McCain's VP!

[SGRIM]

I saw there were several pages of posts already on this. Instead of the trooper crap let's have a real discussion on the impact of this.

I walked into my dealership about the time McCain began to talk, usually I just go straight to my desk and start busting wide open. I stopped and sat down and watched it all. The showroom was full of people, I stopped everyone and said, "Does everyone realize that we are really watching history in the making?"

What happened yesterday means history will be made on Nov 4th. One way or the other, we will have a Black President or a Female VP. Either way our country changed in the last 48hrs...

My question is, will one trump the other one? Does she bring Hillary voters, does McCain lose any men voters for choosing a woman? Or will it come down to the Libs Vs the Conserv's in the end after all?

Again, lets don't have a bashing thread of any of the candidates. Just post your opinion on the impact of the history being made....

[UNGN]

McLame's problem with the Republican base is they didn't trust him as far as they could throw him. He's thrown conservatives under the straight talk express on global warming and immigration, while praising socialists.

Palin's impact is the base is solid behind McLame, now. The base can identify with a person who got into politics because her property taxes were too high and government officials were spending taxpayer money like they earned it. Her strengths are McLame's weaknesses and both men and women more than 100 miles from either coast (in flyover country) can identify with her.

If she brings in some hillary voters, so be it. The "Desperate Housewife" 30 - 40 something suburban mom vote will go to McLame because of her. Most women aren't pro abortion militant feminists. Even women who support abortion rights feel somewhat guilty about it. Hearing and seeing a Woman speak strongly against abortion won't turn the majority of women off, even the ones that support abortion.

McLame would get crushed if he'd picked a squishy Liberal Republican (McLame's friends in Congress)

Compared to alternative choices, Palin is a better choice than Kay Bailey Hutchinson, only for the fact that we don't need 4 Senators running for President. The last thing we need Senators to think is the Senate is the "Minor Leagues" for the Presidency. Their Ego's are 4X a normal humans as is.

Romney would make a good commerce secretary and a good VP choice for 2012 or if McLame kicks the bucket, but for VP now there was too much friction and baggage between him and McLame.

Palenty doesn't bring anything but Minnesota. Hubert Humphrey and Mondale found out how well that worked out.

Jindal is a star in the future, but the "Katrina II" threat would have screwed up the momentum.

All in all, it was the best pick out the people he was considering, so much so, I didn't even think he was considering her.

Way bolder than a Lame party Hack like Biden.

[kh440]

Once the disenfranchised Hillary voters see and hear her in action they will come around, the ones who were not to crazy about voting for the chosen one in the first place are already donating to McCain I would bet. Dick Morris is right when he says this gives new life to "McCain the reformer". What this woman has done to shape up the state (essentially beating a massively corrupt GOP "machine" to win the office alone is incredible. Her approval ratings in AK were somewhere around 80%, it also doesn't hurt that she is actually qualified to comment about the feasibility of drilling in ANWAR-she has actually been there! I am actually now at least semi-excited about voting for McCain now. This was a master stroke of "strategery" for him: highly intelligent, fiesty, qualified and a woman!

[SGRIM]

I agree with both of you...

What concerns me is that they handed Obama alot easier ride on the "experience" factor.

If she is as feisty as she came off yesterday and campaign's hard, this is going to get good.

4 senators running wouldn't have been good, you are right!

[JOHNDEEREGN]

She was the first politician that spoke from her heart IMO.....

and will be the first woman VP @ 1600 Penn. Avenue

[stack1]

Originally Posted by SGRIM

Again, lets don't have a bashing thread of any of the candidates. Just post your opinion on the impact of the history being made....

Originally Posted by UNGN

McLame's problem.... .....behind McLame, now. Her strengths are McLame's weaknesses....

......vote will go to McLame because of her.

McLame would get crushed if he'd picked a squishy Liberal Republican (McLame's friends in Congress)

.....between him and McLame.

Way bolder than a Lame party Hack like Biden.

Nice attempt Grim, but these guys will never allow a discussion free of insults or party spin.

[quickerthanmost]

John McCain's vice-presidential pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an evangelical Protestant with a strong record of opposition to abortion and an openness to teaching creationism in the public schools.

Are we in the 21st cntury? This is ridiculous. When asked if she is prepared to lead as President she answered "Yup... Yup".
Well Golly huckleberry hound
In her 1st speech she failed to mention she was for the Ted Steven's Bridge to nowhere for $452 million before she was against it. So much for Fiscal conservatism.

29.08.2008

Did Palin Really Fight The “Bridge To Nowhere”?

Republicans have been heavily touting Sarah Palin's reformist credentials, with her supposed opposition to Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" as Exhibit A. But how hard did she really fight the project? Not very, it seems. Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

So she was very much for the bridge and insisted that Alaska had to act quickly—the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, shifting the money back to the state's general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn't allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state's list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress. Finally, on September 19, 2007, she decided to redirect funds away from the project altogether with this sorry-sounding statement:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Maybe I've missed something, but it sure looks like she was fine with the bridge in principle, never had a problem with the earmarks, bristled at all the mockery, and only gave up on the project when it was clear that federal support wasn't forthcoming. Now, Charles Homans, who knows Alaska well, says Palin's anti-corruption instincts are fairly solid (she sold off the gubenatorial jet upon taking office, for one), and a casual Nexis search suggests that she's fiscally conservative (insofar as that term makes sense in a quasi-socialist state like Alaska), but this hardly looks like the "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" moment everyone's making it out to be.

P.S. Here's a piece that Palin's special counsel, John Katz, wrote in March of this year for the Juneau Empire, assuring the Alaskan public that Palin was still very much in favor of earmarks, but sadly needed to scale back her requests somewhat (to "only" 31 earmarks this year—down from 54 last year) in response to "unwanted attention" from Congress and the press.

[SGRIM]

What????????????? Did you read what I posted. Go to one of the other threads with that crap. I am trying to have a civil discussion here of the Impact this will have in our country.

Again I didn't ask for bio's....


Watch it, my thread, my board

[quickerthanmost]

Originally Posted by SGRIM

What????????????? Did you read what I posted. Go to one of the other threads with that crap. I am trying to have a civil discussion here of the Impact this will have in our country.

Again I didn't ask for bio's....


Watch it, my thread, my board

Whats the problem I posted about her wanting creationism and her lack of Fiscal constraints. She was not truthful in her 1st appearance and wants to teach adam and eve in public schools. I think that is very impottant to the discussion on her being a heart beat away from the presidency. What else is there at this moment!

[stack1]

Maybe you should have just called her a hack like UNGN said about Biden. I guess it doesn't matter that the discussion isn't about Biden. Why would that stop him from interjecting the usual party BS. Double standard anyone?

[quickerthanmost]

Remember it is their Right wing board we are just along for the ride

[UNGN]

Originally Posted by stack1

Maybe you should have just called her a hack like UNGN said about Biden. I guess it doesn't matter that the discussion isn't about Biden. Why would that stop him from interjecting the usual party BS. Double standard anyone?

Biden IS a Hack.

Not one lib defended the choice of Biden in 2 threads and Thousands of views.

Obama should have chosen someone like Hillary or Webb or even a turncoat like Hagel that can properly express the views of the modern democrat party, like being Anti-Iraq war or pro socialized medicine or against washington "Insiders, lobbyists and Big corporations".

Biden aint that. He brings not one new voter to Obama and turns off his base (obviously, by the fact that not one Lib can defend the choice)

[UNGN]

Originally Posted by SGRIM

I agree with both of you...

What concerns me is that they handed Obama alot easier ride on the "experience" factor.

If she is as feisty as she came off yesterday and campaign's hard, this is going to get good.

4 senators running wouldn't have been good, you are right!

The Liberal media won't call Obama on his lack of experience.

They are "riding the wave of History".

Our Local paper in Fort Worth had a Banner Headline of Obama's Promises from his speech ( In Fact, every day this week there was a Banner Headline generated from the DNC), but the Palin announcement had 1/2 the Font size and was mostly "below the fold" in today's paper.

There is a huge amount of "white guilt" in the country, but there is far more "women being walked on". These two forces will play out in November. My money is on the "women being walked on" vote.

[Pronto]

I really think your are underestimating the Hillary voters. They are for the most part Democrates. Women Hillary supporters are even more dyed in the wool Democrates. Putting a woman on the Republican ticket will not sway a hard core Democrate Hillary supporter, especially when they see her stance on health care and abortion. She, like Michelle Obama have nice families, good jobs and style but the bottom line is you're voting for Obama or McCain first and not the VP. She may sway some on the fence Indepandant women but I think that's it.

My sister-in-law in Chicago is a huge Hillary supporter. I just sent her an email asking this very question so we'll see what the answer is from a real Hillary voter not spectulation from non Hillary voters.

See that, stuck to the topic and no insults.

[PowerSics]

Originally Posted by quickerthanmost

Remember it is their Right wing board we are just along for the ride

Maybe it used to be a right wing board. Now, as far as I'm concerned, neocons aren't right wing and I don't support them at all. Neocons have hi-jacked the Republican party and even claim they are conservatives, and nobody seems to be the wiser. What neoconservatives really dislike about traditional conservatives is simply the fact that the conservatives are conservatives at all. The neocons have simply elbowed traditional conservatives out of the picture. Neocons have subverted American conservatism from its original purposes and agenda and turned it to other non-conservative purposes such as mass immigration, current American policy in the ME, and reckless involvement in foreign wars and entanglements. All this under the banner of freedom while they take rights from us here in the USA.

[quickerthanmost]

Originally Posted by UNGN

The Liberal media won't call Obama on his lack of experience.

They are "riding the wave of History".

Our Local paper in Fort Worth had a Banner Headline of Obama's Promises from his speech ( In Fact, every day this week there was a Banner Headline generated from the DNC), but the Palin announcement had 1/2 the Font size and was mostly "below the fold" in today's paper.

There is a huge amount of "white guilt" in the country, but there is far more "women being walked on". These two forces will play out in November. My money is on the "women being walked on" vote.

You are sadly mistaken if you think Hillary voters will accept being pandered to By McLAME. Palin is against rape/ Incest abortion amongother women's issues, she is the anti -hillary and even insulted her. it is a slap in the face to women to think they will vote for palin because she has their genitalia. Is that how stupid you think Dem women are??????