McCain Continues to Confound Me!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let me first say, I like Sarah Palin, she is an intelligent and attractive conservative woman, who is very articulate and strong... I like that in a woman, it is a major turn-on. I agree with her politically, I think she is a great spokesperson for the conservative ideology. I think she would have been an excellent choice as a keynote speaker at the convention, or any number of cabinet-level appointments in a McCain Administration.... but VP????

McCain has always confounded me. It almost seems as if he does a Clintonesque focus group thing to determine what Conservatives like, and then does the complete opposite of that. You can bet, if there is something the Conservatives want or favor, John is going to be the one leading the opposition to it... in a 'bipartisan' spirit, of course. Looking at this election and how it shapes up, the best possible choice for VP would have been Mitt Romney. It would have solidified the conservative vote, and given the McCain campaign a shot at picking off a blue state or two in the Northeast.... or at least forcing Obama to have to work for it.

Palin really brings nothing to the table for McCain. True, she is a woman, but if McCain thinks this is all it takes to capture the Hillary vote, he is sadly mistaken. Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have been a far better female pick, if that were his motive. Palin has virtually no experience, she makes Obama look like a seasoned political veteran, so the McCain camp sacrifices this advantage with Palin as the VP choice. She has some business experience, but nothing remotely close to the level of a Mitt Romney. Her biggest draw will come from the great electoral jackpot of Alaska, where there are more moose than people.

With this pick, McCain pushes the question of his age and health (as well as his judgment) back into the forefront. With his history of cancer, you would think his running mate, a person one heartbeat from the presidency, would be someone more 'presidential' and with a little more background and experience. You have to wonder... what the hell was he thinking?

 

[Timshel]

Yeah, but you'd do her right? lol...

Dixie's first thoughts are on whether she is attractive and turns him on. Probably not as much as Bush in blue jeans, but...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Let me first say, I like Sarah Palin, she is an intelligent and attractive conservative woman, who is very articulate and strong... I like that in a woman, it is a major turn-on. I agree with her politically, I think she is a great spokesperson for the conservative ideology. I think she would have been an excellent choice as a keynote speaker at the convention, or any number of cabinet-level appointments in a McCain Administration.... but VP????

McCain has always confounded me. It almost seems as if he does a Clintonesque focus group thing to determine what Conservatives like, and then does the complete opposite of that. You can bet, if there is something the Conservatives want or favor, John is going to be the one leading the opposition to it... in a 'bipartisan' spirit, of course. Looking at this election and how it shapes up, the best possible choice for VP would have been Mitt Romney. It would have solidified the conservative vote, and given the McCain campaign a shot at picking off a blue state or two in the Northeast.... or at least forcing Obama to have to work for it.

Palin really brings nothing to the table for McCain. True, she is a woman, but if McCain thinks this is all it takes to capture the Hillary vote, he is sadly mistaken. Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have been a far better female pick, if that were his motive. Palin has virtually no experience, she makes Obama look like a seasoned political veteran, so the McCain camp sacrifices this advantage with Palin as the VP choice. She has some business experience, but nothing remotely close to the level of a Mitt Romney. Her biggest draw will come from the great electoral jackpot of Alaska, where there are more moose than people.

With this pick, McCain pushes the question of his age and health (as well as his judgment) back into the forefront. With his history of cancer, you would think his running mate, a person one heartbeat from the presidency, would be someone more 'presidential' and with a little more background and experience. You have to wonder... what the hell was he thinking?

Dixie, you just dont' get it do you? The day of right wing conservative ideologues who place conservative ideology above our permanent national interest is done. It's over with buddy. If McCain goes politically with the right wing reactionary party line he will lose by a landslide. That's just the way it is.

His only chance of winning this election by distancing himself from that wing of the party and by embracing moderates and independents. If he can get people like me, who left the Republican party due to its extremism, to come back into the fold, then he stands a chance. But first he has to convince the American public that he is a bipartisan agent of change. He aint gonna do that with Jesse Helms as his running mate.

Obviously this is a political move to try to reach out the Hilliary supporters and in that respect, it may be a brilliant move. Though conservative, she's not an extremist and she has demonstrated, in her very short career, that she's not afraid to buck the party establishment in order to serve her constituents. That's her plus side.

On the down side he just gutted his best attack on Obama, that is, Obama's relative inexperience. She is by no stretch of the imagination the best qualified person to serve as President if something were to happen to McCain.

That's the real problem. This election is going to be primarily on one issue. Competence. After 8 years of the ineptitude of the Bush administration the American public will demand someone who can get the job done. Pallin doesn't help him on this issue and the Republicans have the greater problem with this issue as about 65% of the nation views the Republican party as politically brilliant but frustratingly inept and incompetent at governance.

Though the Republicans will attack Obama on the "experience" issue, the fact is, Pallin is not nearly as experienced in politics as Obama nor is she even remotely as well educated as Obama. McCain certainly has undermined that particular issue to an extent.

I say to an extent cause as long as the the Veep candidate isn't a wacko like Ralph Nader or Dick Cheney, no one really gives a shit who the veep is. It's the top of the ticket that counts.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, you just dont' get it do you? The day of right wing conservative ideologues who place conservative ideology above our permanent national interest is done. It's over with buddy. If McCain goes politically with the right wing reactionary party line he will lose by a landslide. That's just the way it is.

Hey moron... let me explain something to ya... Sarah Palin is a strong Social and Fiscal Conservative... lifelong member of the NRA... Pro-life, not just politically, but in practice! Palin is 'radical right wing' compared to Romney, or any other potential VP candidate McCain could have chosen. Her politics are 100% in line with mine, I have no problems with her whatsoever, from a political perspective, I just don't think she helps McCain much in this election and she lacks experience... of course, that being said, would I rather have a VP with no experience or a President with no experience?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Hey moron... let me explain something to ya... Sarah Palin is a strong Social and Fiscal Conservative... lifelong member of the NRA... Pro-life, not just politically, but in practice! Palin is 'radical right wing' compared to Romney, or any other potential VP candidate McCain could have chosen. Her politics are 100% in line with mine, I have no problems with her whatsoever, from a political perspective, I just don't think she helps McCain much in this election and she lacks experience... of course, that being said, would I rather have a VP with no experience or a President with no experience?

Why not vote for a President with no Experience? You voted twice for one with no ability. LOL

The "No Experience" argument on Obama is sooooo Bogus.

Ford used it against Carter and lost.

Bush I used it against Clinton and lost. (and Clinton turned out to be the most affective Chief Executive of the post Vietnan era, I regret now that I didn't vote for him).

Gore used it against Bush II and lost.

Truth is, in terms of overall experience, not just executive experience at the national level. Obama has a similiar level of experience to JFK, Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush II.

So don't get hung up on experience as that's not going to be the issue. The issue is going to be about competence and it's going to be about competence at the top of the ticket. Veeps be damned.

The main issue in this election will be about competence and though McCain has certainly proven himself competent he will have the burden of 8 years of Bush ineptitude hanging on his neck like a lead doughnut and Palin, as his running mate, had better demonstrate that she can help him on that issue or she will prove to be a poor choice.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So Mott, you're abandoning you rant about how the day of right wing conservative ideologues is over, huh? Back to bashing and criticizing Bush again, eh? Ya... that's what I figured.

 

[cawacko]

I'm sorry motlrydude but obama has no where near the same experience as Carter, clinton, or either bush's. Being a govenor is far superior to being a year or so in the senate.

 

[Timshel]

I'm sorry motlrydude but obama has no where near the same experience as Carter, clinton, or either bush's. Being a govenor is far superior to being a year or so in the senate.

And, so, neither does McCain.

Bush I was never a Governor.

 

[cawacko]

And, so, neither does McCain.

Bush I was never a Governor.

No he wasn't but would you compare what obama has done now to what bush I had done by the time he ran for president? We usually elect govenors for a reason. They do something. Senators are 1 of a hundred, they don't do shit.

 

[Timshel]

No, Bush should have been rejected based on his CIA background.

Governors are 1 of 50. Winning a Senate race is very comparable to winning Governor. Both are statewide races.

 

[Timshel]

Having been a Senator, Rep, or Governor is bad enough, but CIA...

 

[cawacko]

No, Bush should have been rejected based on his CIA background.very comparable to winning Governor. Both are statewide races.

no govenors are not comparable to senators. Govenors make executive decisions. Senators don't. Their vote counts as 1 of 100, that's it. Govenors are not 1 of 50. Other govenors do not vote in each state.

 

[Timshel]

no govenors are not comparable to senators. Govenors make executive decisions. Senators don't. Their vote counts as 1 of 100, that's it. Govenors are not 1 of 50. Other govenors do not vote in each state.

Not what I said. I understand the difference between executive and legislative. My point was on the election process.

And again, McCain has never served as a Governor. Not that having been a Governor really makes anyone qualified to be President.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Not what I said. I understand the difference between executive and legislative. My point was on the election process.

And again, McCain has never served as a Governor. Not that having been a Governor really makes anyone qualified to be President.

So why bring it up? Obama has never served as governor, neither has his running mate!

 

[Timshel]

So why bring it up? Obama has never served as governor, neither has his running mate!

Right wing spin has made you dizzy. I did not bring it up.

I'm sorry motlrydude but obama has no where near the same experience as Carter, clinton, or either bush's. Being a govenor is far superior to being a year or so in the senate.

The right has been the one attacking Obama on inexperience.

It's quite simple. If Obama's short time in office makes him unqualified then what of Palin's. If it is a lack of executive experience then what of McCain's.

 

[Damocles]

Right wing spin has made you dizzy. I did not bring it up.



The right has been the one attacking Obama on inexperience.

It's quite simple. If Obama's short time in office makes him unqualified then what of Palin's. If it is a lack of executive experience then what of McCain's.

Again, if Palin's experience as an Executive is so short that you believe she is unqualified, how is it you are not rejecting a candidate with even less experience in that capacity?

 

[Good Luck]

Not what I said. I understand the difference between executive and legislative. My point was on the election process.

And again, McCain has never served as a Governor. Not that having been a Governor really makes anyone qualified to be President.

Having executive experience is more qualification for president than legislative experience. Bush I had no governor experience, but was VP for 8 years - not president nor governor, but at least is part of the executive branch. Clinton was a state governor - experience in the top slot of a state - even a relatively small one - IS experience that can be directly equated to the top seat of the country. You don't put your IT guy in the top marketing spot just because he has more experience in his job. The person with 1/10 the experience, but in marketing, will get the marketing job.

When it comes to executive experience, McCain and Obama are equal - neither have any, nor does Biden. Though Palin's resume is short, it IS in the area of executive experience. Puts her ahead of McCain, Obama and Biden in my book when it comes to looking at a spot in the executive branch of government. As you acknowledge, the executive and legislative branches are different. Experience in one does not necessarily ready one for the other.

And Dixie is right on one thing: Palin's history shows her to be solidly in the core of republican conservatism - something that has been lacking with Bush & Co according to a large percentage of republicans.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Right wing spin has made you dizzy. I did not bring it up.

"And again, McCain has never served as a Governor."-Stringy

I believe that spin is an optical illusion you are experiencing due to your perpetual state of revolution.

The right has been the one attacking Obama on inexperience.

Because, uhm... he IS INEXPERIENCED!

It's quite simple. If Obama's short time in office makes him unqualified then what of Palin's. If it is a lack of executive experience then what of McCain's.

Palin has executive experience that Obama lacks, McCain has legislative experience Obama lacks. Palin's executive experience doesn't suddenly nullify McCain's vast Senatorial experience, nor does it suddenly give Obama experience he doesn't have.

 

[Timshel]

Again, if Palin's experience as an Executive is so short that you believe she is unqualified, how is it you are not rejecting a candidate with even less experience in that capacity?

I am rejecting McCain.

Again, I don't think her inexperience in elected office disqualifies her. And neither does Obama's or McCain's lack of executive experience. It's McCain's experience (or rahter his record) in the Senate that disqualifies him.

My point has ONLY been about the McCain/Republican hypocrisy on experience.

 

[Good Luck]

"And again, McCain has never served as a Governor."-Stringy

I believe that spin is an optical illusion you are experiencing due to your perpetual state of revolution.



Because, uhm... he IS INEXPERIENCED!



Palin has executive experience that Obama lacks, McCain has legislative experience Obama lacks. Palin's executive experience doesn't suddenly nullify McCain's vast Senatorial experience, nor does it suddenly give Obama experience he doesn't have.

Critics on both sides are going to basically ignore the difference between executive experience and legislative experience. Good chance the media, too, will pretend that experience is experience is experience.

However, when voters of all flavors are clamoring for change - who now best represents the type of change desired? Two heel-and-toe democrats, or two republicans with reputations as mavericks who fight their own parties on certain issues? Dixie may be confounded, but I look at the choice - and the type of character the public is looking for this election (ie: someone who is not a cardboard cutout of the party platform) and I see some very interesting and ingenious thinking with this selection.