RE: President Palin? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

subtee -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:29:47 PM)

Still not an answer to my question. Would you meet the person more than 1 or 2 times?



Thadius -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:30:42 PM)

They may have only met face to face a couple of times, that doesn't rule out talking on the phone, or the fact that folks he trusts did the vetting and checking.

Sure it is a risky pick, just like those picks for the Supreme Court or any other nomination that the President will make.  I honestly believe he thinks the upside outweighs the down, and if nothing else it introduces a very interesting woman to the rest of the country and world.



NumberSix -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:31:00 PM)

Experience?

Are you kidding me?

Who can you reach out to on Linked in that has dealt with a Russian invasion of Georgia, and has a Doctorate in it? 

John Kenneth Galbraith or some fuckin' geek like that?

Those are the people as a manager, you hide in the backroom and don't let them talk to the public, and certainly not people who you elect.

I am more comfortable with presidents who are somewhat on edge about dealing with a russia that says Tak YOU! than I am with a 'seasoned veteran' that says I have the experience to straighten these motherfuckers out.

No one in this world has led a country until they have done it, and the best in the world have not been professional politicos with another notch.

George Washington only became commander of our Armies because the United States offered him Major General and the British were waffleing about colonel or some such shit.

Lech Walensa was an electrician in a shipyard.

Adolph Hitler was a politician.
Joseph Stalin was a politician.



Whatever.

6



Alumbrado -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:32:57 PM)

quote:

So if you were to align your future and your (lifetime?) goal and ambition to a person who could potentially make or break it for you, and with whom you would need to work for at least the next 4 years, you wouldn't need to really know that person? You would leave it to committee?


What I would want has no bearing on how the process works in the political world.

And how many winning presidential campaigns have been lost because the VP nominee had 'not enough' foreign policy experience anyway?  You are talking abut keeping up with the likes of Dan Quayle, Lloyd Bentsen, Fritz Mondale, Geraldine Ferraro, Jack Kemp and Spiro T. Agnew for crying out loud... it isn't like they are going to let them fly Air Force1 over Beijing or anything...



SilverWulf -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:35:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

Still not an answer to my question. Would you meet the person more than 1 or 2 times?


With the absolutely insane schedule and time demands faced by a candidate for the highest office in this land, one or two times may be all that is possible. 

McCain had to trust his vetting team and rely on his many years of experience in dealing with people when making this choice, I think he did a fine job.



Thadius -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:35:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

You are trying to knock this woman down because she has no experience with war, yet the TOP of the ticket on the other side has arguably less experience dealing with foreign countries.  So how is it not relevant? 



I haven't seen much of knocking her down. But even you must admit that one must be made of solid stuff to cope with the public scrutiny that comes with the jobs she (and all the others) are covetting: a little shaking shouldn't do Palin any harm at all. I think all the questions asked are very relevant, and your answer that Rice is 'too close to Bush' illuminating: by your own admission then, an election has nothing to do with competence or experience, or political savvy. It's about political loyalties and affiliation. Thanks for confirming that.


How about the possibility that McCain is different than Bush?  Perhaps, he has a different vision of the way things should go.  Also, do you know where Condie stands on any of the social or economical issues?  I don't.

Please don't try putting words in my mouth.  Where did I say that the election has nothing to do with experience or competence?  I think I have been raising that issue quite a bit around here. 



Hippiekinkster -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:37:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Ah well, Iraq... that's an excellent introduction to the foreign policy of the United States [>:].

I wonder about something: why Sarah Palin, and not Condoleeza Rice? She's a woman as well, with TONS of experience. Hmmmm [sm=idea.gif]...
Ineligeble. She's a Klingon  [sm=violin.gif]



Thadius -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:37:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NumberSix


George Washington only became commander of our Armies because the United States offered him Major General and the British were waffleing about colonel or some such shit.




Don't forget that he was willing to put his own money behind outfitting a militia... [;)]



kittinSol -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:39:28 PM)

Just as I thought. The Republicans have no other choice than to trumpet their approval of McCain's choice for vice president. In the name of party unity, they have to applaud and make the right noises. Are they that arrogant that they believe that the electorate will be fooled by this bullshit? Because so far the spectacle has been pitiful, and not in the least convincing. It's actually a shame for democracy, but a similar thing happened to the Conservative party in the UK. They're still getting it together eleven years after last being in power, but they'll regroup eventually. You can only hope the GOP will go through the same process.



subtee -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:41:37 PM)

Hi Ron.

As I said, I'm asking questions. I'm flabbergasted by the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's VP. I'm flabbergasted that if they had vetted and investigated her with any diligence they would have chosen to move ahead in light of some (to me), very red flags.

I'm thinking she must have duped them...I don't know.



kittinSol -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:42:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

I'm thinking she must have duped them...I don't know.



I think they are desperate and practicing the best demagogy they can.



SilverWulf -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:43:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Just as I thought. The Republicans have no other choice than to trumpet their approval of McCain's choice for vice president. In the name of party unity, they have to applaud and make the right noises. Are they that arrogant that they believe that the electorate will be fooled by this bullshit?


Just like the Democrats are having to do with Biden.

Wake up, kittin, your rabid hatred of the Republicans is clouding your judgement.



kittinSol -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:44:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverWulf

Wake up, kittin, your rabid hatred of the Republicans is clouding your judgement.



You are wrong: I have no hatred, just a visceral dislike (for the party, I might add, not for the people) [8D] . Hatred is something I try not to practice, as a general rule: it's not conducive to a good life.



SilverWulf -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:46:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverWulf

Wake up, kittin, your rabid hatred of the Republicans is clouding your judgement.



You are wrong: I have no hatred, just a visceral dislike (for the party, I might add, not for the people) [8D] . Hatred is something I try not to practice, as a general rule: it's not conducive to a good life.


Your 'visceral dislike' is coming across as something quite different and is getting even more 'visceral' as the days go on. 



Alumbrado -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:47:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

Hi Ron.

As I said, I'm asking questions. I'm flabbergasted by the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's VP. I'm flabbergasted that if they had vetted and investigated her with any diligence they would have chosen to move ahead in light of some (to me), very red flags.

I'm thinking she must have duped them...I don't know.



And how many of these red flags you've unearthed that the vetting team missed, are any more real or relevant than Obama's being sworn in on a Quran, or 'terrorist' middle name?

Or is it OK to swallow the hype unquestioningly if it is for the 'right' side?



caitlyn -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:48:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
I repeat: why not Condoleeza Rice? I don't ask for quotes and a plethora of links from partisan websites. I'm asking for opinions. You still haven't answered my question: I sense your nervousness. I understand it, because it's a scary time for the Republican party: big, big, big gamble.  


To understand the answer to this question, one has to set aside the notion that candidates are courting the woman vote, as if women aren't smart enough to see through something like that ... set aside who is taking a gamble, or who is a rock star ... and focus on what should be obvious, and realistic.
 
Both candidates picked someone that enhances their skill set, and helps cover their weaknesses.
 
Senator Obama selected a man with a great deal of foreign policy experience, who has a lot of friends in Congress ... two things Senator Obama has very little of. Credit to him for his choice.
 
Senator McCain picked someone that is strong with the conservative base ... something he is not. He picked someone seen as strong on domestic issues and who is considered a young, up-and-coming corruption buster. Certainly Senator McCain offers none of those things ... credit to him for picking someone that does.
 
The short answer to your question, is that Secretary Rice offers nothing to the Republican ticket. Her skill in foreign policy is dwarfed by Senator McCains, and she offers nothing in the areas of domestic policy and corruption busting.
 
One thing is sure ... our choice is considerably better with Senator Biden and Governor Palin added to these tickets. I see them as two outstanding choices that enhance the abilities of the candidate they serve.



Sanity -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:49:27 PM)

I think I'm seeing shrill desperation, rather than hatred. 



NumberSix -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:49:55 PM)

OK, enough funning.

I think it was valourous.

it is going to be a rout, you know it kittie, I know it John McCain knows it and damn near anyone who is not  Rush Limbaugh in their gonads know it.

Conservative women make up a great deal of the GOP, and they are not so sure that they want to be more than blue star mothers, and have to go gor the gold.

What is true, is that John McCain will not win ratcatcher nor will anyone in the GOP (for the most part) in the next election.

But he has brought up women beyond cunts in the party, and from this day forward, every national political discussion will have to deal with the other half of male female america, much as they will have to deal with the america that is translucent and coloured.

For that, he got a pass coming from me, 'cause you wouldn't have got that outta Mitt Romney-----------

Oh, don't get me wrong, you could be my cunt, but you have a choice now, cuint or not; not something you had before in the GOP.

Abraham Lincoln



SilverWulf -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:53:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

I think I'm seeing shrill desperation, rather than hatred. 


Perhaps... predictable, whichever it may be.



subtee -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 8:56:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado



And how many of these red flags you've unearthed that the vetting team missed, are any more real or relevant than Obama's being sworn in on a Quran, or 'terrorist' middle name?

Or is it OK to swallow the hype unquestioningly if it is for the 'right' side?


I don't think I'm swallowing anything unquestioningly. Do you really think I am?

I think it's problematic that McCain apparently didn't know her well.
I think it's problematic that she seems to have lied about the investigation currently ongoing into her conduct. I think it's problematic that she is currently being investigated and is still touted as the best choice for VP.
I think it's problematic that she apparently has also lied about the so-called "bridge to nowhere":The McCain campaign has been flagging this pretty aggressively this afternoon. It's a shame, then, that Palin wasn't exactly telling the truth. As TNR's Brad Plumer explained, Palin actually supported the funding for the much-derided bridge project.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_08/014466.php



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.320313E-02