McCain's VP choice. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

I am not worried about her being one heartbeat away from the presidency. She is the only person on either ticket who has experience running the executive branch of government. At least McCain has exerience leading in the military. Obama and Biden's experience lies primarily in the legislative branch where they rule by committee. The leader of the executive branch needs to be decisive and set the course for the administration. She has done that in Alaska. She has had experience in balancing a budget (which had a surplus which she is sending back to the people of AK), disaster management (flooding in Fairbanks), and being commander of the AK National Guard (which has troops deployed in Iraq). Sure this is not the same size as it is on the national level, but it is executive level experience none the less -- something the neither Obama nor Biden has.

[Anonymous]

"She has had experience in balancing a budget (which had a surplus which she is sending back to the people of AK), disaster management (flooding in Fairbanks), and being commander of the AK National Guard (which has troops deployed in Iraq). "

Are you serious?

You think managing a small state budget with a surplus and no income tax for only 2 years gives her even a drop of experience for dealing with national economic issues and the whole commander and chief of the national guard is just comical. Sure she'll legit if we only start calling her commander in chief of the national Alaskan guard. Good grief.

Its interesting to watch the Republicans try to dance around this one.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I am not worried about her being one heartbeat away from the presidency. She is the only person on either ticket who has experience running the executive branch of government. At least McCain has exerience leading in the military. Obama and Biden's experience lies primarily in the legislative branch where they rule by committee. The leader of the executive branch needs to be decisive and set the course for the administration. She has done that in Alaska. She has had experience in balancing a budget (which had a surplus which she is sending back to the people of AK), disaster management (flooding in Fairbanks), and being commander of the AK National Guard (which has troops deployed in Iraq). Sure this is not the same size as it is on the national level, but it is executive level experience none the less -- something the neither Obama nor Biden has.

These are the Republican talking points and accurate as far as they go. I would disagree that being mayor of a town with a population less than 7,000 and 1 1/2 years as Governor of Alaska has more relevance than the senate experience of Obama and Biden. Certainly, Palin established no public positions on most major national issues -- for instance, even recently she had no coherent position regarding Iraq. She left Wasilla's finances in shambles, suggesting her budget balancing skills are not universal. She never had to oversee an income tax policy given that Alaska doesn't have an income tax. She balanced her budget as Governor as a result of a capital gains tax on oil companies -- something McCain opposes (though Obama supports) , so she won't be able to replicate it at the national level. Were it not for rising gas prices, she probably couldn't have balanced her budget.

Can anyone tell me Palin's position on social security, health care, tax reform, or US policy toward Iran?

She had no involvement commanding the AK National Guard troops in Iraq. Once troops are assigned to that mission, they fall under Federal control.

On the other hand, Palin was a supporter of the notorious "bridge to nowhere" money (something she now lies about), she supports teaching creationism in schools, she is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest, she believes in abstinence-only sex eduction, and she doesn't believe that global warming is man-made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I look at Sarah Palin, I think she looks like a Mary Kay Lady or maybe my dental hygienist. And she was Miss Wasilla -- wow. I bet there's tough competition in a town of 6,000 moose hunters and fishermen.


Actually she looks like a stewardess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not worried about her being one heartbeat away from the presidency. She is the only person on either ticket who has experience running the executive branch of government. At least McCain has exerience leading in the military. Obama and Biden's experience lies primarily in the legislative branch where they rule by committee. The leader of the executive branch needs to be decisive and set the course for the administration. She has done that in Alaska. She has had experience in balancing a budget (which had a surplus which she is sending back to the people of AK), disaster management (flooding in Fairbanks), and being commander of the AK National Guard (which has troops deployed in Iraq). Sure this is not the same size as it is on the national level, but it is executive level experience none the less -- something the neither Obama nor Biden has.

Leadership in the military is way different from leadership in the executive branch. Would have to dig to find the quote but Eisenhower was quoted as saying how much harder it was to be president rather than a general. Military leaders can give orders. Presidents have to work harder to build support for their initiatives. McCain will have to be able to get people on board to support his agenda. Not clear that he can do that as well as Obama can.

[Anonymous]

You are absolutely wrong about the bridge-to-nowhere. She rejected it and told Congress to keep the money. Her exact quote was "if Alaska wanted the bridge we would build it ourselves". One thing she is most definitely against is pork barrel spending. That is one issue where she and McCain see eye to eye and I believe that is one of the reasons he picked her to be his running mate.

My point about executive branch service is the ability to take charge and lead. Obama and Biden are good at talking the talk, but have no evidence of being able to walk the walk. McCain and Palin have both had proven experience walking the walk.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You are absolutely wrong about the bridge-to-nowhere. She rejected it and told Congress to keep the money. Her exact quote was "if Alaska wanted the bridge we would build it ourselves". One thing she is most definitely against is pork barrel spending. That is one issue where she and McCain see eye to eye and I believe that is one of the reasons he picked her to be his running mate.

Sigh, you need to stop drinking McCain's Kool-aid. The version of the story you describe is what Palin said when she was introduced as McCain's VP choice. It was a total lie. I know its hard to believe that someone would stand up in front of the national press and tell a blatant lie -- especially one that can be easily disproved -- but that is what happened. More than likely, McCain's people wrote her remarks and got it wrong -- either by intention or accident.

While running for Governor, Palin told the Alaska Daily News in response to a question about the bridge:

"Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now — while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

Clearly, Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere and wanted it to be federally-funded.

See her statement when she cancelled the project :

"Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island".

The statement also clearly states that he funds should be redirected (not returned):

"The Department of Transportation has approximately $36 million in federal funds that will become available for other projects with the shutdown of the Gravina Island bridge project. Governor Palin has directed Commissioner Leo von Scheben to review transportation projects statewide to prepare a list of possible uses for the funds".

In the statement linked to above, she doesn't say anything about the bridge being a waste of money. Rather, she says, "Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here." So, rather than being a waste of funds, it was a public relations failure.

See this article about Palin's support for earmarks (the author is director of State-Federal Relations and Special Counsel to Gov. Sarah Palin):

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/031808/opi_258953362.shtml

The article makes clear that Palin would like to request more earmarks but is only requesting 31 because of the opposition in Congress to earmarks.

Also, this article in the Alaska Daily News wraps the issue up nicely (despite the misleading headline):

"The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere." They're still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin's subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects -- and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines."

and:

"Meanwhile, Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone -- because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government."

Emphasis above is mine.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just about everything that was spun positively about Palin is going to unravel. Far from being a reformer, she was a serial abuser of power. No anti-corruption zealot would have received the endorsements of Ted Stevens and Don Young -- two of the most corrupt guys in the state.

[Anonymous]

I need not read more! I read through 5 pages of garbage trash sexism imposed by my fellow sisters and was quite depressed by the ignorance of my own gender. Then I happened upon this post and my faith has been restored that at least there are a few women out there that have managed to emerge from the 1950s.

After reading the FILTH written by other posters and the VOMIT spewed out of airwaves and print about Hillary AND Sarah, I'm voting for McCain. I cannot bring myself to support Obama and his good old boy Biden.


We women have a long hard road ahead of us and I think our most formidable enemies are ourselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think none of us can know that much about this woman yet and much of this sounds like a "rush to judgment" to use an over-used phrase. I admit I had never heard of her until this morning and I also rushed to judgment when I saw her resume ("Are you kidding me?" was my initial reaction). But it did peak my interest enough to flip on the TV for the speech where I saw her hairdo (Yikes!) and heard about the 5 kids (no way!).

But then I had to question how much of my own reaction was actually sexist. If Tim Pawlenty had been the pick today this post wouldn't be here. We probably wouldn't even know how many children he had (let alone learning it within 5 minutes). OK, he's been a governor a few years longer than Palin, but probably no one would be debating the experience issue and he would be lauded as a good "safe" pick who brings "youth" and a "fresh face" to the ticket or such. I certainly wouldn't be judging him on his hairdo. So I did have to ask myself why I was being harder on her than on a man.

Maybe because the stakes are higher -- it's as if as a woman I have a stake in her putting in a credible appearance. If she ends up looking like a token this seems like a setback for all women. I was not a HRC supporter but as a fellow woman I took great pride in her accomplishment. She made us all look good by being so tough and so competent.

On paper, Palin does two things for McCain very effectively: (1) shores up his base (it seems they know all about her and love her) and (2) highlights his reputation as a maverick who takes on his own party and special interests because it appears she has done exactly the same thing. Looks like she has battled fellow Republicans and oil companies in AK. So while I am sure her being a woman did help her being chosen as it adds some interest and excitement to the ticket, she also brings things that Kay Bailey Hutchison or Condoleeza Rice (total insiders) would not have.

So I'm not convinced this a play for Hilary voters or even women voters -- but it does seem to be a play for people who are disgusted with Washington. Within 5 minutes of watching her on TV I was intrigued -- I have never seen a politician on the national stage like her. She was real. She was natural. She is clearly not a product of Washington. She could be very, very interesting or she could be a disaster.

But I'm going to reserve judgment, stay tuned and see how she does. Not all of this is about experience on paper. A lot of this is about smarts, temperament and performance on the campaign trail. Obama has overcome his thin resume not because of a few years on the senate foreign relations committee but because of how well he has handled himself on the campaign. Palin deserves the same chance to show what she's made of.

This is a very wise post. You are also getting at something that McCain saw in Palin: Her personal story is very compelling, just like Obama's, and he is betting on some voters taking a look at her because of that. She's a genuine maverick who has bucked her party and big oil, and he loves that and is betting that voters will like it too. You're right that it's a play for those who are attracted to an outsider; it's also directly aimed at attracting blue-collar voters. Her husband is NOT a Republican; he's a blue-collar worker and proud union member. Her working-class credentials are better than Biden's. But you are most right in saying that she could either be very compelling or she could be a disaster. By attacking her instantly and showering her with contempt, Democrats are setting such low expectations bar for her that she's bound to exceed them. If she can take the pressure of the campaign trail, she may be surprising. Real and natural are attractive to most Americans. And all the regional and class-based criticism of her on DCUM only underscores how appealing she'll be to many Americans who don't live in the DC metro region, which is to say most of them. Smart post, PP. I love your self-awareness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I need not read more! I read through 5 pages of garbage trash sexism imposed by my fellow sisters and was quite depressed by the ignorance of my own gender. Then I happened upon this post and my faith has been restored that at least there are a few women out there that have managed to emerge from the 1950s.

After reading the FILTH written by other posters and the VOMIT spewed out of airwaves and print about Hillary AND Sarah, I'm voting for McCain. I cannot bring myself to support Obama and his good old boy Biden.


We women have a long hard road ahead of us and I think our most formidable enemies are ourselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think none of us can know that much about this woman yet and much of this sounds like a "rush to judgment" to use an over-used phrase. I admit I had never heard of her until this morning and I also rushed to judgment when I saw her resume ("Are you kidding me?" was my initial reaction). But it did peak my interest enough to flip on the TV for the speech where I saw her hairdo (Yikes!) and heard about the 5 kids (no way!).

But then I had to question how much of my own reaction was actually sexist. If Tim Pawlenty had been the pick today this post wouldn't be here. We probably wouldn't even know how many children he had (let alone learning it within 5 minutes). OK, he's been a governor a few years longer than Palin, but probably no one would be debating the experience issue and he would be lauded as a good "safe" pick who brings "youth" and a "fresh face" to the ticket or such. I certainly wouldn't be judging him on his hairdo. So I did have to ask myself why I was being harder on her than on a man.

Maybe because the stakes are higher -- it's as if as a woman I have a stake in her putting in a credible appearance. If she ends up looking like a token this seems like a setback for all women. I was not a HRC supporter but as a fellow woman I took great pride in her accomplishment. She made us all look good by being so tough and so competent.

On paper, Palin does two things for McCain very effectively: (1) shores up his base (it seems they know all about her and love her) and (2) highlights his reputation as a maverick who takes on his own party and special interests because it appears she has done exactly the same thing. Looks like she has battled fellow Republicans and oil companies in AK. So while I am sure her being a woman did help her being chosen as it adds some interest and excitement to the ticket, she also brings things that Kay Bailey Hutchison or Condoleeza Rice (total insiders) would not have.

So I'm not convinced this a play for Hilary voters or even women voters -- but it does seem to be a play for people who are disgusted with Washington. Within 5 minutes of watching her on TV I was intrigued -- I have never seen a politician on the national stage like her. She was real. She was natural. She is clearly not a product of Washington. She could be very, very interesting or she could be a disaster.

But I'm going to reserve judgment, stay tuned and see how she does. Not all of this is about experience on paper. A lot of this is about smarts, temperament and performance on the campaign trail. Obama has overcome his thin resume not because of a few years on the senate foreign relations committee but because of how well he has handled himself on the campaign. Palin deserves the same chance to show what she's made of.

This is a very wise post. You are also getting at something that McCain saw in Palin: Her personal story is very compelling, just like Obama's, and he is betting on some voters taking a look at her because of that. She's a genuine maverick who has bucked her party and big oil, and he loves that and is betting that voters will like it too. You're right that it's a play for those who are attracted to an outsider; it's also directly aimed at attracting blue-collar voters. Her husband is NOT a Republican; he's a blue-collar worker and proud union member. Her working-class credentials are better than Biden's. But you are most right in saying that she could either be very compelling or she could be a disaster. By attacking her instantly and showering her with contempt, Democrats are setting such low expectations bar for her that she's bound to exceed them. If she can take the pressure of the campaign trail, she may be surprising. Real and natural are attractive to most Americans. And all the regional and class-based criticism of her on DCUM only underscores how appealing she'll be to many Americans who don't live in the DC metro region, which is to say most of them. Smart post, PP. I love your self-awareness.

Smart lady. Voting for McCain will do a world of good for you and your "sisters."

[Anonymous]

Please, someone, remind me again exactly what qualifies Obama to be president (and being a great reader of the teleprompter is not on the list)?

Wasn't it his own running mate Biden who said just a few short months ago that he [BO] was in fact would NOT BE READY to lead this country on day one??! How soon we forget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are absolutely wrong about the bridge-to-nowhere. She rejected it and told Congress to keep the money. Her exact quote was "if Alaska wanted the bridge we would build it ourselves". One thing she is most definitely against is pork barrel spending. That is one issue where she and McCain see eye to eye and I believe that is one of the reasons he picked her to be his running mate.

My point about executive branch service is the ability to take charge and lead. Obama and Biden are good at talking the talk, but have no evidence of being able to walk the walk. McCain and Palin have both had proven experience walking the walk.

Actually the current evidence indicates otherwise. I think a come-from-behind campaign that two years ago no one would have given a chance of succeeding shows pretty good evidence of being able not only to "take charge" but to build consensus and instill discipline in a wide group of people who are not required by military regulation to obey. Maybe McCain can do that (jury still out) but there's no reason to assume his military experience and experience in the Senate has made him more capable than Obama of doing this. In fact I think he is less capable, given that his maverick status has led him to alienate a whole passel of people at one time or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HRC supporters will not vote for Palin. A vote for Palin is a slap in the face for everything HRC worked to achieve.

Ah, but don't you get it??
A vote for Palin is a vote for a chance to vote for HRC again in 4 years -- not so with a vote for NObama.

What makes anyone think that HRC can win in 2012? Maybe the incumbent will win again bc people seem so simple and stupid and don't realize what a shambles the countries economy, policies, and diplomacy is in? ? I hope I'm wrong and as the Iowans proved earlier in the year, we WANT CHANGE NOW.

[Anonymous]

Holy Cow....I just read her 17 year old daughter is pregnant. Poor thing. She is planning on marrying the BOY. Will they sign her over....she is underage. Wonder when she found out.....just recently....the child is 5 mos along!!! SO SAD! Even though God is forgiving.....Christians are not!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I look at Sarah Palin, I think she looks like a Mary Kay Lady or maybe my dental hygienist. And she was Miss Wasilla -- wow. I bet there's tough competition in a town of 6,000 moose hunters and fishermen.


I am astounded by this pick. What are they thinking?! Imagine Biden taking her on in a debate. But then I think the American electorate is so stupid anyway so maybe they'll love her.

Since I'm not familiar with the way Sarah Palin looks, I keep thinking of Tina Fey, comedian on Saturday Night Live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, just wow. Many of the posts on this thread show the arrogance or superiority complex of the so-called "East Coast Liberals". Remember, Kerry was a shoe-in to win in 2004.

I'm a West Coast liberal and I think politics is turning into one big joke, election after election, since the one from 2000. I want to add that Dubya has paved the way for red necks to reach the White House. An affluent "red neck" you can share a brewski with.