Could it be Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as McCain's VP?

[Good Luck]

Here is the thing I see:

Obama has, from the beginning, been running on a campaign of change. But, when the rubber hts the pavement, which team currently represent the greater potential for change? On the democratic ticket, we have two staunch democrats who have rarely (if ever) bucked the tide of the democratic party. Obama given lip service to change, but the planks in his platform have been the basic standardized planks of the democratic party for decades.

and other the other side we have the McCain/Palin: two republicans whose reputations have been built on actually bucking the system, taking on their own party when they feel it is appropriate. One basic concern of the RNC (to the glee of the democrats) is how little liked McCain is among staunch republicans. Add to the ticket a woman who has built her political reputation on anti-corruption - even when it means denouncing one of her own (republicans that is) and we get a ticket that exudes the potential for change in a manner that Obama can only dream about. If change is, indeed, what the average voter (as in ignoring those who vote exclusively based on the party affiliation) is looking for, then a McCain/Palin ticket has much more of that appeal (if presented properly) than Obama/Biden ever will.

I have to admit, as a former staunch democrat (with admittedly strong conservative leanings) adding Palin to the ticket has got me actually interested in the idea of voting for a republican president for the first time in my life.

 

[Bonestorm]

Here is the thing I see:

Obama has, from the beginning, been running on a campaign of change. But, when the rubber hts the pavement, which team currently represent the greater potential for change? On the democratic ticket, we have two staunch democrats who have rarely (if ever) bucked the tide of the democratic party. Obama given lip service to change, but the planks in his platform have been the basic standardized planks of the democratic party for decades.

and other the other side we have the McCain/Palin: two republicans whose reputations have been built on actually bucking the system, taking on their own party when they feel it is appropriate. One basic concern of the RNC (to the glee of the democrats) is how little liked McCain is among staunch republicans. Add to the ticket a woman who has built her political reputation on anti-corruption - even when it means denouncing one of her own (republicans that is) and we get a ticket that exudes the potential for change in a manner that Obama can only dream about. If change is, indeed, what the average voter (as in ignoring those who vote exclusively based on the party affiliation) is looking for, then a McCain/Palin ticket has much more of that appeal (if presented properly) than Obama/Biden ever will.

I have to admit, as a former staunch democrat (with admittedly strong conservative leanings) adding Palin to the ticket has got me actually interested in the idea of voting for a republican president for the first time in my life.

Aside from bullshit platitudes, on what issues does McCain-Palin represent change from Bush-Cheney? Seriously.

Wherever McCain was potentially different from Bush-McCain, Palin makes up for it.

 

[Good Luck]

Aside from bullshit platitudes, on what issues does McCain-Palin represent change from Bush-Cheney? Seriously.

Wherever McCain was potentially different from Bush-McCain, Palin makes up for it.

All you need do is look at McCain's voting record. He has parted from Bush on many occasions, and on issues important to the democrats. That is, of course, if one were to actually be intellectually honest and not a brain dead partisan twit. There is a reason the far right (ie: neo cons), whom have been reasonably content under Bush, are not happy with McCain as a choice. Of course, recently McCain has been making Bush like noises, pandering to the far right. But the far right knows MCCain is no Bushite - hence their dissatisfaction with McCain. (if, again, one were being honest about it.) As such, the whole "McSame" label is a contrivance of the far left.

We also see Obama doing his fair share of pandering. Clinton did her share of pandering during the primaries. Pandering is what happens during a campaign. Far more important is the political record of each individual. Their past is a much better indicator of how they will act in the future than campaign promises. Once again, anyone with a gnat's eyelash worth of honesty sees and understands that. It's why informed voters research politicians' records and take campaign promises with the large salt mine they are meant to be taken with.

 

[ib1yysguy]

He's parted from Bush about 10 percent of the time.

 

[Bonestorm]

All you need do is look at McCain's voting record. He has parted from Bush on many occasions, and on issues important to the democrats. That is, of course, if one were to actually be intellectually honest and not a brain dead partisan twit. There is a reason the far right (ie: neo cons), whom have been reasonably content under Bush, are not happy with McCain as a choice. Of course, recently McCain has been making Bush like noises, pandering to the far right. But the far right knows MCCain is no Bushite - hence their dissatisfaction with McCain. (if, again, one were being honest about it.) As such, the whole "McSame" label is a contrivance of the far left.

We also see Obama doing his fair share of pandering. Clinton did her share of pandering during the primaries. Pandering is what happens during a campaign. Far more important is the political record of each individual. Their past is a much better indicator of how they will act in the future than campaign promises. Once again, anyone with a gnat's eyelash worth of honesty sees and understands that. It's why informed voters research politicians' records and take campaign promises with the large salt mine they are meant to be taken with.

First of all, if the issues are so numerous you could name them. Additionally, rather than talking about McCain's record, let's talk about his policy proposals. What policy proposals that he is currently running on differ from Bush? His record since 2000, as wiseguy points out, average voting with Bush 90% of the time.

Secondly, you've got your fact wrong. McCain is the choice of the neo-cons. He was the choice of the neo-cons back in 2000. The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol and the whole lots love McCain.

Third, as I said, where McCain is deficient (among the evangelical bases) Palin makes up for it. She believes in abortion only to save the life of the mother and doesn't believe in permitting abortion in cases of incest and rape. She supports instruction in creationism. She rejects that man has a role in global warming.

 

[Good Luck]

First of all, if the issues are so numerous you could name them. Additionally, rather than talking about McCain's record, let's talk about his policy proposals. What policy proposals that he is currently running on differ from Bush? His record since 2000, as wiseguy points out, average voting with Bush 90% of the time.

Secondly, you've got your fact wrong. McCain is the choice of the neo-cons. He was the choice of the neo-cons back in 2000. The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol and the whole lots love McCain.

Third, as I said, where McCain is deficient (among the evangelical bases) Palin makes up for it. She believes in abortion only to save the life of the mother and doesn't believe in permitting abortion in cases of incest and rape. She supports instruction in creationism. She rejects that man has a role in global warming.

No, the neo cons do NOT like McCain. You are either a blind partisan liar claiming they do, or completely out of touch with anything not heel and toe with your particular view. Try taking a look at some of the conservative discussion sights and you will see a LOT of disgruntled neocons bitching about McCain. It was their maneuvering and lies that pushed Bush in front of McCain in 2000 to end up with the current mess.

And I already addressed why I don't pay a lot of attention to his policy proposals - they are campaign promises. (ie: pandering to select voting blocks) Anyone who actually BELIEVES campaign promises - even from someone they aren't going to vote for - is a brain dead idiot. McCain's voting record is what is important. 90% voting with the republicans is to be expected - after all McCain IS REPUBLICAN. (duh) 10% (Actually higher than that) voting against party is significant. Show me a single front line democrat who has voted against the straight democratic line 10% of the time. If you find any I can guarantee Obama will not be on the list.

McCain also argued against many bills he ended up voting with, and was a significant influence in moderating a bunch of the crap proposed by Bush & Co. The way he argued in some areas, such as Patriot Acts I and II, tax cut distribution, etc., indicates that those issues would NOT be approached in the same manner with McCain in the lead instead of Bush. yes he voted with the republicans in the end. But in many cases what he voted on was not what Bush asked for - and McCain was part of the influence that pushed things in a direction not of Bush's liking. It's all available in the congressional record, which is accessible online if you have a genuine desire to look at factual information as opposed to the partisan parroting you echo so continuously.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, the neo cons do NOT like McCain. You are either a blind partisan liar claiming they do, or completely out of touch with anything not heel and toe with your particular view. Try taking a look at some of the conservative discussion sights and you will see a LOT of disgruntled neocons bitching about McCain. It was their maneuvering and lies that pushed Bush in front of McCain in 2000 to end up with the current mess.

And I already addressed why I don't pay a lot of attention to his policy proposals - they are campaign promises. (ie: pandering to select voting blocks) Anyone who actually BELIEVES campaign promises - even from someone they aren't going to vote for - is a brain dead idiot. McCain's voting record is what is important. 90% voting with the republicans is to be expected - after all McCain IS REPUBLICAN. (duh) 10% (Actually higher than that) voting against party is significant. Show me a single front line democrat who has voted against the straight democratic line 10% of the time. If you find any I can guarantee Obama will not be on the list.

McCain also argued against many bills he ended up voting with, and was a significant influence in moderating a bunch of the crap proposed by Bush & Co. The way he argued in some areas, such as Patriot Acts I and II, tax cut distribution, etc., indicates that those issues would NOT be approached in the same manner with McCain in the lead instead of Bush. yes he voted with the republicans in the end. But in many cases what he voted on was not what Bush asked for - and McCain was part of the influence that pushed things in a direction not of Bush's liking. It's all available in the congressional record, which is accessible online if you have a genuine desire to look at factual information as opposed to the partisan parroting you echo so continuously.

You're completely wrong about the neo-cons and McCain. Completely. McCain was an is more hawkish than Bush on foreign policy and makes little attempt to hide it. Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, a neo-conservative magazine, and chairman and co-founder of People for a New American Century supported McCain in 2000 and supports him now. McCain has been in the neo-con camp since the late 1990s. It isn't really something that is in dispute. There are few, if any, neo-cons that don't like McCain. There may be conservatives that don't like McCain, but the neo-cons aren't among them. If they dislike McCain, it has zero to do with his foreign policy positions. Go read McCain's "Rogue State Rollback" op-ed published in the Weekly Standard a few years ago. It's classic neo-conservativism.

And the issue here is how McCain will be different from Bush. You claim that he will be different, yet you still have not presented single issue on which he is offering something different from the Bush Administration. Not one.

Finally, you tell me I'm not supposed to believe what McCain says while campaigning even though it seems he really means it but I am supposed to believe what he says against a bill even though he votes for it? What the fuck is that all about? It gets confusing. Please show me where McCain stood up to Bush on a major issue. The only thing that comes to mind is torture, which is pretty much a no-brainer. Even there McCain agreed to allow the CIA to use torture instead of taking the principled position.

The burden is on you, my friend, to prove that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, is offering anything different.

 

[Good Luck]

I was going to try to explain again, and inviite you (again) to llok at the congresional records (where speeches are made to defend one's position on a bill, not to pander to a voting block) but then I realized that you are the political equivalent of the ignorant cowboy to whom all "injuns" look alike. To you, undoubtedly, any and all conservatives look alike, as does any and all who don't goose step to your political ideology.

But the bottom line is this choice has made a LOT of conservatives look on the McCain ticket much more favorably than they were prior to the announcement.

And the fact is that, whether you believe the reputations to be deserved or not, both McCain and Palin have reputations built on bucking the system (especially Palin's rep for going after corruption even within her own ranks) - and as such represent the idea of real change in government far more than do Obama and Biden, who, despite calling for "real change" in their rhetoric, are in fact heel-and-toe with the same basic democratic platform (with minor mods here and there) that has been touted since FDR.

 

[Bonestorm]

I was going to try to explain again, and inviite you (again) to llok at the congresional records (where speeches are made to defend one's position on a bill, not to pander to a voting block) but then I realized that you are the political equivalent of the ignorant cowboy to whom all "injuns" look alike. To you, undoubtedly, any and all conservatives look alike, as does any and all who don't goose step to your political ideology.

But the bottom line is this choice has made a LOT of conservatives look on the McCain ticket much more favorably than they were prior to the announcement.

And the fact is that, whether you believe the reputations to be deserved or not, both McCain and Palin have reputations built on bucking the system (especially Palin's rep for going after corruption even within her own ranks) - and as such represent the idea of real change in government far more than do Obama and Biden, who, despite calling for "real change" in their rhetoric, are in fact heel-and-toe with the same basic democratic platform (with minor mods here and there) that has been touted since FDR.

OK, you still have failed identify a singly policy position that McCain and Palin together have in conflict with what the bBush Administration has done over the past 8 years. Biden and Obama have clearly made their case and have explained what they will do differently from Bush-Cheney on pretty much every single major issue.

If Palin and McCain represent the real change, certainly you could tell how without resulting to more of the same platitudes. What policies will McCain and Plain pursue that distinguish them from Bush - Cheney?

 

[cawacko]

I was going to try to explain again, and inviite you (again) to llok at the congresional records (where speeches are made to defend one's position on a bill, not to pander to a voting block) but then I realized that you are the political equivalent of the ignorant cowboy to whom all "injuns" look alike. To you, undoubtedly, any and all conservatives look alike, as does any and all who don't goose step to your political ideology.

But the bottom line is this choice has made a LOT of conservatives look on the McCain ticket much more favorably than they were prior to the announcement.

And the fact is that, whether you believe the reputations to be deserved or not, both McCain and Palin have reputations built on bucking the system (especially Palin's rep for going after corruption even within her own ranks) - and as such represent the idea of real change in government far more than do Obama and Biden, who, despite calling for "real change" in their rhetoric, are in fact heel-and-toe with the same basic democratic platform (with minor mods here and there) that has been touted since FDR.

I agree with you here Good Luck. The "change" Obama is offering is that he's a Democrat not a Republican. As you stated his policy proposals and so forth are pretty much right in line with the past Democratic playbook. So yes it is a different playbook than the Republicans but it is not like he is offering something new or different than we have seen in the past.

 

[Cancel5]

I thought she was under investigation for something.

Replacing Monegan, head of the Alaska troopers for not using his power to have a trooper, her former brother in law, fired.

 

[Cancel5]

Surprising as it may seem, she is actually a clean government Alaskan Republican.

She has already confessed to smoking marijuana and she didn't like it!

 

[Cancel5]

Yeah, if you read the Wiki you can find out what it is about.

Her administration is very open and often beat people to the punch in releasing information.

She really is a clean-government republican.

Mrs. Clean, clean.

I like her, I respect her, I don't always agree with her. She has crossed party lines often.

 

[Cancel3]

Replacing Monegan, head of the Alaska troopers for not using his power to have a trooper, her former brother in law, fired.

But wasn't the situation one in which the trooper should have been fired?

At least she didn't claim she didn't inhale. lol

Good decent person, huh? Good deal. I'm glad we got info from someone living in Alaska.

 

[Good Luck]

OK, you still have failed identify a singly policy position that McCain and Palin together have in conflict with what the bBush Administration has done over the past 8 years. Biden and Obama have clearly made their case and have explained what they will do differently from Bush-Cheney on pretty much every single major issue.

If Palin and McCain represent the real change, certainly you could tell how without resulting to more of the same platitudes. What policies will McCain and Plain pursue that distinguish them from Bush - Cheney?

I already stated several, but you ignored it. McCain came out against several of the original provisions within the Patriot Act, as was a significant part of the moderating influence that stripped some of the worst from the bill before it was passed (which was bad enough, but it Could have been worse if the hard cores had their way). Again, look at the congressional record. When they argue over a bill, especially when in committee, they are NOT pandering, they are arguing what they believe does or does not belong in the bill being discussed.

Also, McCain has more military experience, even disregarding his POW experiences. Anyone who thinks he'd keep things the same in Iraq is not thinking. Maybe McCain won't withdraw as fast as Obama plans. But you can bet the military and political situations WILL change significantly over what Bush has done. If not withdrawing immediately is your only measure of the difference between Bush and McCain, then that is you blindness to reality, not a fault of McCain for not being different enough.

McCain also was a moderating influence on the tax cut bills. He openly opposed some of the cuts that were, indeed, aimed specifically at income of the wealthy, but fought for those cuts that benefitted the middle income classes more. Again, look to the congressional records. He is calling for additional cuts, thus bringing about a cry of pandering after his criticism of the last batch of cuts. But try looking at WHERE he wants to place those cuts, as they are not significantly dissimilar to where Obama has said HE wants to make cuts (ie: aimed much more at the middle class than the wealthy).

As for Palin, she has not only a reputation of despising corruption in government, she has a history of successfully going after it and rooting it out. Bush's admin is as corrupt as they come - Palin is a FAR change from that. She may be the VP candidate, but she is NOT the background type. She can and will influence a McCain administration in ways that McCain probably is not anticipating. And he'd better keep it on the straight and narrow, because Palin is not above going after the top when they screw up.

And THAT is the real type of change the people are calling for. The only change Obama represents is the change of R to D, but, in actuality, keeping the same corruption and graft that both parties have come to represent.

 

[Cancel5]

But wasn't the situation one in which the trooper should have been fired?

At least she didn't claim she didn't inhale. lol

Good decent person, huh? Good deal. I'm glad we got info from someone living in Alaska.

The trooper sounds like an awful law enforcement agent and an awful husband.

Marijuana was also legal in this state at the time she smoked. Not federal law, but state law! And the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled we may have four ounces for personal use.

 

[Cancel3]

The trooper sounds like an awful law enforcement agent and an awful husband.

Marijuana was also legal in this state at the time she smoked. Not federal law, but state law! And the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled we may have four ounces for personal use.

You can have 4 ounces for personal use and lots of wild game?

Sounds like Alaska is quite a place. If only my beloved would go to a colder climate. But alas, that won't happen.

 

[Cancel5]

You can have 4 ounces for personal use and lots of wild game?

Sounds like Alaska is quite a place. If only my beloved would go to a colder climate. But alas, that won't happen.

I don't blame her! I am getting where I really enjoy the sunnier climates. Ten days in Reno assured me I could live there!

 

[Cancel3]

I don't blame her! I am getting where I really enjoy the sunnier climates. Ten days in Reno assured me I could live there!

My sweetie wants to move to Venice or Sarasota FL after our daughter graduates. Until then its shared custody and no relocating.

I would like to at least spend a good portion of the year someplace farther north.

 

[Bonestorm]

I already stated several, but you ignored it. McCain came out against several of the original provisions within the Patriot Act, as was a significant part of the moderating influence that stripped some of the worst from the bill before it was passed (which was bad enough, but it Could have been worse if the hard cores had their way). Again, look at the congressional record. When they argue over a bill, especially when in committee, they are NOT pandering, they are arguing what they believe does or does not belong in the bill being discussed.

Also, McCain has more military experience, even disregarding his POW experiences. Anyone who thinks he'd keep things the same in Iraq is not thinking. Maybe McCain won't withdraw as fast as Obama plans. But you can bet the military and political situations WILL change significantly over what Bush has done. If not withdrawing immediately is your only measure of the difference between Bush and McCain, then that is you blindness to reality, not a fault of McCain for not being different enough.

McCain also was a moderating influence on the tax cut bills. He openly opposed some of the cuts that were, indeed, aimed specifically at income of the wealthy, but fought for those cuts that benefitted the middle income classes more. Again, look to the congressional records. He is calling for additional cuts, thus bringing about a cry of pandering after his criticism of the last batch of cuts. But try looking at WHERE he wants to place those cuts, as they are not significantly dissimilar to where Obama has said HE wants to make cuts (ie: aimed much more at the middle class than the wealthy).

As for Palin, she has not only a reputation of despising corruption in government, she has a history of successfully going after it and rooting it out. Bush's admin is as corrupt as they come - Palin is a FAR change from that. She may be the VP candidate, but she is NOT the background type. She can and will influence a McCain administration in ways that McCain probably is not anticipating. And he'd better keep it on the straight and narrow, because Palin is not above going after the top when they screw up.

And THAT is the real type of change the people are calling for. The only change Obama represents is the change of R to D, but, in actuality, keeping the same corruption and graft that both parties have come to represent.

1) I've checked again, and I don't see anything McCain said against the Patriot Act, either when it was first enacted or when it was reauthorized in 2006. Maybe you could help me out with a link or two showing what he said in opposition and how his opposition changed the bills. He didn't even offer any amendments, which is what Senators ususally do when they want to change a bill.

2) On Iraq, I guess you are right, McCain is different from Bush. Bush is actually waking up to the reality that we can't stay there forever and that the Iraqis don't want us there. McCain hasn't come around just yet. That's a change from Bush, just not a good one.

3) On tax cuts, you've got to be kidding me. Sure McCain voted against them in 2001, but then he voted to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2005 and his tax plan, like Bush's focuses most on the higher income folks, not the middle class. Obama's tax cuts are focused on low and middle income folks. You're way off base here:

4) Palin herself is pretty deeply mired in controversy over her own abuse of office, using her position of power to punish her former brother in law. Granted she did take on corruption in AK, but the idea that she is squeaky clean is laughable.