DrewDad
 
  1  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 09:21 am
@Robert Gentel,
One could argue that that no one is ever ready to be president, but I'm not making that argument. Are you making that argument?

Shall we just randomly select any sitting politician and say, "OK, you're it?"

I'll ask Lash again, what qualities/qualifications does this woman have that would make her a good VP?
Lash
 
  3  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 09:38 am
@DrewDad,
Drew-- I've been here long enough to know that you can take anything and spin it negatively. I'm not going to waste any time with you in such a tiring exercise. If you want to lay out her deficits/foibles, however, I'll be happy to show you how the game is done. Razz
old europe
 
  2  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 10:03 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
I believe Joe is mistaken concerning the character of the "earmark" in this particular matter. If the 233 million dollars was truly money that AK would have been allocated regardless, as Joe believes, then why did the AK congressional representatives have to fight so long and hard to get it and why did the "bridge to nowhere" become a national symbol of federal pork-barrel spending?


It was my understanding that, in the 2005 highway bill, Young (as chairman of the transportation and infrastructure committee) and Stevens got additional money allocated and earmarked for the Anchorage and Ketchikan bridges. After the "bridges to nowhere" suddenly got a lot of negative national attention, Congress un-earmarked the funds, but left the funding allocation unaffected. I might be mistaken, though.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 11:06 am
Quote:


6 things the Palin pick says about McCain
By: Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris
August 30, 2008 12:41 PM EST

The selection of a running mate is among the most consequential, most defining decisions a presidential nominee can make. John McCain’s pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says a lot about his decison-making " and some of it is downright breathtaking.

We knew McCain is a politician who relishes improvisation, and likes to go with his gut. But it is remarkable that someone who has repeatedly emphasized experience in this campaign named an inexperienced governor he barely knew to be his No. 2. Whatever you think of the pick, here are six things it tells us about McCain:

1. He’s desperate. Let’s stop pretending this race is as close as national polling suggests. The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters " and too close for comfort in several states like Indiana and Montana the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election " and very sick of the Bush years.

McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike.

McCain’s pick shows he is not pretending. Politicians, even “mavericks” like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning " or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness.


The Republican brand is a mess. McCain is reasonably concluding that it won’t work to replicate George W. Bush and Karl Rove’s electoral formula, based around national security and a big advantage among Y chromosomes, from 2004.

“She’s a fresh new face in a party that’s dying for one " the antidote to boring white men,” a campaign official said.

Palin, the logic goes, will prompt voters to give him a second look " especially women who have watched Democrats reject Hillary Rodham Clinton for Barack Obama.

The risks of a backlash from choosing someone so unknown and so untested are obvious. In one swift stroke, McCain demolished what had been one of his main arguments against Obama.

“I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCain official said wryly.

2. He’s willing to gamble " bigtime. Let’s face it: This is not the pick of a self-confident candidate. It is the political equivalent of a trick play or, as some Democrats called it, a Hail Mary pass in football. McCain talks incessantly about experience, and then goes and selects a woman he hardly knows, who hardly knows foreign policy and who can hardly be seen as instantly ready for the presidency.

He is smart enough to know it could work, at least politically. Many Republicans see this pick as a brilliant stroke because it will be difficult for Democrats to run hard against a woman in the wake of the Hillary Clinton drama. Will this push those disgruntled Hillary voters McCain’s way? Perhaps. But this is hardly aimed at them: It is directed at the huge bloc of independent women " especially those who do not see abortion as a make-or-break issue " who could decide this election.

McCain has a history of taking dares. Palin represents his biggest one yet.

3. He’s worried about the political implications of his age. Like a driver overcorrecting out of a swerve, he chooses someone who is two years younger than the youthful Obama, and 28 years younger than he is. (He turned 72 Friday.) The father-daughter comparison was inevitable when they appeared next to each other.

4. He’s not worried about the actuarial implications of the age issue. He thinks he’s in fine fettle, and Palin wouldn’t be performing the only constitutional duty of a vice president, which is standing by in case a president dies or becomes incapacitated. If he was really concerned about an inexperienced person sitting in the Oval Office we would be writing about vice presidential nominee Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge or Condoleezza Rice.

There is no plausible way that McCain could say that he picked Palin, who was only elected governor in 2006 and whose most extended public service was as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population 8,471), because she was ready to be president on Day One.

Nor can McCain argue that he was looking for someone he could trust as a close adviser. Most people know the staff at the local Starbucks better than McCain knows Palin. They met for the first time last February at a National Governors Association meeting in Washington. Then, they spoke again " by phone " on Sunday while she was at the Alaska state fair and he was at home in Arizona.

McCain has made a mockery out of his campaign's longtime contention that Barack Obama is too dangerously inexperienced to be commander in chief. Now, the Democratic ticket boasts 40 years of national experience (four years for Obama and 36 years for Joseph Biden of Delaware), while the Republican ticket has 26 (McCain’s four yeasr in the House and 22 in the Senate.)

The McCain campaign has made a calculation that most voters don’t really care about the national experience or credentials of a vice president, and that Palin’s ebullient personality and reputation as a refomer who took on cesspool politics in Alaska matters more.

5. He’s worried about his conservative base. If he had room to maneuver, there were lots of people McCain could have selected who would have represented a break from Washington politics as usual. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman comes to mind (and it certainly came to McCain’s throughout the process). He had no such room. GOP stalwarts were furious over trial balloons about the possibility of choosing a supporter of abortion rights, including the possibility that he would reach out to his friend.

Palin is an ardent opponent of abortion who was previously scheduled to keynote the Republican National Coalition for Life's "Life of the Party" event in the Twin Cities this week.

“She’s really a perfect selection,” said Darla St. Martin, the Co-Director of the National Right to Life Committee. It is no secret McCain wanted to shake things up in this race " and he realized he was limited to a shake-up conservatives could stomach.

6. At the end of the day, McCain is still McCain. People may find him a refreshing maverick, or an erratic egotist. In either event, he marches to his own beat.

On the upside, his team did manage to play to the media’s love of drama, fanning speculation about his possible choices and maximizing coverage of the decision.

On the potential downside, the drama was evidently entirely genuine. The fact that McCain only spoke with Palin about the vice presidency for the first time on Sunday, and that he was seriously considering Lieberman until days ago, suggests just how hectic and improvisational his process was.

In the end, this selection gives him a chance to reclaim the mantle of a different kind of politician intent on changing Washington. He once had a legitimate claim to this: after all, he took on his own party over campaign finance reform and immigration. He jeopardized this claim in recent months by embracing ideas he once opposed (Bush tax cuts) and ideas that appeared politically motivated (gas tax holiday).

Spontaneity, with a touch of impulsiveness, is one of the traits that attract some of McCain’s admirers. Whether it’s a good calling card for a potential president will depend on the reaction in coming days to what looks for the moment like the most daring vice presidential selection in generations.

Mike Allen contributed to this report.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12997_Page2.html

Not exactly a glowing endorsement of his pick.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  3  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 11:06 am
@Lash,
I'll take that as "Lash knows of nothing that qualifies Palin for the VP spot." Wink How's that for negative spin?

Actually, I was referring to this post of yours:

Lash wrote:
I'm laughing. You guys are completely freaked out that he chose someone interesting--a woman. You're buggin. A bridge...pork someone ELSE ordered up....told to keep the money....It's NOTHING! Laughing Razz

I don't see "bugging"; I see bafflement.

Your delight seems to stem from the idea that this woman is so new to politics that she doesn't have any record to attack.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 11:08 am
@DrewDad,
Nah, her delight is that he didn't pick a crusty old white guy, for that would have ensured a loss. At least with Palin, Conservatives feel he has a chance, albeit a small one.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 11:13 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I don't buy the "dangerously egocentric" part of "McCain is dangerously egocentric because he chose an unqualified VP." Who plans for their death when seeking a new job?

It's the voters' responsibility to look to what happens if McCain dies, just like it's the stockholders' responsibility to make sure a company will survive the death of its founder.

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 11:15 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Anyone with half a brain knew that another crusty old white guy would be the kiss of death. So nobody's surprised that he chose differently. It's how much differently that gives the "WTF?" factor.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 11:19 am
@Cycloptichorn,
what were the conservatives thinking when they demanded Palin?? Is it out of the realm of possibility that they thought "McCain could die in office, leaving an easily manipulated know nothing in charge"??
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 11:25 am
@DrewDad,
Interestingly enough, it seems that Palin does much better with men then women - though both groups feel that she is unready to lead.

Quote:
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Women View Palin More Skeptically than Men

According to fresh data from Rasmussen Reports, Sarah Palin's selection is a mixed bag. Voters have a favorable impression of her by a 53/26 margin; however, by a 29/44 margin, they do not believe that she is ready to be President. Needless to say, the PR battle over the next couple of weeks will involve the McCain campaign playing up her biography, and the Obama campaign playing down her readiness.

At this stage, it is not clear how impactful her selection will be: 35 percent of voters say they're more likely to vote for McCain with Palin on the ticket, and 33 percent say they're less likely. Indeed, among voters already committed to one or the other candidate, her choice would seem to do little bit entrench partisan feelings: just 6 percent of McCain voters say they're less likely to vote for McCain with Palin on the ticket, while just 9 percent of Obama voters say they're more so. (To see how Joe Biden's numbers compared -- see here. As might be expected, Biden scored better on readiness and worse on personal favorables, with the other numbers being about the same).

What's interesting, however, is that while there is a gender gap in these numbers, it's not the one many observers were anticipating. Rather, along a variety of metrics, men like the Palin choice better than women:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3020/2810618377_1d08f2d3f6_o.png

These numbers pretty much speak for themselves, but men have a favorable imperssion of Palin by a 35-point margin, whereas women have a favorable impression of her by an 18-point margin. Conversely, by a 23-point margin, women do not think Palin is ready to be President, whereas Palin lost this question among men by a considerably smaller 6-point magrin.

Why does this gap exist? Don't know, but it may simply be a matter of ideology. Men are generally a bit more conservative than women, and opinions of Palin are very strongly determined by ideology. Conservatives have a favorable impression of her by a 79-8 margin, but this falls to 43-35 among moderates and 26-46 among liberals. Likewise, by a 48-22 margin, conservatives think she's ready to be President, but she loses this question 23-54 among moderates and 9-67 among liberals.


Wow - moderates and libs STRONGLY think she isn't ready to be president. How does this draw votes to McCain?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/women-more-skeptical-of-palin-than-men.html

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 11:25 am
@DrewDad,
Yeah.

This seems to have been really last-minute -- I'm not sure how credible this stuff is but I'm seeing a lot about Lieberman being considered up until the last couple of days, a few lawyers doing a super-fast check on Palin before McCain made the offer, etc.

I have to wonder how the spurned short-listers feel, too, just in terms of their willingness to campaign for McCain. That'd be especially true of Romney. I guess it depends on what they think of Palin as a pick.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 11:27 am
@Cycloptichorn,
That's the first I've seen on what people think... interesting.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 02:04 pm
@Lash,
Drew wrote: "I'll ask Lash again, what qualities/qualifications does this woman have that would make her a good VP?"

Lash responded: "Drew-- I've been here long enough to know that you can take anything and spin it negatively. I'm not going to waste any time with you in such a tiring exercise. If you want to lay out her deficits/foibles, however, I'll be happy to show you how the game is done."

The "game" at this point isn't really a game--it's a dance. Lash is engaged in the same dishonest dance-around-the-question that's going on with everyone who is asked the question. I watched all day yesterday as party supporters made their obligatory efforts to support McCain's choice and, no matter how many times they were asked the question, they squirmed and danced. Every time their evasions were pointed out to them--hey, you didn't answer the question posed--they made it clear that the question wasn't one that they wanted to answer. Evading the question is their only strategy.

Yesterday, I watched Sarah Palin's acceptance speech. With McCain standing directly next to her, she deceived the public and misrepresented herself. Similiarly, Lash, et. al, have evaded this question: What exactly did Palin do to champion the abuses of pork barrel spending in Congress other than to take the pork and run?

Palin was for the "bridge to nowhere" so long as her state was getting federal money to build it. After her state got the pork into its greedy hands--and after the national spotlight was shined upon the "bridge to nowhere" as an example of shameful pork barrel spending--then she was against it. And that's her dishonest claim to fame as a champion against wasteful federal spending. The applause she received was unwarranted.





mysteryman
 
  2  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 02:34 pm
@DrewDad,
Lets turn the question around...

What about her disqualifies her from being VP?
And dont give generalities or "whatifs", give specifics.
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 02:38 pm
@mysteryman,
the lack of familiarity that the American people have with her, and not having time to get to know her before we must pick. Putting a nobody on the ticket was McCain showing contempt for the America people, the contempt should be returned.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 02:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
She has other problems as well.

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/shadow_governor

Quote:
Shadow Governor?

In the aftermath of the Walt Monegan firing, one question keeps surfacing over and over again; why does the governor's husband, Todd Palin appear to hold so much power?

After all, Nancy Murkowski or Susan Knowles were never accused of pressuring a commissioner or inappropriately sitting in on meetings that should have been private.

The stories started last year when Representative Ralph Samuels told me about going into a meeting, he thought would be private, with Governor Sarah Palin. Much to his surprise, Todd Palin was there and proceeded to sit through the entire meeting.

Other lawmakers have shared similar stories and were shocked at how inappropriate Todd's presence was at meetings with the governor. Yesterday on the Dan Fagan Show, Representative Jay Ramras mentioned that Todd was working lawmakers offices during the ACES debate.

But more importantly, Todd's fingerprints on trying to impact personnel decisions appear to go beyond the current scandal revolving around State Trooper Mike Wooten.

Consider the story of one of Governor Palin's former trusted advisors, John Bitney.

Bitney grew up with the governor, often telling the story of being in the same band class. He served as her Issues Coordinator during her successful gubernatorial campaign in 2006, spokesman for her transition team after the election and on December 1, 2006 he was named her Legislative Liaison.

Bitney was respected as a hard worker by people who knew him and worked with him. In six months, Bitney guided the governor's policies through the legislature, including her hallmark legislation; AGIA.

But John Bitney made the fatal employment mistake; he got on the bad side of Todd Palin.

In June of 2007, it became known that Bitney was dating the soon to be ex-wife of Todd Palin's good friend. Palin reportedly began demanding that Bitney be fired.

After a short time, Bitney realized that he couldn't remain in the governor's office due to the constant pressure and he worked out a deal with Chief of Staff Mike Tibbles to take a transfer to another department.

On July 3, Bitney was in the process of driving his vehicle back to Juneau when he couldn't get his state issued Blackberry to work. When he arrived in Tok he called his office and was told that his Blackberry had been turned off and that his name had been removed from the state employee directory.

His call was then transferred into Tibbles who told him the proposal they talked about was a no deal and the governor ordered him fired immediately. John Bitney was never given a reason why he was fired and never given a chance to make a graceful exit.

However reading the press statements from the Palin administration, you'd think otherwise.

According to the APRN on July 9, 2007, Governor Palin's spokeswomen Sharon Leighow said Bitney left for "personal reasons" and the departure was "amicable."

The Associated Press reported on July 10, 2007, "A spokeswoman for the governor says Bitney and Palin mutually agreed he would leave his post for personal reasons."

Bitney didn't leave his post, he was unfairly and unceremoniously fired and even after serving as a loyal employee was never given an answer as to why he was dismissed by the governor.

According to Bitney, "Todd's words have so much weight".

Confidential Emails

The most alarming indication of Todd Palin's reach into state government came just yesterday.

Last month, a group of Alaskans filed a freedom of information act for emails sent from the computers of both Frank Bailey and Ivey Frye. Along with several boxes of documents, they received a cover letter along with 78 pages detailing the emails that were not released due to "Deliberative Process and Executive Privilege". (Privilege log attached)

Page 1 of the list showed seven emails from both Governor Sarah Palin and Lt. Governor Sean Parnell within a three hour time frame on Feburary 1, 2008 that were described as "Email re Andrew Halcro".

The serious concern about these emails is that they were prohibited from being released to the public due to executive privilege, even though Todd Palin was copied on these same emails.

Todd Palin is not a member of the executive branch, nor is he even a government employee. Todd Palin is a member of the general public.

So why in the world is Todd Palin getting copied on emails that his wife's administration is classifying as confidential?

Furthermore there is something incredibly suspicious about these emails.

The first email was sent on Feburary 1 at 7:41am from Lt. Governor Sean Parnell to Governor Sarah Palin. Obviously something was burning Parnell to make him fire off an email to the governor so early in the morning about Andrew Halcro. This in turn set off a flurry of email activity that spanned the next three hours and encompassed five different people including Todd Palin.

Judging from the blogs I posted on January 31, the night before, this very well could be about the 2004 TransCanada proposal that Parnell help negotiate when he was an attorney in the oil & gas division that has been kept sealed ever since. TransCanada has insisted to this day that it remain confidential.

These emails should be released to the public...after all Todd Palin has no standing to claim executive privilege. By including him in the email loop, the Palin administration has arguably breached any claim of executive privilege.

After all, government can't pick and choose what private citizens get to see confidential material, that is exactly why freedom of information laws exist.

The attached print out clearly shows that something drove this administration into overdrive, hence the seven emails in under three hours. Since the executive privilege has been breached by sending them to Todd Palin, this administration should release those emails so all Alaskans can see them.

This is yet another example of why we need to get to the facts about how power is being used in the governor's office.

(To see the complete email Privilege Log detailing the flow of emails click attachment)

Press Archives of John Bitney's firing:

http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=6772376&ClientType=Printable

http://aprn.org/2007/07/09/john-bitney-leaves-governors-office/


PDF -

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/emailLog.pdf

How can she claim exec. privilege on emails shared with her husband?

See, McCain didn't really vet her before he picked her - my guess is there is a lot that we still don't know about the Palins, that will come out before the election. Money and national attention have a funny way of doing that, and Palin has unfortunately (for her) gotten on the wrong side of both the Dems and the Republicans in state gov't up there in AK. So my prediction is that things are going to get worse for her before too long.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
the lack of familiarity that the American people have with her


What you mean is the lack of familiarity that YOU have with her.
I have known who she was for at least 2 years now,as have many other people.
Just because you dont know who she is doesnt mean that nobody does.

Quote:
Putting a nobody on the ticket was McCain showing contempt for the America people,


OR, Putting a nobody on the ticket was the democrat party showing contempt for the America people.
That nobody being Obama.
Because if you want to be honest, he was a nobody in national politics before he started campaigning.

Then again, so were Carter, and Clinton, yet they both won election.
And they were both sitting governors when they ran, so tell me what qualifications they had that Sarah Palin doesnt have.

Is it because they were both men and she isnt?
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:06 pm
i meant to post this yesterday, but got beeezy...

apparently, palin's advocates have been flying a little below the radar for quite a while. there's some kind of texas connection (surprise, surprise,surprise...) that i'm trying to work out.

launched in february of '07, this is a good place to start;

Quote:
We, the undersigned, call upon the Republican Party to put forward candidates for national office who represent our party’s ideals of limited government, honesty in public service, and strong American values.
Therefore, based on her strong record of fiscal and social conservatism, the decisiveness with which she has led her state, and her relentless pursuit of ethical government; we ask that that eventual Republican nominee for President of the United States select Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as the Republican candidate for Vice President in the year 2008.


http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/

the blahgg lists a couple of other sites as well. "palinforvp.com" has disappeared. there's also a brand new site that's supposed to show her stand on the issues. absence of text on 3 out of 4 topics. oohhhkayyyyy...

i heard yesterday that mccain had met her only twice before the announcement. once early last year and again last week.

ms. dtom told me last night that our niece lives +/- 2 blocks from the alaskan governor's mansion (?).

  http://www.galen-frysinger.us/united_states/juneau02.jpg

it's the cute l'il white colonial on the left... palin doesn't live there. i'm told that she lives instead at her families "compound". whatever that means.

in any case, here's a pretty good shot of juneau, the alaskan capitol...
 http://www.galen-frysinger.us/united_states/juneau04.jpg

the place is pretty much, "what you see is what you get".

it just keeps coming to me that once again, the rnc has put ideology first, country second.

why not? it's worked so well the last 8 years. sheesh...

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:10 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:


OR, Putting a nobody on the ticket was the democrat party showing contempt for the America people.
That nobody being Obama.
Because if you want to be honest, he was a nobody in national politics before he started campaigning.


Bull. Polling alone has shown that Americans have been more aware of Obama since 2004. Palin is a comparative unknown with very little experience. Running AK is good, but let's not forget that they had huge amounts of money coming in and only 700k constituents; The Mayor of San Diego has responsibility for more souls then that and bigger problems to deal with then figuring out how to cut enough checks to their constituents from all the extra oil money they get.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Palin is a comparative unknown with very little experience

The same could have been said about Carter and Clinton, yet they both won.

Quote:
Polling alone has shown that Americans have been more aware of Obama since 2004.


You mean when he decided to run for national office?
How many had heard of him BEFORE he ran for Senate.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain's VP:
  3. » Page 10
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 11:50:35