News Was Sarah Palin the Right Choice for McCain's VP?

[turbo]

There are evangelicals (some very prominent) that insist on the sanctity of the existence and integrity of Israel because it is central to their beliefs regarding "end days" and the second coming of Christ. Palin's church teaches this, and I do NOT want her finger on any button more significant than those on her TV's remote if Israel decides to attack Iran. Sorry.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/04/palins-evangelical-faith-drives-pro-israel-view/

 

[russ_watters]

GCT, I don't know exactly what McCain was thinking, but there are some other interesting twists here. Picking a young maverick to go with an old maverick empahsizes the disparity between her and Biden: Biden is the epitome of the old, white, Washington insider, and for someone promoting change to pick him is a contradiction. McCain not only avoided that, he picked someone who re-emphasizes his biggest strength. Obama chose someone who neutralizes his biggest strength.

Cover story on CNN Politics:

Palin shoves Biden out of the spotlight

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/biden.palin/index.html

Further irony (same story):

Obama's former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, may be the Democrats' best counter to "Palin-mania."

Ironic because picking Hillary would have made it impossible to pick her! It's like a poker game, and the Repubs got to see the Dems bet first.

Right now, the pick is appearing to be brilliant.

Some more interesting analysis:

He just couldn't do it and maybe thought he didn't need to do it. He was wrong. That choice would have meant that McCain probably wouldn't have picked Palin. And if McCain had picked anybody else from his shortlist, the Republican convention would have been boring, and the party's base would not have been motivated.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/rollins.convention/index.html

In Obama's defense, though, I don't think he could have anticipated this pick.

 

[lisab]

There are evangelicals (some very prominent) that insist on the sanctity of the existence and integrity of Israel because it is central to their beliefs regarding "end days" and the second coming of Christ. Palin's church teaches this, and I do NOT want her finger on any button more significant than those on her TV's remote if Israel decides to attack Iran. Sorry.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/04/palins-evangelical-faith-drives-pro-israel-view/

I share that same concern, turbo.

It's terrifying to me to think that someone with an "end of days" world view would direct US foreign policy. Haven't we had enough of that?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I share that same concern, turbo.

It's terrifying to me to think that someone with an "end of days" world view would direct US foreign policy. Haven't we had enough of that?

I wonder if she is a dispensationalist. They actually want the world to end, and intend to help.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Heh - I read an article today that said just the opposite: people are being to harsh about her.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.standard.irpt/index.html

Oh please, all of the media hype about her personal life has nothing to do with this. I am talking about her qualifications and beliefs. We have had two years to learn about Obama, but she is an unknown who deserves the most intense scrutiny that any candidate has ever suffered in 60 days.

If anyone feels sorry for her, then they should support her resignation right now, before the SHTF. The people supporting Palin are effectively supporting the idea of who they think she is, not who she actually is. This will change for most.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I realized [I suspect] at least one reason why McCain's people decided to keep McCain and Palin together: They can't have her drawing five times the crowds that he does!

I want a "no Palin-McCain" bumper sticker.

 

[castlegates]

If McCain would have picked an industry standard for VP ( rich, intelligent), his race would be all but over IMO. Palin was a good choice in that she connects with a very large voting block. It is the industry standard voter (the people that make less than 75 grand). :-)

This group would love nothing better than to buck the system, a system that always leaves them wanting. Play this group and the race is yours. You don't have to give them anything, you just have to imply that you will. Having a VP on the ticket that is one of them is an implication. All that is needed here on her part is to tell them what they want to hear.

Obama will play this group as best he can, but he has moochos denero, which doesn't go over to well with a working stiff.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If McCain would have picked an industry standard for VP ( rich, intelligent), his race would be all but over IMO. Palin was a good choice in that she connects with a very large voting block. It is the industry standard voter (the people that make less than 75 grand). :-)

She was a good choice because no one knows anything about her and we only have 60 days. Rather than picking someone who is clearly qualified for the job, he went the blind faith route and is betting that enough Americans are stupid enough to fall for it, again.

Given that 60 days isn't nearly enough time for the voters to learn about her, McCain is effectively trying to bypass the election process. It will require intense scrutiny to even get even an impression of who she really is.

Obama will play this group as best he can, but he has moochos denero, which doesn't go over to well with a working stiff.

Um, he is getting most of his "moochos denero" from working stiffs.

 

[LowlyPion]

... , she merely reiterated McCain's position regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Be serious. This is not a thoughtful position on her part. She is little more than a trained talking myna bird on such topics involving national complexity.

She's not nearly enough heartbeats away from the office for her level of analytical ability and decision making.

 

[Cyrus]

So Ivan, where are we moving to if McCain (God forbid) wins?

I hear Canada is nice...

 

[castlegates]

She was a good choice because no one knows anything about her and we only have 60 days. Rather than picking someone who is clearly qualified for the job, he went the blind faith route and is betting that enough Americans are stupid enough to fall for it, again.



Um, he is getting most of his "moochos denero" from working stiffs.

You don't get it. Americans can be played again, and again, and again. :-)
Those deneros were coming in before the Palin pick. I'll bet it tails off (siphoned off) at least somewhat.

Chances are that Obama is going to win this thing, Bush is a difficult thing to overcome for republicans. Palin is a shot in the dark, that may actually have a chance of paying off.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So Ivan, where are we moving to if McCain (God forbid) wins?

I hear Canada is nice...

We tried that once, but in addition to other limitations, we can't afford to give-up our retirement plans. Honestly, in 2004, if we could have left, we would have. We tried. As far as I was concerned, the music died that day in November. And I have shed more tears for this country over the last eight years than I care to remember.

McCain winning wouldn't bother me so much just because it is McCain, as it was with Bush. What scares me is that anyone would vote Republican after all that has happened. If Obama was a complete bum, I could see it to some extent, but given such a talented candidate, it makes no sense.

But, that's okay. If I still have any understanding of this country at all, Obama is going to win. This Palin thing is just a bump. She is just an idea to people right now. That will change. But slipping her in this late in the game means that there is much to be done to expose the person beneath the persona, and quickly.

 

[Cyrus]

If Obama does not win by more than 20% my jaw will hit the floor. It's amazing how little the American public cares about anything anymore. I honestly think we might be seeing the starting point of the downturn of America as a superpower in the next 20-30 years.

 

[LowlyPion]

... and try to scare american voters claiming that the Republicans are ignorant of basic economics.

The last 8 years has undeniably been a downturn in the US Economy, going from surpluses to budget deficit, to widening trade shortfalls, to job loss, to mounting national debt, to increasing inflation, crumbling roads and bridges infrastructure, ballooning health care costs, energy costs, and we have been reaping the whirlwind on unregulated financial oversight - the latest being the Fannie-Freddie bailout. In short, the Republicans have proven themselves just about totally inept at about everything EXCEPT fattening themselves.

The thing that's scary is the idea that anyone might believe them when now they claim that they would stand for change.

 

[wildman]

Heh - I read an article today that said just the opposite: people are being to harsh about her.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.standard.irpt/index.html

I don't think the press being harsh with her is all bad for McCain. What Obama had going for him was the interest of the Press. Palin has taken that interest. Good or bad, she is getting a lot of press and taking it away from Obama.

 

[turbo]

If Obama does not win by more than 20% my jaw will hit the floor. It's amazing how little the American public cares about anything anymore. I honestly think we might be seeing the starting point of the downturn of America as a superpower in the next 20-30 years.

Don't be too sure, Cy. W "won" if the efforts of the GOP to suppress Dem voting via "caging lists" and other tactics are discounted. The GOP will use such tactics again, especially with military deployed personnel currently giving over 6:1 to Obama. It's easy to disenfranchise somebody a half-world away, and it's very tough for such voters to assert their rights and make sure that their votes are actually tallied.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If Obama does not win by more than 20% my jaw will hit the floor.

Yes, I expect the electoral count to be around 60-40.

It's amazing how little the American public cares about anything anymore. I honestly think we might be seeing the starting point of the downturn of America as a superpower in the next 20-30 years.

When we started to argue about torture, wire-taps on US citizens, nuclear bunker busters as a preemptive weapon, and preemptive war for that matter, the America that I knew no longer existed. In the past, these practices were those of our enemies, by defintion.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, we always did that Ivan. But at least it was all hush hush stuff you were not supposed to hear about (but is coming to light now that things are being declassified).

What I see as a turning point is the disregard for science, and a culture of ignorance. Watch videos from the 60s. There great. The people would dress sharp and speak intelligently. Even people who were not well educated knew how to speak when they opened their mouth. Most people today are no class bums. And I don't see people care about one another.

 

[CRGreathouse]

When we started to argue about torture, wire-taps on US citizens, nuclear bunker busters as a preemptive weapon, and preemptive war for that matter, the America that I knew no longer existed. In the past, these practices were those of our enemies, by defintion.

Two apolitical points of order here:

1. If the America that you knew included free speech, wouldn't arguments about these things be acceptable? (Not practice, mind you.)
2. If the enumerated activities were of the enemies of the US "by definition", what was the definition of enemy and who was using "enemy" in that sense?

Also, as far as I know nuclear bunker busters have not been used to, uh, bust bunkers (by the US or any other country). Am I wrong? If not, how were those the practice of the enemies of the US in the past? Also, this must be a recent past, as bunker-busting nukes seems to be a recent idea -- and couldn't have come before the 40s.

 

[Defennder]

1. If the America that you knew included free speech, wouldn't arguments about these things be acceptable? (Not practice, mind you.)

This is an interesting question. There are similar parallel puzzles in other fields of knowledge as well. In politics, it goes by the form: Should a democratic country tolerate the rise of an undemocratic party or political figure? If yes, then it risks becoming autocratic and undemocratic, if no, then it risks offending the principles of democracy. In philosophy it has the general form "Can a philosophical criterion be subjected to its own standard?". For example, many argue that the demarcationist criterion of logical positivism does not meet it's own standard and is hence self-defeating. In logic, I suppose one could always argue, "But how do we justify logic without resorting to logic, so as to avoid circular arguments ?"

But such an argument seems rather cheap and pointless to me. What do you think?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So Ivan, where are we moving to if McCain (God forbid) wins?

I hear Canada is nice...

I'll help you pack. In my opinion it will be an improvement for both countries. Anyone else who wants to leave should contact me. I have done it many times and can provide helpful tips. No phonies please. I have no time for people who claim that they want to leave and yet stay.

Here are some statistics on emigration from the US. Roughly 48,000 a year give it an honest try. I don't know if these numbers include illegal emigration.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0010/twps0010.html

 

[BobG]

Has Obama appeared on TV lately? Sarah Palin is everywhere. If Obama's votes depended on his celebrity TV status this is going bad for him; this pick by McCain is going good and in hindsight it seems to have been to

-Portray Obama as a distant politician ; when he's not on TV being liked by all he becomes an obscure character.

-Portray Obama as condenscending i.e. his polished personality versus Palin's " too naive to know anything yet a humble, earnest, and grounded " . It seems that some Americans sense that the Obama and Biden case is self righteous and glorified as compared to the real quintessentially American issues ... teenage pregnancy. Dispell the Obama historic grandeur with the genuinely religious concern of parent's everywhere over the issue of rampant fornication amongst our teens.

Celebrity status is a fickle thing. No matter what the public's final opinion about Palin, a little bit of Obama's allure has disappeared forever. He's not as new as he was even two weeks ago. He's a little closer to being part of the established group of politicians that usually run for President.

That's actually a good thing. Eventually, Palin's honeymoon will end - she's running for VP, not President. The decision between McCain and Obama is more important than a celebrity VP and the playing field has been leveled just a bit. The issues will matter more - at least more than they would have if Obama was still the new rage.

Of course, to work, McCain and Palin have to split up and campaign separately. Campaigning with Palin might be apealling now while she's still shockingly new, but she also makes McCain look shockingly old. If McCain rides Palin's honeymoon too far, he's going to wind up suffering a huge hangover - especially if Palin flops in interviews and debates and fails to deliver a little substance behind her image (I don't think that's a given, but it is still a big unknown).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I voted "Best Choice McCain could have made-- will definitely help". I expect her to keep the conservatives quiet while McCain moves away from Bush. By election day, Palin will be to the right of Attilla the Hun, and McCain to the left of Hillary. Unbeatable.

 

[Astronuc]

I expect her to keep the conservatives quiet while McCain moves away from Bush. By election day, Palin will be to the right of Attilla the Hun, and McCain to the left of Hillary. Unbeatable.

She has helped bring in ~$10 million in the few days since the GOP convention.

 

[turbo]

How long until the public catches on? After Palin's claim to have been against the "bridge to nowhere" has been thoroughly debunked by even the most conservative news outlets, she is still repeating the lie on the campaign trail. She finally dropped support for the bridge after Congressional support dried up, and never returned those earmarked funds that had been paid out by the Federal government. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/09/1366884.aspx

 

[LowlyPion]

How long until the public catches on? After Palin's claim to have been against the "bridge to nowhere" has been thoroughly debunked by even the most conservative news outlets, she is still repeating the lie on the campaign trail. She finally dropped support for the bridge after Congressional support dried up, and never returned those earmarked funds that had been paid out by the Federal government. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/09/1366884.aspx

Well apparently like all politicians she's against other people's pork barrels, but not her own. Once she got the money she kept it. Why give it back and really say "Thanks, but no thanks." ?

This isn't reform. This is just more of the same kind of two-faced treatment of the public that Bush-Rove-Cheney have been dishing from their taco stand the last 8 years.

"Would you like to top that Iraqi taco off with a little of our special WMD sauce? "

 

[turbo]

The "liberal media" will never bother debunking Palin's distortions and lies - and that's too bad. She has been attacking Obama for requesting earmarks for his state, and nobody in the press has the guts to point out that she requested 10 times as much money per capita. Alaska is awash in so much oil money that they have no sales tax nor income tax, and still manage to pay each resident $3200/year, and yet they need 10x as much federal money per capita as Illinois? When Charles Gibson interviews Palin, it will be interesting to see if he will touch any of this or stay on "safe" subjects that will guarantee him continued access to her.

 

[LowlyPion]

When Charles Gibson interviews Palin, it will be interesting to see if he will touch any of this or stay on "safe" subjects that will guarantee him continued access to her.

"Once you know about her daughter's pregnancy, once you know about her husband's political interest in the Alaska Independent Party, once you know about the special nature of their latest child, I think that's enough," Gibson wrote.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6346348

I'd say he's guaranteed safe not to ask insightful or challenging questions. The fact of the matter is I doubt the country really knows much about the "First Dude's" political extremism.

Next an interview from Bill O'Reilly?

 

[edward]

Palin make a blooper at the 50 second point of the video in the link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/08/palin-makes-her-first-gaf_n_124792.html

I'm not a big fan of the Huffington post, but if it has a relevant video I will certainly watch it.

She states that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten to big and too expensive to the taxpayers...not until yesterday Ms Palin. McCain doesn't look to pleased, but the crowd does applaud.

It looks like she is mostly prsenting canned intro's for McCain.

 

[turbo]

I'd say he's guaranteed safe not to ask insightful or challenging questions.

The sit-down is proposed for "multiple" sessions so that if Gibson asks any real questions they can pull the plug on him and make Palin "unavailable" for the later sessions. That practically guarantees softballs in the first session, and if that's all they get in the can, that's what they'll air. Gibson floats personal issues as if Palin has already addressed them sufficiently, but that's not the point. We don't need to know who was in bed with whom. We need to know if she has any grasp of foreign policy, economic policy, social issues, personal freedoms, etc. Certainly, we can't expect her to have Biden's foreign-policy experience, nor Obama's understanding of Constitutional law, but we have a right to expect that she's not a total dunce.