Was Palin as VP pick a mistake?

[barn32]

I couldn't have said it better myself.


What if John McCain had not picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate?

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Some of John McCain’s advisers are not happy that his running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, is making a habit of going off-script and off-message with some of her comments… Most recently this weekend when she discussed her wardrobe at a rally in Florida.

So let’s play “what if?”

What if John McCain had not picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate?
For one thing, the Republicans probably wouldn’t have had to spend $150,000 buying clothes for the candidate.

Seriously. What if McCain had picked Mitt Romney. A self-made man with plenty of clothes and a knowledge of the economy that the current ticket is sorely lacking. And while he probably can’t see Russia from his state, he could probably name at least one newspaper that he reads every day. And if he won, he probably wouldn’t go to Washington in January thinking he was “in charge of the Senate.”

Or what about Tom Ridge. The former Pennsylvania governor and Secretary of Homeland Security? The key to victory for McCain or Obama may well be Pennsylvania, where Obama holds a double-digit lead heading into next Tuesday. Think Tom Ridge might have helped McCain with his “Pennsylvania” problem? Besides, it would have been fun if McCain wins watching Ridge wrap the White House in clear plastic sheeting and duct tape.

But McCain chose Sarah Palin who immediately became a national joke to everyone except the conservative base of the Republican party. Even some Republicans are convinced the Palin selection showed a total lack of judgment on McCain’s part.

Or what about Florida governor Charlie Crist? Would winning Florida help McCain? You get the idea.

Here’s my question to you: Was it a mistake for John McCain to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate?

Brendan from San Antonio, Texas writes:
She makes Quayle look like Einstein, and I didn’t think that was possible!

Link (http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/27/was-palin-as-vp-pick-a-mistake/)

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually, the biggest mistake is detailed right here in this article:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6099188 (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6099188)

[delayjf]

Including the media bias mentioned above, if this election were held last year McCain wins in a walk, Americans are made about the economy and taking it out on Republicans.

One question I have is - Will the Fairness Doctrine apply to newspapers and TV as well??

[so.cal.fan]

:( Exactly right, delayjf!
Unfortunately, we are about to elect a man with no executive experience whatsoever, who is so entangled with shady characters, like Rizko, Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc that he would not even qualify to be selected as an FBI agent. Would not pass security screening.
We are about to see our country with NO BALANCE OF POWER whatsoever.
I really fear that we will no longer ever have free, honest elections again.
I am very sad for America. :(

[wonatthewire1]

We are about to see our country with NO BALANCE OF POWER whatsoever. I really fear that we will no longer ever have free, honest elections again. I am very sad for America. :(

Hey so. cal. fan - weren't the dimcommies crying the same thing when the bushwacker got into office in '01? No balance of power, end of the world stuff...

oh wait - we did get a lot of that stuff, didn't we? At least the bushwacker doesn't want the job anymore and can't wait to get out of town.

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Boris]

I couldn't have said it better myself.


What if John McCain had not picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate?

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Some of John McCain’s advisers are not happy that his running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, is making a habit of going off-script and off-message with some of her comments… Most recently this weekend when she discussed her wardrobe at a rally in Florida.

So let’s play “what if?”

What if John McCain had not picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate?
For one thing, the Republicans probably wouldn’t have had to spend $150,000 buying clothes for the candidate.

Seriously. What if McCain had picked Mitt Romney. A self-made man with plenty of clothes and a knowledge of the economy that the current ticket is sorely lacking. And while he probably can’t see Russia from his state, he could probably name at least one newspaper that he reads every day. And if he won, he probably wouldn’t go to Washington in January thinking he was “in charge of the Senate.”

Or what about Tom Ridge. The former Pennsylvania governor and Secretary of Homeland Security? The key to victory for McCain or Obama may well be Pennsylvania, where Obama holds a double-digit lead heading into next Tuesday. Think Tom Ridge might have helped McCain with his “Pennsylvania” problem? Besides, it would have been fun if McCain wins watching Ridge wrap the White House in clear plastic sheeting and duct tape.

But McCain chose Sarah Palin who immediately became a national joke to everyone except the conservative base of the Republican party. Even some Republicans are convinced the Palin selection showed a total lack of judgment on McCain’s part.

Or what about Florida governor Charlie Crist? Would winning Florida help McCain? You get the idea.

Here’s my question to you: Was it a mistake for John McCain to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate?

Brendan from San Antonio, Texas writes:
She makes Quayle look like Einstein, and I didn’t think that was possible!

Link (http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/27/was-palin-as-vp-pick-a-mistake/)


Another liberal hack kicks Palin. Big surprise.

To answer his dumbass question, if McCain had picked Romney, Ridge, Crist, or anyone else, the left would have trashed them just the same. They might not have enjoyed it as much, but all they got is hate.

[OTM Al]

The "mistake" was increased by Mr. Bush himself. He early on thought he could mess with the press and laid some heavy disrespect on the White House reporters. Also I think many took strong objection to the idea of embedding in Iraq. He messed with a vindictive lot I think and Mr. McCain is paying for that. Even a dumb ball player knows better than to mess with a reporter because they will ruin you and the White House reporters are pretty high up the food chain as far as reporters go. The continuing conservative mantra of bias is also helping to turn it all into a self fulfilling prophesy. Best thing the party can do in the next 4 years is bite it back and get these people back on their side. They can be bought just like anyone else as long as you pay their price.

[ddog]

actually , it can't possibly be news to anyone that the press, in the main , are complete front runners and most are useless.
they kowtow to those they cover because if they don't then they don't get "access".


this bama stuff reminds me of nothing so much as the MSM runup to the Iraq war, the bellowing and shock and awe coverage and the breathless coverage of the Powell speech ,etc. was at least if not more shamefull than this.

But, depending on whcih side you are on , people seem to eat up that side's crap no matter.

that is what makes me sad for US.

[prospector]

almost all the liberal rags have suffered because of their coverage..add to that the stock market value of their stock and the real opertunity is to buy these rags and convert them back to honest reporting, like that reporter in florida that asked real questions...

[dav4463]

I would like to see Sarah Palin as president.

[Rookies]

like that reporter in florida that asked real questions... :lol:

Let's see. How many milliseconds did it take after hearing that first question to know she came from the "whacked out & off balance " Network ?

And then, to learn that she was a registered Republican with a husband as a former Republican political operative. I think I was going to have a heart attack, I was so surprised !

YEAH- SHE WAS REAL- ALRIGHT ! :lol:

Just like Flushed Oxy-cotin windbag and Hannity are... keep up the good punch lines though...

[Tom]

The mistake was anyone taking anything Cafferty has to say as anything more than jibberish. :lol:

[Jake]

Actually, the biggest mistake is detailed right here in this article:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6099188 (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6099188)

No, Mike, McCain loses because he decided to court the conservative right instead of the center where all the independents votes were up for grabs. If he had done that, it wouldn't matter what you believe about a media bias. McCain set himself up for all this stuff precisely because it looks like he had a brain transplant over the last 18 months. The conservative base would have held their noses and voted for him in any case, because they hate Obama. If he had gone to the center after the primary, and chosen someone for VP to steal Obama thunder he would be winning this right now. Hell, I watched the Republican convention and heard a number of articulated women--governors and as well as Congresswomen--who would have been a great choice for VP, and would have helped cement the center.

McCain is catching heat precisely because he made a poor choice of campaign strategy. It's not that I disagree with you about the tenor of the media coverage, it's just that the McCain strategy has been a complete disaster. And, I think people see that as a reflection of the kind of presidency he would have over the next 4 years.

Is it fair? No, but that's how's it is playing out, and McCain who was a darling of the media the last 8 years has been playing this all wrong. I think he is bring most of this stuff on himself, because he has constantly undercut his own record going forward. Hell, he voted against the Bush tax cuts and now he says he's all for cutting taxes. It's a two-headed campaign in my opinion, and it makes many voters uncomfortable. Most of all, Palin was the wrong choice to help win this.

[HUSKER55]

One has to wonder if Obama and Bidden would have survived the trashing they gave Sarah.

Sarah has no skeletons in her closet compared to all the rest and look who got torched. Only because she was different from what people were used to.

It is going to be interesting to see how the next four years pan out. Sooner or later Obama's house of cards is going to fail. Even poor people understand that there is no free lunch and someone has to pay. They also understand the value of guiding your own ship and reaping the rewards of their efforts. Nobody is going to voluntarily give those up.

Obama has sold a lot of blue sky to a lot of people.

I look forward to see how this plays out.

[JustRalph]

Here, read something from a Dem who spent time with her over the last month.


This person is no hack either. She is a former editor of Ms. Mag

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-27/sarah-palins-a-brainiac/1/

Sarah Palin's a Brainiac

by Elaine Lafferty
Info
RSS
Elaine Lafferty

Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times of Dublin, features editor at MORE magazine, editor in chief of Ms magazine. She has covered everything from the OJ Simpson trial to the Unabomber case, natural disasters in Central America, and conflicts in Kosovo, the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The recipient of numerous journalism awards, she co-authored My Turn At the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
X Close


BS Bottom - Lafferty Palin 134
The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP.

It's difficult not to froth when one reads, as I did again and again this week, doubts about Sarah Palin's “intelligence,” coming especially from women such as PBS's Bonnie Erbe, who, as near as I recall, has not herself heretofore been burdened with the Susan Sontag of Journalism moniker. As Fred Barnes—God help me, I'm agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.

I'm a Democrat, but I've worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin's nomination. Last week, there was the thought that as a former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine as well as a feminist activist in my pre-journalism days, I might be helpful in contributing to a speech that Palin had long wanted to give on women's rights.


Now by “smart,” I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.

For all those old enough to remember Senator Sam Ervin, the brilliant strict constitutional constructionist and chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee whose patois included “I'm just a country lawyer”… Yup, Palin is that smart.

So no simple task then, this speech on women's rights. For the sin of being a Christian personally opposed to abortion, Palin is being pilloried by the inside-the-Beltway Democrat feminist establishment. (Yes, she is anti-abortion. And yes, instead of buying organic New Zealand lamb at Whole Foods, she joins other Alaskans in hunting for food. That's it. She is not a right-wing nut, and all the rest of the Internet drivel—the book banning at the Library, the rape kits decision – is nonsense. I digress.) Palin's role in this campaign was to energize “the Republican base,” which she has inarguably done. She also was expected to reach out to Hillary Clinton “moderates.” (Right. Only a woman would get both those jobs in either party.) Look, I am obviously personally pro-choice, and I disagree with McCain and Palin on that and a few other issues. But like many other Democrats, including Lynn Rothschild, I'm tired of the Democratic Party taking women for granted. I also happen to believe Sarah Palin supports women's rights, deeply and passionately.

more at the link

[PaceAdvantage]

Hell, I watched the Republican convention and heard a number of articulated women--governors and as well as Congresswomen--who would have been a great choice for VP, and would have helped cement the center.Palin is a Governor and she is articulate. Case closed.

If you don't think she is articulate, then you're buying into a version of the truth that cannot be your own. A version that has been bought and paid for numerous times over.

If the MSM was HAMMERING HOME at EVERY SINGLE MOMENT how FLAWED Obama's CHARACTER and JUDGEMENT are because of his associations with Ayers, Rezco, Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, his past drug use, his "missing years" at Columbia, the fact that he has only presented a web image of his birth certificate, etc. etc. etc., would it all be the same right now? Would Obama be ahead by 5-10 points even with Sarah by John's side?

You have no leg to stand on given the current climate with which the media has chosen to operate. None.

Public perception is DRIVEN by the media, and at EVERY SINGLE TURN, whether it be Google News, AP, Reuters, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, David Letterman, The View, celebrity commercials, TV shows like Boston Legal, and on and on and on....

You know what, it doesn't matter anyway. You're still going to come back at me and tell me McCain would be winning this race if it weren't for Palin....

Utter nonsense. Plain and simple.

[HUSKER55]

Palin was the right choice. Don't you think those crooks on Wall Street and the "Beltway Boys" had a hand in this?

[Jake]

Palin is a Governor and she is articulate. Case closed.

If you don't think she is articulate, then you're buying into a version of the truth that cannot be your own. A version that has been bought and paid for numerous times over.

If the MSM was HAMMERING HOME at EVERY SINGLE MOMENT how FLAWED Obama's CHARACTER and JUDGEMENT are because of his associations with Ayers, Rezco, Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, his past drug use, his "missing years" at Columbia, the fact that he has only presented a web image of his birth certificate, etc. etc. etc., would it all be the same right now? Would Obama be ahead by 5-10 points even with Sarah by John's side?

You have no leg to stand on given the current climate with which the media has chosen to operate. None.

Public perception is DRIVEN by the media, and at EVERY SINGLE TURN, whether it be Google News, AP, Reuters, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, David Letterman, The View, celebrity commercials, TV shows like Boston Legal, and on and on and on....

You know what, it doesn't matter anyway. You're still going to come back at me and tell me McCain would be winning this race if it weren't for Palin....

Utter nonsense. Plain and simple.

Nonsense, if the case was closed you wouldn't be moaning and groaning right now. She can give a great stump speech, but she's reactive, not reflective. Just watch her interviews--no depth or understanding of anything. But that wouldn't matter if she could pull independents. Instead, she is driving independents away.

McCain on television last night. He's explaining that Palin hasn't gone rogue, despite leaks from his own staff, and that he really does like and get along well with her. Exactly what you want to be having to say in the last week of your campaign, right?

Please don't tell me what I'm buying into or not. You're more than welcomed to your political perspective, whatever the source. So do me a favor, don't second guess where my views come from. I understand exactly why McCain chose her, and why it will prove an electoral mistake on his part. If you don't want to see that, that's fine. That's why it's called politics.

[DeanT]

My Palin story: I dont know if she is a good or bad choice (I dont think any repub could win this year in the climate).

I bet, and I like to. So betting on a VP pick is something I look at. Where do I go to research? I go to left wing or right wing blogs. On the right, Biden was feared as a good pick, as was Gephart. On the left? They kept talking about Palin. I scrolled an article to see what the nutbars (that is not a biased thing, hard right blogs have nutbars too) thought. The comments were eye opening.

One poster said "if he picks the gov of Alaska it is a game changer". Another said "I agree, if she was pro choice I would even vote for her", and she/he listed accolades. There were several other posts about her being fiscally centrist and a good governor.

Then she was picked. And these exact same people tore her down hard.

That tells me she was probably a good pick, but it might have not turned out as good as it could as she was thrust on the national stage for the first time and let's face it, the media hate her. That has to be tough for any candidate with her background of being a grassroots politician.

JMO. And for the record I did not bet her before being announced. I did not think McCain had the cajones to go that far off the board. (PS: She was 30-1 the evening before she was announced. McCain knows how to keep his mouth shut on these things. Biden was 2-5 the night before)

[Tom]

I'm still waiting for the libs to show me how Obama has more experience than Sara does. So far, lots of blather.

[ddog]

she seems a clown , I would like to hear her explain her own views on this segment of her "story".......


She is practicing the exact same thing she decries , it's just in the case of those "athlete's" (we know who she is thinking of now don't we) who she suspects? , knows? dont have a brain in their heads , BUT ARE wily and calculating and NIMBLE! , in those ways , Palin is what exactly , not nimble , not calculating , not wily, what exactly is she trying to get across there?

Palin can't be those things because of what again????
A short time on the campaign with her??? She is a white moose hunter , exactly what does wily , nimble have to with THAT.
nimble is normally a good thing, she casts it as an epithet now?
Calculating , same thing.
She brings up Sam, Wily has his pic beside it in websters.

Oh and why the "I digress" , when SHE brought up the issues in her piece , well normally that's shorthand for I don't want to go there it isn't "good" for me.
I would give her some respect if she would have continued to explain what was nonsense about those subjects that seemed to be on HER mind.
The easy way out.
Typical , don't engage the issues , just pander and smarm your way through it.

What a pitifull "press" this county has.


a zero it seems to me Ms. or not.

[Lefty]

It's amazing eh that every little thing a Repub says is played up big time by the media but every dem gaffe is overlooked and barely mentioned at all.
Biden makes everybody look like a genius but the press doesn't play up the gaffes adinfinitum like they do repubsd, And if MCain had said he had campaigned in all 57 states like Obama did, the media would still be talking about it.
The Press trashes Republicans. The refuse to ask Obama and Biden tough question and when you get a courageous reporter that dares ask tough and legit questions based on comments that Obama and Biden has said, the media and Obama/Biden goes nuts.
If these tyrants are elected we will skate closer to Communism than ever before.
And yes, Palin was an excellent choice. She energized a sagging campaign.
The left wouldn't villify her so much if she didn't scare them. They saw her bring new energy to the campaign so they all did their part to bring her down.
Whether she becomes Vice president or not, she will prob be the first woman President. Scary to all the socialist/commies, right?
GOOD!

[ddog]

It's amazing eh that every little thing a Repub says is played up big time by the media but every dem gaffe is overlooked and barely mentioned at all.
Biden makes everybody look like a genius but the press doesn't play up the gaffes adinfinitum like they do repubsd, And if MCain had said he had campaigned in all 57 states like Obama did, the media would still be talking about it.
The Press trashes Republicans. The refuse to ask Obama and Biden tough question and when you get a courageous reporter that dares ask tough and legit questions based on comments that Obama and Biden has said, the media and Obama/Biden goes nuts.
If these tyrants are elected we will skate closer to Communism than ever before.
And yes, Palin was an excellent choice. She energized a sagging campaign.
The left wouldn't villify her so much if she didn't scare them. They saw her bring new energy to the campaign so they all did their part to bring her down.
Whether she becomes Vice president or not, she will prob be the first woman President. Scary to all the socialist/commies, right?
GOOD!


She will fade never to be heard from again.

The pug party is not coming back as the 80-90's incarnation of same.
No way.

[Jake]

I'm still waiting for the libs to show me how Obama has more experience than Sara does. So far, lots of blather.

Tom,

He doesn't have a lot of experience, so voters should be weighting that accordingly. I think McCain loses this, more than Obama wins this. Perhaps McCain confused what he had to do in order to win the primaries and get the nomination with what he had to do to win the Presidency, in an electoral contest. Both Goldwater and McGovern lost because they gave up the center; Reagan beat Carter because he peeled off disgruntled Democrats and independents. Even Clinton won a second term when he moved center-right to the dismay of Republicans. Obama has a very sharp electoral strategy and McCain seems to be all over the place. I have nothing personally against Palin, I just don't think she is ready to be VP and that she hurts McCain more than helps him with her negatives. Against the Obama electoral strategy, her choice just made it that much harder to attack Obama's inexperience and to peel off independents.

So, unless McCain/Palin can somehow steal Pennsylvania, the electoral numbers don't run in their favor. It's still possible for them to win, because I believe the polls are inflated. The media coverage has been biased as well. But, Obama has managed to finesse the experience issue; in part, because McCain fumbled badly through the economic bailout crisis. And, Obama clearly has superior organization and a ton of money. McCain sees himself running against two opponents, Bush and Obama, very tough.

[Greyfox]

Palin was an excellent choice.

Who do you think will have the most influence if Obama gets in?
Biden? or
http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/08/23-End/michelle-obama.jpg.

[JustRalph]

she should be going 'rogue' she is the one the base is supporting not the Rino who is her running mate.


When Biden talks about FDR going on TV during the Depression, it's "just Joe" you know, the lunatic that has been wrong about every issue in his entire career. You know, the one who has been re-elected for 25 years by a state the size of most U.S. Counties?

[Jake]

Actually, I appreciate the passion both Mike and Tom are showing. The real question is why McCain isn't getting real traction against some very obvious Obama weaknesses. I suggested some reasons why, strictly my opinion, and it it either fits with your world view or it doesn't. Doesn't mean they are wrong, just means I think there are other explanations of what is really going with the electorate. The answer will be demostrated next Tuesday. Seriously, if McCain can somehow take Pennsylvania he has a reasonable shot at that inside straight, despite all his mistakes. Extremely unlikely, but possible. He has a warrior mentality....

[Secretariat]

No, Mike, McCain loses because he decided to court the conservative right instead of the center where all the independents votes were up for grabs. If he had done that, it wouldn't matter what you believe about a media bias. McCain set himself up for all this stuff precisely because it looks like he had a brain transplant over the last 18 months. The conservative base would have held their noses and voted for him in any case, because they hate Obama. If he had gone to the center after the primary, and chosen someone for VP to steal Obama thunder he would be winning this right now. Hell, I watched the Republican convention and heard a number of articulated women--governors and as well as Congresswomen--who would have been a great choice for VP, and would have helped cement the center.


Jake,

Excellent post. I was planning on voting for McCain until he chose Palin (check my posts for those who do't beleive me). I could have lived with a centrist President. I could not live with an extremist right wing though. The selection of Palin dissuaded me. She may have ignited the base momentarily, but she cooled off the independents and any democrats from voting for her except for a very few disenchanted Hilarites.

McCain has constantly tried to change his message to mvoe more to the right, and in doing so has lost his basic message. That he is a maverick who will fight for his own causes regardless of party affiliation. In fact he's become much more partisan and sounds more like Jerry Falwell each day I see him speaking on the pulpit.

As for Palin, I can only hope she runs on 2012 and is the Republican nominee. I am begging the Repubs here to vote for her.

[alydar]

An objective look at the selection of Palin would have to indicate that there were better options.

She has been way too way a target, and her experience is very shaky. When running against an inexperienced candidate, why do you select someone like Palin.

I understand that people will jump all over me, but if McCain loses, a lot of people will be second guessing this selection.

[Tom]

Hey Sec.....

[Rookies]

Billy Boy Kristol said the following on the FN Whacko Network last Sunday: (Republican Observers) "said she was smart, shrewd, doesn't know as much as other Senators that have been around 5-10 years, quick study, confidence in her... "

Actually, I think that's a fairly accurate opinion, even for a toady like Kristol. While no intellectual or scholar, Palin's no slack jawed idiot either. BUT, she simply doesn't know as much as more experienced politicians and if she's going to return up to the big leagues, she'll need to take crash courses over the next 4 years.

[WinterTriangle]

What did the most damage to McCain wasn't Palin, IMHO.

It is high-level, big-name, prominent old-school Conservative Republicans who are actually crossing party lines, defecting to the other side, and endorsing Obama.

This has to be a nightmare for McCain. We're talking serious LIFETIME Republicans. William Weld esp. was the kiss of death for McCain. He's a Republican of the kind they have by the *truckload* in the Midwest.

[JustRalph]

What did the most damage to McCain wasn't Palin, IMHO.

It is high-level, big-name, prominent old-school Conservative Republicans who are actually crossing party lines, defecting to the other side, and endorsing Obama.

This has to be a nightmare for McCain. We're talking serious LIFETIME Republicans. William Weld esp. was the kiss of death for McCain. He's a Republican of the kind they have by the *truckload* in the Midwest.

and McCain brought this on himself by the way he voted over the last ten years or so. The Gang of Fourteen etc. I would never have voted for him alone. I cast my vote for Palin.

You want to be the Maverick, you better realize that Mavericks piss off a bunch of people in their own base. You want to be mentioned as John Friggin Kerry's running mate and even admit you turned it down, then a scant four years later ask all of those against Kerry to turn around and vote for you? Get real.........When they are old and Grey, Mike Dewine and McCain can call each other up on the phone and bask in the glory days of the gang of fourteen while the party suffers the damage they caused for years to come.

[Tom]

....BUT, she simply doesn't know as much as more experienced politicians and if she's going to return up to the big leagues, she'll need to take crash courses over the next 4 years.

And this applies to Obama as well, correct? Only his training will on the job at the top, not as the understudy. Subtract his time on the campaign trail, and how many day has he actually been a senator again?

[DanG]

and McCain brought this on himself by the way he voted over the last ten years or so. The Gang of Fourteen etc. I would never have voted for him alone. I cast my vote for Palin.

You want to be the Maverick, you better realize that Mavericks piss off a bunch of people in their own base. You want to be mentioned as John Friggin Kerry's running mate and even admit you turned it down, then a scant four years later ask all of those against Kerry to turn around and vote for you? Get real.........When they are old and Grey, Mike Dewine and McCain can call each other up on the phone and bask in the glory days of the gang of fourteen while the party suffers the damage they caused for years to come.
That’s interesting Ralph and shows how two people can view the same information in different ways. From a pragmatic point of view (winning elections and really…isn’t that all that matters to both sides) your right…swimming against the party stream is political suicide.

From my point of view it’s what I respected most about McCain. Screw parties, their base, their funding, their lobbyists and their narrow self interests. Start representing your constituents (states rights!) and nation 1st; then let Americans decide where the chips fall.

Our system is set up to limit who can run and funding it is certainly set up to march in step with party unity. I hope its not wishful thinking but I sense a growing dissatisfaction with both parties ‘base and I thing this former “Maverick” missed a golden opportunity to tap into that very real void.

BTW: I’m no political scholar but what a sloppy Republican campaign imo. Karl Rove would be the first to say; you never let the candidate directly play the heavy. There are plenty of ways to discredit the opponent while distancing yourself from the attack (See anyone of 1,000 accounts of his Texas tactics…ironically even against McCain for that matter) Both McCain and Palin have been left to trade punches directly and it’s left a negative impression on the nation as a whole imo.

Finally; If I hear one more thing about “Change” / ‘Joe the plumber / Sally the fry cook or Vito the deli man I may lose it at the local Raccoon Lodge. :bang:
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l185/compukatz/RaccoonLodgeUSE.jpg

[Cangamble]

Jake,

Excellent post. I was planning on voting for McCain until he chose Palin (check my posts for those who do't beleive me). I could have lived with a centrist President. I could not live with an extremist right wing though. The selection of Palin dissuaded me. She may have ignited the base momentarily, but she cooled off the independents and any democrats from voting for her except for a very few disenchanted Hilarites.

McCain has constantly tried to change his message to mvoe more to the right, and in doing so has lost his basic message. That he is a maverick who will fight for his own causes regardless of party affiliation. In fact he's become much more partisan and sounds more like Jerry Falwell each day I see him speaking on the pulpit.

As for Palin, I can only hope she runs on 2012 and is the Republican nominee. I am begging the Repubs here to vote for her.
Palin totally blurs the line that separates church and state. I know that she completely turned off the center and even the Democrats who were going to vote McCain because of Obama's inexperience and questionable ties.
Was McCain responsible for her selection? Probably not. It was a Republican strategy move. And a really really stupid one. The Religious Right was going to vote Repub regardless of who the VP was as Jake points out.
I'm Canadian, so I can't vote, but I would go out of my way to vote against Palin. She is anti-science and an overall embarrassment to anyone with an IQ of over 95.
The Republican strategists failed to understand that it is the centrist secularists who decide the election.
I'm hoping Obama wins by a landslide, not because I like Obama (I don't). I just want to see the Republican party understand in the future that separation of church and state should always remain that way.

We taught the Conservative Party a lesson in Ontario recently, when the Ontario leader decided to fund religious schools as part of his platform. He was brutally defeated. I was not the only one to drop my party allegiance and vote the other way because of it.

[Tom]

Finally; If I hear one more thing about “Change” / ‘Joe the plumber / Sally the fry cook or Vito the deli man I may lose it at the local Raccoon Lodge. :bang:


Uh oh.....look out Steve the Stat Man! :eek: :lol:

[Cangamble]

Uh oh.....look out Steve the Stat Man! :eek: :lol:
Nobody seems to care about Bob The Broker
http://improveverywhere.com/images/sui00.jpg

[JustRalph]

then let Americans decide where the chips fall.


That's about to happen to him.............. good points all Dan.......... :ThmbUp:

[Jake]

That’s interesting Ralph and shows how two people can view the same information in different ways. From a pragmatic point of view (winning elections and really…isn’t that all that matters to both sides) your right…swimming against the party stream is political suicide.

From my point of view it’s what I respected most about McCain. Screw parties, their base, their funding, their lobbyists and their narrow self interests. Start representing your constituents (states rights!) and nation 1st; then let Americans decide where the chips fall.

Our system is set up to limit who can run and funding it is certainly set up to march in step with party unity. I hope its not wishful thinking but I sense a growing dissatisfaction with both parties ‘base and I thing this former “Maverick” missed a golden opportunity to tap into that very real void.

BTW: I’m no political scholar but what a sloppy Republican campaign imo. Karl Rove would be the first to say; you never let the candidate directly play the heavy. There are plenty of ways to discredit the opponent while distancing yourself from the attack (See anyone of 1,000 accounts of his Texas tactics…ironically even against McCain for that matter) Both McCain and Palin have been left to trade punches directly and it’s left a negative impression on the nation as a whole imo.

Finally; If I hear one more thing about “Change” / ‘Joe the plumber / Sally the fry cook or Vito the deli man I may lose it at the local Raccoon Lodge. :bang:
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l185/compukatz/RaccoonLodgeUSE.jpg

This is on target, Dan. Love the graphic, too. McCain still has a shot here, despite the problelms with the Palin pick.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27439060/


I suspect Obama private polling is telling him that outside of Ohio, Colorado, and Pennsylvania things are tighting up quickly. He still have cards in his favor, but McCain is hoping for an ace on the river. You have to admire his
grit.

[DanG]

McCain is hoping for an ace on the river. You have to admire his grit.
True Jake; Grit is something no one can question with McCain; By most published accounts as a prisoner the man had a bayonet in his wedding tackle for goodness sakes. :eek:

Regardless of your position on the man or his ‘interesting running mate; I don’t think politics or the fallout from it will make him blink.

[PaceAdvantage]

She is anti-science and an overall embarrassment to anyone with an IQ of over 95.My IQ is way, WAY over 95.

[rastajenk]

Cangamble, can you cite a single instance of Palin's religious views, whatever they are, being imposed on the citizens of Wasilla or Alaska against their will?

Four years ago, Evan Thomas of Newsweek admitted that press bias was responsible for probably 17 percentage points for John Kerry. That made it a pretty close race. This year, I'd guess press bias is good for O'Bama for 25, maybe 30 points. Only the presence of Palin is making this race as close as it is. Pawlenty, Romney, Huckabee, or any other of the erstwhile potential VP's wouldn't have nearly the impact Sarah has had.

[Cangamble]

My IQ is way, WAY over 95.
OK, let me change it to "most people with an IQ of over 95":)

[Cangamble]

Cangamble, can you cite a single instance of Palin's religious views, whatever they are, being imposed on the citizens of Wasilla or Alaska against their will?

Four years ago, Evan Thomas of Newsweek admitted that press bias was responsible for probably 17 percentage points for John Kerry. That made it a pretty close race. This year, I'd guess press bias is good for O'Bama for 25, maybe 30 points. Only the presence of Palin is making this race as close as it is. Pawlenty, Romney, Huckabee, or any other of the erstwhile potential VP's wouldn't have nearly the impact Sarah has had.
I totally disagree with you. I think the media bias is fictional in this way: The media prints and does stories on what the people want to see.
I think that if you went to the blogosphere, you would see that most coherent bloggers are against Palin. Blogs and the internet have become a big part of information, and outside of religious blogs, Palin is getting her butt handed to her, and rightfully so.

Her public speeches are an attempt to impose her religious views on Alaskans. A clear violation of separation of church and state.
Also, if she ever becomes President (and lets face it, it is maybe a 12-1 shot that McCain lives the next four years), she has a lot of power with respect to imposing her beliefs when it comes to appointing Supreme Court Justices, who share her anti-choice and homophobic religious views.
She is also anti-science in regards to stem cells, and recently dissed fruit fly research, which proves that she is beyond retarded when it comes to scientific research.

Like I said, she is an embarrassment, and secular voters who are the deciding voters, will vote against her.

Palin didn't attract any more votes, she just got the Religious Right to stop whining (the Repubs already had the RR vote, but they were threatening the Party with their crying)....if you call that uniting the party, so be it.

Obama in a landslide.

[JustRalph]

Can, your disdain for anybody with religious beliefs is unbecoming.........

It leaks into so much of what you write.......... shame.........It appears to warp your worldview..........

[Cangamble]

Can, your disdain for anybody with religious beliefs is unbecoming.........

It leaks into so much of what you write.......... shame.........It appears to warp your worldview..........
Ralph, I have no problem with anyone's personal beliefs as long as they keep them out of the public/state.

I had no problem voting for Stephen Harper in Canada, and he is an Evangelical.

He also knows how to separate his religious views from the state.

I find those who need to invoke/spread their religious views in school or in government to be completely unbecoming.

[rastajenk]

I still don't see any evidence that her religious beliefs (which you haven't really defined, other than anti-science) are the basis of some past tyranny or abuse of power. Speeches? In this country, we have some degree of freedom of speech, which, I realize, is an alien concept north of the border, but it's highly valued down here. I'm asking about real legislation, real executive power. Any evidence?

I thought not.

[Lefty]

She's not anti-science. If i remember right, either her father or grandfather was involved in science. she just blves there's room for both theories, Evolution and Intelligent Design. She's not advocating one over the other. As for free speech, the Obama/Biden duo seems set against it. They had Joe The plumber investigated for asking a question. They ban TV stations that dare ask pertinent tough questions. They kicked 3 reporters off their plane saying lack of room. Coincidently, those reporters' papers endorsed MCain. Pelosi and Reid have openly said they are going to bring back the so called Fairness Doctrine and shut down rightwing radio. You tell me who is for free speech?
Palin was a mayor and is a govenor. she has made hundreds of executive decisions.
Obama even has trouble just voting yes or no. He voted present 152 times.
so who has the most executive experience?
I thght so...

[Tom]

In God we trust....One nation, under god, endowed by our creator with unalienable rights.....GOD is woven into our society and government, Can, baby. There is no, contrary to the thinking-challenged left here, including our KK Kourt, "separtation of church and state. The court got it flat out wrong. The amendment does the exact opposite of what the court ruled - it was supposed to garrentee freedom of religion by everyone, and allow no state-mandated church.

A person's religious beliefs define his or her character. That is a strong plus for Sara. Godless heathens need not apply.

(I just know 46 is out there having a a coniption, dying to reply.....hehehe.)

[DanG]

I’m not voting for either “mainstream” party; but I have to ask a question of the Palin believers.

Party rhetoric and loyalty aside; do you honestly believe she is Presidential material? For that matter; could she pass a college grade geography test and I ask that in all seriousness.

My basic distrust of the two party system was formed early in life. My Sunday school teacher was a hard core Republican. From what I remember of my father he was somewhere in the middle (haven’t seen him in 42 years); but I have ingrained in my brain a conversation they had when I was about 5yo.

It went like this:

Father: “How could vote for that man knowing what we now know”

Teacher: “I would vote for a pig if it was a Republican”

That exchange stuck with me for life and I’ve seen little evidence that humans are not party before national interests and I will never understand it. There is ALWAYS an alternative in voting, gambling, relationships etc…and to me; these two “choices” we are force fed do little to advance us as a people.

BTW: Please don’t take this as a shot at one party at the expense of another. They are both working against my belief system and that of our founding fathers imo.

[PaceAdvantage]

Party rhetoric and loyalty aside; do you honestly believe she is Presidential material? For that matter; could she pass a college grade geography test and I ask that in all seriousness.Listen to you! You're on fire tonight, that's what you are!

Here's my reply to you:

If the founding fathers thought it necessary for someone to pass a college grade geography test in order to become President of the United States, they would have written that into the Constitution.

As far as the Constitution goes, Palin is "Presidential material." As far as HISTORY goes, Palin is "Presidential material" with the exception that she is a WOMAN, and there have been no women presidents or vice presidents, obviously.

Just like many feel there is widespread repressed racism as it pertains to Obama, I believe there is a serious case of repressed (and not so repressed) sexism as it pertains to Palin.

I would counter that the founding fathers would much prefer Sarah Palin as President than EITHER Barack Obama or John McCain.

Both Obama and McCain have special interests crawling out of their butts, McCain is a career politician and I think the founding fathers would be wary of career politicians. Obama has ties to some dubious characters, is intent on raising taxes at a time of economic crisis (never a good thing), and will give one party total control over DC, which is something I think the founding fathers would frown upon if given a choice.

I think the founding fathers would look kindly on the fact that Palin has progressed quickly up through the ranks of government, first in the city council, then mayor, then governor. I think they would look kindly on the fact that she comes from a place about as far away from Washington D.C. as you can get.

But, given all that, we must remember that the founding fathers were a group of racists who kept slaves and probably were sexist to the core, so maybe in the end they'd just want us all to vote for McCain. Who the hell knows?

The bottom line of all of this is the following:

The U.S. Government has been FILLED with "Presidential material" grade folks forever! Harvard grads, Yale grads, Rhodes Scholars, multi-millionaire business successes....and look where we are! We're at an economic cliff some say, about to dive off into the abyss.

And you're wondering if Palin is "Presidential material?" Dan, right back at ya...thanks for the tears of laughter!

[barn32]

But, given all that, we must remember that the founding fathers were a group of racists who kept slaves...
All of them? Hardly. Some were slave owners and racists, yes, but many others were not and detested racism...and slavery.

[DanG]

PA: Here's my reply to you:

If the founding fathers thought it necessary for someone to pass a college grade geography test in order to become President of the United States, they would have written that into the Constitution.

Translation: she can’t.

As far as the Constitution goes, Palin is "Presidential material." As far as HISTORY goes, Palin is "Presidential material" with the exception that she is a WOMAN, and there have been no women presidents or vice presidents, obviously.

Just like many feel there is widespread repressed racism as it pertains to Obama, I believe there is a serious case of repressed (and not so repressed) sexism as it pertains to Palin.

I would choose a different line of thinking; I believe there is a sexism actually working in her favor as “I” believe there is a republican lust sweeping the GOP with this woman that has blinded their / your senses.

I would counter that the founding fathers would much prefer Sarah Palin as President than EITHER Barack Obama or John McCain.

Both Obama and McCain have special interests crawling out of their butts, McCain is a career politician and I think the founding fathers would be wary of career politicians. Obama has ties to some dubious characters, is intent on raising taxes at a time of economic crisis (never a good thing), and will give one party total control over DC, which is something I think the founding fathers would frown upon if given a choice.

We agree with 90% of that paragraph. :ThmbUp:

I think the founding fathers would look kindly on the fact that Palin has progressed quickly up through the ranks of government, first in the city council, then mayor, then governor. I think they would look kindly on the fact that she comes from a place about as far away from Washington D.C. as you can get.

That is stretching her qualifications as I believe a certain / basic intellect is still required that she lacks.

But, given all that, we must remember that the founding fathers were a group of racists who kept slaves and probably were sexist to the core, so maybe in the end they'd just want us all to vote for McCain. Who the hell knows?

Clever; Your IQ is showing as an equal to your party loyalty. ;)

The bottom line of all of this is the following:

The U.S. Government has been FILLED with "Presidential material" grade folks forever! Harvard grads, Yale grads, Rhodes Scholars, multi-millionaire business successes....and look where we are! We're at an economic cliff some say, about to dive off into the abyss.

Really; if you believe that the last 8 years were run by an Ivy League scholar then I have a tip for you in the 3rd race at Hialeah tomorrow. :bang:

And you're wondering if Palin is "Presidential material?" Dan, right back at ya...thanks for the tears of laughter!

Thanks Mike; we agree to disagree and if this lady has the mental capacity to govern the free world then I stand down as a human and bow to the all mighty two party system that controls our current thought and policy.

[rastajenk]

Dan, the reason we have a two party system is because we have in our bedrock principles the notion of majority rule. In order to obtain majorities, coalitions must be formed that have greater numbers than the other guys' coalitions. Theoretically, I suppose, you could form new coalitions for each different issue ("politics makes strange bedfellows"), but over time a party, which is itself a coalition, will deal with those others will similar viewpoints, and eventually evolve into some kind of bigger tent party. If our legislatures and city councils were plurality ruled, then you could have more than two parties; some would be single-issue groups, others more loosely aligned. Who knows what would emerge in the various political districts in this great and wide diverse land? But because the Ayes have to outnumber the Nays, this is what we have. Personally, I'm fine with it. Other nations have multiple parties in parliamentary systems, but I don't see where it's any kind of an advantage.

I could be that teacher in your previous post. I don't care if an individual Republican is a scoundrel, as long as he votes with the party most of the time. It's like the socialist republic of Massachusetts: I don't see how they keep sending the same corrupt bums to Washington, but they're their bums, and they seem to like them all right.

Could you pass a college grade geography test? Cold, right out of the box? Without studying?

[DanG]

1st; apologies to the board for rambling last night. In my case I can one thing with conviction; the amount of words typed in off-topic is in direct proportion to the anmount of wine consumed! :D

Dan, the reason we have a two party system is because we have in our bedrock principles the notion of majority rule. In order to obtain majorities, coalitions must be formed that have greater numbers than the other guys' coalitions. Theoretically, I suppose, you could form new coalitions for each different issue ("politics makes strange bedfellows"), but over time a party, which is itself a coalition, will deal with those others will similar viewpoints, and eventually evolve into some kind of bigger tent party.

If our legislatures and city councils were plurality ruled, then you could have more than two parties; some would be single-issue groups, others more loosely aligned. Who knows what would emerge in the various political districts in this great and wide diverse land? But because the Ayes have to outnumber the Nays, this is what we have. Personally, I'm fine with it. Other nations have multiple parties in parliamentary systems, but I don't see where it's any kind of an advantage.

While I agree that coalitions must be formed and are inevitable; they also must be demolished when they become entrenched and no longer represent the will of a nation.

Hundreds of ingenuous quotes from our past warned of tenure, incredible re-election rates, special interest funding etc; but my all time favorite viewpoint that has come to fruition is from Thomas Jefferson; “We need a bloody revolution every twenty years, just to keep government honest.”

Was he saying we need violence in the streets?…no; but he did understand the inherent dangers of entrenched power and even with his incredible perception he never dreamed our government would grow to this size and scope.

Jefferson was brilliant at understanding the inevitable political cycles and our current two party monopolies have run their course imo. Make no mistake; there are MANY excellent people running for office, but the source funding and narrow base have become corrupted and this was only inevitable over time.


I could be that teacher in your previous post. I don't care if an individual Republican is a scoundrel, as long as he votes with the party most of the time. It's like the socialist republic of Massachusetts: I don't see how they keep sending the same corrupt bums to Washington, but they're their bums, and they seem to like them all right.

If you’re my teacher in that scenario then we really are in different places; but that’s not nessisarily a bad thing.


Could you pass a college grade geography test? Cold, right out of the box? Without studying?
I sure wouldn’t score last; but I’m also not running for the White House. I’m more convinced then ever that basic intelligence testing must be implemented in our election process. I’ve grown tired of being talked to like I’m 4 years old and our world is not getting any less complex.

[Tom]

1st; apologies to the board for rambling last night. In my case I can one thing with conviction; the amount of words typed in off-topic is in direct proportion to the anmount of wine consumed! :D


Not at all. that's what OT is all about - discussion. I like to hear what HORSEPLAYERS think. You qualify on that count. ;)

And drinking wine instead of kool aid is always appreciated. :D

[DanG]

And drinking wine instead of kool aid is always appreciated. :D
LOL Tom; :D

I think I’ll switch to that tonight!

For the record; I said what I believe, but just way too many words to convey it. :eek:

[Jake]

LOL Tom; :D

I think I’ll switch to that tonight!

For the record; I said what I believe, but just way too many words to convey it. :eek:

I have always been surprised how clearly I understand everything after 2 or 3 giant cups of wine, the trouble is always in trying to clearly see what I have written. Another cup usually helps....

[Tom]

In vino veritas.....

[Jake]

Tom,

That's just about perfect. Thanks.

[PaceAdvantage]

Translation: she can’t.Now why would you take my answer for "she can't?" What makes you think she can't? I know, I know, it's your opinion, but sometimes it would be nice if you can back that opinion up with something other than "gut feel."

Really; if you believe that the last 8 years were run by an Ivy League scholar then I have a tip for you in the 3rd race at Hialeah tomorrow. :bang:I wasn't talking just about the last eight years, and you know this.

Thanks Mike; we agree to disagree and if this lady has the mental capacity to govern the free world then I stand down as a human and bow to the all mighty two party system that controls our current thought and policy.You're starting to border on elitism, and that is never healthy. You act as if Palin is the intellectual equivalent of the baby with Downs Syndrome that she just gave birth to! I'm sorry if I've offended someone with this comment, but I'm just so tired of this elitist mentality whereby if someone didn't attend Harvard or Yale, they're not qualified to be President.

I've given a perfect example as to why this just isn't a requirement. Our gov't has been filled with Ivy Leaguers and highly intellectual people (Clinton, Bush, GREENSPAN, etc.) and the whole lot of them still couldn't save the U.S. economy from tanking, and even worse, these guys most likely HELPED us further into this mess (Democrats who encouraged foolish lending practices and told us nothing was wrong quickly leaps to mind).

[JustRalph]

All of them? Hardly. Some were slave owners and racists, yes, but many others were not and detested racism...and slavery.

The original draft of the Constitution abolished slavery......if I am recalling my history right.......... but Franklin and Adams had Jefferson remove the language because Virginia was a pro slave state and they were the only ones with an Army..........and the Army is what was needed............ so they didn't want to alienate Virginia and General Washington. Politics.......... Politics............

[DanG]

I have always been surprised how clearly I understand everything after 2 or 3 giant cups of wine, the trouble is always in trying to clearly see what I have written. Another cup usually helps....

If you ever want to debate issues Jake…be my guest, but come prepared with more then you’re normally bring. :rolleyes:



You're starting to border on elitism, and that is never healthy. You act as if Palin is the intellectual equivalent of the baby with Downs Syndrome that she just gave birth to!

Wow…There is a note to end on…

Back to racing with all due respect.

[Cangamble]

She's not anti-science. If i remember right, either her father or grandfather was involved in science. she just blves there's room for both theories, Evolution and Intelligent Design. She's not advocating one over the other. As for free speech, the Obama/Biden duo seems set against it. They had Joe The plumber investigated for asking a question. They ban TV stations that dare ask pertinent tough questions. They kicked 3 reporters off their plane saying lack of room. Coincidently, those reporters' papers endorsed MCain. Pelosi and Reid have openly said they are going to bring back the so called Fairness Doctrine and shut down rightwing radio. You tell me who is for free speech?
Palin was a mayor and is a govenor. she has made hundreds of executive decisions.
Obama even has trouble just voting yes or no. He voted present 152 times.
so who has the most executive experience?
I thght so...

Palin doesn't even get the value of fruit fly research. As an aside, McCain has mentioned a few times about not funding that planetarium telescope....I'll bet nobody who agreed with the comment even knows what that telescope does.

Intelligent design is not science in any way shape or form. It doesn't even qualify for scientific hypothesis. For example, when have you heard an ID proponent make any specific claims about when man showed up on earth?

And Palin doesn't even understand the First Amendment. She is a complete embarrassment.

[Cangamble]

In God we trust....One nation, under god, endowed by our creator with unalienable rights.....GOD is woven into our society and government, Can, baby. There is no, contrary to the thinking-challenged left here, including our KK Kourt, "separtation of church and state. The court got it flat out wrong. The amendment does the exact opposite of what the court ruled - it was supposed to garrentee freedom of religion by everyone, and allow no state-mandated church.

A person's religious beliefs define his or her character. That is a strong plus for Sara. Godless heathens need not apply.

(I just know 46 is out there having a a coniption, dying to reply.....hehehe.)
Tom, you could easily substitute nature instead of God of nature in the early documents.
Most of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, they were Deists. Look it up.
And I'm positive that at least half of them would be atheist if they had the knowledge that came along with Darwin's findings, and the finding regarding the age of the earth, which came in the next century.

Yes, freedom of religion is important, but you can't have freedom of religion unless the government has freedom from religion.

[PaceAdvantage]

Wow…There is a note to end on…

Back to racing with all due respect.I take it you didn't approve of my equating what I perceve to be your opinion of Palin's intellect to a Down's Syndrome baby. Well, I'm sorry if that shocks you, but quite frankly, your treatment of Palin is equally as shocking to me, so I felt that this kind of statement was necessary in order to make my point and grab your attention.

You still haven't addressed my very valid point concerning all the intellectuals we have had in government over the past 10-20 years, and yet here we are, in the middle of what Obama calls the greatest financial crisis ever.

How you could sit here and worry about Palin's supposed lack of intellect while Rome burns all around you at the hands of decades of supposed profound Democrat and Republican intellect astounds me.

[boxcar]

How you could sit here and worry about Palin's supposed lack of intellect while Rome burns all around you at the hands of decades of supposed profound Democrat and Republican intellect astounds me.

Very well stated, PA! All these "great intellects" have done is drive America deeper into the ground with their moronic, misguided, short-sighted policies that are notorious for creating unwanted unintended consequences. (Of course, there's a spiritual side to all this, too, but we won't get into that. ;) )

Boxcar

[DanG]

I take it you didn't approve of my equating what I perceve to be your opinion of Palin's intellect to a Down's Syndrome baby. Well, I'm sorry if that shocks you, but quite frankly, your treatment of Palin is equally as shocking to me, so I felt that this kind of statement was necessary in order to make my point and grab your attention.

You still haven't addressed my very valid point concerning all the intellectuals we have had in government over the past 10-20 years, and yet here we are, in the middle of what Obama calls the greatest financial crisis ever.

How you could sit here and worry about Palin's supposed lack of intellect while Rome burns all around you at the hands of decades of supposed profound Democrat and Republican intellect astounds me.
Shock…hardly; but it did seem like a good time to get out of a thread that seems like a rat’s maze. How can you debate someone’s “intelligence” or lack of back and forth?…It seems to be a simple two post operation.

1. I don’t think the woman is capable…
2. I do.

Last post in this thread…

As someone who made it through high school by the skin of their teeth and never saw college, I’m hardly a champion of academia. However; when I’m paying the salary of an elected official and then I’m talked to like I’m 6yo…or in some cases not talked to at all…I have real issue with that.

I frankly don’t see the decades of knowledge you’re referring. Our process of investigating under a persons fingernails to only allow those with early political aspirations and / or the powerful ability to erase ones past severely limits our options. Long story short; we have a limited our talent pool of “qualified” leadership and we have an abundance to choose from if the occasional human flaw could be “tolerated” by the hypocrisy.

I want grown adults with brains who can act beyond the teleprompter. I have ZERO interest in prepared speeches, sound bites, 2 issue talking points or rehearsal at the point of nausea. I hear a person talk and make a value judgment. My judgment is largely based upon how I view a person to think when they are out of their comfort zone.

What I do find ironic however is your branding me with the “elitist” tag when I question someone’s raw intelligence for a complex job. While throwing that at me you’re starting threads seemingly claiming yourself and those like minded as the only ones anointed to see through a “conspiratorial media bias”. To my ears; that smacks of elitism in that you’re the only ideology “capable” of interpreting information.

[barn32]

What I do find ironic however is your branding me with the “elitist” tag when I question someone’s raw intelligence for a complex job. While throwing that at me you’re starting threads seemingly claiming yourself and those like minded as the only ones anointed to see through a “conspiratorial media bias”. To my ears; that smacks of elitism in that you’re the only ideology “capable” of interpreting information.Excellent point, but you can't win. You're not going to change mind one. The republicans are always right...always. But guess what...so are the democrats. This is what turned me off about Lindbaugh--and all the others. We're always right and you're always wrong. It's laughable.

But, believe it or not, it doesn't make any damn difference to me. I could care less about politics. I don't watch the news or listen to the radio. I click on a few links I see here and elsewhere, and I watch the polls.

The only reason I do any of that is to see if there is a way I can make some money from the situation. This whole election is nothing but a horse race for me to handicap.

I am shocked and amazed that the so called "professional" handicappers on this board aren't making a bundle from this lop sided election. Instead, they're just crying and fighting like hypocritical, biased babies, while at the same time they are making huge asses of themselves as they go to very great lengths to try and smear and defame the other side.

I jump in every once in a while to tweak their noses, but that' all it is. Politics is a waste of life in my opinion.

Why don't you all just grow a set and get back to making some money?

Breeders Cup...what a joke. This election was the biggest lay down cinch of my lifetime...and that's no redboard.

[bigmack]

Why don't you all just grow a set and get back to making some money?
Considering your two posts:

Of course she's not an idiot. But neither is Obama. But if you listen to the hypocrites on this board Obama isn't smart enough to tie his own shoes and Palin is a genius. You can't have it both ways. They're both intelligent people.
I agree. Sarah Palin is a blooming idiot.
Would being an exponential hypocrite on this issue constitute your idea of "growing a set?"

[Tom]

I just cannot understand how anyone who thinks Sara is not qualified can think Obama is. I can see thinking neither is qualified, but not one over the other. No one has yet been able to tell how Obama is more qualiifed than Palin is. No one.

[Indulto]

Tom, you could easily substitute nature instead of God of nature in the early documents.
Most of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, they were Deists. Look it up.
And I'm positive that at least half of them would be atheist if they had the knowledge that came along with Darwin's findings, and the finding regarding the age of the earth, which came in the next century.

Yes, freedom of religion is important, but you can't have freedom of religion unless the government has freedom from religion.Well said.

Would political parties be as great a source of divisiveness if religion weren't so frequently a part of political discussions?

[Indulto]

... when I’m paying the salary of an elected official and then I’m talked to like I’m 6yo…or in some cases not talked to at all…I have real issue with that.

I frankly don’t see the decades of knowledge you’re referring. Our process of investigating under a persons fingernails to only allow those with early political aspirations and / or the powerful ability to erase ones past severely limits our options. Long story short; we have a limited our talent pool of “qualified” leadership and we have an abundance to choose from if the occasional human flaw could be “tolerated” by the hypocrisy.

I want grown adults with brains who can act beyond the teleprompter. I have ZERO interest in prepared speeches, sound bites, 2 issue talking points or rehearsal at the point of nausea. I hear a person talk and make a value judgment. My judgment is largely based upon how I view a person to think when they are out of their comfort zone.

What I do find ironic however is your branding me with the “elitist” tag when I question someone’s raw intelligence for a complex job. While throwing that at me you’re starting threads seemingly claiming yourself and those like minded as the only ones anointed to see through a “conspiratorial media bias”. To my ears; that smacks of elitism in that you’re the only ideology “capable” of interpreting information.DG,
I know you don't want to hear this, but I agree with you compeletly. :lol:

[highnote]

I just cannot understand how anyone who thinks Sara is not qualified can think Obama is. I can see thinking neither is qualified, but not one over the other. No one has yet been able to tell how Obama is more qualiifed than Palin is. No one.


Funny you bring that up. I was just thinking about this.

Obama beat the Clinton machine -- Hillary should have been a lock to win. Now, he's led in the polls for a good while. Not that the polls are the final word.

Given his skill at organizing his campaign and navigating the political landscape of this election I'd say he could do fine steering the country. Many people won't like his driving -- or where he ends up -- but he seems competent enough.

Palin was chosen by the McCain campaign whereas Obama won the nomination of his party. That's the biggest factor to me.

Palin is obviously no slouch. She is a governor, afterall. But she hasn't shown she is as adept at national politics as Obama -- IMHO.

[PaceAdvantage]

Last post in this thread…

I frankly don’t see the decades of knowledge you’re referring.Dan, I like and respect you as a contributor to this board. With that said, I hate when you draw a line in the sand with the "last post in this thread" comment! :lol:

The decades of knowledge I am referring to include Alan Greenspan, whom most if not all would consider a highly intellectual individual, and whom many point the finger of (partial) blame for today's economic woes.

He's one example of many anonymous and not so anonymous eggheads who have worked at the highest level of government in the last 10-15 years, and yet have not managed to stop what is happening economically at the moment.

What I do find ironic however is your branding me with the “elitist” tag when I question someone’s raw intelligence for a complex job.I didn't realize I was branding you...

The reason I used the term elitist is because you really don't have much to go on when trying to evaluate Palin's raw intelligence, unless of course you administered some sort of IQ test or have access to records that haven't been released.

Thus, you are going by what you've seen in the media (which is your absolute right), and I assume, her rather modest (when compared to Obama) academic history. No Harvard or Yale in her background.

Thus, you conclude, based on her perceived flubbed interview with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson and her rather meager institutions of learning in comparison to Obama, that she is not up to the task intellectually.

I mean, that's all you have to go on, correct?

[DanG]

Dan, I like and respect you as a contributor to this board. With that said, I hate when you draw a line in the sand with the "last post in this thread" comment! :lol:

The decades of knowledge I am referring to include Alan Greenspan, whom most if not all would consider a highly intellectual individual, and whom many point the finger of (partial) blame for today's economic woes.

He's one example of many anonymous and not so anonymous eggheads who have worked at the highest level of government in the last 10-15 years, and yet have not managed to stop what is happening economically at the moment.

I didn't realize I was branding you...

The reason I used the term elitist is because you really don't have much to go on when trying to evaluate Palin's raw intelligence, unless of course you administered some sort of IQ test or have access to records that haven't been released.

Thus, you are going by what you've seen in the media (which is your absolute right), and I assume, her rather modest (when compared to Obama) academic history. No Harvard or Yale in her background.

Thus, you conclude, based on her perceived flubbed interview with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson and her rather meager institutions of learning in comparison to Obama, that she is not up to the task intellectually.

I mean, that's all you have to go on, correct?

You can’t let this go can you Mike…lol

I’ve never met you…However I have formed an opinion of you as you have of me no doubt.

• You’re bright, well read and have a high IQ
• You have tremendous intellectual curiosity and enjoy debate maybe even more then resolution.
• You have a deep love for your country almost to the exclusion of other nations.
• You see issues largely through a NY 1st / Republican 1st and fiercely capitalistic prism.
• In your heart you wanted to be an attorney and you enjoy discussing politics and current events far more then horse racing.
• You love taking up the fight for the person you perceive as being trampled on…even if you’re not entirely behind their argument.

Finally imo;

This election on the heels of (imo) a failed administration has hit home. You have taken it upon yourself to use this vehicle for a GOP launching pad of ideas and sometimes to be honest pure rhetoric.


Having said all that…I guarantee if we met / we would get along. One of my best friends on earth is further to the right of Attila the Hun (as am I on “some” issues btw) and we have a blast discussing all kinds of things.

This forum is yours…You don’t need me to tell you…your free to say anything you want. I’ll be the first to admit; you have never censored me once and I appreciate that very much.

Now…where was I…I thought I was supposed to be ripping you! What happened along the way? :eek: :D

Oh yeah…Forming an opinion on Mrs. Palin…For better or for worse; that’s what I do. I form opinions when I watch horses run, hear people speak or see them type. I’m also very big on 1st impressions. I knew when I first saw my then wife bartend we would get along.

“I thought” when I first heard our current president speak he had a 90% chance of deeply embarrassing our great nation. Of course…I could be very wrong about SP. She could be the great leadership we have been crying for…I choose not to think so; but I can also only base my thoughts on what my perception is.

BTW: I never saw the Couric interview your referring to. Did I miss something interesting?

[PaceAdvantage]

• You’re bright, well read and have a high IQ
• You have tremendous intellectual curiosity and enjoy debate maybe even more then resolution.
• You have a deep love for your country almost to the exclusion of other nations.
• You see issues largely through a NY 1st / Republican 1st and fiercely capitalistic prism.
• In your heart you wanted to be an attorney and you enjoy discussing politics and current events far more then horse racing.
• You love taking up the fight for the person you perceive as being trampled on…even if you’re not entirely behind their argument.You're pretty good at this kind of thing. Perhaps I need to rethink my Palin opinion! :lol:

I might take slight disagreement with your view that I enjoy discussing politics and current events over horse racing. It might seem like that at the moment, but just wait until the election is over...

Seriously though, I've always thought of myself as a frustrated lawyer of sorts. I actually planned on going to law school at one point, but settled on an MBA instead. Like I said, you're good!

[Cangamble]

I'm not sure that it will lower your opinion of her (same with me, it can't go much lower:lol:)

XbQwAFobQxQ

[wonatthewire1]

The decades of knowledge I am referring to include Alan Greenspan, whom most if not all would consider a highly intellectual individual, and whom many point the finger of (partial) blame for today's economic woes.

He's one example of many anonymous and not so anonymous eggheads who have worked at the highest level of government in the last 10-15 years, and yet have not managed to stop what is happening economically at the moment.




Perhaps the eggheads didn't realize that the economic tsunamis cannot be controlled by man - similar to the Bush admin couldn't stop Katrina, yet blamed for it - can only attempt to quickly clean them up as best as possible.

I have found it interesting that the Fed was created to lessen the effects boom and bust cycles; yet seems to have accomplished the exact opposite.

It will be a fine line between regulated and unregulated business practices that will have the political parties fighting well into the end of the current century.

[Cangamble]

NrzXLYA_e6E