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

Bill Clinton was a disaster. Maybe not in Europe but in the eyes of the rest of the world, the Commander in Chief of the United States was a first class infidel. The symbol of everything wrong with "American influence." We all know that's pretty inaccurate but that's the way most of the world saw it. Probably not the Europeans because they're more open minded about the stuff but as far as foreign relations with anyone else went, yeah I remember it was pretty awkward for Americans.
No doubt, it was a huge Al Qaeda rallying point. That, and Black Hawk Down.
No one took any action he took seriously. TV stations in Serbia were playing "Wag The Dog" as Clinton ordered air strikes against that country and the cruise missiles were called "Monica Missiles."
Thought I'd bring that back from the past. Seems like some people forget.
As for the bad things about Bush Jr., I guess we've discussed that one to death.
 
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.

You know this may come as a surprise but I agree with you I am amazed at the ability of the Democratic party to select unelectable candidates.

However I was sent this cartoon and I suspect that it is unfortunately accurate...
752610.jpg
 
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
I don't think it's that at all. The "I vote for a woman because I'm a woman too" doesn't apply to feminists. It never has. You see, advancing women doesn't do anything if you vote for someone who shares no women's lib views. Women's lib views are exactly what Women's Lib says they are. They don't make a stink against marriage. They make a stink against wife-beaters and associated lowlifes and they push for the giving wives the ability to get away. Clinton shared women's lib views. Palin doesn't. Bye bye voters.

Rebuttal to DTop's post:
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.
And McCain, whose healthcare plan gives corporations the option to drop pension benefits, will do any better? I'm thinking not. My grandparents live off a pension from General Motors. If McCain is elected and the pension goes away, they're stuck.

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.
I'll give you that much. However, this fits under Republican.

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.
Also fits under republican.

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.
I don't know about that. He's got quite a following in UAW magazines.

We can add in the gun-owners too, 80 million of them, who did not take kindly to his “clinging to guns” remarks.
Not every gun owner is a member of the super-right wing NRA. Many have only one revolver for self defense, and have no problem with regulation

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.

So? McCain's name rhymes with Hussein. And most people aren't that superficial.

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.
I'm doubting they'll vote for the guy who wants to deport them.

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.
So I see him losing Alaska, Kentucky, West Virginia, Arizona, and the former Confederate States of America. Total Electoral votes lost: 179.

Also note that there are 72 million registered democrats, to 55 million Republicans. It will be a reasonably close election, but Obama will most likely prevail.
 
You know MontyB, I think you and I agree on a lot more than either of us might like, at times, to admit. Interesting cartoon, BTW.

You know this may come as a surprise but I agree with you I am amazed at the ability of the Democratic party to select unelectable candidates.

However I was sent this cartoon and I suspect that it is unfortunately accurate...
752610.jpg
 
Let's also not forget JFK and his whole family pretty much, in the early days, went to college and got their degrees on mob money.
 
So DTop, how do you think McCain will go as President with his economic policies?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me. If you're asking me what I think his policies will be, you can read them for yourself on the website . He's got plans to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil with alternative energies, improved health care, fairer taxes, lower trade barriers, etc..
If you're asking me how much of that will actually get through a Democrat, obstructionist controlled legislature, well therein lies the rub. All good plans of mice and men and all that.
It's probably a good idea to compare the two would be presidents' planned policies.

Obama and McCain seem to have fairly traditional party line approaches to the economy as far as I can see.

Obama looks to have a traditional liberal approach of taxing the rich more while having the government help people of more modest means through tax breaks.

McCain, advocates a classic conservative vision of cutting taxes, many geared toward businesses and aimed to promote competition within a free-market system.

That said, neither one of these plans will be cheap. But at least in McCain's case, proposals to slash spending would offset some of the increased costs. McCain has always been a sort of crusader against wasteful government spending and he has said that he'll veto bills that are too costly and cut the federal budget enough to make up for the costs of tax cuts and other proposals. How he's actually going to accomplish this, I have yet to hear, however.

Obama, on the other hand, has proposed spending billions of dollars in to create jobs and pad government programs. He has said that the money will come from ending the Iraq war, slicing tax breaks for corporations, and raising taxes on high-income earners, efforts he says will shift more of the tax burden to rich Americans.

McCain has said: "On tax policy, health care reform, trade, government spending, and a long list of other issues, we offer very different choices to the American people..."

Obama has agreed: "When it comes to the economy, John McCain and I have a fundamentally different vision of where to take the country."
Other than that, they disagree on just about everything else.

Major changes to the tax code are at the core of both candidates' sweeping economic plans, given that most cuts enacted since President Bushtook office expire at the end of 2010. Voters would also do well to remember that the AMT (alternative minimum tax) is poised to strike much of the middle class in the back pocket two years into the next president's first term, whomever he happens to be.

So with those facts, I might ask you the same question you asked me. What do you think of McCain's economic plans?
 
Last edited:
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".

Good leaders bad candidates has always been the Democrats problem. That's true. The Republicans have the exact opposite problem, good candidates and bad leaders. If you look at the past Republican presidents since the best you can come up with is Richard Nixon (a good president but who was destroyed by his own personal failings). Ronald Reagan is not liked outside the Republican party and hes hated everywhere else in the world. His popularity is declining as the years move on (about 52%).

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.

Ditto for McCain and more so because he's still losing in the national polls.

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

Not as many as they did in previous years. There is alot of evidence that suggests that disillusioned Republicans are crossing over and joining Obama. Defections are high this year and the number is growing. The liberals and moderates are bailing out in droves.


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.

Depends on which Seniors you are talking about. Remember McCain supported Bush's plan to privatize social security, you can be sure the AARP hasn't forgotten the way it was treated a few years ago. You can be sure that when Obama comes to Florida, McCains views of SS are going to be brought up. Thats going to be a tough stance to defend.

You see, Americans biggest weakness isnt in God, or Gays or even Guns. Its their pocketbook. And that is McCain worst area.


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.

Not all veterans are Republicans. Granted the majority are supporting McCain but about 40% are Democrats. That is not a vitinf block lock like say evangelicals. If you want to talk honesty McCain had a much darker cloud over him than Obama does. Obama may have had controversial friends, but he himself was never implicated in anything. John McCain was. The Keating 5 scandal sent several of McCains friends to jail and himself a severe congressional reprimand. He narrowly avoided indictment himself by the skin of his teeth, and is involvement was probably greater than would could actually be proved.

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.

They are a big voting block for Republicans, but not overall. The Democrats havent presued the Evangelical vote since George Wallace. Democrats dont need the Evangelical vote, Republicans do.
And as I said, religous extremists are a demading lot, they can make a real trouble if they dont get their way. And their way is often contrary to the desires of the rest of the country. If they try and overturn Roe V Wade, the GOP will pay dearly for it next election. (Which is why they havent touched it).


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.

Unions still represent several Million Americans and there member is slowly climbing again, and there is no way the unions are going to support the largest champion for big-business management in Congress. Obama might not be as popular as Edwards and Hillary but that doesnt mean they like McCain.

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

A minor remark, and frankly it is accurate. People DO cling to the guns issue more than they should, its a minor issue compared to all our other problems. I think more people took offense "Americans are Whiners" and "A rich man makes over $5 Million". That was an offense to just about every working person in America because it just proved how out-of-touch McCain and his people are about normal people and the economic crisis we are in. As I said, only a few people care about guns, but EVERYBODY cares about the economy.


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

They should care, because its those libs on the east and west coast that pays the lions share of the federal taxes, that money goes into their states (we pay more and get less). Personally, myself and others are getting tired of paying for ungreatful people.

Second of all, I assume you know why its called "flyover America". Its because nobody actually lives there. You have to combine the populations of Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, North+South Dokota to equal the population of New York City (not NY state). So I have no problem saying that states like NY, CA, IL etc carry more political clout than flyover America.


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.

This is a racial issue, the jews dont like blacks, and visa versa. I know the
jewish community in Florida, they mostly came from Bensonhurst and Crown Heights where there have been some violent riots between blacks and Jews over the past decades. But make no mistake IF (its not certain) they vote for McCain they will do so holding their nose, and the fact that McCain picked an evangelical over Joe Lieberman didnt indear them to McCain either. McCain shouldnt assume that he has got their vote. Besides Obama doesnt need Florida, he only needs to flip one state from 2004 and hes won. According to the polls so far hes flipped 4 (Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado). As we learned in 2000, its the electoral votes that count not the popular vote. 2008 might be 2000 in reverse.

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.

Hispanics (with the exception of Cubans) have always voted Democrat. I see no reason why that would change, espicially with all the anti-immigrant sentiment within the GOP, thats likely to help Dems.


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.

Maybe, maybe not. The polls have McCain losing. its close, but if the election were today Obama would win in a close battle. I wont say McCain wont win, but he is trailing.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's that at all. The "I vote for a woman because I'm a woman too" doesn't apply to feminists. It never has. You see, advancing women doesn't do anything if you vote for someone who shares no women's lib views. Women's lib views are exactly what Women's Lib says they are. They don't make a stink against marriage. They make a stink against wife-beaters and associated lowlifes and they push for the giving wives the ability to get away. Clinton shared women's lib views. Palin doesn't. Bye bye voters.


TOG - you wil see that Peter Hitchens referred to 'the ultra-feminists'. He is our leading independant commentator on matters USA. (Hates all parties equally!). His greatest opponent is his brother Christopher!
No-one would suggest that Palin supports wife-beaters and associated lowlifes, far from it.

Bearing that in mind, if you re-read, I think you will find he is saying much the same as yourself, from a different agenda. You say Bye bye voters - he is saying bye bye some voters, hello America.
 
Last edited:
They should care, because its those libs on the east and west coast that pays the lions share of the federal taxes, that money goes into their states (we pay more and get less). Personally, myself and others are getting tired of paying for ungreatful people.

Second of all, I assume you know why its called "flyover America". Its because nobody actually lives there. You have to combine the populations of Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, North+South Dokota to equal the population of New York City (not NY state). So I have no problem saying that states like NY, CA, IL etc carry more political clout than flyover America.

Wow! Arrogant much? So are you talking about those ungrateful people in the breadbasket of America who grow your food? Those unwashed, unlettered, unenlightened hicks "clinging to their guns and bibles" who don't really live there?

So your point is that due to higher population density on the coast's that translates into a higher tax base and thus a higher tax payout, that the ungrateful people in middle America ought to trade in whatever values and ideas they have or hold , kowtow to the educated, and enlightened denzians of the coasts and think and vote and act as their told? Because you and people of your ilk know whats best for everyone?

Are you saying that these ungrateful people, don't pay taxes. Or are you saying that by virtue of your tax dollars that you and your enlightened bretheran should have final say on how the country votes and is run. And if Middle America doesn't like it then screw them. Because you have all the answers right?

It's statements like the one you made that continually drive a wedge between the coasts and the people in middle america. That fawning arrogant "We know whats best for you hicks and hillbillies so you better listen up." Then you wonder why you get the one fingered salute.
 
A point that rural America and Middle America needs to shut up and listen to the coasts? Because they are sooooo much better? Naw sorry that's not how the system works.
 
Especially considering how rural America is the one that actually matters... Sure, business is important, but I'd put money on how SHORT America would last without farmers.
 
Especially considering how rural America is the one that actually matters... Sure, business is important, but I'd put money on how SHORT America would last without farmers.

This is just as bad as what MM was saying, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. Rural America needs Coastal America and visa versa. Neither one could exist by themselves.

And 03, looking at it just in electoral college votes, Obama really does not need the support of rural America. In that respect, MM is right - Politically, the coast is stronger then rural America.
 
And 03, looking at it just in electoral college votes, Obama really does not need the support of rural America. In that respect, MM is right - Politically, the coast is stronger then rural America.

True enough on a National Election level. However they still vote for their representatives and senators. It could be real easy for Obama to lose out when mid terms roll around if he's elected. Ask Clinton.


I was just addressing the Coastal Eliteism.
 
I fully agree with 03's message. Having lived in the suburbs of the Midwest, the middle of Brooklyn, and finally rural upstate New York, I find that people in the city really aren't any better or smarter at all, they just think they are.

I am absolutely sick and tired of New York State laws designed for the city being applied to me when they have no relevance up here. They should've been city ordinances or something.
 
Kind of clashes with the right wing "wait until you're married" stance of her mother, doesn't it?

(Honestly, I don't care what happens along those lines either, but the hypocrisy bothers me.)
 
Back
Top