by The Young Sentinel
As you know, on Friday August 29 John McCain picked a complete unknown, Sarah Palin of Alaska, to be his running mate. I heard the news from the man behind me as I was going through security at the Denver airport. When I mentioned that McCain was set to announce his VP that day (I had not had a chance to check the news yet: the decision didn't make the papers), he responded blithely, "Palin. He chose Palin."
I raised my eyebrows. I knew the name from my studies of the 2006 Governor's races. But, having only seen her name in print, I at first didn't make the connection. "Pall-in, of Alaska?" I asked him, bewildered. A torrent of thoughts flooded through my head. My initial reactions were worth considering, as they shed interesting light on the situation.
Continued: Click "Read More"
1. Why did they announce Friday morning? Nobody checks the papers on Saturday, and nobody watches Sunday night. Traditionally, in politics, you announce the good things Monday night: capture the most news cycles. Announcements in which you want to minimize awareness are scheduled for Friday, because the fewest people pay attention over the weekends. What are they trying to hide? I asked. Nobody knew. I took of my shoes and emptied my pockets into the tub, turning back to finish my thought as I walked through the metal detector.
2. Biden will DESTROY her in a debate. Doing some quick math, I calculated that he had 24 times as much experience as she did. Plus, he was in the US Senate, chairing committees, grilling supreme court nominees, and forging personal relationships with world leaders. What has she accomplished as Governor of Alaska?
3. McCain retaliated against his advisors. It had been common knowledge in the days before that McCain had wanted to pick Lieberman. This makes sense: Lieberman is a friend and confidant who has decades of Senate experience. He would also reinforce McCain's standard image: that of a maverick unafraid to pick a Democrat (ignoring, of course, that Lieberman is persona non grata in both Democratic and Connecticut circles). The buzz on the blogs over the past few days had been that Rove had talked McCain out of Lieberman. McCain had clearly exhibited a reluctance to pick Romney, probably the most conventional and strongest choice, with business experience and family ties to Michigan. This suggests that McCain didn't want to pick someone he didn't like (Romney ran a nasty, negative campaign). I know that his advisors were advocating Romney, a traditional and solid choice.
4. Didn't she support the Bridge to Nowhere? Yes, during the 2006 campaign she was derided by bloggers by standing with disgraced Alaska Senator Ted Stevens in support of the infamous "Bridge To Nowhere" which would have appropriated over $300 million of federal money to build a bridge to a tiny island with a population of less than a thousand to save the residents a ten minute ferry ride. It turns out that she was for it...before she was against it.
5. It invalidates McCain's argument that Obama has no experience. 'Nuff said.
In sum: having come from a convention where I was derided by literally dozens of Hillary supporters from believing that her base would desert the Democrats, I remain unconvinced that the nod was a wise one. Undoubtedly, the Republicans will try to spin her daughter's pregnancy into a positive, but I cannot believe that Hillary's supporters are willing to abandon every issue and policy opinion they care about just for the sake of having a woman in the White House
22 comments:
Haven't spoken yet in a while but here it goes-
I believe you missed a key point that will go towards many social conservatives and independents (key voters McCain needs).
Being 72 going on 73, there is an accepted agreement that he could die in office. I most positive that many Americans would not want a 44 year old governor from Alaska with limited experience whatsoever to run this country were this to happen (McCain's death or inability to perform the duties of President).
~A Moderate
That is indeed so. Being the governor of Alaska does not exactly prepare you to be president of the United States. A similar situation existed with Rudy Giuliani—just because you were the mayor of New York during 9/11 does not mean you are ready to become a major world leader.
This is quite typical of the liberal media machine. Here are my pointers:
1. What foreign policy experience does Obama have? Palin has dealt with disputes with neighboring Canada and Russia
2. Why doesn't the liberal media focus on the fact that Palin crossed party lines to resolve political differences? She fought corruption against the republicans, but you never hear the liberals mention that
3. Palin has more experience than Obama. With FOX news looking into it, less than 180 days have been recorded by Obama as actually in the senate voting. And when he did vote, he voted over 100 times "present." Where do you see the media smash him on that? That is a lack of judgment.
4. Palin received more votes as mayor in her small, unknown, town than Joe Biden did running for president.
5. MCCAIN WILL SMASH OBAMA IN DEBATES. I noticed that McCain has more than 11 times more experience than Obama.
6. Obama has received the following endorsements:
1.Former KKK kleagle now senator: Robert Byrd
2.Terrorist organization: Hamas
3.Vietnam Traitor: "Hanoi" Jane Fonda.
4.Racist Member of Nation of Islam: Louis Farrakhan
5.Chicago Slum Lord: Tony Rezko
6.Anti White Activist Group: The Black Panthers
7.Liberal Activist Terrorist: Bill Ayers
8.Brutal Communist Dictator: Fidel Castro
9.Degrading "Gangster" Rapper: Ludacris
So why? Why vote for this guy? 1 word: Influence.
(If you need me to prove these, just ask, and I will e-mail you)
1. You do realize that Obama is part of the Senate *Foreign Policy* committee, and has been to many countries as part of this work?
2. If you'd actually read some of the more in depth articles in the media, they do make it clear that Palin has fought against corruption. They also make it clear that the Palin that fought against corruption is not the same Palin that accepted McCain's nomination. (2 weeks before the choice she actually praised Obama's success in Alaska) And that's even without delving in the whole Bridge to Nowhere pack of lies
3. Source please? There are many ways to spin data to make people look bad
4. I fail to see what relevance this has at all. Compare Palin's votes with Biden's in his Senate campaigns and you'll have at least made a valid comparison, though it'll still be meaningless
5. Perhaps. On the other hand Obama is a known rhetorical and oratorical master which might help even the playing field somewhat. Its debateable
6. If you were a smart anti-American weighing who to endorse in an election, wouldn't you intentionally endorse the better candidate so the weaker one would get elected and weaken America further?
Yes, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but I can't help myself
I see; promoting my opinion is trolling. No conservatives on this site...
Anyways about your endorsment comment: I think it is ridiculous. Hamas endorsed Obama because he wants to withdraw our troops out of Iraq so they can be the ruling force again. McCain, on the other hand, wants to pressure Hamas even more, resulting in the weakness of Hamas forces. Now why would they want HIM to win? Obama called Rev Wright a "mentor" and called Ayers "a friend". "A friend"! Someone who bombed the pentagon and thought "He didn't do enough!"; he calls him a friend. Rezko gave Obama a $1 million dollar deal on his house: he doesnt want McCain to win. Ludacris said to "paint the white house black"; there is no way he wants McCain to win. Castro wanted Obama to win because Obama wants to end the embargo on Cuba. Castro does NOT want McCain to win. Your entire argument is void.
"There are many ways to spin data to make people look bad"
I agree completely. Ive watched NBC News, CNN news, ABC news, and MSNBC news roast Palin for the past week for something that doesn't even effect her leadership. I haven't seen a single news program that shows her crossing party lines to strengthen Alaska.
Location of 100 present:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080821190018AARva5v
First off, if your arguments had any merit people wouldn't need to be conservative to appreciate them; they'd be swayed by their logic. I myself am an independent moderate, I've disagreed with many liberal memebers of this site, and I disagree with many conservative ideas as well. Don't blame the inability of your arguments to persuade people on ideological bias.
Assume for a second that Fidel Castro, the leaders of Hamas, etc are reasonably intelligent people. They know just how little weight their word has in the US, they know that their endorsement would only hurt Obama. So, if they want him to win why would they endorse him?
Besides, the entire "x endorsed you, and x is racist/bigoted/homicidal so therefore you must be racist/bigoted/homicidal" argument is one of the most pointless arguments ever, one created by the media to help feed the controversy that drives up their ratings. Why in God's name should you care who likes Obama. What should matter to you is what you like/dislike about his policies, a discussion that I'd love to have.
By the "spin data" comment I meant that such numbers are useless without context. Its late and I'm tired so I'm not going to look up context right now, but what exactly does 100 times mean in the grand scale of things? What are the averages for other Senators running for office? What was Hillary's ratio of missed/"present" votes to actual votes when she was running? What is McCain's record? I don't know the answers to these questions, and until I don't have enough information to evaluate isolated factoids like that.
"doesn't even effect her leadership."
Affect. Ha ha. Ich Bin Ein Grammar Nazi.
Pay attention, smart one. Hamas isn't anywhere near Iraq. The Israelis have 200 nukes. They don't need our help.
yahoo answers isnt a source.
fyi, the argument is ad hominem, misdeclaration of guilt by association and poisoning the well.
There are neo-Nazi groups that support the Republicans. Does that mean all Republicans are neo-Nazis?
Name a dispute (or any contact at all) that has taken place between Palin and anyone from or in Russia. In case you hadn't noticed, no one lives within a thousand miles of that part of Russia.
Cuba has universal health care, something which we apparently can't afford in the US. Don't you think there are a couple of things we can learn from them?
In 2006 at the Jefferson Jackson dinner, Lieberman called himself Obama's "mentor". Is he? I'll let you answer that.
I don't care what Lieberman says (though I would appreciate that link. But if it's at Moveon or Politco or Daily Kos; don't bother); he is not the republican nominee for president. What I do care about are the interminable smears done by the liberal media to Palin.
To Rishubhav: I judge Obama because of his close connections to (least I could say) controvertial people. I judge Obama by who he associates with; it shows his true character. I don't care whether Hamas is part of Iraq *cough* Anonymous *cough*. They are terrorists. And that is enough to know that anyone they support means they approve of that candidates respective Policies...Something you apparently were very intent on discussing. Remember, Obama's policy: Surrender. If I was a terrorist, (which I'm not, but I'm conservative so by definition I am on this site) I would love that the greatest threat to me would return to wherever country they came from, so I can continue work on my nefarious plans. Now McCain's policy: Force. Force is the only thing that these terrorists seem to take effect from (I don't care if you think I am grammatically wrong).
To Anonymous: Check the link inside the post.
To Young Sentinel: As for my opinion on universal healthcare: I loathe it. I 100% despise it. If you want to know why, an article in my blog describes it. We were in a taxi in Scotland and a man says their economy was in the gutter because of meaningless government spending; specifically he said "socialized medicine"...
And Cuba is communist! Of course they have universal healthcare! Besides, do you honestly think that the doctors in Cuba are better then the professionals we have here? What esteemed medical school do the Cuban doctors spawn from?
Personally, I would much rather have 8 years experience of a Vice President, compared to 2 years experience as THE President!
(Haha! Three one one! Sounds like a daily episode of Bill Maher's show!)
One more thing Rishubhav: I have posted on previous posts: What issues are you conservative on?
I find Palin likable. I have a person connection to her; thus, I am biased. I will say she is a force to not be forgotten and is achieving great things for women in the Republican Party.
@true conservatism
"And Cuba is communist!"
I'll have a post about that presently.
Look. I am a democrat, but there is merit to her pick. I despise all of her policies, but she will connect with blue collar down home independants. Unfortunately, she has a higher favorable rating than obama, mccain, and biden. I urge Obama and democrats not to overlook her because she is the most dangerous part of the ticket
by the way true conservitism. Biden's presidential campaigns did not have the money or organization to beat obama and clinton. So the fact that palin got 30,000 more votes is completely irrevelant. Biden is the chair of the foreign relations commitee, this shows obama will put people around him who are smart and well versed in todays economic and foreign affairs. Mccain made a purely political pick in palin, proving that his slogan should be "me First, Country second"
Young Democrat: I supported Hillary at one point for President not because or in spite of the fact she is a woman. I supported her because she was the best candidate for the job.
This is not to say that the forces of sexism are still at work in this country, but it does mean that we (and the American people) should judge Palin without compensating in either direction because of her gender.
One of my biggest problems with the media's treatment of Obama. He is not a black man who happens to be running for President. He is a man running for President that happens to be black. As this does not make him any more or less qualified for the job, it should not be discussed or considered.
I like the idea of a woman in the White House, as it would send a message to the world that America has become more accepting and tolerant. But electing a woman (or a black man, or a Jew, or a gay person, or a member of any other such group) should be an end, not a means.
The end should be a better leader, one that will bring the country in the right direction. If the means is a woman, so be it. It it is not, then so be it.
Let's get this out of our national discourse and start comparing the candidates on their merits.
to realistguy:
Fine. Palin having more votes than Biden is irrelevant. But to say that "me first, country second" is ridiculous. McCain has proved his whole life that he his driven into helping the American people. There is a reason why he has enemies in the democrat and republican party. His speech last night was absolutely incredible; the last half about his Vietnam experience was incredibly heart-breaking. He has always put country first. He even knocked down a great deal of the events that were scheduled for the 1st day of the RNC to focus on the victims of Hurricane Gustav. Go ahead, criticize his polices; I couldn't care less. But don't say he loves himself more than his country.
Also: Obama made a purely political pick in Biden. Foreign policy is all he wanted. McCain picked Palin because of Hillary not being on the ticket, of course, but also because she is a maverick. Palin was unpopular in her own party because she stood up to corruption. Now that is real change. If Obama wanted a "new kind of politics", he would have picked Tim Kaine or a conservative/republican. But he didn't. The only new kind of politics I see here is that of McCain, who even said that he is focused more on shaking up Washington then serving just the republican party.
John McCain 2008
true conservative. I meant "Party first, Country second" We saw that at the convention. Remind me though, what does being a heroic pow have to do with being president?
Love of country, something I have a feeling Barack lacks. If you don't love this country, you do not deserve to be its leader.
My father is a member of the Palin Administration in Alaska; he is her chief legal counsel and leader in natural gas litigation.
As a consequence of this situation, I cannot get into discussions pertaining to her ambitions. qualifications, and other general affairs. (IE Young Sentinel comment).
I will say, from my own kin's interaction with the Governor, that she is leader of integrity, honor, and service.
I do not back all of what Sarah believes. But I am a champion of who she is. Her cabinet is full of Democrats (ie my father) and Independants, she has a fascinating story, and dedication to making this country a better place in her own way (just as we are).
Overall, her work in Alaska has been of a moderate maverick- look at the labor she did with my father on pipeline, etc. (all inclusive).
In view of the fact that I cannot get into further details without (potentially) hurting my father's occupation patronage relationship, I withdraw from this discussion.
Young Democrat
I'm extremely upset with all of the debate surrounding true conservatism's points.
To true conservatism: I'm very sorry for all of the negative comments against you and your ideas. While I can't say I agree with all of those ideas, I can say that everyone else was out of line in their responses. I think you might be happier on a less liberal forum.
To everyone else: We don't all think the same way, OK? Lay off a little.
- WashDCDemocrat
P.S. - My blogger account won't work; I'm posting as anonymous.
WashDCDemocrat:
Pleased to see that you're reading the blog. When we respond to True Conservative, we don't use character responses like the ones he uses when he talks about Democratic politicians. We don't question whether McCain loves his country.
We are pleased to engage in logical debate with anyone willing to engage in it. But debate is pointless and counterproductive if the debaters do not construct their arguments with sound logic and facts. We point out the holes that mar True Conservative's argument, and he is free to point out ours. Such is the nature of debate.
Thanks, man.
Back on topic, I heard the insane claim that Palin has foreign policy experience just by being near Russia. (FOX News. Bastards.) State goveners have no say in foreign policy; anyone who has taken a month of NSL Government in high school knows that. Obama was in Congress and, thus, HAS dealt with foreign affairs.
In addition, the claim that Obama, due to lack of time in the Senate, is unqualified. Untrue. It's not how often you vote. It's how you vote - period. And in the short time Obama was in the Senate, he politically and morally surpassed most votes cast by John McCain.
As for rishubhav's claim to true conservatism regarding trolling, it is kinda trolling if you post every other comment on a blog to argue - politics or otherwise. Again I suggest that he move to a conservative blog.
- WashDCDemocrat
P.S. - Blogger sign-in has yet to work.
"Young Sentinel correspondents are progressive students around the country."
I knew for a while that there was a slant to this site. However, I thought that you would appreciate someone who gave competition. Rather, you would live in your liberal fantasy world.
But do not fret. I plan to post until this election day, aka, the day John McCain wins.
Yours Truly,
True Conservatism
(Also to Wash DC Democrat:
"It's not how often you vote. It's how you vote - period".
I take both into account. But it is kinda hard to judge how Obama votes when he voted present on over 120 critical bills including abortion and gun rights.
As for him "MORALLY VOTIMNG" I knew that statement was a little (to say the least) strange when I heard he voted 3(!!!) times on this issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA.
McCain has actually reached across the aisle with Feingold when he passed the "McCain-Feingold" bill. When has Obama reached across the aisle? Though, I don't really expect him to reach across the aisle as the number one most liberal senator in the senate. It's even harder to reach across the aisle when you spend most of your senate time out campaigning.)
Post a Comment