A Vice Presidental candidate thread.

No chance ff. She sees it as saving girls from a worse fate than having their civil liberties curtailed. That happens at every red light.

Of course. But it's the totallity of her positions that prove her extremism. Plus she's not being honest about her history and that says a great deal too.

Actually, that's the whole kit and cabuttle; lies, short memory, extremism, and she thinks she god's gift to the GOP. The GOP thinks so too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pAsddWOxjw&feature=related

Is it really "disrespectful" to say she's good-looking? She is.

Is it "disrespectful" to say she's being told what to say when, in fact, she has a team coaching her?

Is it "disrespectful" to say she is lying, when she persists in making claims that are at odds with the facts--i.e.lies?

Do they really expect anyone to buy this nonsense? I don't think they know how to respond to the legitimate criticisms of her, so they are trying to make her look like the victim, but this ad is really lame . Do they really think this makes Obama look bad? Since when was respect for an opponent part of a Republican political campaign?
The ironic thing is, I think they are being rather sexist by implicitly raising the issue that a woman should be treated differently than a male candidate who is running for office--i.e. a lady must be treated with respect, Obama was disrespectful, shame, shame.. Either you believe in equality, or you don't. There should be no double standards for Palin. Politics is a rough game, and she's got to be prepared to take her lumps.

firefly wrote: "The ironic thing is, I think they are being rather sexist by implicitly raising the issue that a woman should be treated differently than a male candidate who is running for office--i.e. a lady must be treated with respect, Obama was disrespectful, shame, shame.. Either you believe in equality, or you don't. There should be no double standards for Palin. Politics is a rough game, and she's got to be prepared to take her lumps."

It is doubly ironic because McCain has portrayed Palin as a woman who is extremely feminine in appearance, but who is much tougher than a man in practice--so much so that she is elevated to "pit bull" status. In other words, she may wear lipstick, but she is the equivalent of an attack dog. He says he can't wait to unleash her in Washington. McCain's treatment of his soulmate, however, is much more telling than his portrayal of her. He treats his alleged attack dog as a poor helpless woman who quivers in the shadows of his campaign; who cries "foul" at every perceived criticism; and who cannot face the nation without his protective arms around her.

Well- obviously. He chose the lady against all odds. For a VP candidate he could hardly be more protective than that.

Maybe he laid the odds against all the others in the betting and has had a clear book.

Americans place too much importance on tone, over substance. It is true (been proven in studies) that if women are tough but do it in a pleasant tone they will not be seen as Bitches. Palin owes most of her success to having learned this at some point. It can also be argued that she cloaks her masculine attack nature in feminine niceness, that she has thus been able to do her enemies in after they have underestimated her mean nature.

See Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever for documentaion
http://www.amazon.com/Women-Dont-Ask-Negotiation-Gender/dp/069108940X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221327488&sr=1-3

Wow, it turns out that the 'bridge to nowhere' isn't dead after all -

http://www.propublica.org/article/palin-administration-still-pursuing-nowhere-project-913/

They are still using 75 million dollars or so on a scaled-down version of the bridge, in Federal money. So when Palin says 'if we want a bridge, we'll build it ourselves,' she is lying. Again. She is still using federal earmarked pork funds to build the bridge.

What a crock of **** this lady is slinging.

Cycloptichorn

If she didn't bring home the bacon for Alaskans they would get somebody in who did. It's her job.

I agree with spendius. Living off federal funds is a major source of their budget in Alaska.
I don't believe she's really against earmarks. She's been pushed into taking this position by the current campaign, which is why she can't explain her alleged turnaround on the issue. Actually, she and McCain really don't agree on a number of issues.

Earmarks are far from the only source of government wasteful spending and I don't know why McCain harps on this one so much. Lobbyists are a much bigger problem. Most Senators and Congressmen rely on earmarks to deliver things to their districts, so earmarks will never entirely vanish. As paybacks to campaign contributors they should go, but, in other circumstances, they might be valid and useful.

I don't have a problem with that opinion. But John McCain does. He's ran his entire campaign around the position that it is not the job of a Governor to request pork. He's dead-set against that opinion. So in order to make Palin fit the ticket, they had to lie - egregiously - about her past record and about her attitude towards Federal funding. It's inconsistent and morally wrong on his part to lie constantly like this, and Obama is going to hammer him on it during the debates. McCain will have little defense. He can either admit the truth, that Palin is the opposite of who he has said she was, or he can admit that he doesn't really care about pork-barrell spending one bit. Not an enviable position.

Cycloptichorn

There's only one position that is not enviable Cyclo. Coming second.

An itsy-bitsy debate isn't going to bother Honest John.

Palin was so clueless and shallow in her interviews with Gibson this week, it is almost too easy to parody her. But, a laugh is always welcome, so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfz6QGmuvp4

The whole subject of "earmarks" I am convinced that few people understand, including all the candidates, including McCain. There is so much pork, that if you eliminated all pork, it would certainly shake things up. Pork is nothing more than federal funds being sent to states to spend on various projects, many of which would not be built otherwise. I would love to see that eliminated, but sadly I think this is a pattern that has been entrenched in the system for a very long time. And Palin I think is correct that alot of the earmarks come from various agencies and take differing paths to congress, too many to keep track of almost.

I would like to see more responsibility taken by state and local governments, but the tax burden must be shifted slightly to accomodate this. Also, the people in those states could then choose whether they thought the project was worth doing and worth paying for, which would bring greater accountability.

I am sure that Palin was not much different than almost all local officials, use federal money if its free for the taking, but as national policy, I think it is a bad policy and I have always thought that.

Yup, Sarah Palin really had to deal with difficult and complex issues as mayor of Wasilla--the alleged executive experience that qualifies her to be VP of the United States.



And she had the nerve to ridicule Obama's experience as a community organizer? She probably has no idea what a community organizer in Chicago does, or why it's likely a much more difficult and challenging job than being mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

Thats hilarious, firefly. I would say that not only does Palin not know what a community organizer does, but probably 90% of the people in this country doesn't know, and beyond that if they did know, would not be impressed. A community organizer I doubt has any significant responsibility, beyond possibly being some kind of volunteer to run around or do things in the community. Alot of people do that, and it doesn't take any special skill, besides offering your services. If I deliver Meals on Wheels, am I a community organizer? That would be better than running an ACORN scam operation I would think? If you know of something significant that Obama did while being a community organizer, let me know because I haven't heard of any yet.

How can you even say this? Do you know how much the total amount of earmarks in our budget adds up to, as a percentage of the budget, each year?

Cycloptichorn

No I don't, and frankly I haven't cared, but I know it is a big waste of money. I can't do anything about it, except vote for McCain Palin, which I intend to do.

Just guessing, percentage wise very small, but dollar wise, probably a few billion, very significant. Hows my guess?

Do you really believe that Palin would support cutting off all earmarks to Alaska under a McCain/Palin administration?

So, the solution to your unfounded and unsupported opposition to earmarks and "prok" is to vote for the VP candidate who takes it when it comes ("if the money's there, why not take it"), and the Presidential candidate who has railed against not only earmarks and pork, but against Palin herself?
Seems like a solid strategy with about as much logic as your opposition to earmarks.

You have very little credibility okie, when you make these assertions and then support them with statements like "I don't know, and don't care, but I'm making a guess about x, y, or z."

You are just the person to vote for the Palin-McCain ticket. No thoughts required.

I don't care if they cheat, lie, abuse their power, or have inconsistent beliefs, just give me a warm body and a pulse....and a republican party affiliation and you have my vote....signed, okie.
Solid politics okie. Very solid.