CNN: It's McCain and Palin

  • News
  • Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date
In summary, John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin is a relatively unknown politician who has only been in office for two years. She is a Republican and is likely to be a strong supporter of the oil industry. The VP debate is likely to be interesting, as Biden is likely to bully Palin.
  • #36
Cyrus said:
Why does that excuse not having experience?
I'm saying that makes experience less important than with the President.
Do you want the guy one below the CEO not having any experience?
I would absolutely expect a VP of a company to have less experience than a CEO. In fact, I'd hope the CEO was a VP first before being CEO! Since that's not as feasible for a President, the more common experience that is weighed heavily is governor, since it is executive branch experience.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
MSNBC & Palin said:
She also referred favorably to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who drew 18 million votes in her unsuccessful run against Obama for the Democratic nomination.

"But it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all," she said.

I wonder if she reads http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20080826 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Hmmm...this is weird. McCain picked her despite this...

I was reading the wiki article on Palin, and found this little piece.
wiki said:
On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[50] She instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down.[51][52] Her power to fire him is not in dispute, but Monegan alleged that his dismissal may have been an abuse of power tied to his reluctance to fire Palin's former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[53] In 2006, before Palin was governor, Wooten was suspended for five days[54] for threatening to kill McCann's (and Palin's) father, tasering his 11-year-old stepson, drinking beer in his squad car, and violating game laws.

Palin said that her dismissal of Monegan was unrelated to the fact that he had not fired Wooten. Palin said that members of her staff had made contact with public safety officials regarding the trooper, though she said that her staff's contacts with the commission were not directed by her and she had little knowledge of them.[55] Palin replaced Monegan with Chuck Kopp, who had allegedly sexually harassed an employee.[56][57]

In August 2008, the Alaska Legislature hired Steve Branchflower to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal.[58] Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who is overseeing the investigation, says that the Palin administration has been cooperating and that subpoenas are unnecessary.[59]

I searched Google News for some of the keywords there and this was the first hit.

Anchorage Daily News said:
Palin launches Monegan inquiry ahead of special investigation

Gov. Sarah Palin is trying to find out what the Legislature's special investigator might discover as he probes her controversial firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.

Alaska Attorney General Talis Colberg has launched an inquiry at the governor's request, including interviews with state public safety officials. The attorney general's involvement has started before the special investigator newly hired by the Legislature, Steve Branchflower, has had a chance to dive into his work.
...
But critics of the governor ...have raised the specter of "witness tampering." Some legislators said it doesn't look good for the attorney general to get involved.

"I think it is harmful to the credibility of the administration, harmful to the process and harmful to all the parties involved," said Fairbanks Republican Rep. Jay Ramras, chair of the House Judiciary Committee. "It's just the worst possible thing to be doing."

Ramras said Colberg is honest but might be naïve. He needs to be very careful to avoid his review having any appearance of tampering with witnesses, Ramras said.

http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/492077.html [Broken]

More interesting tidbits from Anchorage Daily News:
'Creation science' enters the race

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
...
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
...
The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html [Broken]

After that change of course towards the middle, and McCain steering to the right on the same issue, they are now nearly in lock-step on what they say should be done.

Arizona Daily Star said:
Daily Star: Should intelligent design be taught in schools?

McCain: I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they've got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one line of thinking I don't think is - or one belief on how people and the world was created - I think there's nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought.

Daily Star: Does it belong in science?

McCain: There's enough scientists that believe it does. I'm not a scientist. This is something that I think all points of view should be presented.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/opinion/90521 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
russ_watters said:
I'm saying that makes experience less important than with the President.

Doesnt this lady have like 2 years as governor of Alaska? That's pretty slim experience. What's her resume even look like?

I would absolutely expect a VP of a company to have less experience than a CEO. In fact, I'd hope the CEO was a VP first before being CEO! Since that's not as feasible for a President, the more common experience that is weighed heavily is governor, since it is executive branch experience.

I don't think that's necessarily true. A CEO and VP can be nearly match in experience, one is just a better leader than the other.

In any even, I'd really like to hear what qualifications makes her stand out from the other choices McCain had on the table.


From wiki: "Palin holds a bachelor of arts degree in journalism from the University of Idaho."

I think I'd want someone smarter than that...

While running for Governor of Alaska, Palin supported the teaching of bothcreationism and evolution in public schools;[41] however, she noted that "creationism doesn't have to be part of the curriculum" and that she would not use "religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism" as criteria for selection to the school board.[41]

Also from wiki......yikes. No thank you. Let's try nominating smart educated people for office.

She's a religious right nutjob. She's also against gay marriage and abortion.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
They love her in Alaska. She has something like 80-90% approval rating.

Personally, I like the idea of a moose-hunting ex-beauty queen for VP.
 
  • #41
This will be over faster than than... God, I suck at this. It will be over fast, okay?

E2HSMvqluT0[/youtube] [PLAIN]http:...yJeiTBsQ33SSUiobt8wD92I9NIO0[/PLAIN] [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
Math Is Hard said:
They love her in Alaska. She has something like 80-90% approval rating.

Personally, I like the idea of a moose-hunting ex-beauty queen for VP.

OMG! I'll bet Palin is a secret member of the PF Sisterhood!
 
  • #43
BobG said:
OMG! I'll bet Palin is a secret member of the PF Sisterhood!

shhhhhh! :wink:
 
  • #44
WarPhalange said:
This will be over faster than than... God, I suck at this. It will be over fast, okay?

E2HSMvqluT0[/youtube] [PLAIN]htt... stays out of the few hairs left on his head.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Cyrus said:
This is like the time G.W. tried to put that woman as a justice who had NO EXPERINCE in anything related to the law, and the congress was like...uh...NO. Just being a woman isn't going to fly, dubya. (I think she was a school teacher or something rediculously stupid)

Not true.

Her name was (and is) Harriet Meirs, who was a lawyer in private practice for almost 30 years, was president of the Texas bar association and at the time of her appointment was White House Counsel. She was recommended as O'Connor's successor by none other than Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate (then) Minority Leader.

GWB has done many things deserving of criticism. However, untrue or made-up examples don't serve to advance this point.
 
  • #46
Vanadium 50 said:
Not true.

Her name was (and is) Harriet Meirs, who was a lawyer in private practice for almost 30 years, was president of the Texas bar association and at the time of her appointment was White House Counsel. She was recommended as O'Connor's successor by none other than Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate (then) Minority Leader.

GWB has done many things deserving of criticism. However, untrue or made-up examples don't serve to advance this point.

Yep your right. I'm sorry. I was recalling what I saw on John Stewart and I got it wrong here's what he said:

So they went with Harriet Miers, a woman who's never been a judge. And has no reputation as a legal scholar. But the President felt very confident she had the one quality that matters.

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Jon_Stewart_on_Harriet_Miers_Oct20_2005.htm

So, the woman had no experience as a Judge. I just remembered it was something significant she was missing in terms of qualifications.
 
  • #47
Cyrus said:
So, the woman had no experience as a Judge.

Neither did Earl Warren. If you want a historical example, neither did John Marshall.
 
  • #48
proton said:
whats wrong with Romney? i think that he would have been a better choice for mccain. or maybe not, just because he's mormon

Without casting aspersions on his religion, I would note his propensity for posturing and image over substance. His weather vane like stands determined apparently more by the wind than deep seated conviction. Against abortion in his failed Senate bid against Ted Kennedy, until he ran for Governor of Massachusetts, then he was OK with it and then against it on the primary circuit this year.

I think there are enough of those kinds of people pretending to represent interests and positions when the only interest they apparently hold dear is their own advancement.
 
  • #49
turbo-1 said:
She could easily become a very young, inexperienced president with no track record in national politics, foreign affairs, and macro-economics.

In this regard I might think it to be a plus. I rather think Bush has already demonstrated that just about anyone can hold the office and the country can survive.
 
  • #51
turbo-1 said:
She could easily become a very young, inexperienced president with no track record in national politics, foreign affairs, and macro-economics. A rookie governor from a sparsely-populated state with significant oil revenues might have a bit of trouble gearing up to running the executive branch of the US.
And she'd still be way ahead of the current president!

There's nothing like on-the-job training (although it hasn't worked for Bush). :biggrin:
 
  • #52
Astronuc said:
And she'd still be way ahead of the current president!

There's nothing like on-the-job training (although it hasn't worked for Bush). :biggrin:

On the job training is something you'd expect from entry level employees though. The person running the country better already have experience. The 'training' should just be small adjustments from knowledge already had in a very similar area but simply tailored here and there for the differences from the last job.

Walking in not knowing what to do is a clear indication of a clueless idiot, which is what she stated herself in that youtube video from war. If I applied for a job and asked the interviewer, sooooooooo...what will I be doing?...he'd throw me out and say come back when you learned something about the company and job position you're after.

Quite simply, what she said was inexcusable.
 
  • #53
Vanadium 50 said:
Not true.

Her name was (and is) Harriet Meirs, who was a lawyer in private practice for almost 30 years, was president of the Texas bar association and at the time of her appointment was White House Counsel. She was recommended as O'Connor's successor by none other than Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate (then) Minority Leader.

GWB has done many things deserving of criticism.
And this was likely one of them. Nominating your own White House counsel - a person who became famous for asserting that Bush was the most brilliant man she'd ever met. Oh, and let's not forget the BS story that Bush made up as the reason for her withdrawing.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Cyrus said:
Doesnt this lady have like 2 years as governor of Alaska? That's pretty slim experience. What's her resume even look like?

Poly sci degree from U of Idaho
City council of some city I never heard of, 1992-1996
Mayor from 1996-2003 (I think - she tried for Lt Gov in 2002 and lost and it doesn't say when she actually left the mayorship)
Held a mid-level advisor job (on ethics) with the governor from 2003-4 (resigned in protest of ethics violations and ended up bringing down the head of the Rep party in Alaska over it (that impresses me a lot).
Governor, 2007-8 (19 months)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palin

I don't think that's necessarily true. A CEO and VP can be nearly match in experience, one is just a better leader than the other.
You're really trying to have it both ways here. To be objective, you need to set all variables but one equal and consider only that one variable: so all else being equal, would you want the more experienced or the less experienced potential President/CEO? Or put another way, which should be President/CEO and which should be

Heck, VP is, in reality, used as a stepping stone to President/CEO in both government and business. In business, it's almost a requirement.
In any even, I'd really like to hear what qualifications makes her stand out from the other choices McCain had on the table.
McCain picked her, and here's why:
"She's not from these parts and she's not from Washington," McCain told a crowd of some 12,000 Republicans at a basketball arena in Dayton, extolling her work against corruption and special interests in Alaska. "But when you get to know her, you're going to be as impressed as I am."

McCain said, "she's got the grit, integrity, and good sense and fierce devotion to the common good that is exactly what we need in Washington today."
From wiki: "Palin holds a bachelor of arts degree in journalism from the University of Idaho."

I think I'd want someone smarter than that...
Journalism is the school, not the major, but ultimately I agree that I'm not overly impressed with a political science degree.

Regardless, our Presidents have had a very wide range of educational credentials.
Also from wiki......yikes. No thank you. Let's try nominating smart educated people for office.

She's a religious right nutjob.
While I agree that the evolution thing is a fairly big black stain, it is being used as a "religious right nutjob" litmus test, which may or may not really be accurate.
 
  • #56
well obviously she is a pitifully embarrassing choice, like a hail mary pass from a loser candidate, but she is about 100 times smarter than dan quayle. so although the gop ticket looks like a "little moron" joke to me, i think, given the idiocy of the us electorate, it is still a toss up.
 
  • #57
russ_watters said:
Poly sci degree from U of Idaho
City council of some city I never heard of, 1992-1996
Mayor from 1996-2003 (I think - she tried for Lt Gov in 2002 and lost and it doesn't say when she actually left the mayorship)
Held a mid-level advisor job (on ethics) with the governor from 2003-4 (resigned in protest of ethics violations and ended up bringing down the head of the Rep party in Alaska over it (that impresses me a lot).
Governor, 2007-8 (19 months)

That's a pretty sad list for a VP.

You're really trying to have it both ways here. To be objective, you need to set all variables but one equal and consider only that one variable: so all else being equal, would you want the more experienced or the less experienced potential President/CEO? Or put another way, which should be President/CEO and which should be

Ok, that's fine. But then the more experienced one shouldn't be lightyears ahead of the less experienced one. Keep in mind, she is potentially the president if something happens to McCain. I would not trust this woman to run things properly with her total lack of experience.

Heck, VP is, in reality, used as a stepping stone to President/CEO in both government and business. In business, it's almost a requirement.

Yeah, but it takes years of experience to become even a VP in a company. You don't get there overnight like this lady is trying to do.


Journalism is the school, not the major, but ultimately I agree that I'm not overly impressed with a political science degree.

Regardless, our Presidents have had a very wide range of educational credentials. While I agree that the evolution thing is a fairly big black stain, it is being used as a "religious right nutjob" litmus test, which may or may not really be accurate.

Oh come on, her education is pathetic. Even Ron Paul is a doctor. I want an intellectual in office, be it republic or democrat. Be a doctor, lawer, PhD, go to a top name school: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford. Whats so great about the university of Idaho? Did she major in reporting about potatoes?

But no, we can't boast intellect when running for office. That would be elitist. So instead, they have to pander to the 249 million dumbases that will vote for them that they are 'one of them'. Apparently, its bad to be smart. To win, you must be fat, stupid, love god, love guns, and worked in a mill growing up. These are 'important qualities' - (again, for both parties not just one). It's really pathetic. We should frown upon them as a nation playing to the stupid crowd. It's insulting.

Seriously, what's so bad about Tom Ridge? Smart guy, harvard, military service in vietnam, head of DHS, former Governor...
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Can you see her staring down Putin?
 
  • #59
mathwonk said:
well obviously she is a pitifully embarrassing choice, like a hail mary pass from a loser candidate, but she is about 100 times smarter than dan quayle. so although the gop ticket looks like a "little moron" joke to me, i think, given the idiocy of the us electorate, it is still a toss up.

Hahahha, last sentence is funny, but sad because its true.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
Not to put too fine a point on things, but Nancy Pelosi is third in line to the Presidency..
 
  • #61
LowlyPion said:
Not to put too fine a point on things, but Nancy Pelosi is third in line to the Presidency..

IMO, Pelosi as Commander in Chief is much better than Sarah Palin. Pelosi's tough.
 
  • #62
as my wife put it: a beehive hairdo?

what scares me was the ad showing her firing a combat rifle. is that the argument for her qualifications? this is a sick joke right?

the good part is, there is no clearer distinction possible between these candidates. there is no way to confuse them. ( i hope) it is inconceivable that any hillary clinton supporter could vote for these dingbats.
 
  • #63
mathwonk said:
as my wife put it: a beehive hairdo?

Good point, mathwonk...what the hell is up with the hair?
 
  • #64
lisab said:
IMO, Pelosi as Commander in Chief is much better than Sarah Palin. Pelosi's tough.

I expect so.

I'd say the bald appeal to the anti-intellectualism of Intelligent Design, the pro-life stance, NRA membership, appeal to keep polar bears off the endangered species list, and dedication to drilling ANWAR, will wear quite thin once people get to reviewing her qualifications.

Insofar as cracking the glass ceiling, Geraldine Ferraro was already there and Nancy Pelosi is still poking her head through. She is only a couple of gaffe's away from total disaster for the Republicans.

I marvel at the Republican euphoria about her selection.
 
  • #65
lisab said:
Good point, mathwonk...what the hell is up with the hair?

Probably designed to make her look taller?

In that regard Romney was probably too tall for McCain.
 
  • #66
mathwonk said:
well obviously she is a pitifully embarrassing choice, like a hail mary pass from a loser candidate, but she is about 100 times smarter than dan quayle. so although the gop ticket looks like a "little moron" joke to me, i think, given the idiocy of the us electorate, it is still a toss up.
Yes, obviously...well wait - obvious to who? People who are so far to the left they can't even see the center?? The polls say the race is a dead heat right now, but you wouldn't know it from the way people in this forum talk. Personally, I think the 'everyone is an idiot except for me' stance is arrogant and naive, but it does seem to be the popular stance at PF.
 
  • #67
russ_watters said:
Yes, obviously...well wait - obvious to who? People who are so far to the left they can't even see the center?? The polls say the race is a dead heat right now, but you wouldn't know it from the way people in this forum talk. Personally, I think the 'everyone is an idiot except for me' stance is arrogant and naive, but it does seem to be the popular stance at PF.

I don't think you have to be far left to see this woman's a joke. I'm in the middle and I don't like her.

Honestly, why not a guy like Tom Ridge? Who is this lady that came out of thin air?

So let's see:
-Doesn't support protecting endagered species
-Wants to teach evolution
-Joke of college degree
-Mayor of a small town no one's heard of

Why are republicans not up in arms over this? This woman should be a laughing stock on every major news channel and newspaper so that McCain, out of shame, has to retract his nomination of her and get someone that's more serious.

Why can't there be a debate between two sane, qualified representatives from both parties? Is it really too much to ask?
 
Last edited:
  • #68
lisab said:
IMO, Pelosi as Commander in Chief is much better than Sarah Palin. Pelosi's tough.

I know some Alaskan women. Believe me, they're tough.
She may be a beauty queen but the Alaskan idea of a beauty pagent is "What does she look like in a bikini? Can she skin a moose? What sort of rifle does she own? What sort of truck and snowmobile does she drive?"
 
  • #69
Cyrus said:
Oh come on, her education is pathetic. Even Ron Paul is a doctor. I want an intellectual in office, be it republic or democrat. Be a doctor, lawer, PhD, go to a top name school: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford. Whats so great about the university of Idaho? Did she major in reporting about potatoes?
Wow! Since when did educational qualifications ever matter? I haven't heard you complain about say, McCain's educational qualifications.
 
  • #70
Gokul43201 said:
Wow! Since when did educational qualifications ever matter? I haven't heard you complain about say, McCain's educational qualifications.

She is trying out for a job. Why shouldn't they be weighted?

At least McCain went to the Naval Academy and was a Naval Aviator. The Naval Academy isn't for idiots.

Even if you want to argue McCain got there because of his father (which I won't argue), at least he was exposed to people of a very high caliber and teachers that demanded much from him.

Honestly, school of Journalism from Idaho?....What award winning journalists ever came out of that place?
 
<h2>1. What is CNN?</h2><p>CNN (Cable News Network) is an American news-based cable television channel that was launched in 1980. It is known for its 24-hour news coverage and is one of the most widely viewed news networks in the world.</p><h2>2. Who are McCain and Palin?</h2><p>John McCain and Sarah Palin were the Republican candidates for the 2008 United States presidential election. McCain was a senator from Arizona and Palin was the governor of Alaska. They ran against Barack Obama and Joe Biden, ultimately losing the election.</p><h2>3. Why is CNN reporting on McCain and Palin?</h2><p>CNN, as a news network, reports on current events and political news. The 2008 presidential election was a significant event in American politics, and McCain and Palin were the Republican candidates, making them newsworthy subjects for CNN's coverage.</p><h2>4. What is the significance of McCain and Palin's partnership?</h2><p>McCain and Palin's partnership was significant because it was the first time a woman was chosen as a vice-presidential candidate for the Republican party. It also brought attention to Palin's political views and experience as governor of Alaska.</p><h2>5. How does CNN's coverage of McCain and Palin impact the 2008 election?</h2><p>CNN's coverage of McCain and Palin, along with other news networks, played a role in shaping public opinion and influencing the outcome of the 2008 election. Their coverage provided information and analysis of the candidates' policies, speeches, and debates, which helped voters make informed decisions at the polls.</p>

1. What is CNN?

CNN (Cable News Network) is an American news-based cable television channel that was launched in 1980. It is known for its 24-hour news coverage and is one of the most widely viewed news networks in the world.

2. Who are McCain and Palin?

John McCain and Sarah Palin were the Republican candidates for the 2008 United States presidential election. McCain was a senator from Arizona and Palin was the governor of Alaska. They ran against Barack Obama and Joe Biden, ultimately losing the election.

3. Why is CNN reporting on McCain and Palin?

CNN, as a news network, reports on current events and political news. The 2008 presidential election was a significant event in American politics, and McCain and Palin were the Republican candidates, making them newsworthy subjects for CNN's coverage.

4. What is the significance of McCain and Palin's partnership?

McCain and Palin's partnership was significant because it was the first time a woman was chosen as a vice-presidential candidate for the Republican party. It also brought attention to Palin's political views and experience as governor of Alaska.

5. How does CNN's coverage of McCain and Palin impact the 2008 election?

CNN's coverage of McCain and Palin, along with other news networks, played a role in shaping public opinion and influencing the outcome of the 2008 election. Their coverage provided information and analysis of the candidates' policies, speeches, and debates, which helped voters make informed decisions at the polls.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
29
Replies
1K
Views
84K
  • General Discussion
5
Replies
153
Views
16K
Replies
17
Views
7K
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
73
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
99
Views
76K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top