McCain's running mate is the Alaskan Governor??!
- Thread starter aurora.
- Start date
funk.
Active member
My dad and I have been expecting this for a while know. I really dont' think there is any way he would last the entire four years.. I know am thinking that this may even happen before the election when there's no choice but to let the delegates choose who would take his place.. maybe Palin or maybe she'll stay VP and someone else will step in. anyway you're definitely right on her running for president though. Mccain may just be a name..
ax_murderer
Active member
i dont think experience is a big an issue for VP, who imo is for pandering mostly. either way i dont think obama supports can bash her lack of experience. whats sick is that she rooted out corruption and a bunch of terds in office in alaska, republicans, and was Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. shes got five kids, oldest is in the army, youngest has down syndrome?my mom just told me. seems like a pretty appealing vp and very good choice i think
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Well, while we're on the topic of people who don't know what they're talking about....
Seriously, find me another meaningful position. The woman's been in 3 elections in her entire life, one was a primary, and one was a losing effort at lieutenant governor. She's anti-abortion and anti-gay, but pro-civil rights. She wants to drill in ANWR. She is pro capital punishment (really?). These are the kinds of things you find out when you ask random people on the street what their political beliefs are... and she's running for VP with a strong possibility of becoming President if something happens to JM. Well what the hell is she going to do if she gets there? She doesn't actually seem to know, herself... I stole this from Crooksandliars, but someone on CNBC asked her about the VP slot at one point, and she answered, "I still can’t
answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly
that the V.P. does every day?"
There's no actual substance here, and no platform.
answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly
that the V.P. does every day?"
There's no actual substance here, and no platform.
snowbladesforlife
Active member
Are you fucking retarded. State economics are completely different that national/international economics.
I can guarantee she doesn't know shit about economics, besides more money right now helps my people and approval rating in the short term. Big government and private contracts through ill gotten means do not equate to good economics. You have no idea what you are talking about. If everything in America worked like Alaska based on log rolling and pork barrel spending America would be way more fucked than it is with an exponentially growing deficit. Read a fucking economics book and learn yourself about short term gains for very small group of people verse policy for a large group in the short and long term. What a fucking joke.
I can guarantee she doesn't know shit about economics, besides more money right now helps my people and approval rating in the short term. Big government and private contracts through ill gotten means do not equate to good economics. You have no idea what you are talking about. If everything in America worked like Alaska based on log rolling and pork barrel spending America would be way more fucked than it is with an exponentially growing deficit. Read a fucking economics book and learn yourself about short term gains for very small group of people verse policy for a large group in the short and long term. What a fucking joke.
Shpadoinkle
Active member
Palin = Governor
Obama = Senator
"A governor is a governing official, usually the executive (at least nominally, to different degrees also politically and administratively) of a non-sovereign level of government, ranking under the Head of state. In federations, a governor may be the title of each appointed or elected politician who governs a constitutive state."
"Legislative Functions
Bills may be introduced in either House of Congress. However, the Constitution provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. The constitutional provision barring the Senate from introducing revenue bills is based on the practice of the British Parliament, in which only the House of Commons may originate such measures.
Although the Constitution gave the House the power to initiate revenue bills, in practice the Senate is equal to the House in the respects of taxation and spending. As Woodrow Wilson wrote:[17]
[T]he Senate's right to amend [general appropriation bills] has been allowed the widest possible scope. The upper house may add to them what it pleases; may go altogether outside of their original provisions and tack to them entirely new features of legislation, altering not only the amounts but even the objects of expenditure, and making out of the materials sent them by the popular chamber measures of an almost totally new character.
The approval of both the Senate and the House of Representatives is required for any bill, including a revenue bill, to become law. Both Houses must pass the exact same version of the bill; if there are differences, they may be resolved by a conference committee, which includes members of both bodies.
Checks and Balances
The Constitution provides several unique functions for the Senate that form its ability to "check and balance" the powers of other elements of the Federal Government. These include the requirement that the Senate may advise and must consent to the President's government appointments; also the Senate must ratify all treaties with foreign governments; it tries all impeachments, and it elects the Vice President in the event no person gets a majority of the electoral votes.
The President can make certain appointments only with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officials whose appointments require the Senate's approval include members of the Cabinet, heads of most federal executive agencies, ambassadors, Justices of the Supreme Court, and other federal judges. Under the Constitution, a large number of government appointments are subject to potential confirmation; however, Congress has passed legislation to authorize the appointment of many officials without the Senate's consent (usually, confirmation requirements are reserved for those officials with the most significant final decision-making authority). Typically, a nominee is first subject to a hearing before a Senate committee. Thereafter, the nomination is considered by the full Senate. The majority of nominees are confirmed, but in a small number of cases each year, Senate Committees will purposely fail to act on a nominations in order to block it. Also, the President sometimes withdraws nominations when they appear unlikely to be confirmed. Because of this, outright rejections of nominees on the Senate Floor are quite infrequent (there have been only nine Cabinet nominees rejected outright in the history of the United States).
The Senate has the power to try impeachments; shown above is Theodore R. Davis' drawing of the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, 1867.The powers of the Senate with respect to nominations are, however, subject to some constraints. For instance, the Constitution provides that the President may make an appointment during a congressional recess without the Senate's advice and consent. The recess appointment remains valid only temporarily; the office becomes vacant again at the end of the next congressional session. Nevertheless, Presidents have frequently used recess appointments to circumvent the possibility that the Senate may reject the nominee. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court held in Myers v. United States, although the Senate's advice and consent is required for the appointment of certain executive branch officials, it is not necessary for their removal.[18]
The Senate also has a role in the process of ratifying treaties. The Constitution provides that the President may only ratify a treaty if two-thirds of the senators vote to grant advice and consent. However, not all international agreements are considered treaties, and therefore do not require the Senate's approval. Congress has passed laws authorizing the President to conclude executive agreements without action by the Senate. Similarly, the President may make congressional-executive agreements with the approval of a simple majority in each House of Congress, rather than a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Neither executive agreements nor congressional-executive agreements are mentioned in the Constitution, leading some to suggest that they unconstitutionally circumvent the treaty-ratification process. However, the validity of such agreements has been upheld by courts.[19]
The Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" and empowers the Senate to try such impeachments. If the sitting President of the United States is being tried, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the trial. During any impeachment trial, senators are constitutionally required to sit on oath or affirmation. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority of the senators present. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office in the future. No further punishment is permitted during the impeachment proceedings; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law.
In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. (One resigned before the Senate could complete the trial.)[20] Only two Presidents of the United States have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Both trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction.
Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Senate has the power to elect the Vice President if no vice presidential candidate receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College. The Twelfth Amendment requires the Senate to choose from the two candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. Electoral College deadlocks are very rare; in the history of the United States, the Senate has only had to break a deadlock once, in 1837, when it elected Richard Mentor Johnson. The power to elect the President in the case of an Electoral College deadlock belongs to the House of Representatives."
Which one has more control? I would say "governor". Simple math, my man, simple math.
**Those are both from Wikipedia, but damn right.
Obama = Senator
"A governor is a governing official, usually the executive (at least nominally, to different degrees also politically and administratively) of a non-sovereign level of government, ranking under the Head of state. In federations, a governor may be the title of each appointed or elected politician who governs a constitutive state."
"Legislative Functions
Bills may be introduced in either House of Congress. However, the Constitution provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. The constitutional provision barring the Senate from introducing revenue bills is based on the practice of the British Parliament, in which only the House of Commons may originate such measures.
Although the Constitution gave the House the power to initiate revenue bills, in practice the Senate is equal to the House in the respects of taxation and spending. As Woodrow Wilson wrote:[17]
[T]he Senate's right to amend [general appropriation bills] has been allowed the widest possible scope. The upper house may add to them what it pleases; may go altogether outside of their original provisions and tack to them entirely new features of legislation, altering not only the amounts but even the objects of expenditure, and making out of the materials sent them by the popular chamber measures of an almost totally new character.
The approval of both the Senate and the House of Representatives is required for any bill, including a revenue bill, to become law. Both Houses must pass the exact same version of the bill; if there are differences, they may be resolved by a conference committee, which includes members of both bodies.
Checks and Balances
The Constitution provides several unique functions for the Senate that form its ability to "check and balance" the powers of other elements of the Federal Government. These include the requirement that the Senate may advise and must consent to the President's government appointments; also the Senate must ratify all treaties with foreign governments; it tries all impeachments, and it elects the Vice President in the event no person gets a majority of the electoral votes.
The President can make certain appointments only with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officials whose appointments require the Senate's approval include members of the Cabinet, heads of most federal executive agencies, ambassadors, Justices of the Supreme Court, and other federal judges. Under the Constitution, a large number of government appointments are subject to potential confirmation; however, Congress has passed legislation to authorize the appointment of many officials without the Senate's consent (usually, confirmation requirements are reserved for those officials with the most significant final decision-making authority). Typically, a nominee is first subject to a hearing before a Senate committee. Thereafter, the nomination is considered by the full Senate. The majority of nominees are confirmed, but in a small number of cases each year, Senate Committees will purposely fail to act on a nominations in order to block it. Also, the President sometimes withdraws nominations when they appear unlikely to be confirmed. Because of this, outright rejections of nominees on the Senate Floor are quite infrequent (there have been only nine Cabinet nominees rejected outright in the history of the United States).
The Senate has the power to try impeachments; shown above is Theodore R. Davis' drawing of the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, 1867.The powers of the Senate with respect to nominations are, however, subject to some constraints. For instance, the Constitution provides that the President may make an appointment during a congressional recess without the Senate's advice and consent. The recess appointment remains valid only temporarily; the office becomes vacant again at the end of the next congressional session. Nevertheless, Presidents have frequently used recess appointments to circumvent the possibility that the Senate may reject the nominee. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court held in Myers v. United States, although the Senate's advice and consent is required for the appointment of certain executive branch officials, it is not necessary for their removal.[18]
The Senate also has a role in the process of ratifying treaties. The Constitution provides that the President may only ratify a treaty if two-thirds of the senators vote to grant advice and consent. However, not all international agreements are considered treaties, and therefore do not require the Senate's approval. Congress has passed laws authorizing the President to conclude executive agreements without action by the Senate. Similarly, the President may make congressional-executive agreements with the approval of a simple majority in each House of Congress, rather than a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Neither executive agreements nor congressional-executive agreements are mentioned in the Constitution, leading some to suggest that they unconstitutionally circumvent the treaty-ratification process. However, the validity of such agreements has been upheld by courts.[19]
The Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" and empowers the Senate to try such impeachments. If the sitting President of the United States is being tried, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the trial. During any impeachment trial, senators are constitutionally required to sit on oath or affirmation. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority of the senators present. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office in the future. No further punishment is permitted during the impeachment proceedings; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law.
In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. (One resigned before the Senate could complete the trial.)[20] Only two Presidents of the United States have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Both trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction.
Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Senate has the power to elect the Vice President if no vice presidential candidate receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College. The Twelfth Amendment requires the Senate to choose from the two candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. Electoral College deadlocks are very rare; in the history of the United States, the Senate has only had to break a deadlock once, in 1837, when it elected Richard Mentor Johnson. The power to elect the President in the case of an Electoral College deadlock belongs to the House of Representatives."
Which one has more control? I would say "governor". Simple math, my man, simple math.
**Those are both from Wikipedia, but damn right.
Hahahaha, okay... governor of AK for one year. Clearly, that makes someone totally ready to lead a nation. Give me a break. She can't lean on that, she needs to say "here's what I believe we should do to fix the problems the USA has right now." And as I said, she has nothing to run on there. Without any actual policies, she has absolutely nothing going for her.
futurespin
Active member
So many republicans on NS...
I don't like her. It seems that her head is way too far up her ass to appeal to both conservatives and liberals. At least Obama, Mccain, and Biden can be bipartisan. It's going to take someone who is willing to be bipartisan to unite all of america, make things happen in congress, and really take the US in a good direction over the next 4 years on a variety of subjects. I have a feeling that she will drag McCain towards a much more conservative presidency even though john mcCain has said he wants to remain bipartisan. I think that if Grandpa McCain dies soon and this bitch becomes president we are all going to have our hands full....
I don't like her. It seems that her head is way too far up her ass to appeal to both conservatives and liberals. At least Obama, Mccain, and Biden can be bipartisan. It's going to take someone who is willing to be bipartisan to unite all of america, make things happen in congress, and really take the US in a good direction over the next 4 years on a variety of subjects. I have a feeling that she will drag McCain towards a much more conservative presidency even though john mcCain has said he wants to remain bipartisan. I think that if Grandpa McCain dies soon and this bitch becomes president we are all going to have our hands full....
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
How about fiscal conservatism? It's about time the Republican party got back to that, and she has a strong - though brief - history of cutting spending significantly. How about party reform? She took on the Alaskan Republican party and drove out a corrupt party chairman for ethical violations. How about not being a pawn of big businesses and special interest groups?
It's the first freaking day of her being on the ticket, of course we don't know all of her positions on federal issues yet. She's given one speech, let's here her talk a little more before we decide she doesn't have any meaningful positions. And on another note, Obama sure talks a hell of a lot without cementing any "meaningful positions."
And another thing, being opposed to same-sex marriage isn't "anti-gay."
It's the first freaking day of her being on the ticket, of course we don't know all of her positions on federal issues yet. She's given one speech, let's here her talk a little more before we decide she doesn't have any meaningful positions. And on another note, Obama sure talks a hell of a lot without cementing any "meaningful positions."
And another thing, being opposed to same-sex marriage isn't "anti-gay."
snowbladesforlife
Active member
You mean so many parents of newschoolers are republican. Then their views rub on their little robot kids or they realize mommy and daddy can only afford 8 days at vail with democratic policies as opposed to 10 days with republican policies.
BravoWhiskey5280
Active member
People also dont realize that a governor does more work in week than a senator does in a year..
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
You're right, she hasn't made a big speech on everything she would do to fix our problems. In her first three hours on the campaign.
The other likely VP candidates were Joe Lieberman, Tom Ridge and Mitt Romney. Romney obviously has a platform because he was running for President. But Lieberman and Ridge weren't, yet both have a set of national policies ranging from economics to foreign policy. Granted, they suck, but at least the guys stand for something. What I'm trying to get at here is that Palin is tabula rasa... they pick her and then go "Ok, now quick, let's manufacture you a political image. You will stand for..."
funk.
Active member
what she has done for us in AK is actually quite amazing. I would have voted against her (if I had been of age at the time) but after seeing what she has done in turning us around from Murkowski I would have definitely voted for her. She's cracking down on the corruption and actually changing things around here. Plus her daughters are babes and went to our school.
Shpadoinkle
Active member
Stop riding on McCain's age. Is that all you got on McCain? Age?
She's going to be VP, not president. BTW She's goin' on two years.
What do you say about Obama's 2-year experience in the Senate? He sure does make that chair warm at a steady 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
She's going to be VP, not president. BTW She's goin' on two years.
What do you say about Obama's 2-year experience in the Senate? He sure does make that chair warm at a steady 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Why is that statement any different than Obamas answer to the beginnings of life.
I really love how this woman is so similar to Obama. Then watch the obama lovers find things to pick on. soooooo hypocritcal. hahahaha
I really love how this woman is so similar to Obama. Then watch the obama lovers find things to pick on. soooooo hypocritcal. hahahaha
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Senator/former VP candidate, SECDHS/former governor, former Presidential candidate/governor
None of those people are remotely new on the national political scene. So obviously we know more about their platform. I'm just saying, it's retarded to say, "I don't know her positions, ergo she has no positions."
None of those people are remotely new on the national political scene. So obviously we know more about their platform. I'm just saying, it's retarded to say, "I don't know her positions, ergo she has no positions."
Obama knows how to hire the best people, I think he will do a great job of hiring people to run this country.
futurespin
Active member
Obama's been in the senate for 4 years, Elected in 2004.
I'm saying that she will have positions, very soon... namely, whatever the McCain campaign thinks her positions should be. And they will very much resemble John McCain's. So what's the point of nominating her? What does she bring to the ticked other than "Hi, I'm young and a woman?" John McCain's age isn't his only vulnerability, but in the context of his VP choice, it's the most important. This is because, sure, you pick a running mate for a whole range of reasons... they might win you a particular demographic or help you carry their home state, or maybe win a debate off the other guy. But the number one reason for any competent, responsible candidate in choosing a VP is this:
"Because I might die."
I would be frightened to have a manufactured political "pretty face" in charge of the most powerful office in the world.
"Because I might die."
I would be frightened to have a manufactured political "pretty face" in charge of the most powerful office in the world.
weak attempt to win over those estrogen fueled clinton supporters.... obviously he cant win without them... even though their opinions on the issues differ... she will stilll appeal to them and make them take another look at the republican party... especially appealing to the independent women. its also an attempt to present someone who is not deeply entangled a washington. "a real person" so to speak...
since when was mccain so woman friendly? and shes against equal pay for equal work? she seems kind of out of touch....
i think after the dem. convention this week the republicans are terrified they are going to lose, as they should be. but i dont think this choice will help them at all.
and im so sick of the experience shit.... on both ends. who gives a fuck about experience. it doesnt necessarily mean that you're more fit to run a nation. when u spend 20-30 years in washington i believe u begin to lose grasp of reality. those people with "experience" have lost touch with where they came from, who they are, and the people who need their help (working class americans). and thats nothing personal its just inevitable...
its time for someone like obama... its way overdue... the country knows it... the young people want it... and thats what brings about change.... the youth. not these old traditionalist fucks.
and the number of republicans on this site is crazy... i never seen so many young convservatives. says a lot about the families some of you come from... what difference does it make to you guys anyway? i doubt you have trouble affording gas...
since when was mccain so woman friendly? and shes against equal pay for equal work? she seems kind of out of touch....
i think after the dem. convention this week the republicans are terrified they are going to lose, as they should be. but i dont think this choice will help them at all.
and im so sick of the experience shit.... on both ends. who gives a fuck about experience. it doesnt necessarily mean that you're more fit to run a nation. when u spend 20-30 years in washington i believe u begin to lose grasp of reality. those people with "experience" have lost touch with where they came from, who they are, and the people who need their help (working class americans). and thats nothing personal its just inevitable...
its time for someone like obama... its way overdue... the country knows it... the young people want it... and thats what brings about change.... the youth. not these old traditionalist fucks.
and the number of republicans on this site is crazy... i never seen so many young convservatives. says a lot about the families some of you come from... what difference does it make to you guys anyway? i doubt you have trouble affording gas...
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Bullshit. That's the reason we HAVE a VP, and maybe that's the reason that should be behind the choice. But we both know that's not how it is: VP selection is a completely political move in this day and age. Was she chosen because she's a young, hot woman? Of course she was. Was she chosen on the assumption that the American electorate is retarded? Of course she was, and they are. But all things considered, she's a much better choice than we could've had. As a conservative who is sick to death of the two party system, I'm just glad there's one person on the ticket who isn't your standard out-of-touch Republican neocon tool.
Shpadoinkle
Active member
My bad. I have to keep up with time. It goes by so fast.
He's going on 4 years on January 4, 2009.
He's going on 4 years on January 4, 2009.
futurespin
Active member
The only reason Palin even got to be the Governor of Alaska was because the previously elected REPUBLICAN governor was buying private airplanes with the states budget, and she happened to be the person who brought that to the attention of the people. She has a fucking bachelor degree in Journalism from idaho. She'd be better off working as the weatherman on fox news... And her kids are named Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig!?!?!! yeah i really trust HER judgement.
Your cynicism is understandable, especially after the last 8 years. What you appear to be saying is, "If John McCain actually had some integrity, maybe he would do the responsible thing and pick a VP who would be able to lead the country in the event of his untimely demise. But we don't expect that from politicians: we expect them to be weasels and scrounge for votes. So picking a former beauty pageant contestant isn't at all surprising, and if she's an empty vessel, well, at least she's kinda different." Sound about right? The problem of course is that McCain is going to fill that empty vessel with that same out-of-touch neocon toolism you're so unimpressed with.
Can't wait for the VP debate.
Can't wait for the VP debate.
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
So I guess you'd rather stick with tradition and keep electing rich, white-collar, Ivy League-educated men?
(It just hit me that now when idiots say things like, "You're not voting Democrat? You're a racist!" I can say, "You're not voting Republican? You're a sexist!").
(It just hit me that now when idiots say things like, "You're not voting Democrat? You're a racist!" I can say, "You're not voting Republican? You're a sexist!").
Er, the rich white collar ivy league men in question aren't all that similar.
And despite all the bitching and moaning about people crying racism, I have never actually heard that first thing you mentioned. But feel free to toss the 2nd one around, because lord knows this Palin nomination hasn't given people enough fuel for sarcasm as it is. Case in point...
And despite all the bitching and moaning about people crying racism, I have never actually heard that first thing you mentioned. But feel free to toss the 2nd one around, because lord knows this Palin nomination hasn't given people enough fuel for sarcasm as it is. Case in point...
Oh wow.. isn't that what Biden essentially said about obama recently?
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Oh, come on! You think Biden was chosen because one night Obama was sitting around thinking, "Well, if I die I want to leave the country in capable, secure hands...and those hands can only belong to Joe Biden!" No, we all know the party picked Biden because he balances Obama's inexperience with three decades of selling his soul to special interests...er, I mean, three decades of foreign policy experience in the Senate. As for Palin being an empty vessel, no, I don't agree entirely. She's already not very aligned with the standard neocon agenda (cutting spending and whatnot).
Please don't mistake me for someone who supports McCain, even as the lesser of two evils. I still don't think he'll get my vote because I'd rather contribute to breaking the Republican party than electing someone I disagree with on almost everything.
On your last point, I agree wholeheartedly. The debates are gonna be fun - both the VP and big ones.
Please don't mistake me for someone who supports McCain, even as the lesser of two evils. I still don't think he'll get my vote because I'd rather contribute to breaking the Republican party than electing someone I disagree with on almost everything.
On your last point, I agree wholeheartedly. The debates are gonna be fun - both the VP and big ones.
Cafferty's segement on CNN....
All we have heard from John McCain for months is, “Barack Obama is too young. Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief. Who do you want answering the phone in the White House at three a.m.? Blah, blah, blah.”
So what does McCain do? He picks someone to be his running mate who is even younger than Barack Obama and has less experience.
Sara Palin is 44 – Obama is 47. Sara Palin is in her first term as governor of Alaska, a state that has 13 people and some caribou. Obama is a member of the United States Senate from Illinois.
It’s not a big deal, except for this: If McCain wins, he will be the oldest person ever inaugurated for a first term at 72. He has a history of health problems that include bouts of melanoma, a potentially deadly form of skin cancer. It is reasonable to consider that McCain’s running mate could be called upon to be our president.
Meanwhile, some may see this as a move for McCain to attract disaffected women who voted for Hillary Clinton and aren’t yet behind Obama. But that might not work for a few reasons: Palin, like McCain, is pro-life. Also, she might be a woman, but she’s no Hillary Clinton – when it comes to her experience or her ideology.
At some point, voters will have to ask themselves who they would want running the country if it ever became necessary: Joe Biden or Sarah Palin.
Here’s my question to you: Does John McCain undercut his own message by naming someone even younger and more inexperienced than Barack Obama to be his running mate?
All we have heard from John McCain for months is, “Barack Obama is too young. Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief. Who do you want answering the phone in the White House at three a.m.? Blah, blah, blah.”
So what does McCain do? He picks someone to be his running mate who is even younger than Barack Obama and has less experience.
Sara Palin is 44 – Obama is 47. Sara Palin is in her first term as governor of Alaska, a state that has 13 people and some caribou. Obama is a member of the United States Senate from Illinois.
It’s not a big deal, except for this: If McCain wins, he will be the oldest person ever inaugurated for a first term at 72. He has a history of health problems that include bouts of melanoma, a potentially deadly form of skin cancer. It is reasonable to consider that McCain’s running mate could be called upon to be our president.
Meanwhile, some may see this as a move for McCain to attract disaffected women who voted for Hillary Clinton and aren’t yet behind Obama. But that might not work for a few reasons: Palin, like McCain, is pro-life. Also, she might be a woman, but she’s no Hillary Clinton – when it comes to her experience or her ideology.
At some point, voters will have to ask themselves who they would want running the country if it ever became necessary: Joe Biden or Sarah Palin.
Here’s my question to you: Does John McCain undercut his own message by naming someone even younger and more inexperienced than Barack Obama to be his running mate?
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Not in those exact words, but I've literally seen people say, "The reason you don't like Obama is because deep down you don't want a black person in office." Granted, this people are clearly morons, I'm just saying...they're out there.
futurespin
Active member
Wow your a fucking idiot. Obama and his wife made $260,000 together in 2007. Mccain himself made $474,000, not to mention his multimillion dollar wife who did not disclose her tax returns. Obama came from nothing but worked hard and finished class rank #1 at harvard law school. McCain's dad got him into Annapolis where he fucked up and finished ranked 894 out of 899, mccain then married a multimillionair and became the rich, white-collar, poorly educated man you seem to love....
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
I was being sarcastic, and if you've actually read anything I've said, you'll know that I don't "love" McCain. In fact, I can't stand him.
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Yeah, about as much as Obama undercut his message by naming someone even more tainted by Washington than Hillary as his running mate.
I think we should have someone differnet as president. Not Mcacain, Not Obama and all is sunshine.
I am voting for the hottie! Cause face McCain is going to croak. I want change. I think she will change things for the better. [/sarcasm]
I am voting for the hottie! Cause face McCain is going to croak. I want change. I think she will change things for the better. [/sarcasm]
ax_murderer
Active member
more like when people actually start discussing rather than shit talking and bashing, half the ns democrats hide in the woodwork because they can't contribute.
thats a really ridiculous view you have of young republicans.
thats a really ridiculous view you have of young republicans.
user098123
Active member
Haha ya I just saw that too, I was wondering if anyone else was watching this. He pretty much summarizes this entire thread.
skiminnesota
Active member
WINNER!
i would like to claim, and say i have said this before.....
WE need change, right? well Biden has been a Washington insider for 36 years i believe?
so if i hear barack Bitch about McCain being a life long politician, go have a look at who YOU picked for a number 2
i would like to claim, and say i have said this before.....
WE need change, right? well Biden has been a Washington insider for 36 years i believe?
so if i hear barack Bitch about McCain being a life long politician, go have a look at who YOU picked for a number 2
ax_murderer
Active member
the book deals made him 4.2 million. it just goes to show you can be very successful without taking government handouts.
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Also, that $260k was just from their salaries. Total income for the Obama family in 2007 was $4.2 million (his book sold pretty well)...little different.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/politics/17obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/politics/17obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Beat me to it.
drumbumocdp
Active member
she has less experience than obama. that was mccains main point against obama. what a hyprocrate
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Biden has spent more time in Washington than Hillary. That was Obama's main point against Hillary. What a hypocrite.