Possible Presidential Pairings?
204 RepliesJump to last post
[quote=iceco1d]OK, BondGuy,
Now, I will admit something...YOU are getting under my skin. A couple of points you may have missed: #1 - I thought my original post came across as being an attack. I APOLOGIZED BEFORE YOU EVEN POSTED THE FIRST TIME, and LIKELY BEFORE YOU EVEN READ MY ORIGINAL POST. I'm NOT going to apologize again, and at this point, I almost regret apologizing in the first place. Maybe I am not the one that needs help with my reading comprehension. Well, that could be debated. I did see your apology, but didn't take it as such. Why? Because apologies don't start with the word if. You attacked me along with calling me a liar, and there's some question in your mind that it is offensive? If? You're kidding me right? #2 - I did not call YOU a liar. You stated that Obama had more foreign policy experience than x, y, and z. That is subjective, and that is YOUR opinion. Perhaps it isn't a "lie" per se, but it is stating something as fact, when it indeed is not. No longer conceding the point? Yet, still nothing to support you contention that bill and george had more pre first term FP EXP? First, let's get something straight, you are wrong on this point. Way wrong. My statement on this point is not opinion, it's a fact. Read up and come back and we'll talk. When you find out who george's foreign policy mentor was, you'll want to throw up. So, to be clear, i didn't state opinion as fact. Second, You did call me a liar twice in that post. Both on the same point. Apparently this one point brings out the knee jerk liar response from you. The first time i mentioned it you said "That is a flat out lie, and you know it" The second time you said "BG, that's just a first class lie man, and you know it. " Tell me, in your world when you tell someone what they've said is a lie, isn't that calling that person a liar? In your world, when you tell that person they know they are lying, isn't that calling that person a liar? Because, i gotta tell ya ice, in my world it is. But, then again maybe it's my reading comprehesion problem? I am not "calling you out" about having incorrect facts. I called you out about something you stated as a fact, when it is not. No, instead of calling me out you said that I purposely lied. And, what i stated it is a fact. Prove me wrong. If I wanted to call YOU a name, I would have done so, directly, and frankly. I did not. If I said something like, "you are a jackass," now that would be name-calling. But of course, that was only an example, not me actually saying it. 3. It is pretty clear at this point, that you are pretty ruffled that someone suggested I would make a good moderator for this forum. That's your problem. I didn't nominate myself, and furthermore, no mention has been made that the moderator route is going to be explored any further. In fact, I don't even recall posting that I would actually ACCEPT such a position on this forum. So really, whatever your problem is with it, just let it go, it's ridiculous. No ice, i could care less. Just that moderators are supposed to be neutral and you are far from it. You got amped up over a fairly benign polictical discussion. Then after your attack , i lightly pushed your buttons and you've come more unglued. Ice, feel free to PM other long term posters here as to my history, I took it easy on you. Truthfully, I'm not pissed off at you. Just perplexed that you would call me a liar over a perceived misstated fact. Even if i were wrong on the fact, it wouldn't make me a liar. I'd just be wrong on that fact. Gee, been there, got the Tee Shirt. In my opinion you needlessly attacked me and you are misinformed regarding the facts relevant to the point made in my orignal comments. Personally, I don't see the moderator route working. It's pretty clear politics is something you are deeply involved in - I'm sure most, if not all, of your FACTS are indeed correct. Kudos. By the way, just in case YOU missed it: By the way, I didn't miss it. It wasn't an apology. And you don't have to apologize. But before you go calling someone else a liar for stating a fact you are unaware of, read first, shoot second. [quote=iceco1d]By the way, I'm voting for McCain for pretty simple reasons: 1. I like paying lower taxes and could give a flying f*ck about supporting losers on welfare, and other worthless government programs that I'll (along with the rest of the SUCCESSFUL, NON-LAZY, NON-LOSER population of the forum) NEVER see a benefit from. 2. I think we should leave Iraq quickly, but not at the expense of being a pussyfoot. 3. I am sick to death of Affirmative Action, and everything that resembles it. I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I owned slaves and/or did my part to oppress minorities? Obama is going to make that even worse...and at heart, I truly think he's racist. 4. I don't hunt, but I own a few guns. I'd like to retain that right. That's about all, with MAJOR emphasis on #1. [Edit: I'm compelled to apologize, in advance, to BondGuy. If my post came across as disrespectful, or with an attitude, I certainly apologize, as it wasn't my intent to be condescending. I respect you a great deal, and appreciate your posts and industry knowledge. I simply disagree with you on this [relatively unrelated] issue a great deal.][/quote] What happened to, "if you would have just apologized directly to me...?" I apologized to you before this even started. Now, you can acknowledge my apology, admit you missed it, put your internet junk back in your pants, and we can move on, anytime you are ready. [/quote]BG, I think it’s going to be near impossible to find neutral moderators who care enough about this board to actively keep the few real problem trolls out of here. Pretty much everyone here has opinions that they aren’t afraid to share and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Certainly, political threads, in what’s probably the most interesting election in my lifetime, are going to bring out the passion. I don’t like the idea of going without at least a few volunteer moderators to keep the after-hours foolishness in check. An appropriate test here, at least in my mind, is can a moderator, much like a jurist, set aside personal beliefs and biases to deliver justice. For example, let’s assume Iceco1d were a moderator here and came across your posts in this thread , which he obviously disagrees with. As a moderator and participant, I would give him a pass on disagreeing with you, as long as he did it with some decorum. Certainly, name-calling, slapping you down, deleting or modifying your posts and/or banning/suspending you would not be appropriate behavior to register his disapproval, although it would be reminiscent of the heavy-handed tactics of at least one moderator I’ve seen in another advisor forum. We probably won’t see perfect moderators if we see any at all, but I’d prefer imperfect moderation to none at all.
I'm all for freedom of speech here until it's abused at the expense of good participants. That's where moderators, acting as jurists, could have a positive influence.Whew…wish I would have seen all this prior to my last post…we even have red and blue for the respective parties…
Maybe we should all back away from this thread for awhile...[quote=Indyone]BG, I think it’s going to be near impossible to find neutral moderators who care enough about this board to actively keep the few real problem trolls out of here. Pretty much everyone here has opinions that they aren’t afraid to share and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Certainly, political threads, in what’s probably the most interesting election in my lifetime, are going to bring out the passion. I don’t like the idea of going without at least a few volunteer moderators to keep the after-hours foolishness in check. An appropriate test here, at least in my mind, is can a moderator, much like a jurist, set aside personal beliefs and biases to deliver justice. For example, let’s assume Iceco1d were a moderator here and came across your posts in this thread , which he obviously disagrees with. As a moderator and participant, I would give him a pass on disagreeing with you, as long as he did it with some decorum. Certainly, name-calling, slapping you down, deleting or modifying your posts and/or banning/suspending you would not be appropriate behavior to register his disapproval, although it would be reminiscent of the heavy-handed tactics of at least one moderator I’ve seen in another advisor forum. We probably won’t see perfect moderators if we see any at all, but I’d prefer imperfect moderation to none at all.
I'm all for freedom of speech here until it's abused at the expense of good participants. that's where moderators, acting as jurists, could have a positive influence.[/quote]Political speech brings out the worst in most of us. In addition, the many colored fonts makes it difficult to keep track of who spewed what.
If you are talking about moderators on this forum, I think we have to distinguish between professional posts, where we talk about product and process.... and the general and lounge categories where everything goes...like this topic. We might consider moderating the professional areas, while letting the other venues be a free for all shooting match where almost everything goes. I think if the spirited arguments become too "personal" and vituperative, that would be when the moderator should step in and slap the crap out of the offending posters.
On the other hand, if you are offended by the tone of some threads....don't look. It never ceases to amaze me that people get theatrically offended by things that they could easily avoid
[quote=iceco1d][quote=BondGuy][quote=iceco1d]OK, BondGuy,
Now, I will admit something...YOU are getting under my skin. A couple of points you may have missed: #1 - I thought my original post came across as being an attack. I APOLOGIZED BEFORE YOU EVEN POSTED THE FIRST TIME, and LIKELY BEFORE YOU EVEN READ MY ORIGINAL POST. I'm NOT going to apologize again, and at this point, I almost regret apologizing in the first place. Maybe I am not the one that needs help with my reading comprehension. Well, that could be debated. No BondGuy, it can't. I did see your apology, but didn't take it as such. You must be of limited mental capacity in that case. Generally, when someone says, "I'm compelled to apologize" - that means, they apologize. Why? Because apologies don't start with the word if. Look above. It didn't start with "if." And you questioned my reading comprehension? You attacked me along with calling me a liar, and there's some question in your mind that it is offensive? If? You're kidding me right? No BondGuy, I'm not kidding you. Your opinion is gospel. I am going to call you a blow-hard egomaniac. You love to hear yourself talk. It's no surprise to me at all that you are involved in politics. You ARE right, I would make a terrible moderator. After a certain point, I don't have tolerance to deal with abosolute ignorance and arrogance complemented by incessent whining, moaning, and vocabulary manipulation. I don't want to be a moderator...because I want to retain my ability to say, "BondGuy, you are being a first class asshole." By the way, in case it isn't clear to you at this point, I rescind my apology AND the comment regarding having respect for you. I have none. You deserve none. #2 - I did not call YOU a liar. You stated that Obama had more foreign policy experience than x, y, and z. That is subjective, and that is YOUR opinion. Perhaps it isn't a "lie" per se, but it is stating something as fact, when it indeed is not. No longer conceding the point? Yet, still nothing to support you contention that bill and george had more pre first term FP EXP? No, I'm not. But only to give you something else to bitch about. I couldn't care less honestly. Come over and debate about something industry-related and perhaps I'll participate. First, let's get something straight, you are wrong on this point. If you say so God. Way wrong. My statement on this point is not opinion, it's a fact. Obviously. Read up and come back and we'll talk. You aren't worthy of anymore of my discussion time. When you find out who george's foreign policy mentor was, you'll want to throw up. So, to be clear, i didn't state opinion as fact. Can I make it anymore clear to you that I don't care at this point? Is that sinking through your skull yet? Second, You did call me a liar twice in that post. Ok. Let's go with your position. You are a liar. A liar that loves to hear himself talk. Things you say are gospel. Bravo. Both on the same point. Apparently this one point brings out the knee jerk liar response from you. You know, the funny thing is, I don't even remember what you said, or I said. I don't feel strongly about this. I know you over-exemplified Obama's achievements, and did your best to belittle Palin's. That was the point. The first time i mentioned it you said "That is a flat out lie, and you know it" The second time you said "BG, that's just a first class lie man, and you know it. " Yes, and now, I'm very simply saying, "BondGuy, you are a liar!" Now there is no reason to split hairs. Tell me, in your world when you tell someone what they've said is a lie, isn't that calling that person a liar? In your world, when you tell that person they know they are lying, isn't that calling that person a liar? Absolutely. A liar is a liar. A blow-hard is a blow-hard. A prick, is a prick. I follow. Because, i gotta tell ya ice, in my world it is. But, then again maybe it's my reading comprehesion problem? You do have a reading comprehension problem. You also have an ego problem. Whoops! Did I mention that twice?! I am not "calling you out" about having incorrect facts. I called you out about something you stated as a fact, when it is not. No, instead of calling me out you said that I purposely lied. And, what i stated it is a fact. Prove me wrong. If you are still talking about the FP issue, I don't personally believe it can be something that's proven. BUT, even if I did, I wouldn't bother looking up facts for this debate. I don't care about the outcome of this conversation, and I don't plan on acknowledging further posts from you (though, I'm sure you'll find a way to engage me again - you are good at that.). If I wanted to call YOU a name, I would have done so, directly, and frankly. I did not. If I said something like, "you are a jackass," now that would be name-calling. But of course, that was only an example, not me actually saying it. 3. It is pretty clear at this point, that you are pretty ruffled that someone suggested I would make a good moderator for this forum. That's your problem. I didn't nominate myself, and furthermore, no mention has been made that the moderator route is going to be explored any further. In fact, I don't even recall posting that I would actually ACCEPT such a position on this forum. So really, whatever your problem is with it, just let it go, it's ridiculous. No ice, i could care less. Doesn't sound like it. Just that moderators are supposed to be neutral and you are far from it. Moderators aren't supposed to be neutral. They are supposed to carry out their moderation duties in a neutral fashion. Humans aren't capable of true neutral behavior. You got amped up over a fairly benign polictical discussion. No, I seriously don't care. I am AMP'd up over cowards like you that talk to no end on the internet. I don't think I normally come across as a bad person, or a difficult one to get along with, but you made it your mission to piss me off. You wouldn't even accept an advance apology. Your wish is granted. You are twisted. Then after your attack , i lightly pushed your buttons and you've come more unglued. Ice, feel free to PM other long term posters here as to my history, I took it easy on you. I don't have to contact long-term posters. I've heard from several already - confirming my suspicion that this is just your typical behavior, and other people don't find it anymore tolerable than I do.Unfortunately, against their advise, I was unable to keep my mouth shut while you ramble on with your b.s. Truthfully, I'm not pissed off at you. Truthfully. I don't care. Just perplexed that you would call me a liar over a perceived misstated fact.
Perplexed isn't even REMOTELY close to what you are. Even if i were wrong on the fact, it wouldn't make me a liar. I'd just be wrong on that fact. Thank you, Captain Obvious! BondGuy, are you this socially defunct in real life? Gee, been there, got the Tee Shirt. In my opinion you needlessly attacked me and you are misinformed regarding the facts relevant to the point made in my orignal comments. No BondGuy, NOW I'm attacking you. Before, I thought I came off in a less-than-friendly-manner - NOW I am attacking you. Personally, I don't see the moderator route working. That's because you don't understand the term "moderation." I bet if you were the only moderator, and it was your way, or the highway...you'd warm right up to moderation. It's pretty clear politics is something you are deeply involved in - I'm sure most, if not all, of your FACTS are indeed correct. Kudos. By the way, just in case YOU missed it: By the way, I didn't miss it. It wasn't an apology. You are brain dead. I'm sorry. You are. "I'm compelled to apologize, in advance, to BondGuy" - Seriously, get over yourself. Here's a new one: I regret apologizing to BondGuy, he is undeserving of an apology. And you don't have to apologize. But before you go calling someone else a liar for stating a fact you are unaware of, read first, shoot second. I'll refer to that...never. BondGuy, my advice to you, would be to adjust your attitude when talking to real, live people...oh wait, I'm sure you do that already. [quote=iceco1d]By the way, I'm voting for McCain for pretty simple reasons: 1. I like paying lower taxes and could give a flying f*ck about supporting losers on welfare, and other worthless government programs that I'll (along with the rest of the SUCCESSFUL, NON-LAZY, NON-LOSER population of the forum) NEVER see a benefit from. 2. I think we should leave Iraq quickly, but not at the expense of being a pussyfoot. 3. I am sick to death of Affirmative Action, and everything that resembles it. I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I owned slaves and/or did my part to oppress minorities? Obama is going to make that even worse...and at heart, I truly think he's racist. 4. I don't hunt, but I own a few guns. I'd like to retain that right. That's about all, with MAJOR emphasis on #1. [Edit: I'm compelled to apologize, in advance, to BondGuy. If my post came across as disrespectful, or with an attitude, I certainly apologize, as it wasn't my intent to be condescending. I respect you a great deal, and appreciate your posts and industry knowledge. I simply disagree with you on this [relatively unrelated] issue a great deal.][/quote] What happened to, "if you would have just apologized directly to me...?" I apologized to you before this even started. Now, you can acknowledge my apology, admit you missed it, put your internet junk back in your pants, and we can move on, anytime you are ready. [/quote] [/quote] [/quote] Wow! Personally, I like the red. I find it temper appropriate.
On the lighter side guys …after our respective elections , we WILL WAKE UP the next day and continue on. May I respectfully suggest before even more is said that we lighten up a bit Just one guy’s opinion.
[quote=Indyone]
Having read your rejoinder, BG, I decided against engaging in the ever-lengthening point/counterpoint posts (which I'm guessing get skimmed when they start getting so long). I spent some time at lunch looking at various online news agencies and the concensus of most is that the daughter pregancy is a non-issue. Trooper-gate may or may not get much play in the end, but I can tell you this based on what I've read thus far...the brother-in-law sounds like a loose cannon who should not be packing a gun and possessing law enforcement powers. When all the facts are known, I'll predict that trooper-gate will not be a problem for Palin. The spousal DUI from 20+ years ago is just typical dirt journalism as is the one time affiliation with the AIP. I've yet to see anything of real substance and still some are already calling her Eagleton. I call that wishful thinking.
In response to your question on whether or not she is the most qualified Republican my question is, most qualified for what? I think she would make an excellent second in support of McCain. She is an energetic reformer, and strong on energy policy. Goodness knows, we need some help there. Certainly, there are aspects of the VP job where perhaps she was not the strongest candidate, but that could probably be said for almost any candidate for the position. You can discount her past experience, but the same concerns are valid for Obama, who has perhaps a bit more foreign policy experience, although he's been a virtual no-show in the senate the past two years. Conversely, Palin, although she's not running for the position of president, has at least a similar advantage over Obama in executive experience that he might have over her in the area of foreign policy. If Palin should assume the office of the president (which is a far cry less likely than Obama at this point), she would have a cabinet of advisors to aid her in governance and two powerful checks and balances in the legislative and judiciary branches. Frankly, I'm getting well ahead of myself here. If the medical profession can keep Dick Cheney ticking for the last 8 years, I suspect McCain will be good for at least four. It's obvious to me that McCain is very pleased to have Palin on his team and if he's elected, I think he'll find her a very useful ally in the White House. It is also my personal hope that if elected, he asks Mitt Romney to join him as an economic advisor. That, in my mind, would make for a pretty effective combination.
Back to work...your turn...[/quote] I'm an independent. But if I was a republican I'd be mad as hell over Palin's veep run. Only because she is not the most qualified woman candidate in the repub party. Olympia Snowe the senator from Maine comes to mind as just one example. Let's look at the past weekend: McCain usurps Obama's convention bounce with a surprise veep pick. Brilliant! Immediately, the news cycle turns negative & is dominated not by McCain's message or brilliance, but by republican after republican defending Palin, who like everyone has some baggage. The entire weekend was dominated by a negative news cycle. Not good! Ah, what is the repub message? McCain was so secretive about his pick, wanting to kick Obama's butt, that he didn't inform key members of his own campaign. Thus there is, at this point, no narrative on Palin. The narrative guys were kept out of the loop. Thus the inconsistant response to legitimate questions surrounding her qualifcations. This was exemplified on CNN where McCain canceled an appearance on Larry King Live after a McCain top aide got caught off guard by a legit question. Apparently Mccain is miffed that the CNN anchor wouldn't let the aide off the hook and the aide clearly looked ridiculous. This is not good. Turns out that the question asked by CNN has a very positive answer for Palin. However, the McCain camp was unaware of that answer, which is scary and shows how unprepared they are. This will iron out, but half-assed is the only way the non faithful can view this. In other words bungled. We've had eight years of bungled, and now we've got it again? There is no excuse for a campaign not to know the published public policy facts about a vetted candidate. The book on Palin is that she is excellent when scripted, but shakey when adlib. Look for her to be electrifying tonite. One note is that she has a tell when caught off guard. When asked a question to which she doesn't know the answer, she pauses and smiles, or cocks her head or purses her lips. Men interpret this as mild flirtation and as such go easy on her. Woman know she's a deer in the headlights and don't buy into it. Let's watch for this next week as she gets out on her own. Palin has never been tested by a relentless press. One national columnist, who as a reporter covered an Alaskan Governor's race said what surprised him most, after trudging for weeks with one of the major candidates, was that not once did he see another reporter. If this was the case for Palin, well, she's not in Moosejaw anymore. It will be interesting to see how see does when not on script and with a press who are not members of her fan club. Trooper-gate - She is the only governor of Alaska who has been the target of an investigation. When the investigation was first announce she said bring it and that she has nothing to hide. She then hired a private attorney and is refusing to release somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 emails. Hmmm? One Alaskan source says that her refusal stems not from fear of criminal incrimination, but for her public image. Apparently, according to these sources, privately she is a petty and vindictive person and that comes out in these emails. Again, time will tell. On a personal note on this thread what bothers me is that McCain supporters here have immediately embraced her. This I don't get. None of you, none of us, know her. How can you embrace someone you know nothing about? How reckless is that? This person could be president in a heartbeat. She may prove out to be the best thing that's ever happened to this country, but right now we know next to nothing about her. I'll listen to what she has to say, but for me her being a creationist is a deal killer. It would take a lot of love for me to overcome that objection to someone who rejects known science. This from an oil and gas energy Governor who rejects that it took million of years for that oil and gas to form. To me this makes as much sense as someone who believes that the earth is flat. Her creationism beliefs make her an excellent VP candidate - for the 1860s.BG-
Alot of statements got lost in some of these line for line rebuttals in this thread. One was that you think HRC is one of the few qualfied women to be POTUS.
It is hard to believe you are an independent especially given your vast knowledge of what is wrong with Palin and the constant lengthy knock down points on her and the Repubs. On the other hand you dismiss the shortcoming of the dem. ticket with a simple statement that "Biden is a jackass."
You would like to see Hillary in the WH and we are to believe you are independent and an objective commentator? Your lengthy negative posts on Palin make you appear “in the tank” for the dem. ticket. Nothing wrong with that, but coupled with your positive viewpoint of Hillary, calling yourself independent seems to be a stretch.
If you really are independent, why not let the election play out further ( i.e. hear Palin and Biden in debate on issues) before jumping on one side? Even better, how about McCain/Obama debating issues?
Claim #1 (Palin was a member of the AIP) is debunked…and serious doubt of claim #2 (she supported Pat Buchanan’s presidential run) is raised by a news organization that is clearly not pro-Republican…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26524024/ I'll stand by my prediction that much of the media's attempt to undercut her candidacy will eventually be exposed as, at a minimum, inaccuarate and hasty conclusions, which have the potential to backfire among the electorate. It's also interesting that the book on Palin is that she's very good when scripted but shaky when ad-libbing. I don't doubt this as it's true for many politicians when faced with the spectacle of national media coverage. It's also precisely the impression that I've had of Obama for some time. His speeches are among the best of his generation, but in a town hall-type setting, such as the recent forum at Saddleback with Rick Warren, he struggled at times for answers, although I don't recall any gaffes to the degree of "hoping to eventually visit all 57 states" (paraphrase mine). I won't say that he always comes off weak when ad-libbing, but I've noticed several examples when it seems as if he's struggling to find an answer, being careful to not say anything that will later bite him in the butt. I've not set any decision in stone regarding Sarah Palin's candidacy, but I'll admit that my first and second impressions are positive, despite the media hatchet job we all knew she was going to face almost as soon as she was announced. Again, to their credit, the Democratic ticket has remained above the fray and refused to take the bait lobbed at them by several reporters. My guess is, as long as the polling margin remains at least mostly in place (6-8 points), they'll stay the course. If the race gets tight...who knows...politics can be a rough business...Rugby,
I said Clinton was qualified. Where did I say I'd vote for her? There is plenty from the dem platfrom that i'm not on board with. Bigger government, higher taxes, no nuclear power, nimby. I weight that against pre-emptive war, secret government and Real ID. I also weight it against eight years of of lies and bungled government, an economy in the shit hole, and a record deficit that only higher taxes and a strong economy will erase. From whom do you suggest we take those higher taxes? Did i say something negative about Palin? As the lone non member of the Sarah Palin fan club here on RR forums I merely point out the truth about the stranger many of you have embraced without knowing for the second highest office in the land. That you take it as negative isn't my fault. That it is negative isn't my fault. I didn't create the investigation into her past. Nor the investgation of wrong doing. And, I'm not responsible for her creationist views. Though I believe many here are on board with that anyway. Note that i didn't mention any of the trash that's circulating about her, AIP, baby is really her daughter's etc. I did mention some things to watch for. And I offered a plausable non criminal reason for her legally shielding emails sought by investigators. Additionally, past creationism i didn't mention any of the religious commentary circulating about her. I stand by my statements that her executive experience is bush league. Now let's see how it plays on a national stage. The truth is, McCain in picking her threw a hail mary pass. Without someone like her, to energize his campaign, he was finished. It will either make it a race or blow up in his face. Point to John for having some balls. Now all he has to do is convince the 200 million plus americans who will benefit from Obama's tax policies that he's their guy. And again, in case you missed it, I predict that tonight Palin will wow the crowd. Will she wow america? As for your thinking i'm not independent, of course you would think that. I've spent a lot of bandwidth here downing McCain's judgement in picking Palin. That doesn't make me a democrat. It makes me a thinking person. Then again, perhaps you are so far right you don't recognize the center when you see it? I don't know you well enough to make that judgement. Try some far left sites and you'll find I'm far from the left. Not that it matters.Let’s not forget among all this, that there are infinite reasons why certain, apparently “qualified” candidates, are not considered for the VP role. Some don’t want it, some have checkered pasts that we will never know about (most likely case), and some have sketchy voting records in Congress or elsewhere. So, often times, it comes down to the best of the mediocre, not the best of the best. Also, there is so much jockying and strategy involved, that often times the VP candidate is selected for reasons we can’t begin to imagine. I think it is reasonable to assume that Palin MAY have been selected for what will happen in 4 years if the McCain ticket wins…“talk amongst yaselves”
[quote=BondGuy]Rugby,
BG- If you were a thinking person you would give equal bandwidth to the vetting of Biden and the dems. How about some positives on Palin to go with all of the negatives? Unfortunately, you are coming across as partisan and close minded.
I’m guessing you have visited a fair share of far left sites to help craft some of the fiction you have posted here.
If I were a thinking person? Nice!
For days before i got on to this thread the boys here were doing a pretty good job of downing Palin themselves. What with the hittin it comments and links to GILF Tee shirt websites. So, I guess i'm confused as to just what's getting under your skin about my comments. Several here participated in sexist comments and you give them a pass? There were racist comments as well regarding Obama that no one got called on. You didn't call any of them on their comments. Why? Are you a racist as well? Or a sexist? The thread turned to Palin. i didn't turn it there. I merely followed. I figured the bar had been set low by the sexist/GILF crowd and that i could come in with some facts to try to raise the conversation a bit. Little did i know sexist/GILF OK, facts out of bounds. Apparently here, telling posters that Palin is the Governor I'd like to F**k isn't a problem, but talking about her real baggage in a non offensive way is. My mistake. And you call me the non thinking person?Just for grins, I’m going to start marking the RCP poll average so we can watch the direction of the race between now and election day.
As of 9/3/2008 - Obama 48.8% - McCain 43.0 - Obama+5.8%Hockey Mom Scores - Washington post
Palin's First Punch A solid Hit - LA Times Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party - NYT A Hockey Mom Finds Her Voice - The Philadelphia Inquirer Then there is this: Palin's using the Bridge to nowhere as an example of her fiscal conservatism isn't quite true. She was for it until the federal government pulled the funding. She wanted it but only if she didn't have to pay for it. - Fox News (of all places!) Pentecostalism obsured in Palin's biography - Associated Press Palin had her youngest child after a prenatal showed he had Down syndrome. But she doesn't believe other woman should be able to make their own choice. Prenancy is indeed private. Decisions are to be discussed and determined in a family. But the party meeting in St. Paul Minnesota would put decisions about prenancy in the hands of the government... - Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Ellen Goodman A number of business and political leaders in Alaska said noone from the McCain camp spoke to them before she was selected - Philadelphia Inquirer McCain has made his opposition to federal earmanrks a cornerstone of his candidacy. But as mayor of Wallisa..., Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure $27 million in other federal earmarks. - Philadelphia inquirer The speech that Gov Sarah Palin gave was well delivered, but was written by George Bush's speech writer and sounds like exactly the same divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George for the last eight years - The Obama campaign Why is this important? Because it doesn't matter how she played to the crowd in St. Paul. What matters is how she plays in places she needs to win to become veep. Me: If you look a Pennsylvania it's a red state that is blue on it's southeastern and south western corners. According to the local ABC affiliate 6ABC, located in Philadelphia, the speech was a hohum typical stump speech, well delivered. My opinion: The barracuda did a fine job! McCain has his attack dog. A Pit Bull with lipstick! I though Rudy was better Huckabee, showed why he's alikable person but got his facts wrong with the Palin got more votes for mayor than Biden got in his run for president. The numbers are: 1996 palin won 651 votes, 1999 she won 909 votes, versus Biden getting 2378 with his fifth place Iowa finish. Biden went on to get over 79,000 votes in other states after he dropped out. I will addd, everyone of them a wrong vote! Romney was embarrassing. However, all in all the losers bracket did it's job. Absent from all speeches any mention of the B word. B as in Bush. Why bring the crowd down? Also absent, any mention of issues which polling clearly shows the repubs losing on all points. Turns out you can't control the WH for eight years, the congress for 6 out of the last 8, and the Supreme court for 7 out of the last 8, totally screw up foreign policy, get us into a war, and eff up the economy, and then claim you are not to blame. So why remind people of all those accomplishments? Listening to all the speeches of what they will do if elected I kept thinking, but you've got the white house now, why wait? McCain is a good man and would make a good president. It should be a good race.Rudy did get lost in the shuffle. I looked at him and Fred Thompson and thought, if they’d delivered that well during the campaign, they might have made the ticket. Someone said that they were so far behind schedule last night that they were feeding Rudy’s teleprompter whole paragraphs at a time and he had to do a lot of ad-libbing to keep up. If that’s so, it makes his time at the podium that much more impressive…I didn’t notice him missing a beat.
Two questions come to mind after last night. One, which you've already referenced is how will the candidates do with answering off the cuff? My best guess is that McCain and Biden will be more polished than the two younger candidates, but I doubt if any of the candidates at this point will leave us with many serious gaffes. The second question is...how hard will McCain have to work tonight to not be upstaged by his veep's performance last night? Delivering speeches is where the younger candidates are shining and the pit bull with lipstick may have left McCain with a hard act to follow. I'll try to remember to put up the national poll numbers from time to time, but if you're a political junkie, like I'm becoming, a good bi-partisan site where I pull much of my political intelligence is Real Clear Politics. Here's their link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ If you're not watching, listening and reading, you shouldn't be voting.[quote=Indyone]
If you're not watching, listening and reading, you shouldn't be voting.[/quote] Amen to that!http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
That is an excellent site, thanks for the link. The polling numbers are interesting, especially in the battleground states.
I’m not getting too caught up in the polling numbers, as their track record was just horrible the last election. I’m sure they made some adjustments, but they seem to be all over the map at this point and still too many undecided out there.
Look for the sentiment to swing to one ticket just days or a week before the election. I personally think what will trigger it is the performance and sound bites in debate (Obama & McCain). (Reagan with his words and confidence in '80 versus Carter; Nixon sweating and pale versus Kennedy etc…) Should be a barn burner and super exciting to watch. 4 Scenarios at this point-
1) Obama eeks it out against McCain (wins a few battlegrounds and does well down the stretch)
2) McCain eeks it out against Obama (no Palin McCain gaffes, Ohio, PA, Florida give it to him)
3) McCain-Palin win in landslide, country at least off the coasts not voting for Obama due to race, experience issue, etc.; he can’t close the deal/connect with middle America like he couldn’t against Hillary. Obama debate gaffe.
4) Obama wins in landslide. MCCain-Palin blow up. Obama connects to middle America (blue collar) and MCain screws up royally.
I could see 1,2,3 happening. #4 I find it difficult to see happening primarily due to race (not fair, but a reality?), unanswered questions about Obama (Ayers, Rev. Wright), and because of many of the points Palin outlined in her speech last night.
Sooner or later McCain is going to have to stop attacking Obama and start talking issues. Polling clearly indicates the repubs dead in the starting gate on that count. Economy in the shithole with them in power to blame. Being bogged down in Iraq and having the six foot seven diabetic who attacked us still walking around isn’t helping much either.
Though you can't put much faith in a convention speech to the home team, McCain tried to distance himself last night. However, while he is a maverick, he is also a member of the entrenched elite who have maintained the status quo. So, now he's done with that? Obama's appeal to blue collar america is in his promise to help them. While the John McCains of the world are getting richer these people are struggling to make ends meet, are losing their jobs, and in some cases losing their homes. Can a guy who owns six, or is it seven, homes connect with them? McCain also may not be who he says he is. Last night he spent alot of time telling us how he has always put country first. I'll give you he is a good man. However, in his ambition to win the oval office he contridicted those country first words with his pick of Sarah Palin. Palin was picked, clearly, to connect with the republican social converative base who were unexcited about his candidacy. They are now raving about his brilliance. Yet, she has zero foreign policy experience, next to zero domestic expereince and is a contradiction herself in that her anti pork fiscal conservatism is newly found. As mayor and again as governor she had little problem spending federal earmarks. In fact she sought them with zeal. So she's fine with wasting other peoples money. I'll give you that she is a fabulous speaker. So, in her pick for veep, McCain did not put country first, he put himself first. This is how it reads to those not in the fold. Actions speak louder than words. Next week out of the glare of the lights of St paul should be interesting.