McCain chooses Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for V.P.

To All
Suppose the president were to die in office, which VP is better qualified tp be POTUS? Palin or Biden? Look at the resumes its not even close. Palin has less experience than Obama and Biden has more experience than McCain
The unfortunate thing is, we would have to get through Obama to get to Biden... Obama's not likely to die of old age any time soon. Shame it's not a McCain-Biden ticket.
 
Negative, Palin is much better than Biden. Biden don't even know his running mate's name. Biden thinks his running mates name is Barack America.
 
A stroke of genius on McCain's part. I can't wait for the VP debates. As an old bird hunter saying goes about how great everyone's dog is, "when the tailgate drops, the b**l s**t stops."
 
mmarsh said:
But personality is not the all important question. LBJ and Nixon were known as mean SOBs but were good presidents.
Seriously, do you actually remember LBJ and Nixon? Maybe you're too young, but I remember LBJ as a man who dug us a huge hole in 'Nam and Nixon as a negotiator of a peace treaty that was tantamount to a surrender and who escaped impeachment by the skin of his teeth. I fought in 'Nam when Nixon was Pres.. When I got out, I swore I'd wait until he died and piss on his grave. I would have done so except by the time I got out, I was too tired to wait in any more lines.
 
Watch as the ultra-feminist sisterhood back away in horror from Sarah Palin, John McCain's new running mate.
Mrs Palin is technically female, but she's enthusiastically married, hates abortion and thinks criminals should not be the only people allowed to own guns. She's everything Hillary Clinton isn't. In short, she's the wrong kind of woman.
Which just goes to show that ultra-feminists are not actually interested in promoting women because they're women. They pretend they are, but really their agenda is a campaign against marriage, in favour of abortion and for every other disastrous liberal and socialist cause that ever existed. In which case, they really can't go on pretending that their opponents are women-hating bigots.
Not least because they are the bigots - merciless when it comes to a choice between their own convenience and the life of an unborn baby.

Peter Hitchens.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...en-running-mate-grizzly-bear-office-wall.html
 
Last edited:
Seriously, do you actually remember LBJ and Nixon? Maybe you're too young, but I remember LBJ as a man who dug us a huge hole in 'Nam and Nixon as a negotiator of a peace treaty that was tantamount to a surrender and who escaped impeachment by the skin of his teeth. I fought in 'Nam when Nixon was Pres.. When I got out, I swore I'd wait until he died and piss on his grave. I would have done so except by the time I got out, I was too tired to wait in any more lines.

I know what you mean DTop, I kept switching into lines just like in a supermarket and never made it to the front. :|
 
Seriously, do you actually remember LBJ and Nixon? Maybe you're too young, but I remember LBJ as a man who dug us a huge hole in 'Nam and Nixon as a negotiator of a peace treaty that was tantamount to a surrender and who escaped impeachment by the skin of his teeth. I fought in 'Nam when Nixon was Pres.. When I got out, I swore I'd wait until he died and piss on his grave. I would have done so except by the time I got out, I was too tired to wait in any more lines.

All presidents have made mistakes, and since your mentioning Vietnam you can add JFK to that list as it was he that got us involved in that mess from the very beginning.

But your forgetting the GOOD that both men did.

1. LBJ was instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement created Medicare, created "the Great Society" program, the Economic opportunity Act, and various other public good projects on the "war on poverty".
2. Nikon saved Social Security, went toe-to-toe with Khrushchev and won, created the EPA, appointed excellent justices to the USSC, forced the end of segregation in schools, signed SALT I with Brezhnev etc...

Both men did some bad, but they did a lot of good too.


But back to topic...

I abhor social conservatism and everything it entails, so I am not going to favor any candidate with such a platform. I do think it was a strategistic mistake for McCain to choose such a platform because social conservatives like the far left liberals only represent a small (but vocal) minority. McCain would have been better picking a moderate, because that would have been a much more attractive option for people that are undecided, and those Democrats than have doubts about Obama. McCain cannot win on the far-right base alone. He has got to get votes from somewhere else. Behind the pretty looks and smile of Sarah Palin is the type of extremist that Americans abhor. Remember the backlash when the ultra right attempted to intervere in the Shiavo Affair? The lesson was: Americans don't like people injecting evangelist theology into their lives.

But for the sake of arguement, if I was McCain and was going to choose such a person why not at least pick someone with better political experience like Mike Huckabee? At least Huckabee was a 2 term Governor, or Fred Thompson or Elisabeth Dole who have both served 2 terms as a US senator. I could name a dozen of better qualified social conservatives than Sarah Palin.

It is exactly the same mistake Bush made with Dan Qualyle: Nothing but a pretty face. That error made Bush a laughingstock and her lack of experiance is going to show when she has to debate a political heavyweight like Joe Biden. Biden is going to school her, badly.

The reason McCain chose Palin is because he thinks Hillary supporters are divided. Like on so many other issues, He doesnt get it. Hillary supporters like Hillary's views, not the fact she's a women. Sarah Palin's views and hillarys views are totally opposite. Obama is far closer to Hillary on issues, and the hillary people all know it. You will have more Republicans voting for obama than hillary people voting for McCain.

Its laughable when I hear Palin praise Hillary because its such obvious pandering. I have been listening to the Hillary supporters the last 2 days, most are insulted that McCain thinks they are so patently naive, these are educated people and they know EXACTLY where Palin stands on the issues that matter to them. Palins's attempt to win them over by invoking Hillarys name is just angering them and pushing them toward Obama.

And finally remember that Bush was a social conservative too, picking another social conservative just reinforces the Democratic accusation of: McSAME.

If McCain wanted Hilary voters then he should have picked someone who actually shares her views, not someone whose sole similarity with Hillary is sex.
 
Last edited:
2. Nikon saved Social Security, went toe-to-toe with Kruschev and won, created the EPA, appointed excellent justices to the USSC, forced the end of segregation in schools, signed SALT I with Breshenev etc...
Not to mention establishing foreign relations with the People's Republic of China.
 
Update

NYT is reporting the evangelicals pressured McCain to give up on Joe Lieberman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/us/politics/31reconstruct.html?hp

This is another reason I hope McCain loses. The control that the people have has been a destructive influence on the GOP, its a major reason of why I and many other moderates don't vote Republican anymore.

The GOP needs to learn that they don't need to pay lip service to religious extremists is a lose-lose business. They help Republicans get elected, but they exact a terrible price.
 
Obama = 6 of 1
McMain = half a dozen of another

doesn't matter who either one chooses, the end result is the same.
Who knows, maybe we do need change, but I do say this with all honesty, if Obama wants my vote, then in return I want to know EXACTLY what EVERY change is AND how he planes to make said changes. Until then bash me if you want , but I vote to stay the course. After 45 years I have learned that change isn't always a good thing.
 
The beauty of American politics is that everyone is entitled to an opinion and even the experts are often as wrong you and I.

A perfect example is the way the Democrat Party has selected an amazing gaggle of losers to run for President since the time when Harry Truman resided in the White House and Republican Dwight Eisenhower took over.

Here are the Democrats who won: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton.

JFK was martyred by assassination, but did well handling the Cuban Missile Crisis (he was the one who one upped Khrushchev) and he also launched the space program. It was, however, this same JFK that took over the Vietnam conflict from the French (you know, those neighbors of yours).

It was Lyndon Johnson who compounded that mistake to the tune of some 55,000 dead American soldiers. Despite that civil rights legislation you cited, LBJ is mostly recalled for making such a hash of things he declined to run for a second term because there was no way in hell he could possibly come close to winning.

If Richard Nixon, a Republican, had not been totally paranoid, he might have left office a hero in some people's eyes for ending the Vietnam War and opening up China. Instead, he gave us Watergate and set us up for Jimmy Carter who was utterly incompetent. The Iranians proved it by holding U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days until Ronald Reagan commenced two of the best presidential terms this country has ever known.

And Bill Clinton? He did nothing for his wife’s run for the office, that's for sure. He can count himself fortunate that his first term cost the Democrats the loss of Congress. The legislation the Republicans passed was some of the best in years for which he, to nobody's surprise, took credit. When you say Bill Clinton these days, the only thing that comes to mind are endless scandals.

Oh no my friend, I didn't forget what these Presidents did.

How about the Democratic nominees for President since 1972? Beginning with George McGovern, Walter Mondale in '84, Michael Dukakis in '88, Al Gore in '00, and John Kerry in '04. It is hard to imagine a worse menagerie of candidates. Voters looked at them and you could hear a collective "WFT".

This brings us to Barack Obama. Thus far he has been unable to convince at least half the registered voters to take him seriously. The bounce in the polls that he got following his triumphal tour of the Mid East and Europe disappeared within a day or two after he got back to the U.S.

Let's see, who will not vote for Barack Obama? The first group, obviously is, Republicans, lots and lots of Republicans.

If you honestly look at various demographic groups, Obama will not do well among senior citizens. He has already committed political suicide by suggesting he wants to mess around with Social Security. Bad, bad move. On top of that, he wants to tax all the forms of income that older people depend upon to pay the mortgage, rent or groceries. You know, the stuff to live on. Quite significantly, old people will come out and vote, and they are a large portion of the population these days.

We veterans comeout to vote too. Veterans don’t like what they hear and see in Barack Obama. They don’t like the people he assiciates with like former Weatherman terrorists, convicted real estate developers, and ministers who say nasty things about the U.S.A. That's just the way it is with us.

Evangelicals, like it or not are still a big voting block, are shocked at the brand of Black Liberation theology Obama listened to for twenty years. The anti-American views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright are a drag on his candidacy. He really can't distance himself from a 20 year association overnight.

The days when the unions wielded any clout are over, but the Democratic Party which depends heavily on their money and manpower may discover on Election Day that a lot of union members will have voted for McCain. Obama simply does not resonate among working people. He lacks the common touch, which he never actually had.

We can add in the gun-owners too, 80 million of them, who did not take kindly to his “clinging to guns” remarks.

There lots of people in “fly over” America who are not very concerned about what the libs on the East and West Coast think.

Not to get into all the religious groups, but it is safe to say that Jews, traditionally Democratic, just may find it vefry difficult to vote for anyone named Barack Hussein Obama. That in itself, could cost him Florida, a very big loss.

African Americans as a group will certainly vote for Obama. Not generally known, however, is that Hispanic-Americans outnumber blacks in America these days and how they will vote remains very much in question.

Obama’s biggest problem and it's a huge one, is that the majority of Americans racially are white. Yes, even Hispanics, racially, are white. Once you get by all the usual politically correct BS about race, the likelihood that most whites will vote for Obama is slim to nil when they get in the privacy of the voting booth.

That is why, in a nutshell, I believe John McCain is most likely to be the next President of the United States of America.
 
Back
Top