5 Reasons to hate on Mccain's VP choice

[Spensed]

Not that it's any surprise, but looks like Palin was part of the corrupt party regime that she brought down or, as the case may be, now leads.

Maybe she just wasn't paying enough attention to ethics concerns before it suited her.

Ah the fun never stops.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html

 

[noah617]

^All these ethics charges she made and taking on her party blah blah blah seem to be directly related to her political ambitions. If you're in her way, you're corrupt.

 

[noah617]

Just dropping in to compliment robertstar on a masterful presentation of the case for continuing on in Iraq!

I don't agree with robertstar at all, but I'm impressed by his ability to argue his point. I don't know how anyone can write that much. I'm enjoying his back and forth with Spensed, an equally impressive debater.

 

[Kulindahr]

It would be great if he'd make that argument to his own country, instead of expecting the US to stay there for the long haul.

Good point!

 

[robertstar]

Well, he did say that the most important thing to do is to make sure that the men and women who have lost their lives do not die in vain. Never mind the cause of the War or whether it was right to go in or not. We simply must make sure that the soldiers don't die in vain ... and if there are more lives lost, then oh well. That's too bad.

He also says he was a War Vet of Afghanistan and Iraq ... lost the lives of several fellow soldiers ... and says that he himself lost limbs from the War.

Hmmm. Had a discussion with Marley about this and the only reply I will make at this time, is at least we have people at home in the U.S. that can look at this War from a logical point of view, and remove themselves from the frontlines to make a rational decision about what the outcome should be.

None of that is even close to what I actually said, not that this surprises me.

It has become par of the course here that a certain group of posters read what they want to read here rather than what is actually written. I would say that you have misrepresented what I said with your comments but I don’t believe that’s the case, what you’ve actually done is lied about it. Not once did I say or even suggest that we should be staying in Iraq because it belittles the sacrifices made by troops and their families, to claim that I did is a lie and not even a particularly intelligent or good one. Nor for the record did I say that I had lost limbs - did you even read what I posted? It seems not. But like I said unfortunately I’m not surprised by this turn of events and the truly sad thing is that I’ve come to expect it.

For the sake of reference what I actually said about why we should be staying in Iraq, please try and read it this time.

You don’t walk into someone’s house smash vases, cover it in graffiti and start a few small fires and then slowly back out leaving them to clean it all up themselves. In that analogy the reason you went into the house in the first place is irrelevant and the same is true for Iraq. Why we went in doesn’t matter anymore, we’re there, we’ve fucked the country up in a massive way and it is now our responsibility to (at the very least) help fix the problems we’ve caused and leaving before we’ve done that is wrong. And that’s what Obama is proposing right now, he wants to get us the hell out of there and leave the Iraqis to clean up the mess that we’ve helped make. And that for the record is another reason why America’s reputation will go down the toilet even further if the withdrawal of troops is handled and timed poorly.

I don’t support staying in Iraq because I passionately believe in the reasons we went there in the first place, I support staying in Iraq because I believe leaving now would be massively irresponsible. I also believe that if we leave now there is a very real possibility that the country would implode and that would mean we ever pretend the problems don’t exist after we’ve left or we have to go back in and start from square one. There’s a (very) mistaken belief that the troop surge has worked, it hasn’t it is working. It is a on going process, the problems and the insurgent troops still exist and frankly I’m not convinced that the Iraqi army will be in any position to fight them by themselves if the increased and highly organised US presence leaves.

I have previously said that I hate the ‘until the jobs done’ line and I do but in very base terms its right.

We should be staying in Iraq until one of two things happen, one the insurgent forces are defeated (never going to happen) or the Iraqi army is ready to completely take over from both UK and US forces. There should be no discussion or timetable for withdrawal until one or both of those conditions have been met. Planning a withdrawal in the hope that Iraq will be ready to fend for itself is hugely irresponsible and incredibly dangerous. Conditions on the ground have to dictate what happens not just in Iraq but any war zone and Obama has no interest in paying any attention to the conditions on the ground. He’s walking into the Oval office with his timetable and he’s sticking to it, conditions on the ground and the advice of commanders be damned.

For the sake of further reference my comments regarding belittling the sacrifices of troops were part of the new favourite Democratic slogan, ‘support the troops but not the mission’. And what I actually said on that front was this(again try and read it this time)

I generally struggle to put into words how much I hate the concepts at work in those sentences and I cannot stand people that come out with this crap. It doesn’t help that the people that make these kind of statements are the same ones who buy into this ‘support the troops but not the message’ bullshit. And that’s what it is. There is an endless list of people who have sacrificed their lives, their health and their families for the mission you’re telling me you don’t support. Telling those people and their families that the mission they’ve sacrificed so much for is meaningless, wrong and in reality not important at all is not supporting the troops.

Of course when I next log on I won’t be surprised to see these comments once again ignored and misrepresented.

It would be great if he'd make that argument to his own country, instead of expecting the US to stay there for the long haul.

For the record I have and continue to.

With that said I don’t have the time to read through Spensed post just yet so I’ll come back to it later.

 

[robertstar]

I live in England not a bubble.

The point that Democrats are missing when it comes to the Palin experience argument is that any attacks on her experience or lack thereof are hugely hypocritical. You’ve just nominated a man who hasn’t even completed a full term as Senator for President to try and argue that the Republican’s Vice-Presidential nominee doesn’t have enough experience is a ridiculously dangerous slope to find yourself on, since your entire argument hinges on McCain dying in office and there’s no way the Democrats look good standing up and telling voters John McCain is going to die in office. In contrast to this the Democratic experience issue lies at the top of the ticket, no one has to die for Obama to get into office so trying to fight an experience battle is a bad move. Particularly when you’ve spent months trying to argue that experience is a false argument.

As I said previously I think the way forward for the Democrats is not to attack Palin’s experience but to attack McCain for his inconsistencies when it comes to whether or not experience matters. If Democrats were smart (and I’ve questioned that a lot over the years) they’d be using Palin to strengthen their experience is a false argument line.

In general I’ll say this, I think to argue or suggest that any candidate is going to die in office is a dangerous move to make and a flat out ridiculous move by a campaign (Obama’s) that has talked about clean campaigns and the end of divisive politics. It doesn’t get much dirtier and divisive than trying to scare voters away from your rival by suggesting he’s going to die in office. Old or not this isn’t an argument anyone should be actively pursuing with McCain or any President. McCain for example shouldn’t suggest that Obama will get elected, get shot and voters will be left with Joe Biden as President, who doesn’t exactly scream change and a new way.

Wishing death on your opponent is not a line that makes you look good.

 

[Kulindahr]

Equally, almost from the outset, concerns about McCain's age have been expressed; do you realize he's the second-oldest candidate in our entire national history? (I cannot tell you how many times I've heard people ask, "What if he dies in office?") This is expressed as a fear, not as a death wish, and suggestions otherwise are both disturbing, and frankly, offensive; I take umbrage. How dare you, sir, suggest such a thing?

We went through this before, with Reagan. Any time a candidate looks old, Americans worry -- and not without reason; vice presidents, selected more for political value than competence, are suspect as far as doing the job.

 

[Spensed]

You’ve just nominated a man who hasn’t even completed a full term as Senator for President to try and argue that the Republican’s Vice-Presidential nominee doesn’t have enough experience is a ridiculously dangerous slope to find yourself on

As one commentator has said, Sarah Palin makes Barack Obama look like John Adams.

Of course, there are legitimate questions about Obama's experience, but that's no reason, as you do, to ignore his seven years in the the Illinois Senate, his work internationally on nuclear arms or his service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his even his impressive academic qualifications.

While, at the same time, trying to ramp up Sarah Palin's achievements, none of which you or anyone else has provided other than her supposedly dealing with her own party's corruption in Alaska.

All you're echoing are the Republican talking points, which are so flimsy that hopefully they won't fool even those Americans who voted for Bush twice.

As I said previously I think the way forward for the Democrats is not to attack Palin’s experience but to attack McCain for his inconsistencies when it comes to whether or not experience matters. If Democrats were smart (and I’ve questioned that a lot over the years) they’d be using Palin to strengthen their experience is a false argument line.

That gives Palin a free pass on having no experience. Obviously, you can point that out and attack McCain for his inconsistency and reckless judgment.

Wishing death on your opponent is not a line that makes you look good.

As I've said before, if you have a stand-in for an actor in a play, you actually want the stand-in to be able to stand-in and know what to do and say in the part she's standing in for. Palin nowhere near reaches that standard.

It's a shameful embarrassment that McCain, on a gut impulse after meeting her twice, picked an unvetted and inexperienced show girl like Palin over even the very experienced and accomplished men and other women in his party like, to take just one example, Senator Olympia Snowe. Or, even, much as I dislike him, Mitt Romney.

Palin may well appeal to the religous crazies and the vote-Republican-no-mater-what crowd. But, if she doesn't withdraw "for family reasons", the jokes about her aren't going to stop (because they ring true) and hopefully the voters won't get conned by her.

As I say, we don't want another Forrest Gump in the White House:

 

[robertstar]

It goes to the issue of Obama's past experience and judgment as a legislator in the area of respecting individual civil rights and the Constitution. Preventing discrimination, government intrusion and such.

So it was a different Barack Obama who voted for warrentless wire taping? John Kerry made a much over looked but very good and effective ‘Senator McCain vs. Candidate McCain’ speech at the DNC last week but it is worryingly an argument that can made more and more toward Obama as of late. He has made some perplexing decisions since winning the nomination that really do him no favours when his supporters start touting his voting record because for better or worse the recent decisions will trump the previous ones every time.

Well a pro-gay voting record is a material factor, if you're gay, live in the States and, for example, want to adopt children or not to be fired or denied housing.

And since only one of those criteria apply to me you can probably understand why their voting record on gay rights isn’t of that much interest to me. As I’ve previously said foreign policy and the economy remain my primary concern with each candidate, I have more faith in McCain when it comes to foreign policy and zero faith in either man when it comes to the economy since neither man has much in the way of a coherent plan on the economy right now.

Having said that I still don't believe that either candidates stand when it comes to gay rights is a huge factor when it comes to this or any other election. The vast majority of the gay community will vote Democrat over Republican unless the Republicans nominate an ultra-libral and the Democrats go insane. Whilst the flip-side of that coint the 'anti-gay vote' if you will, will pretty much always vote Republican over Democrat unless the aforementioned scenario takes place. I just don't see this issue being a vote winner or loser anymore, articularly as no one really wants to campaign on it.

What you say about McCain is true, but it doesn't change the fact that experience is a factor and that Palin has too thin a resume to be President, albeit contingently.

And again the flip side to that coin is that Obama doesn’t have the experience to be President, particularly not on the platform of change that he’s standing for, which is an ironic thing in many ways. That's why I think Democrats are insane to get sucked into an argument about experience, it'll hit them as much as it hits the Republicans.

Remind me again what other relevant achievements and experience you're relying on in Parlin's extensive resume.

As Mayor of Wasilla

Wasilla's growth was taking off, and Palin pushed for bonds to build sewer, water and roads. New big-box stores wanted to be in the city so they could get sewer, water and police protection, even if it meant being annexed. Palin's city was not necessarily an aesthetic crown jewel, especially along the Parks Highway, but the long snake of stores was doing good business. Sales tax revenues grew by half a million dollars a year. Much of the revenue was coming from people who lived outside the town.

Palin was able to cut property taxes by three-quarters while eliminating small taxes such as the personal property tax and the business inventory tax. She wasn't doing this by shrinking government, however: The cost of running the growing city, apart from capital projects and debt, rose from $3.9 million in fiscal 1996 to $5.8 million in fiscal 2002. Excess sales tax revenues went to paying for capital improvements such as roads and government buildings, says city finance director Ted Leonard.

Palin had priorities. She shrank the local museum's budget and deterred talk of a new library and city hall. But she also put in bike paths and obtained funds for storm-water treatment to protect the area's many lakes. She successfully pushed a half-percent sales tax increase to build a $15 million multi-use indoor ice arena. The popular sports complex is not breaking even, as its advocates projected, but the city's subsidy has been cut from $600,000 to $125,000 a year.
- Link

As Governor

She stood up to the powerful oil industry, and with bipartisan support in the statehouse she won a tax increase on oil companies' profits.
- Link

Governor Palin signs Administrative Order 238 creating the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet on September 14, 2007. The Sub-Cabinet advises the Office of the Governor on the preparation and implementation of an Alaska climate change strategy.
- Link

Vetoes' trim $231 million from State's capital budget
- Link

Governor Sarah Palin today signed House Bill 3001, authorizing the state to award an AGIA license allowing TransCanada Alaska to start developing a 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline from a treatment plant at Prudhoe Bay to the Alberta Hub in Canada. The Governor signed the bill at the Alaska AFL-CIO’s biennial convention.
- Link

Governor Sarah Palin today signed legislation that will help Alaskans combat the high cost of energy. The Governor signed House Bill 4001 and Senate Bill 4002 into law at the home of an Anchorage resident who took advantage of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation’s Weatherization and Home Energy Rebate Program.
- Link

Governor Sarah Palin today signed Administrative Order 242, directing the state Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Revenue to work cooperatively with any organization or entity committed to commercializing Alaska’s North Slope natural gas.
- Link

McCain had previously refused to talk about a timetable. Now he's saying Obama's timetable is "a pretty good idea".

He didn't say it was a 'pretty good idea' he said the timetable was a good one, as in the concept of a phased withdrawal/redeployment is a good one.

Obviously, McCain then tries to distort Obama's position to his own advantage. But, as the quote concludes, like McCain, "Obama says he would listen to U.S. military commanders about those conditions".

So your point is?

I've posted this before Obama on Iraq

But the fact remains that, according to the polls, most Americans now believe we should have stayed out of Iraq and now support an orderly withdrawal, some wanting it quicker than others.

Controlling military operations via opinion poll is not a root people should go.

I can't imagine there is any overwhelming support for any military action thousands of miles away that has no direct effect on Americans. Does anyone know what the opinion polls are like on Afghanistan? That's a real question by the way since I haven't seen any.

Whilst I can see the logic behind the 'Americans don't want to be there' argument I don't think its a good one.

Yeah, because Bush's aggressive stance and proposed missile installations in Poland really worked for Georgia.

The link between the conflict in Georgia and the proposed US missile base in Poland is not as overt or as strong as many may think. No doubt those plans did not help to avert the situation but they were not the central provocation or reasoning behind the situation either. The conflict between Russia and Georgia is far removed from a new one and much of the blame for the situation that evolved there recently must be placed at the feet of the Georgian President who dramatically and foolishly overplayed his hand in dealing with Russia. However I would suggest that the much greater provocation for the conflict comes in the form of proposed fast tracking of EU membership to Georgia and other ‘break away’ Soviet states and issues with Russia’s desire to join the WTO and tensions within the UN. There are a lot of issues that come well above the missile base one.

And in truth Bush’s tough stance on the base in Poland is a good thing for the region. Russia exerts far too much unwarranted control over the region and the US is really the only nation that can realistically hope to break it up a little.

 

[Spensed]

My choice would have been Nancy Kassebaum, a moderate Republican representative from Kansas; she's had oodles of experience (a strike against Obama) and ,keeping her moderate views in mind, she might have taken a few of the Hillary voters. Moreover, she is likeable. I wonder why she was overlooked?

I think is answers your question:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/H/G/2/mccain-palin-anna-nicole.jpg

 

[robertstar]

First and foremost, you seem to be perceiving the Democratic Party as one united, monolithic front; nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, until very recently, our Party was bitterly divided between the Hillary supporters and the Obama supporters. The Hillary voters--which consist of about 48% of the populace--have been uneasy with Obama's lack of experience from the outset; it was the single most bitterly-fought argument, even here at JUB. (Lostlover and I have gone 'round and 'round in circles on it.) Most of us Hillary-voters finally have agreed to vote for Obama, even though we're deeply uncomfortable with the idea, because after all, Obama's political views are nearly identical with our own.

At what point did I paint the picture of a rosy united party holding hands and singing camp songs? You seem to be working under the misconception that everyone has to spend every minute obsessing over the splits and factions in the Democratic Party even when they are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and the point being made. A split in the Democratic Party does not factor into whether or not they should be trying to attack Palin on the grounds of experience because whether or not he was elected by every Democrat drawing breath Barack Obama, a one term Senator is your Presidential nominee.

To try and justify voting for an inexperienced President because there’s an equally inexperienced Vice-President on the other ticket is just faulty logic.

Equally, almost from the outset, concerns about McCain's age have been expressed; do you realize he's the second-oldest candidate in our entire national history? (I cannot tell you how many times I've heard people ask, "What if he dies in office?") This is expressed as a fear, not as a death wish, and suggestions otherwise are both disturbing, and frankly, offensive; I take umbrage. How dare you, sir, suggest such a thing?

You should perhaps read what is actually written rather than jumping to your own conclusions.

What I actually said is that it is a terrible idea for the Democrats to fight an election on a ‘the other guy might die’ platform. A huge part of the reason they lost the election in 2004 is because they allowed Kerry to stand on a ‘note Bush’ platform, which is a trap they’re going to fall into again if they’re not careful. Trying to define your campaign by who the other guy rather than who you are is a poor, poor idea. It becomes even worse when your entire definition of the other guy is that he’s old and going to die any second.

Any criticism the Democratic machine levels at Palin when it comes to her experience has to come wrapped in a ‘McCain is going to die’ package and if they’re stupid enough to do that, they deserve to lose the election. If you take offence to the idea of me saying that campaigning on a ‘he’s going to die platform’ is a horrible idea then that’s your problem.

Now that McCain has chosen a VP less experienced than even Obama, we Hillary-voters have no reason at all not to vote for Obama anymore; McCain handed this to us on a silver platter by his poorly chosen selection. The prospect of his dying in office is too great to feel comfortable with the possibility of a inexperienced country hack having her finger on the nuclear button! (Frankly, too, the idea that we'd vote for her just because she's a woman is insulting, but this is admittedly beside the point.)

So Obama has suddenly became more experienced since the primaries? The reasons you had not to vote for Obama still exist, to try and argue they don’t is a little farcical. Palin doesn’t make Obama more experienced and doesn’t give him increased knowledge on any issue, he’s still the exact same candidate he was before with all his faults and all his positives. What Palin may in fact represent to you is a reason not to vote for McCain but I would suggest that voting for a Vice-President rather than a President is a terrible idea.

Of course I would also suggest that what appears to be your sole reason for not voting for McCain (he’s old) is an equally terrible concept.

The simple fact that you have missed all these nuances proves to us that foreigners do not, and cannot, understand the complexities of our political system.

The fact that you believe any of what you’ve said is a political nuance concerns me and the fact that you believe they are indicative of a complex political system is equally troubling. The points you have brought up are not nuanced, nor are they signs of a complex political system nor are they particularly relevant to the point I was making.

McCain dying in office is not a wish, it's our single biggest fear; do you understand this?

Do you understand that I have no interest in what your biggest fear might be?

My point was, is and remains that for the Democrats to campaign on a 'he's going to die' platform is a horrible idea.

 

[MystikWizard]

Do you understand that I have no interest in what your biggest fear might be?

Well, if you don't want to listen to or respect any of the concerns of anyone on this Forum ... who happens to be United States residents I might add, who are voters in a U.S. election ...

.... all I hear out of your mouth is "I don't care what you think about this ... I don't care what you think about that ... I just don't care about ..." ...

[Inappropriate text: Removed by Moderator]

 

[Spensed]

He has made some perplexing decisions since winning the nomination..

Such as? I'm not aware of anything that perplexing or inexplicable.

And since only one of those criteria apply to me you can probably understand why their voting record on gay rights isn’t of that much interest to me.

To say the obvious, just because gay civil rights aren't important to you doesn't mean they're not important. There are, I think, about about 10% of voting gay Americans, according to that last report I read, who support McCain and some at least of those would change their support if they really knew his anti-gay record.

And again the flip side to that coin is that Obama doesn’t have the experience to be President, particularly not on the platform of change that he’s standing for, which is an ironic thing in many ways. That's why I think Democrats are insane to get sucked into an argument about experience, it'll hit them as much as it hits the Republicans.

We're just repeating ourselves. You're underestimating Obama's experience, intellect and good judgment and padding Palin's resume.

Even, if you assume that everything you've managed to dig up about Palin's "experience" is correct, which it's not, it's shows absolutely no national or foreign affairs expertise.

I'm not arguing that she was a bad mayor of a small backwater, although there are reports that she increased the sales tax, ran up costs, ran vendettas with police enforcement, was almost recalled, etc. Nor, am I arguing that she's a bad Governor of one of the most underpopulated and easy to manage states in the Union, though she is under an ethics investigations and appears more and more connected with the corruption she's supposed to have cleared out. She may even have met a black person.

But the resume you've provided for her makes my point that, to keep repeating it until you get it, she has no national or foreign affairs expertise and, almost all the leading contenders for VP, leave her in the dust in terms of relevant experience.

I don't want to spend too much more time on this, because there's an increasing possiblity that, if there's another unvetted revelation, she might pull out.

And, if she doesn't, I'm happy to see whether the great American public and her years in office (ha ha) vindicate your faith in someone you've only known about for a few days.

 

[opinterph]

Let the arguments prevail in accordance to their own relative merits – not the demographic characteristics of the individuals articulating them.

 

[MystikWizard]

Let the arguments prevail in accordance to their own relative merits – not the demographic characteristics of the individuals articulating them.

My apologies, but if he is going to be disrespectful with his frequent "I don't care about what you think ..." in every other post of his ... I honestly would like to know why we should care about what he has to say.

 

[robertstar]

Well, if you don't want to listen to or respect any of the concerns of anyone on this Forum ... who happens to be United States residents I might add, who are voters in a U.S. election ...

.... all I hear out of your mouth is "I don't care what you think about this ... I don't care what you think about that ... I just don't care about ..." ...

[Quoted text: Removed by Moderator]

I don’t believe I’ve ever asked anyone to care about anything I think.

However for the sake of balance lets repeat my entire quote to put it into context, [Inappropriate text: Removed by Moderator]

Do you understand that I have no interest in what your biggest fear might be?

My point was, is and remains that for the Democrats to campaign on a 'he's going to die' platform is a horrible idea.

For those that still haven’t taken that in what I said was that I do not care what his greatest fear happens to be, because it has absolutely no relation to what I was saying or the point I was making. My point was not fixed at individual voters but at the Democratic Party/Barack Obama and how they/he opt to run their campaign.

I know taking quotes in context isn’t half as much fun but perhaps in future you can try it.

[Quoted text: Removed by Moderator]

[Inappropriate text: Removed by Moderator]

 

[kneelin]

I don’t believe I’ve ever asked anyone to care about anything I think.
. . .

[Quoted text: Removed by Moderator]

Your views are welcome . . .
I'm pleased you didn't tolerate being bullied by the Obamites . . .
they are usually narrow-minded and tend to become irrational in
their Obama worship.

 

[Spensed]

Yeah, being bullied by the facts sure hurts.

 

[Sbaraglia]

My choice would have been Nancy Kassebaum, a moderate Republican representative from Kansas; she's had oodles of experience (a strike against Obama) and ,keeping her moderate views in mind, she might have taken a few of the Hillary voters. Moreover, she is likeable. I wonder why she was overlooked?

I'm guessing she was overlooked because she is 76 - four years older than McCain!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Kassebaum

On top of that, she retired from the US Senate more than 10 years ago, and there are several female GOP senators currently serving that could have been chosen - Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine; Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina is the same age as McCain, plus her elderly war-hero husband might remind people of the last time the GOP ran an elderly war hero against a Democrat whippersnapper in 1996...

http://www.senate.gov/

 

[Centexfarmer]

Let's be mindful of the CE&P Posting Guidelines Men.

Most everyone who's taken the time to post in this thread have been pretty thoughtful about their responses, just try to avoid taking any frustrations out on each other.