McCain picks VP
Friday, August 29, 2008
DENVER (AP) _ John McCain tapped little-known Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate on Friday in a startling selection on the eve of the Republican National Convention.
Two senior campaign officials disclosed McCain's decision a few hours before the Republican presidential nominee-to-be and his newly-minted running mate appeared at a rally in swing-state Ohio.
Palin, like McCain, is a conservative with a maverick streak who has shown a willingness to clash with others in her own party. A self-styled hockey mom and political reformer, she has been governor of her state less than two years.
Palin's selection shocked numerous Republican officials.
At 44, Palin is a generation younger that Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, who is Barack Obama's running mate on the Democratic ticket.
She is three years Obama's junior, as well — and McCain has made much in recent weeks of Obama's relative lack of experience in foreign policy and defense matters.
In making his pick, McCain passed over several more prominent prospects who had figured in speculation for months — Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman among them.
Palin flew overnight to an airport in Ohio near Dayton, and even as she awaited her formal introduction, some aides said they had believed she was at home in Alaska.
She is a former mayor of Wasilla who became governor of her state in December 2006 after ousting a governor of her own party in a primary and then dispatching a former governor in the general election.
More recently, she has come under the scrutiny of an investigation by the Republican-controlled legislature into the possibility that she ordered the dismissal of Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not fire her former brother-in-law as a state trooper.
The timing of McCain's selection appeared designed to limit any political gain Obama yields from his own convention, which ended Thursday night with his nominating acceptance speech before an estimated 84,000 in Invesco Field in Colorado.
Public opinion polls show a close race between Obama and McCain, and with scarcely two months remaining until the election, neither contender can allow the other to jump out to a big post-convention lead.
McCain has had months to consider his choice, and has made it clear to reporters that one of his overriding goals was to avoid a situation like the one in 1988, when Dan Quayle was thrown into a national campaign with little preparation.
Palin has a long history of run-ins with the Alaska GOP hierarchy, giving her genuine maverick status and reformer credentials that could complement McCain's image.
Two years ago, she ousted the state's Republican incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski in the primary, despite having little money and little establishment backing.
She has also distanced herself from two senior Republican office-holders, Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young. Both men are under federal corruption investigations.
She had earned stripes — and enmity — after Murkowski made her head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. From that post, she exposed ethical violations by the state GOP chairman, also a fellow commissioner.
She and her husband Todd Palin, have five children. The latest, a baby, was born with Down syndrome.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by Observation (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sarah is a home run selection for McCain. Her acceptance speech today exceeded, in every way, the convention speech of far leftist B. Hussain Obama last night. The lady is a winner.
Posted by Fixed_News (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seriously? Besides being a woman, which is why he picked her, what does she bring to the table? Her speech was mediocre. This was only a move toward the Hillary vote. It won't grab the Hillary vote and will only help the Obama ticket.
Posted by justaflushaway (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Observation, you are correct in your comments, this young lady will go far! She will help McCain more than any other candidate would have.
Fixed, take your binders off and stop drinking the Bracka Hussain Obama kool-aid. Demoracats just LOST!!!! But I expect that we all will get a lot of comments from the dems that she will be the worst thing in the world
Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a good surprise! From what I have read so far about her, she sounds like just the type of politician we need to start cleaning out the corruption that has crept into all political arenas (Republican & Democrat - I think we can all agree it happens everywhere). A person that has the gumption to turn in the corrupt ways of powerful people in their own party as well as opposing parties, sounds like someone with a high level of integrity and ethics, and the type of person I would support. I hope as we learn more that she turns out to be as good as she sounds.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you serious? Look at things logically for just one second please. McCain blasts Obama all the time for his inexperience, and then he selects a running mate that has less than 2 years as a governor of Alaska? Hypocrisy in motion folks, this is clearly a ploy to gain the female demographic, nothing more. I am not a massive Obama supporter but in this election he is the lesser of two evils.
Posted by rcakmon (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These comments are so entertaining! The middle name of Barack being thrown out is so funny. Really...is that the best you can do? Go ahead and vote for McCain. You'll get four more years of a huge and growing deficit, continuing a war we should not have started (and don't try "the terrorists started the war" line) and the richest Americans getting tax cuts. McCain thinks our economy is fundamentally sound. Now, that's scary!
Posted by esuhornets (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Goodoleboy,
Read more about what she has done in her two years. She sounds like she would be the best canidate for president forget being VP.
Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting pick. I was surprised, to say the least. I am certainly familiar with her name, but I had suspected McCain would invite Romney, Pawlenty or Ridge as his running mate. I will have to do some more reading up on Governor Palin's background, experience and stances on the most important issues at hand in this election.
Today, there have been quite a few voiced opinions (pro and con) about Palin. This mixed report card from CNN seems to most eloquently highlight the opinions from both sides: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/r...
Brian Protheroe,
San Francisco, CA
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not all that surprised. Gov. Pallin can deliver the two things McCain himself cannot deliver -- youth and the female gender. Not a bad strategy to capture the Hillary vote.
Also, since you childish people who continue to use Senator Obama's middle name can't find anything of substance to attack, at least spell it correctly would you. It's Hussein. This cowardly inference you make is that Obama is only masquerading as a Christian. What a thin disguise of Republican racism.
Posted by Observation (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
goodolboy,
McCain will continue to blast Obama for his lack of experience to become the President of the USA. This is not the job for on the job training. The flip side, ignorant Democrats blasting Sarah for her lack of experience is naive, because the Vice Presidents job is an excellent job for on the job training to become President of the USA.
Mc Cain will now be able to shake loose the Democrats argument that it will be business as usual for the next for years with McCain at the helm, just like the last eight years under Bush. McCain and Palin are both Mavericks who will not be in bed with Washington. Both have proven that. The flip side is that B, Hussain Obama has proven his in-bed with Washington with his selection of J Biden as a running mate.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Esuhornets
When electing someone for the vice presidency I would surmise that 2 years as a governor of Alaska would not be sufficient enough. I realize that she has done some good, not discounting that, but she has not really been around long enough or been through enough as a leader for me to give her my nod, plus her style really does not seem to mesh with what McCain stands for. It just irks me when I see him go on and on about experience and then pick someone with next to none.
Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Been a long time, but I couldn't resist this one.
Since we like to point out hypocrisy, how about the fact that when Obama and Hilary were going at it, they went rounds about keeping Race and Gender out of it, but what does Obama do? He schedules his speech on the anniversary of the MLK speech (getting the African American vote) and then has Stevie Wonder perform (African American and handicap). C'mon.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Observation,
How can you possibly reason that the VP is a good training opportunity? McCain is not a spring chicken and would be the oldest president ever elected, him going to an early grave or being assassinated would make her president. Very flawed logic sir, you do NOT set someone up for disaster like that, training opportunities would have been him appointing her to something else.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Deepthoughts
Because when they scheduled the Democratic National Convention long ago they knew Obama would be the nominee? Nope. And traditionally the nominee always does speak on the last day. Strike two, I will lament and give in on the Stevie Wonder comment possibly but the rest was coincidence sir.
Posted by Observation (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As a administrator (running a government) she has more experience than all three of the others on the Major Party tickets, J. Biden, B. Hussain Obama and John McCain. She is going to be the next Vice Prtesident of the United States so get on board or choose to be miserable for the next 4+ years. Your possible dream ticket of B. Hussain Obama/H. Clinton is not going to happen this time around.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL no use arguing with the ignorant and uneducated, that statement was so full of blatant incompetence I don't dare respond.
Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is anyone else mentally exhausted of the red-state blue-state divide that we have in America? I am reminded of the recent quote from Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church:
"In America, we've got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other and we need to restore civility — Yes. We need to restore civility in our civil discourse."
I, for one, would like to see in these blogs a more honest attempt at discussing the issues, not the middle names or age of the candidates. Via such conversations, I would hope to learn more about how and why a fellow blogger has formed his/her opinion rather than taking political jabs at one another.
The politicians may take political jabs at one another, but I think we should set the example that we want bi-partisanship through our own civil discourse.
Brian Protheroe,
San Francisco, CA
Posted by rdgrey (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The best part of this election...NO MATTER WHO WINS...we will finally cross some borders and make a landmark for 2008 with either one winning, whether a female VP or a african american president. This is very exciting to me and my family to see that no matter who you are the American dream is still alive.
Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rdgrey - Well said. Bravo!
Posted by Fixed_News (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now if Obama would have picked Hillary it would have been opposite. "He is just trying to pick up the female votes."
Posted by Reason_is_not_Treason (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if Palin can spell Potato...
Posted by Reason_is_not_Treason (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This pick was a disaster for McCain. Trying to divorce himself from Bush.... by picking as a running mate a neophyte fundamentalist governor with ties to oil to be his replacement in the oh-so-real chance he doesnt last 4 years...
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rdgrey: I have issues with your incorrect terminology. Obama is not "African-American." If he were, he would be legally forbidden to run for president.
An African-American is a person born in Africa who is residing in America. At the time citizenship is awarded the person is no longer an African, but an American, and the hyphen needs to disappear. Same with Mexican-Americans, Italian-Americans, and any other hyphenated Americans. You are either a Mexican, or an American of Mexican descent: An African or an American of African descent. To boast of being both suggests divided, thus questionable, loyalty. Hyphenating a nationality is racist and divisive in a nation that now, more than ever, needs to be free of racism and united as one people.
Barack Obama is not an African-American. He is an American. He is woefully ill-equipped and far too liberal to be President, but he is not an African. He is an American.
Posted by rdgrey (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bjnemp.... I didnt want to just say BLACK man because he isnt and the post was not to make a racial arguement such as you want to make it. I think you and everyone else knows what I ment but instead you want to get out the microscope and make yourself look like a grade school idiot with some stupid talk. YES HE IS AMERICAN and living the AMERICAN DREAM. " Obama is biracial, and has a direct connection with Africa" (time magazine, Aug. 29th).
So are you voting on the identity of race or the quality of the canidate? I dont think you need to respond to that question as we can see your last post pointed that out just fine.
Posted by rcakmon (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sheryl Crowe and Michael McDonald also performed last night. Stevie Wonder makes a nice balanced group of performers, don't you think?
Face it...she was chosen because of her anatomy. Add her NRA ties and pro-life beliefs and the far right will be drooling over her. It's McCains only chance.
Posted by Observation (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, Bjnemp you are correct on the African-American issue. His mother was a European-American (if we are using hyphens) and his father an African-American. Together they made the mixed race person, B Hussain Obama. To avoid all of the race issue we should only call him American. I have even heard him refer to himself as African American. To me he is disapproving of the part of him that is European-American when he talks like that. It's like he hates to admit that there is there is European blood running in his veins.
Posted by momus (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama introduced his whiter than white grandfather during the convention, so I'm not sure how he is disapproving of any part of his ethnic background. His mother would most likely have a more prominent role in his campaign, had she not passed away of cancer.
After asking a few of my more moderate Republican friends their opinion of McCain's pick, I think there may be some wariness out there. I'm sure that Gov. Palin is sharp, but she's two years into governorship of a state that has a significantly less population than the KC metro area. For a candidate that polling data suggested was even in the race (in large part) because of the experience factor, McCain seemed to erode his own base of strength with this pick.
I thought Obama handed McCain an opening with the Biden selection, but I think McCain handed Obama a larger gift with his selection. McCain turned 72 today, and I'm not sure many people Republicans, Democrats or Independents are OK with the phrase "President Palin".
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 10:46 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, I have to admit I was shocked by this. At first, I thought McCain had lost his mind. I had never heard of the woman until a few days ago, and I thought it was kind of like the Sebelius thing with Obama, her name was circulating as the token woman.
Now that I have had some time to absorb it all, McCains choice does not seem that wild anymore. Obviously he has picked a woman to try to lure some of the Hillary camp, but it also allows the GOP to say they are open to change as well, you definitely cannot call Sarah Palin a "good ol' boy" and you can't call her a Washington insider either. She is young and McCain is old, so she should have some youth appeal, had McCain picked an old white guy they would have been labeled "two old white geezers". What can Biden say about her inexperience??? Less than 6 months ago there are numerous news clips of him saying the very same thing about Obama..what can Obama say about her inexperience, after all in reality she has about the same experience as he does. Obama preached change and no more Washington insiders, pointing to McCain as an insider, then picks Biden, who is just as much an insider as McCain. McCain picks someone who has never been in DC.
From what I can tell, she is blue collar as is her husband, as am I. She was a mayor of a small town, that has drawn alot of criticism already. If the Dems hammer that too much, it is going to offend alot of small town blue collar people. She is the mother of a child with Downs Syndrome, and pro-life...she has actually been in a situation where many would have had an abortion and chosen not to, so you can't call her a hypocrite on that matter.
So, what first looked to me like a really stupid move on McCains part, tonight looks like a fairly smart move. What do I think about her with her lack of experience being "a heartbeat away" from being President? Well, face it, Obama has the same amount of experience and is running to be President, what do you think I think.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 1:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You have to feel for the Democrats and Barack O'Bama. John McCain has outwitted them again. They look like fools when they say she is inexperienced when she is just as experienced as O'Bama - in fact, more so because she has not been a mere legislator, she is a governor, and O'Bama is at the top of the ticket to boot. O'Bama talks about change, but brings in a long time Washington insider (Biden) whereas McCain actually produces change (Palin). I have been pessimistic about McCain's chances, but the Old Dog may just do it.
Posted by hogan77 (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 1:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I personally feel that John McCain, as well as Barack Obama are both the wrong candidates for president. And before anyone says anything, Palin isn't any better. What I find so hilarious is, McCain chose Palin to try to recruit the votes of females. Palin is anti female, if I ever saw one. She is pro-life.
Now, I am not saying I believe abortion is right, but that is not the point I am trying to make. What I am trying to say is, Palin has as good a chance of bringing in female votes and die hard Clinton supporters as I do of becoming your next president. Women want to be able to make a choice, no matter what others think is right or wrong. And for those liberal women who want everything, they will NOT be voting for McCain. Obama, at least, supports women in their right to choose, which will appeal to all of those who are pro choice.
McCain is an idiot... he can't even remember how many houses he owns. Seriously! And we want him for president?
Posted by Observation (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hogan77:
You bring up the success of John McCain in owning so many houses; Democrats have a problem with success. They always want to limit a person’s success. A Democrat looks at a rich person and says, "Nobody should have the right to make that much money", where as Republican looks at a rich person and says, "Everybody should have the right to make that much money". John McCain owns so many houses because he and his wife or their ancestors have been successful. I think the Democrats would like to punish him for being successful when I hear them whining about not being able to remember how many houses he has. And yes, I seriously want John McCain to be president. Look at the alternative!
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hogan77, good comment on Palin bringing no help for gathering female votes. Even the clips being shown of her feature images of her using a weapon. Is that an AK 47? Yes, I believe you're right; women will look upon her as pro-choice and anti-female. I don't think too many women will take the bait.
And here we go -- the morning papers are already reporting that she is the focus of an ethics probe in Alaska.
"Palin is under investigation to determine whether she pressured and then fired the state police chief in July because he refused to dismiss her former brother-in-law. At the time, the governor's younger sister was involved in a bitter divorce and child custody dispute with the man, a state trooper. A bipartisan committee of the state legislature voted unanimously to hire a retired prosecutor to investigate. His report is due in October."
The full article is in the Washington Post. You have to register to read it, but it's free.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Posted by been_there (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I really enjoy reading all your comments on here. At least this election has made people think about things and actually look at the issues. I am still listening to both sides and am pretty sure who I will choose. The race issue and the 'woman factor' will not be one of my issues however. There are too many things at stake with this election and we should all be sure to get out and vote whoever our choice. This is our right and our duty and we should be glad we live in a country where we have this ability.
And Hogan77, didn't Obama make a statement about our '57 states?' Does that make him the better choice for President? We should all stick to the real issues, the ones that will affect our futures and maybe together we WILL make a change for our nation!
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well at least one of the four has a little experience that matters. Senators seldom make good Presidents, the exception being those that were Governors or heads of major enterprises. Even being a mayor is better experience for the VP than being a senator, history has taught us that quite well. I have not made up my mind as of yet, but these latest events are helpful.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Observation,
McCain never had any money until he married his wife who likely never worked a day in her life either, she inherited everything. Do I care if they have money, no. What I care about is ignorant people like you spouting nonsense. Get your facts straight, the man has never had to worry about money since he married her, and he did not EARN anything, he married into it. Hope this clears things up for you. I think 95% of the American public know how many houses they have, he dropped the ball badly on this one.
Posted by Fixed_News (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Correction.....
He never had to worry about money when he started cheating on his first wife with Mrs. Bud. McCain has started to use he "I was a POW" as an excuse for these events. Also, you are probably the people who attacked Kerry for his wife and her money.
Now Palin, this might help. Watch the video.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/29...
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gossip is boring, facts and speculation are interesting, as long as the speculation is concerns the main topic. Any more logical, honest speculation out there?
Posted by jaredfromsubway (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wasn't she the one who tried to use her position to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the highway patrol? What kind of person would do that to an ex-family member? Brother-in-laws should be respected at the highest level. That was a horrible choice, and probably sealed the deal for Obama.
Fortunately, it looks like Biden is pretty solid and would most likely end up the president if Obama is elected, so that is probably the way to go. This is really a race of the VPs, not Ps.
Eat Fresh
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Guess not.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 3:46 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Site staff: You allow regrey's post of Aug. 29 at 6:00 pm, which attacks me, to remain yet remove my response? I see fairness is not a high priority with you.
Posted by UsayULoveGod (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 11:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just watched this on Youtube !
What does a VP do ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=006axc2aE...
You have to be kidding me !!!!
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
UsayULoveGod: John Nance Garner, former Speaker of the House from Texas and two term Vice President (1933-1941, FDR's first two terms) chose not to run for a third term because he, after two terms, asked the same question that Governor Palin asked. Vice President Garner was completely left out of governing. Vice Presidents have no executive branch constitutional powers and are at the mercy of the president for their role. Presidents Clinton and Bush are the only modern presidents that have included the vice presidents. History is replete with vice presidents who had nothing to do. The fact that Governor Palin asked that question indicates that she was not interested in the position unless Senator McCain would make a commitment to include her in governing. I think that that is a very good sign; certainly not fodder for criticism as you have done. I only hope that Senator Biden asked the same question. We have evidence that Governor Palin did. Good for her.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In 1944 when Senator Harry Truman was asked to be President Roosevelt's vice presidential running mate, he should have asked the question that obviously Governor Palin did. Truman became Vice President on January 20, 1945 and never saw President Roosevelt again. When he suddenly became president upon Roosevelt's death, he had not been included in any presidential decisions; in fact, he did not know that the US had developed the atom bomb. The fact that Governor Palin asked the question on what role a McCain vice president would have before agreeing to accept it speaks volumes for her potential and is, indeed, very reassuring. Thanks for pointing it out, UsayULoveGod, because it makes me feel much better about her.
Posted by UsayULoveGod (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 3:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Please she is not well informed , I heard her on a show talk about drilling for Oil in Alaska and they asked her , If we started to drill how long will it be ready for use , she stated in about 5 years, not true , it will take a mininmum of 8 and it will only lower Gas prices aroun $.02- per gallon, She is just looking to pad her state's pocket. The truth is the past 8 years have been the Worst ever and we do not need another 4. Ask her how much we are borrowing from China to stay afloat ?
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In picking her he sealed his fate from my POV, nullified one of his only strong points. Don't believe the recent poll data, the GOP is having a heck of a time with swing states and traditional Repub states. While I don't believe Obama will win by a landslide he will likely defeat McCain by a sizable margin, and this choice only aided that.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All of us who have strong opinions tend to get partisan, myself included. However, I am amused at the posts that I've seen here from Obama supporters who are so dismissive of McCain's VEEP choice. Obama is the "change" candidate, a departure from the status quo. Yet, he picks a Senator who has been part of the Washington establishment since 1972 (36 years) to run with him. Obama himself, although only in the Senate for 4 years, has gone along with the Democratic senate leadership 100% of the time (racking up a 100% liberal voting record in the process). He did exactly the same thing in the Illinois State Senate. How is that change? McCain, on the other hand, has demonstrated independence (so much so that many Republicans are uneasy about him) and chose a Washington outsider to run with him. Now, who is the true "change" candidate in this race?
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One other important point about the Palin pick for vice president: I think that if I were an Obama supporter that I would be careful about making the qualifications and experience of the Republican vice presidential candidate (in the second position on the ticket) an issue given that she has as much (or more) of both than the Democratic presidential candidate (in the first position on the ticket).
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good points, jayhawker. I have tried to hold myself in check because I too can become zealous in my partisanship. I have, however, looked more closely at McCain's choice of a running mate in the past couple of days. I must say that I can't help but waiver back and forth, ever so slightly, as I look at both sides of the tickets. What you say makes sense about the "true change" candidate, particularly because McCain has indeed ruffled a few party feathers in Washington while Palin herself has thrown a few party members to the mat in her state.
Obama's change credo, on the other hand, seems centered on sweeping change from the present administration's 8-year debacle rather than ruffling a few feathers.
I shall continue to read and make myself aware. In the meantime, we're in for an interesting time of it now that all the primaries are finally behind us. I look forward to this historic time. The spin masters are fun to watch too. It's all good for the brain.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, create. Your posts are some of the better on these threads. I admit to being a conservative Republican, but as I get older (this will be my 15th Presidential election to vote, starting with a vote for Eisenhower in 1952), I try to be more like you in tempering partisanship and look at candidates and issues from a meritorious point of view. For the most part, that has confirmed my long time Republican views, but I will admit to an occasional realization that maybe we Republicans could do better on certain issues. Internal inspection is much tougher than inspection of another.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One other thing, create. Although I will have voted Republican 14 of the 15 times that I voted in a presidential election (I voted for Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater in 1964 and quickly regretted it), I am more proud of the fact that I have voted in every election, every time that the polls opened, no matter what was on the ballot, since 1950 when I turned 21 years old. Before I retired, I spent a good deal of time on the road. In 1966 I strongly supported the re-election of Governor Bill Avery (who lost to Bob Docking), but I almost missed voting, getting back into town and to the polling place as it was closing. After I retired, they started the Advance Voting, which I sure wish had been around when I was working. With Advance Voting, we are out of excuses for not voting.
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for the compliment, Jayhawker. You know, my first time to vote was the presidential election of 1964. LBJ. I was so proud to be able to participate. People of Hawaii are crazy about voting because in their past, they could only vote in local elections. Even the governor was appointed. Of course, Hawaii is traditionally staunch Democrat. But here's an interesting personal note. When we got orders to Kansas, my father, a man of few words, said two things to me: "There are no mountains in Kansas, you know you're gonna miss the Koolaus." and "Kansas is a Republican state you know. Don't you go over there and vote for any Republicans." Well, I must say, I do miss seeing those mountains, and I've almost always voted Democrat. I voted for Bush the first time. I do like to pay close attention and sometimes don't make up my mind until the last minute.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you were 21 years old in 1964, create, you no doubt recall August 21, 1959 when Hawaii was admitted to the Union. I recall two things very well about that - the flags had to be replaced twice that year (they started off the year with 48 stars, then in January Alaska was admitted, making 49, then in August Hawaii came, making it 50), and the debate about how each state would vote in the 1960 presidential election. Of course, we already knew because each state elected its congressional delegation in advance of admission (if I recall correctly, in the 1958 election) and Hawaii elected Democrats and Alaska Republicans (which is probably how the compromise got worked to get them both admitted). I'm not sure how many governors Hawaii has had, but it was interesting to me that Sarah Palin is only the 11th Governor of Alaska and only the 9th person to hold the office (since two governors came back after a break). Alaska's second and eighth governor was originally from Claflin, Kansas in Barton County (Walter Hickel). Having a vice presidential candidate from such a new state is sort of like having a new baseball franchise win a pennant. I bet that the people of Alaska are very proud right now.
Posted by MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Copy n Pasted this from redcounty.com:
Summary Of McCain-Obama Debate Agreement:
The two campaigns agreed today on a framework for four General Election debates, to be sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Key elements of the agreement are:
1. First Presidential Debate:
- Date: September 26
- Site: University of Mississippi
- Topic: Foreign Policy & National Security
- Moderator: Jim Lehrer
- Staging: Podium debate
- Answer Format: The debate will be broken into nine, 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment. After these initial answers, the moderator will facilitate an open discussion of the topic for the remaining 5 minutes, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment
2. Vice Presidential Debate
- Date: October 2nd
- Site: Washington University (St. Louis)
- Moderator: Gwen Ifill
- Staging/Answer Format: To be resolved after both parties' Vice Presidential nominees are selected.
3. Second Presidential Debate
- Date: October 7
- Site: Belmont University
- Moderator: Tom Brokaw
- Staging: Town Hall debate
- Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment. In the spirit of the Town Hall, all questions will come from the audience (or internet), and not the moderator.
4. Third Presidential Debate
- Date: October 15
- Site: Hofstra University
- Topic: Domestic and Economic policy
- Moderator: Bob Schieffer
- Staging: Candidates will be seated at a table
- Answer Format: Same as First Presidential Debate
- Closing Statements: At the end of this debate (only) each candidate shall have the opportunity for a 90 second closing statement.
All four debates will begin at 9pm ET, and last for 90 minutes. Both campaigns also agreed to accept the CPD's participation rules for third-party candidate participation.
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, I can imagine how proud the people of Alaska are to have their governor picked as McCain's running mate. Hawaii and Alaska have little political attention paid to them. (Interesting note re: Walter Hickel).
Hawaii has had only 6 governors since becoming a state in 1959, two of them Republicans. The first was already in office as a territorial governor appointed by the president, and simply served out his term. The second is the current governor, Linda Lingle, born in Missouri, but most of her adult life spent in Hawaii. She is the first ELECTED Republican. An interesting side note, she is also only the second Jewish governor of any state.
Yes, I remember how the flags had to be replaced twice in such a short period of time. I was only 16 years old, but how well I remember the celebrations. In the middle of the day, as soon as Hawaii got word, firecrackers by the hundreds of thousands were set off all over the islands, church bells clanged, ships in the harbors were all blowing their horns, car horns blared, people shouted and danced in the streets, champagne flowed freely on every street corner, leis were being exchanged everywhere, confetti floated thickly all over the Honolulu business district, Hawaiian music blared, and this went on for hours. And for the first time ever, my father let me have my own glass of champagne with which to toast the new state.
Sorry, got off topic a little, but the memory is a vivid one. Oh yeah, I still have my original driver's license. 1958. It is made of thick paper, stamped with the official seal and "Territory of Hawaii." Aloha!
Posted by hogan77 (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 2:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To been_there and Observation:
Personally, I don't want either one of the choices for president. I have yet to find a politician who offers what this country needs. Someone who is fair, will offer tax breaks for the lower class and families.. the real people who need it, someone who will find an alternative to the fuel crisis, someone who will allow women to make their own choices, even if others (like myself) feel that the choices are wrong. I want someone who is there to support working class people and families, someone who will bend over backwards to help us improve our way of life. Now certainly.. someone who owns multiple houses may be successful, but sometimes with success comes a large head and a small heart. McCain may be "successful" in the eyes of some, but in others eyes, he is an idiot who cares nothing about the rest of us, only about himself and all his great success.
As far as Obama is concerned, I do have my issues with him. I feel that he is nowhere near as ready as we need him to be to lead our great nation. However, when it comes down to a fight between the two, I would have to say Obama would be my voting choice. No, I am not promoting him. I am simply saying, overall, the things he SAYS he will do look more promising to me than what McCain says HE will do.
As long as whoever is in office helps make my life better, and not worse, I am fine with them. I want tax breaks, I want to be able to improve my life, and my child's life. I don't want to lay in bed at night, wondering when the next bomb will drop, and whether it will be in my back yard or not. I don't want to worry about whether I will be able to make my own choices about my own life or not. I want this great nation to become dependent on no one but themselves, and find a better alternative to our fuel crisis- by taking advantage of the elements around us.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with most of what you say, Hogan77, but Obama is not the man to "improve my life and my child's life", "make my life better, not worse", or grant your wish for "tax breaks".
Obama has often declared he intends to reinstate the inheritance tax and capital gains tax, double income taxes, raise social security taxes, and drastically increase gasoline taxes.
You also state you don't want to "lay in bed at night wondering when the next bomb will drop." Obama is an admitted pacifist who prefers appeasement to aggressive military defense. He has also called for a reduction in our standing army which is already dangerously under-manned. Obama strongly opposes citizens owning firearms and would like the second amendment to be repealed. Hitler did the same thing. That made it very easy for him and his storm troopers to control the people.
McCain is not an ideal choice by any stretch of the imagination, but he, along with Sarah Palin, a life member of the NRA, is a far better option if you desire lower taxes and national security.
Posted by momus (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You might want to qualify a few of those statements, Bjnemp. Obama, from what I've read, wants a small business exception for the inheritance tax. This would exempt most family farms and small businesses from inheritance taxation, but would leave it in place for the family that is fighting against inheritance tax the hardest (the Walton family, and their extended Wal-Mart crew).
Would you mind linking to the gasoline tax raise? I could not find any information on that policy statement from the Obama camp. Thanks in advance...
As for the 2nd amendment, I also haven't read anything from the Obama camp about repealing the amendment, nor would a President be able to to such a thing without SIGNIFICANT support from state and federal government entities. From his speech, which I choose to take at face value, Obama wants a distinction made between hunting weapons and assault weapons with additional restrictions on the latter. I think the comment comparing Hitler and Obama is over-reaching to say the least. You accuse him of depleting the military, and then insinuate that he wants to take everyone's guns so his "storm troopers" can "control the people". You are smarter than that.
I, like most American's, am not comfortable with the path we are on. I'm not comfortable with our standing in the world, with our current foreign policy, with our skyrocketing debt, with our job market, with our economy, with our ecology and I'm frankly sick of politicians telling me all the things I should fear. I'll admit that right now I'm leaning towards Obama, if for no other reason than I have seen what the GOP has done with a Republican President (and a majority in the House and Senate for the majority of his presidency).
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The only one who CAN make your life better is YOU> The government gives nothing, it only moves things from one citizen to another while taking a cut to pay employees.If so many were not on the receiving end, more on the losing end could afford to make a better life with what they have worked for.
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another thing, the economy has been in far worse shape in recent memory, inflation is low and the housing market is just the most recent chapter in the ongoing S&L saga. If you want something, work for it.
Posted by momus (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that the government shouldn't be all about hand outs, but without some sort of regulation/intervention history shows that the "haves" will inevitably take advantage of the "have nots" regardless of the work ethic of those getting shafted. We need to have a system that rewards hard work, not one that rewards being born into a certain family. Governments can create environments where those who wish to work hard can succeed. Governments can require that our trading partners treat us as fairly as we treat them. Governments can encourage businesses that engage in business practices that move this country forward, and deny that encouragement to businesses that take stances contrary to the best interests of this nations citizens.
As far as our current economic situation goes, I wouldn't deem the housing market situation as an ongoing S&L situation. They are similar in levels of stupidity, and the fact that we are bailing the banks involved out, but that's about it.
I think our most recent jobs report can sum up our economic situation better than I could with limited space:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/01/workers...
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 1, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow USNretired, you care to explain that nonsense your spouting? Guess all the middle class folk in this country got lazy eh? re empowering the unions and cutting tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas would go a long ways to getting things back to where they were, which is what you are referring to. There are a whole lot of things the government has to take on in order to make things right, the problem is that the interest has not been focused where it needs to be.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
momus: I respect your posts. However, right after you told Bjnemp that he was "smarter than that" in relation to a comment that he made about Senator Obama, you said that . . . "I'll admit that right now I'm leaning towards Obama, if for no other reason than I have seen what the GOP has done with a Republican President . . .". I have to ask you, momus, you are smarter than that, aren't you? Even a cursory examination of John McCain and his record clearly and unmistakably show that he and the current president, although of the same party, are not alike in any significant way. I know that the Democrats' talking points are to make people think that a McCain presidency would be a third term for President Bush, but in view of the overwhelming evidence that these talking points are not factually grounded, you are smart enough to see these claims for what they are. I know that you are, because you have made excellent posts on other issues in which you demonstrated a deep understanding of issues. I was surprised to see that you might have fallen for such an intellectually thin arguement.
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 3:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Facts require no explanation, they stand alone.
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on September 2, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Time to move, folks:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...