACLU and is a professor of Law at Northwestern! These are the professors that the democratic party look to. They are terrorists who have officially declared war against America at its Flint Council in 1969. Not only that but they have reconsitituded the SDS which was the base organization for the Weatherman and Mark Rudd states that he doesn't think they did anythign wrong when they bombed the pentagon, the capitol, the Washington police headquarters or attempted to bomb a military dance with hundreds of GI's. Did I mention that Bill Ayers is connected to Obama and that Mark Rudd was a keynote speaker at once of the Conventions major events?

State Senator then? Well if you won't concede being a governor as being experience then i won't even dignify that one with a wordy response. Not to mention that if Big spendor is to be believed, state governments are the political equivalent of the PTA! Personally I don't believe this but I'm not the one who said it was invalid to be a governor when it came to experience.

As for the US senate. That is good experience. However I would suggest that Barrack seemed to like to sleep in. Here is a full list of his missed votes. Missed Votes by Barack Obama | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com And that is just the most recent congress. Look at the bottom for his older votes when he was not campaigning. Barrack has one of the most significant NON-Voting records in the senate. He can't gain experience if he is not there.

And even if he could, the star of the ticket gets his appeal by a force of personality not by ability. McCain is a proven entity and so is Biden. Your ticket should read Hillary Obama or Biden Obama to be reasonable. If you don't like Palin then that if fine but you need to be teachable and able to bring in votes to be a decent VP. You need to be presidential to be president. Obama talks a top game but is not a quality pick. Hey I might have voted for a Clinton ticket so don't think i am not inflexible. I am just informed. But I cannot in conscience choose Obama. Biden gets on my nerves because his speeches to people seem to be condescending and I don't want to talked down to for 4 to 8 years despite any politics. McCain works across the isle and made Bush crazy for a while by not playing ball with his policy. And Palin may be the closest thing to an honest person that Washington will ever see!

There is alot more politics to it but in a nutshell that is what it comes down too.

Oh and one last thought. How does a middle class professor go from the bottom of a political organization being in contention for the top post in about a decade when people like biden serve at its top posts for 20 to 30 years before being ready to run for the top offices? They simply don't unless someone powerful wants them too from early on. Sarah Palin has John McCain to thank for her sudden rise. I would really like to know who had Obama Speaking as a Key Note Speaker at the DNC right after he got elected... That is unheard of. Who ever is responsible for that is the one responsible for his rise and then will be the one Obama owes the most favor to once elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eismann

And yet Palin, who has "lots of experience at lots of things", isn't qualified? Obama was trounced when he ran in 2000 for the Il State Senate. Any bill he has written/sponsored, has never been passed. He has voted "Present" when ever there has been a tough vote in the US Senate. Obama has a lot of experience being a candidate, because that is what he has done for longer than he has held any office. Additionally, every Democrat should be peeved because when he was elected to the US Senate, he assured Illinois and the Party that he would not run for President in 2008.

---

I never commented on Palin's experience, other than to opine that it was her demographics that got her selected, and that she probably wasn't McCain's own choice.

The selection process for candidates is a competitive one. Being "peeved" over the result is an exercise in futility.

Obama voted "present" in cases when the vote was symbolic and he didn't want to participate in the symbolism. That's a pretty common tactic in the Senate -- to propose a hot-button issue just to create damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't choices for legislators. Then, no matter how they vote, you can come back and say, "See?" As a candidate, Obama wisely avoided these votes.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Topher

OK I will respond

Lots of people communicate really well, are men of the people, and are not Washington insiders. The last one to be President was Jimmy Carter who was one of the most abismal presidents in history. I know some people love the man and that he is a nice person but he was a terrible president and I will provide examples if you want but I don't want to hijack this thread into what Carter did wrong.

---

The last Washington outsider with good communications skills to be elected president was Ronald Reagan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Topher

Barack was a community organizer which is not an elected position and has no bearing on being president. Now I will suggest that it shows a certain amount of leadership and a dedication to a cause, though they have not said what cause he was organizing for, but I am on the board of my local chamber of commerce and do many of the same things for the purpose of furthing local business and you don't see me claiming to be presidential material.

---

In other words, only Washington experience counts? Why not just acknowledge that you insist on an insider?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Topher

He was a college professor. So was Condeleeza Rice. Infact, she is tenured at Stanford and was their Provost for some time and you folks hate her. I remember my professor of system dynamics... he used to walk around mumbling to himself and telling jokes with no punchline. The man was just like Milton in office space. Or how about my english professor who used to sleep with his students or the law professor who held his office hours at the local pub? These are not the sort of people who I would want running anything. Being a professor by itself is not a qualification for any sort of job because being a professor isolates you from reality. College campuses are special places where thought can exist without the need for usefullness or practicality. There are tons of people who would never survive in the real world because of the shelter that universities provide. May I remind you that the founders of the Weatherman and Weather Underground, a terrorist organization that FBI files show are responsible for riots, 25 bombings of police military and civilians, and for being directly trained in Havana Cuba by the KGB, are currently college professors. Not only that but Bill Ayers is a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois and is connected to Obama, Mark Rudd is a math professor at a community college in New Mexico and HE SPOKE AT THE RESURECTION CITY AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION AT A KEY NOTE SPEAKER, and Bernadine Dohrn who is a board member of the ACLU and is a professor of Law at Northwestern! These are the professors that the democratic party look to. They are terrorists who have officially declared war against America at its Flint Council in 1969. Not only that but they have reconsitituded the SDS which was the base organization for the Weatherman and Mark Rudd states that he doesn't think they did anythign wrong when they bombed the pentagon, the capitol, the Washington police headquarters or attempted to bomb a military dance with hundreds of GI's. Did I mention that Bill Ayers is connected to Obama and that Mark Rudd was a keynote speaker at once of the Conventions major events?

---

I fail to see what bearing your nutty English professor has on Obama? This is a false compariosn. Check Obama's course outlines. They were very thoughtful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Topher

State Senator then? Well if you won't concede being a governor as being experience then i won't even dignify that one with a wordy response. Not to mention that if Big spendor is to be believed, state governments are the political equivalent of the PTA! Personally I don't believe this but I'm not the one who said it was invalid to be a governor when it came to experience.

---

I never said anything about what experience as governor counts as. Don't put words in my mouth (my foot's already there, no?). Obviously, this is a concern for you, since you keep mentioning it without any prompting from me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Topher

As for the US senate. That is good experience. However I would suggest that Barrack seemed to like to sleep in. Here is a full list of his missed votes. Missed Votes by Barack Obama | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com And that is just the most recent congress. Look at the bottom for his older votes when he was not campaigning. Barrack has one of the most significant NON-Voting records in the senate. He can't gain experience if he is not there.

---

See my response above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Topher

And even if he could, the star of the ticket gets his appeal by a force of personality not by ability. McCain is a proven entity and so is Biden. Your ticket should read Hillary Obama or Biden Obama to be reasonable. If you don't like Palin then that if fine but you need to be teachable and able to bring in votes to be a decent VP. You need to be presidential to be president. Obama talks a top game but is not a quality pick. Hey I might have voted for a Clinton ticket so don't think i am not inflexible. I am just informed. But I cannot in conscience choose Obama. Biden gets on my nerves because his speeches to people seem to be condescending and I don't want to talked down to for 4 to 8 years despite any politics. McCain works across the isle and made Bush crazy for a while by not playing ball with his policy. And Palin may be the closest thing to an honest person that Washington will ever see!

There is alot more politics to it but in a nutshell that is what it comes down too.

Oh and one last thought. How does a middle class professor go from the bottom of a political organization being in contention for the top post in about a decade when people like biden serve at its top posts for 20 to 30 years before being ready to run for the top offices? They simply don't unless someone powerful wants them too from early on. Sarah Palin has John McCain to thank for her sudden rise. I would really like to know who had Obama Speaking as a Key Note Speaker at the DNC right after he got elected... That is unheard of. Who ever is responsible for that is the one responsible for his rise and then will be the one Obama owes the most favor to once elected.

---

Whoever Palin has to thank, I sincerely doubt it's McCain. She was not his choice. As for Obama? Lots of people are chosen as keynote speaker. It's by the party leadership.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt Palin's honesty. That poor state trooper who was married to her sister might have something to say about it. And why do you think Obama's not honest?

Hope I've answered your concerns. Mainly, I'd invite you to stop putting words in my mouth.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I never commented on Palin's experience, other than to opine that it was her demographics that got her selected, and that she probably wasn't McCain's own choice.

The selection process for candidates is a competitive one. Being "peeved" over the result is an exercise in futility.

Obama voted "present" in cases when the vote was symbolic and he didn't want to participate in the symbolism. That's a pretty common tactic in the Senate -- to propose a hot-button issue just to create damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't choices for legislators. Then, no matter how they vote, you can come back and say, "See?" As a candidate, Obama wisely avoided these votes.

j

---

You are correct, you didn't comment on her experience, I misread your post.

Having lived in The People's Republic of Illinois, I have seen first hand how much Obama has done nothing to more our state forward. As much as I can't stand Dick Durbin, he at least expresses his position on an issue. An ambiguous call for "Change" with no outline other than, "We need change", is going to leave only that in all of our pockets.

God, I love political arguements!!!!!:nj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eismann

You are correct, you didn't comment on her experience, I misread your post.

Having lived in The People's Republic of Illinois, I have seen first hand how much Obama has done nothing to more our state forward. As much as I can't stand Dick Durbin, he at least expresses his position on an issue. An ambiguous call for "Change" with no outline other than, "We need change", is going to leave only that in all of our pockets.

---

I understand what you're saying, but will tell you that it ain't easy to get things through the legislature -- either here or in Springfield. It's also wise to bear that in mind when presidential candidates promise what they'll "do" as president.

I like Obama mainly because I've read his writings and he appears to be a smart, balanced individual. He's big on personal responsibility and has little patience for the posturing we find in government. For example, he complains that the debate in education has resolved down to a false choice between those who would dismantle public education, and those who claim it needs more money but who have no intention of saying how that money would be used. He's made similar statements on many issues.

The only thing we'll know about how someone would govern is what he values, because no matter who it is, they still have to get the agenda through Congress. In that context, Obama doesn't look so bad.

I'd suggest reading some of his writing. He's an interesting guy.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Hope I've answered your concerns. Mainly, I'd invite you to stop putting words in my mouth.

---

That part was directed toward other people. You are not the only one commenting in this Nord.

And you are right about Reagan. I meant to say that he was the last Democratic outsider. Reagan was governor of California for 8 years as well as involved with Barry Goldwater and his political campaign. Carter was was a Governor for 1 term before becoming president.

I don't care if someone is an insider or not. I care if someone is going to mess with my negative rights or not. For those who don't know what a negative right is read this. Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Negative rights are ethically superior to positive rights in according to ethicists. I don't think Obama is qualified for the TOP spot and I don't think his modern liberal idealism will respect my negative rights. For me it is that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Topher

That part was directed toward other people. You are not the only one commenting in this Nord.

And you are right about Reagan. I meant to say that he was the last Democratic outsider. Reagan was governor of California for 8 years as well as involved with Barry Goldwater and his political campaign. Carter was was a Governor for 1 term before becoming president.

I don't care if someone is an insider or not. I care if someone is going to mess with my negative rights or not. For those who don't know what a negative right is read this. Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Negative rights are ethically superior to positive rights in according to ethicists. I don't think Obama is qualified for the TOP spot and I don't think his modern liberal idealism will respect my negative rights. For me it is that simple.

---

Why don't you start a thread on this. I think we've hijacked this one long enough (and I'm as guilty of that as anybody). I'd be curious what rights you think Obama will mess with.

j

Speaking about goats, you ever heard one laugh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidM

Uh....unless I am mistaken, Barak Obama ran for a uncontested senate seat, has never written any significant law..........and two years later he feels qualified to be the PRESIDENT?:roflmao

---

Not true. There were others, including the highly regarded previous seat holder. Obama meticulously went through voter records, and had them booted from the election. Remember, she reconsidered, and decided not to step down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidM

Uh....unless I am mistaken, Barak Obama ran for a uncontested senate seat, has never written any significant law..........and two years later he feels qualified to be the PRESIDENT?:roflmao

---

Well... gwb got elected. twice.
So 'experience' and 'capabilities' have long since ceased to matter.

Palin was member of party calling for vote on Alaskan secession from US (see article). ;)

As I was reading the artical the radio was playing in the background and already debunking it
as a hoax.:nono:

I will invite you all to join me in voting for Chuck Norris as a write-in candidate this November.


No, seriously. I'm sick of having to choose the lesser of two evils. I'm voting for someone awesome this year, and I would encourage you all to consider it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dicestone

As I was reading the artical the radio was playing in the background and already debunking it
as a hoax.:nono:

---

Is that finger wagging at me? Check out her Wikipedia page:

"Lynnette Clark, the chair of the AIP, told ABC News that current Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the presumptive 2008 Republican Party nominee for Vice President of the United States, had been a member of the party in the 1990s, and had attended the state party's 1994 convention, a year after party founder and would-be secessionist Joe Vogler died.[6][7] Palin recorded a message welcoming party members to its 2008 convention as part of her duties as Governor of Alaska "

The New York Times also carries the story today. I find it interesting, because it effectively neutralizes another of the right wing's lines of attack against Obama - challenging his patriotism. This is yet another area in which the Palin pick appears to complicate McCain's campaign. :)

Here's another line of thought. Does anyone think that maybe the candidates are doing their level best to NOT get elected?

The Clinton/Obama run was alternating gaffes by associates on both sides, with alternating "who's on first" polls almost daily or weekly until Obama finally got stuck with the baton.

"A democrat" seemed like a sure thing for president even before McCain got left with the nomination and now his candidacy seems to be generating more gaffes than Hillary did trying to make it into second place so Obama gets handed the dirty stick and gets to take all the blame for the next four years.

I think whoever gets elected is stuck with a serious can of worms and no one really wants the job.

Four more years of more of the same seems safe because the American people (as in "We the People") aren't interested in their supervisory role over the gummint, good bad and/or ugly.

Change is scary. But if Obama thinks he's simply going to redirect the inertia of the bureacracy, he's deluded too.

I think serving the people in congress or the senate or any public office should be like jury duty. The job should be to go to Washington and get the work of the people done and go home. Oh, you say you don't want to go? Well that's the very reason you should. Work hard and we'll let you get out of it. Anybody who wants to go to feather their nest automatically goes to the bottom of the list. This country was founded on dissent and the freedom to dissent when the leadership went astray. When did we give that up?

It was nice knowing you guys, they're going to come after me soon.