Judging Yourself and Sarah Palin

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Reacting to events is a good way to judge someone’s character.

Now, Palin is a real T-woman — hunter, avid outdoorswoman, basketball player in hs, governor of Alaska, 5 kids, very moral and upright person, soon to be VP and, in fact, would be a good POTUS.

So, if you heard the announcement by McCain, yawned, and went out behind the doublewide to ‘burn one down’, that’s one kind of character. Guess which.

If you ripped McCain for appealing to women, while ignoring the fact that over 90% of black people vote by race (Obama, of course), then that means you’re an idiot lowlife too.

If you were surprised and very happy that McCain ACTUALLY CHOSE A REAL REPUBLICAN, then you’re on the right track.

Go Sarah!!

2

I have to personally wonder, never heard of her before yesterday. She is beautiful, but I think that will be a hindrance. Do you remember how all the people thought Katie Couric was too hot? I wonder if McCain is thinking with his little head ?

3

The difference is that Obama is not blatantly appealing to black people. But McCain…by way of Sarah “Barracuda”…is BLATANTLY going after Hillary ahem female supporters.

Its pretty much patronizing the female Hillary supporters by feeding off what Hillary has done…AND said. Especially after basically calling Hillary a “whiner.”

Remember,they don’t have to worry about a “hard on” for Palin to suck all the blood from their brains…like yourself and others…lol.

And your “fact” about 90% of black people voting for Obama cause he’s black is patronizing…as usual from you. Sit back,relax…chug a “pop” or two…and STFU. :wink:

4

If Obama had been white, then he wouldn’t even be in the race. Hillary and Barack are very similar in political philosophy, so the vote would have been closer to a split. His race saved him.

I’m still in shock that McCain (McCain for crissakes!!!) actually picked a real old-fashioned Republican…God, family, honesty, integrity, the can-do spirit,…all the wonderful attributes that I embrace and aspire to.

When I saw her attributes (and yeah, she’s hot) and heard her speak, researched her record and philosophy, I must admit I was thrilled and flabbergasted. McCain…of all the people…

5

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Reacting to events is a good way to judge someone’s character.

Now, Palin is a real T-woman — hunter, avid outdoorswoman, basketball player in hs, governor of Alaska, 5 kids, very moral and upright person, soon to be VP and, in fact, would be a good POTUS.

So, if you heard the announcement by McCain, yawned, and went out behind the doublewide to ‘burn one down’, that’s one kind of character. Guess which.

If you ripped McCain for appealing to women, while ignoring the fact that over 90% of black people vote by race (Obama, of course), then that means you’re an idiot lowlife too.

If you were surprised and very happy that McCain ACTUALLY CHOSE A REAL REPUBLICAN, then you’re on the right track.

Go Sarah!![/quote]

I like Palin. Smart, tough, and easy on the eyes. (whether she would be a good leader if McCain croaked is a more difficult question). But what’s the difference, anyway? The attention vice-presidential candidates get baffles me. And the vice-president being a factor in whether someone votes for a president as it is for some people is downright ludicrous. With some notable exceptions, the vice-president does little and has little impact and influence on presidential decisions and policies.

6

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If Obama had been white, then he wouldn’t even be in the race. Hillary and Barack are very similar in political philosophy, so the vote would have been closer to a split. His race saved him.

I’m still in shock that McCain (McCain for crissakes!!!) actually picked a real old-fashioned Republican…God, family, honesty, integrity, the can-do spirit,…all the wonderful attributes that I embrace and aspire to.

When I saw her attributes (and yeah, she’s hot) and heard her speak, researched her record and philosophy, I must admit I was thrilled and flabbergasted. McCain…of all the people…[/quote]

So tell me,why is HER inexperience with foreign policy…and no national experience being overlooked…because of everybody’s MILF fantasies??

7

As a perennial cynic towards American politics, I am once again terribly unimpressed. Blatant pandering on the part of McCain. How can you criticize your opponent’s lack of inexperience and pick this woman? <2 years of executive experience in one of the smallest populated and detached areas of the country is hardly what I’d call impressive. The fact that he barely knew her doesn’t help much either.

8

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Reacting to events is a good way to judge someone’s character.

Now, Palin is a real T-woman — hunter, avid outdoorswoman, basketball player in hs, governor of Alaska, 5 kids, very moral and upright person, soon to be VP and, in fact, would be a good POTUS.

So, if you heard the announcement by McCain, yawned, and went out behind the doublewide to ‘burn one down’, that’s one kind of character. Guess which.

If you ripped McCain for appealing to women, while ignoring the fact that over 90% of black people vote by race (Obama, of course), then that means you’re an idiot lowlife too.

If you were surprised and very happy that McCain ACTUALLY CHOSE A REAL REPUBLICAN, then you’re on the right track.

Go Sarah!!

I like Palin. Smart, tough, and easy on the eyes. (whether she would be a good leader if McCain croaked is a more difficult question). But what’s the difference, anyway? The attention vice-presidential candidates get baffles me. And the vice-president being a factor in whether someone votes for a president as it is for some people is downright ludicrous. With some notable exceptions, the vice-president does little and has little impact and influence on presidential decisions and policies.[/quote]

Good points…its like Palin is running for president…and McCain’s the VP…lol. The same thing with Obama/Hillary: “He didn’t pick Hillary,I can’t vote for him.” “Oh she’s pretty hot,I’ll vote McCain now.”

People are so shallow. I’ll take a bite from HH and say “We get what we deserve.” Which is not anything good at the moment.

9

This thread needs to be moved to Political Forum.

10

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If Obama had been white, then he wouldn’t even be in the race. Hillary and Barack are very similar in political philosophy, so the vote would have been closer to a split. His race saved him.

I’m still in shock that McCain (McCain for crissakes!!!) actually picked a real old-fashioned Republican…God, family, honesty, integrity, the can-do spirit,…all the wonderful attributes that I embrace and aspire to.

When I saw her attributes (and yeah, she’s hot) and heard her speak, researched her record and philosophy, I must admit I was thrilled and flabbergasted. McCain…of all the people…[/quote]

Remember Bob Dole

11

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
But what’s the difference, anyway? The attention vice-presidential candidates get baffles me. And the vice-president being a factor in whether someone votes for a president as it is for some people is downright ludicrous. With some notable exceptions, the vice-president does little and has little impact and influence on presidential decisions and policies.[/quote]

McCain is 72 with a history of cancer and a family history of sudden cardiac arrest. There’s a very real possibility of him dying during his first term. Guess who would succeed him? The vice president(whose role you seem to devalue so much).

12

So Obama is to young and inexperienced, but shes fine to be a thrice cancer surviving 70 year old heart beat away from the very same position?

Bullshit.

It was a bad choice. You can’t even judge if she’s a “real” Republican because she has so little experience. At least Obama’s ideals can be clearly seen through his speeches and books (as flimsy and socialist as those ideals are, they are still there).

And, consequently, McCain has TOTALLY RUINED his main route of attack against Obama: experience. Now that Obama has an experienced Senator at his back, and McCain has taken a COMPLETELY fresh face at his, the experience argument is totally moot point.

I can think of five or six people I would have rather he picked, and hundreds that would have been better for his ticket’s elect-ability.

13

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
So Obama is to young and inexperienced, but shes fine to be a thrice cancer surviving 70 year old heart beat away from the very same position?

Bullshit.

It was a bad choice. You can’t even judge if she’s a “real” Republican because she has so little experience. At least Obama’s ideals can be clearly seen through his speeches and books (as flimsy and socialist as those ideals are, they are still there).

And, consequently, McCain has TOTALLY RUINED his main route of attack against Obama: experience. Now that Obama has an experienced Senator at his back, and McCain has taken a COMPLETELY fresh face at his, the experience argument is totally moot point.

I can think of five or six people I would have rather he picked, and hundreds that would have been better for his ticket’s elect-ability.[/quote]

Agree, they both have little experience, the difference is the placement on their repective ticket.

14

[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
But what’s the difference, anyway? The attention vice-presidential candidates get baffles me. And the vice-president being a factor in whether someone votes for a president as it is for some people is downright ludicrous. With some notable exceptions, the vice-president does little and has little impact and influence on presidential decisions and policies.

McCain is 72 with a history of cancer and a family history of sudden cardiac arrest. There’s a very real possibility of him dying during his first term. Guess who would succeed him? The vice president(whose role you seem to devalue so much). [/quote]

Yes, that is really the only time the vice-president has appreciable impact on the direction of the country. Which concerns me in Palin’s case. Smart, tough, [seemingly] principled, and easy on the eyes. But I question her preparedness and ability to lead on the national level. Being mayor of town of 9000 and governor of a state with significatly less population than Chicago and having no discernable foreign policy experience and expertise inspires little confidence for me.

15

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
So Obama is to young and inexperienced, but shes fine to be a thrice cancer surviving 70 year old heart beat away from the very same position?

Bullshit.

It was a bad choice. You can’t even judge if she’s a “real” Republican because she has so little experience. At least Obama’s ideals can be clearly seen through his speeches and books (as flimsy and socialist as those ideals are, they are still there).

And, consequently, McCain has TOTALLY RUINED his main route of attack against Obama: experience. Now that Obama has an experienced Senator at his back, and McCain has taken a COMPLETELY fresh face at his, the experience argument is totally moot point.

I can think of five or six people I would have rather he picked, and hundreds that would have been better for his ticket’s elect-ability.

Agree, they both have little experience, the difference is the placement on their repective ticket. [/quote]

Maybe so. But I think the argument that lack of experience in a VICE-president doesn’t matter is a little thin. It certainly raises the question of what qualities ARE important for a VP to possess substantively (and not as a matter of electability).

16

This whole '08 presidential campaign is laying groundwork for another Naked Gun movie.

17

OK, let’s say one grants that inexperience is unacceptable for someone who may become President.

And let’s posit for the moment that Palin’s experience, from having been in charge of only inadequately-big things like a multi-billon-dollar, multi-thousand-employee operation like a state government for only 2 years, as well as other experience, is inadequate.

Well then, if granting this then doesn’t it follow of necessity that Obama’s experience, which is absolutely zero of ever running or being in charge of anything or making any important decisions of any kind except for running his own campaigns for office, is also at least as inadequate?

Then, if granting that, does it follow that it’s better to have the unqualified person be the head of the ticket, pretty much guaranteed if elected to serve as President of the United States, rather than be unqualified but if that ticket is elected, only potentially winding up as President?

Nope, Obama supporters who want to claim Palin’s experience isn’t enough and therefore one should not vote for McCain are also saying, to any logical and non-brainwashed person, that even more so one should not vote for Obama.

Claiming that it’s OK for Obama to be as inexperienced as he is but not for Palin to be at her level of experience is just whacked.

18

Lets explain this experience thing in training terms.

You don’t take training advice from noobys.

Experience should lead.

50x

19

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
OK, let’s say one grants that inexperience is unacceptable for someone who may become President.

And let’s posit for the moment that Palin’s experience, from having been in charge of only inadequately-big things like a multi-billon-dollar, multi-thousand-employee operation like a state government for only 2 years, as well as other experience, is inadequate.

Well then, if granting this then doesn’t it follow of necessity that Obama’s experience, which is absolutely zero of ever running or being in charge of anything or making any important decisions of any kind except for running his own campaigns for office, is also at least as inadequate?

Then, if granting that, does it follow that it’s better to have the unqualified person be the head of the ticket, pretty much guaranteed if elected to serve as President of the United States, rather than be unqualified but if that ticket is elected, only potentially winding up as President?

Nope, Obama supporters who want to claim Palin’s experience isn’t enough and therefore one should not vote for McCain are also saying, to any logical and non-brainwashed person, that even more so one should not vote for Obama.

Claiming that it’s OK for Obama to be as inexperienced as he is but not for Palin to be at her level of experience is just whacked.[/quote]

I would pretty much agree on this. It makes the whole experience argument a wash for both sides in my view. I would say, though, that I interned for my Senator. While governors function in an executive manner closer to that which they would act as president, senators often deal much more closely with the types of issues they’ll be facing as president even if they don’t get to make the ultimate decisions. Of course, that is as a general matter. That’s not to say that Obama in particular has served on committees or actively dealt with the issues necessary to prepare him to lead during his time in the Senate. At the least, however, the Republicans lose credibility and attacks on Obama’s own experience ring a bit falser.

   Each party is going to put their own spin on it. The Democrats will say that Obama has encountered and dealt with the issues necessary to prepare him to be president even though not in an executive capacity while Palin has not. Republicans will say that Palin has executive experience and that she is not running for president in any case. 

   For my own part, I'm least concerned with the electability aspect. People too easily get caught up in tactics and forget that one of these tickets is going to be running this country. Whether or not Obama has enough experience doesn't mean that McCain should pick a running-mate who is ill-prepared to lead because she has some admirable qualities and positions that appeal to they party base. Particularly because she is more likely to actually take the presidency than most VPs given McCain's age and medical history.
20

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Then, if granting that, does it follow that it’s better to have the unqualified person be the head of the ticket, pretty much guaranteed if elected to serve as President of the United States, rather than be unqualified but if that ticket is elected, only potentially winding up as President?

Nope, Obama supporters who want to claim Palin’s experience isn’t enough and therefore one should not vote for McCain are also saying, to any logical and non-brainwashed person, that even more so one should not vote for Obama.

Claiming that it’s OK for Obama to be as inexperienced as he is but not for Palin to be at her level of experience is just whacked.[/quote]

Well-stated.

It should also be noted that Obama declared his bid for the Presidency after 150 days in the Senate (and thus making his real full-time job campaigning after that) - Palin has been governing Alaska nearly triple that number of days.

There isn’t legitimate way for Obama or his supporters to make an argument against Palin’s experience without coming off as complete buffoons.