Actually, he is doing the exact same thing that Obama did by picking Biden. McCain has been told he's out of touch, so he goes to get a young, hip governor from Alaska with tremendous approval ratings.
A running-mate from far-away and culturally isolated Alaska, without political experience, and with no exposure at all to Washington, isn't going to put McCain more in touch with mainstream America. It only further alienates him from Middle America. And choosing a hunter who wants to drill ANWR isn't going to help him win sensitive swing-voters - especially when her background in pageantry comes across as shallow. Undecided voters will not find anything in Palin's repertoire with which to identify, and they'll see straight through to the heart of the matter: McCain picked boobies over substance in an attempt to get women voters.
McCain picked boobies over substance in an attempt to get women voters.
She may turn out to be of little substance, but I'm waiting to hear her speak some more before jumping to any conclusions.
ANWR isn't going to hurt her. A June Gallup poll found that significantly more than half of Americans supported increased drilling in coastal and wilderness areas that are currently off limits, and recent polls have consistently shown broad support for drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. It's not like many people are hunting up there. Even if we do drill there, there will be thousands upon thousands of acres left untouched. I'm not terribly enthused about drilling in ANWR, but apparently I'm in the minority.
A running-mate from far-away and culturally isolated Alaska
It might make her look tough. Alaska's got a good image. Watch the History Channel lately? That's all they show.
and with no exposure at all to Washington
McCain's got plenty - they've got that angle covered.
The key to Palin is how she comes across. Only time will tell. Being female alone won't cut it. Just ask Walter Mondale that.
Culturally isolated in what way? Physically, obviously, but I know someone in Alaska and the place doesn't seem culturally isolated at all. Except, you know, series of tubes.
Culturally isolated in what way? Physically, obviously, but I know someone in Alaska and the place doesn't seem culturally isolated at all. Except, you know, series of tubes.
Name a city in Alaska that has a concert hall, a cyber-cafe, a football or baseball team, a Starbucks, an IMAX, and an art gallery. I think that's a pretty low barrier to entry for culture, don't you? I'll take bets that Alaska isn't exactly an ethnic melting pot, let alone an international melting pot, either. Are there a lot of synagogues and mosques there? Also, I hardly think that anyone from Alaska would be qualified to address poverty issues of large cities or the agricultural issues of the Midwest, let alone the complicated issues of the Middle East.
Anchorage comes really close. They have all of it, but no professional football team. They do have a stadium, however. Fairbanks also has all that stuff and an arena football team, if that counts. I'm not saying I don't agree, but the way you talk about them it's like they're all cavemen. There are plenty of moderately large cities in mainland America that have less than that.
Culturally isolated in what way? Physically, obviously, but I know someone in Alaska and the place doesn't seem culturally isolated at all. Except, you know, series of tubes.
Name a city in Alaska that has a concert hall, a cyber-cafe, a football or baseball team, a Starbucks, an IMAX, and an art gallery. I think that's a pretty low barrier to entry for culture, don't you? I'll take bets that Alaska isn't exactly an ethnic melting pot, let alone an international melting pot, either. Are there a lot of synagogues and mosques there? Also, I hardly think that anyone from Alaska would be qualified to address poverty issues of large cities or the agricultural issues of the Midwest, let alone the complicated issues of the Middle East.
We don't know that, yet at least. Why don't we wait for the VP debate before deciding if she will suck as a VP, which will probably consist of her doing jack shit if elected.
Also how the fuck does a baseball/football team become a sign of culture? Same with a cyber-cafe, Starbucks, and an IMAX?
For a concert hall and art gallery, you know, real signs of 'culture', welcome to Juneau!
Also how the fuck does a baseball/football team become a sign of culture? Same with a cyber-cafe, Starbucks, and an IMAX?
Agreed. In this day and age, that's pretty shallow. The day I pick my candidate based on how many lattes they've sucked down at an IMAX movie - just shoot me. Just last night, Obama said: "Change doesn't come from Washington, it comes to Washington." Palin fits that bill.
McCain has done one thing well. Nobody on TV is talking about Obama's speech anymore.
Two questions for the panel: 1) Do you believe that Palin lacks the necessary experience to be VP. 2) If so, how do you reconcile this with your decision to back Obama?
This is the major question when it comes to Palin/Obama. What say you?
1) Do you believe that Palin lacks the necessary experience to be VP. 2) If so, how do you reconcile this with your decision to back Obama?
1) Yes. 2) Barack has a strong background in law, specifically Constitutional law which he taught for several years at University of Chicago law school. Majored in Political Science with a minor in International Relations. He then went to Harvard Law School. I'm of the opinion that you don't actually need to participate in politics to actually understand and know how the system works. Obama has shown that he is well knowledgeable of both domestic and international politics. Palin on the other hand is Journalism major who was formally a mayor of an extremely small city.
Barack has a strong background in law, specifically Constitutional law which he taught for several years at University of Chicago law school.
So your essentially saying that a lawyer is always the best qualified to be president? You've never heard Palin speak on political issues yet, so you can't say that she's any better or worse than Obama in that department.
That's my real concern here. It just boggles my mind that folks are saying that Obama is more qualified than she is before they have even heard her speak. It's either blind politics or sexism. As an independent, it concerns me.
I certainly may agree with you in the future. I need to learn more about her, and give her the opportunity to make her ideas clear. Until then, I just don't see the rush to judgment.
So your essentially saying that a lawyer is always the best qualified to be president?
Huh? Did I say they were ALWAYS the best? Aren't you the person who was so specific on choice of diction earlier?
You've never heard Palin speak on political issues yet, so you can't say that she's any better or worse than Obama in that department.
True, but my answer was purely based on educational background, not speeches or personal opinions of the candidates (albeit I may be biased after hearing Obama speak).
Two questions for the panel: 1) Do you believe that Palin lacks the necessary experience to be VP. 2) If so, how do you reconcile this with your decision to back Obama?
1) How much experience does a VP really need to look pretty and chair the Senate? 2) Considering I have yet to decide who to vote for, I will wait for the debates and speeches given over the next 90 days.
I don't argue with anybody who claims that Fox News is biased. It is.
However, I can't understand why folks are so accepting of MSNBC's bias. After McCain announced Palin as his running mate, MSNBC ran a "Breaking News" banner on the lower half of the screen to report on his selection. (Sorry, can't find a screen cap online yet.) It read like this: Breaking News: How many houses will Palin add to the McCain ticket?
I may be paraphrasing, but if I am it is slight. I have no problem with snipes during the "entertainer" portion of the network coverage. (Olberman, Mathews, etc.) But as a serious breaking news item, this was pathetic. I don't understand why MSNBC has to combat Fox News by sinking to the bottom with them.
I just don't understand how you can criticize Fox for being overly biases, and ignore MSNBC. Hypocrisy at its finest.
True, but my answer was purely based on educational background
As a lawyer, forgive me if I'm skeptical of a claim that a lawyer is more qualified because of his/her educational background. Let's just say I have too much insider information. ;-) And don't forget, Obama is a lawyer who thought that Iran was just a "tiny country" that posed no threat, and 24 hours later flip-flopped to say that Iran is a "great threat." He's also posited an invasion of Pakistan, and was wishy-washy at best with the situation in Georgia.
who thought that Iran was just a "tiny country" that posed no threat
This one is bullshit, I'm afraid. The full quote:
Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'
McCain's ad took him seriously out of context on that one. Not cool.
For those who think McCain is going to die sometime soon you might want to remember that his mother is still quite alive. As is his older sister. Contrast this with Obama who has neither a living father nor mother (does have a grandmother who is ten years younger than McCain's mother.)
Also how the fuck does a baseball/football team become a sign of culture? Same with a cyber-cafe, Starbucks, and an IMAX?
I chose the absolute most shallow hallmarks of modern civilization -- the things that any mid-sized, po-dunk metro area should have. These things aren't a sign of great culture, but they are a sign of shared culture, the kind that McCain is so eager to tap to find identification with his base. They are also examples of commercial development indicative of a modicum of middling culture. Also, they are all things found in a city large enough to generate true cultural and civic problems that any good leader must handle in order to gain experience. Any city that can support a baseball stadium, for example, is big enough to have a wide range of socio-economic problems. A city of that size is a good testing ground for the leadership qualities that will be tested later on the national stage.
Because, you know, I was clearly, CLEARLY saying that a city has to have a Starbucks in order to be considered worthwhile.
She's a drilling enthusiast, NRA member and a creationist. To me that is the trifecta of idiocy.
Fair points indeed. Although, you do realize that Obama believes in God, no? That's pretty much a draw in the science intelligence department. And as for Biden - woops!
As to the NRA, they are extreme, but if you believe in constitutional freedoms, you must also believe in the Second Amendment. (Subject to interpretation for sure.) I wouldn't criticize anyone for thinking that the NRA is too far out there, though.
I don't have a problem with people believing in god. They are free to think and believe whatever they want. What I got a problem with is people who try to pass something as science when it clearly isn't to force it upon other people's children. Obama may believe in god but he opposes teaching intelligent design. This is not a draw, Obama is the clear winner.
They are free to think and believe whatever they want.
Sure, they are free - but isn't it a sign of lack of intelligence? Would you vote for a presidential candidate that believed in the tooth fairy? Unfortunately, in this election, we don't really have a choice.
Basically the vote is between candidates who believe in invisible men from space no matter what we do. The difference is whether their political decisions is influenced by it or not. So far it looks like John McCain's, and certainly Sarah Palin's decisions are skewered by their faith while Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's do not.
I also do not believe that believing in a god or not is a classification of intelligence. There has been a wide array of highly intelligent people directly associated with various faiths and believes.
Basically the vote is between candidates who believe in invisible men from space no matter what we do. The difference is whether their political decisions is influenced by it or not. So far it looks like John McCain's, and certainly Sarah Palin's decisions are skewered by their faith while Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's do not.
If this is the most (or amongst the most) important factor for you, then your position is definitely the correct one.
Comments
He's giving up a proven loser of an argument and chipping into Obama's image of change. If it works, it's pretty savvy.
ANWR isn't going to hurt her. A June Gallup poll found that significantly more than half of Americans supported increased drilling in coastal and wilderness areas that are currently off limits, and recent polls have consistently shown broad support for drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. It's not like many people are hunting up there. Even if we do drill there, there will be thousands upon thousands of acres left untouched. I'm not terribly enthused about drilling in ANWR, but apparently I'm in the minority. It might make her look tough. Alaska's got a good image. Watch the History Channel lately? That's all they show. McCain's got plenty - they've got that angle covered.
The key to Palin is how she comes across. Only time will tell. Being female alone won't cut it. Just ask Walter Mondale that.
The next 90 days will be very interesting.
Also how the fuck does a baseball/football team become a sign of culture? Same with a cyber-cafe, Starbucks, and an IMAX?
For a concert hall and art gallery, you know, real signs of 'culture', welcome to Juneau!
On the synagogues and mosques, cough cough.
McCain has done one thing well. Nobody on TV is talking about Obama's speech anymore.
1) Do you believe that Palin lacks the necessary experience to be VP.
2) If so, how do you reconcile this with your decision to back Obama?
This is the major question when it comes to Palin/Obama. What say you?
2) Barack has a strong background in law, specifically Constitutional law which he taught for several years at University of Chicago law school. Majored in Political Science with a minor in International Relations. He then went to Harvard Law School. I'm of the opinion that you don't actually need to participate in politics to actually understand and know how the system works. Obama has shown that he is well knowledgeable of both domestic and international politics. Palin on the other hand is Journalism major who was formally a mayor of an extremely small city.
That's my real concern here. It just boggles my mind that folks are saying that Obama is more qualified than she is before they have even heard her speak. It's either blind politics or sexism. As an independent, it concerns me.
I certainly may agree with you in the future. I need to learn more about her, and give her the opportunity to make her ideas clear. Until then, I just don't see the rush to judgment.
2) Considering I have yet to decide who to vote for, I will wait for the debates and speeches given over the next 90 days.
However, I can't understand why folks are so accepting of MSNBC's bias. After McCain announced Palin as his running mate, MSNBC ran a "Breaking News" banner on the lower half of the screen to report on his selection. (Sorry, can't find a screen cap online yet.) It read like this:
Breaking News:
How many houses will Palin add to the McCain ticket?
I may be paraphrasing, but if I am it is slight. I have no problem with snipes during the "entertainer" portion of the network coverage. (Olberman, Mathews, etc.) But as a serious breaking news item, this was pathetic. I don't understand why MSNBC has to combat Fox News by sinking to the bottom with them.
I just don't understand how you can criticize Fox for being overly biases, and ignore MSNBC. Hypocrisy at its finest.
I'm pretty much done with this thread for now, since there's no point in getting too wound up until we learn more about Palin - good or bad.
Because, you know, I was clearly, CLEARLY saying that a city has to have a Starbucks in order to be considered worthwhile.
LULZ
Edit: And the fourth strike of idiocy is right to follow: She believes the climate change can not be attributed to mankind.
And she flip-flopped right out of the gate.
As to the NRA, they are extreme, but if you believe in constitutional freedoms, you must also believe in the Second Amendment. (Subject to interpretation for sure.) I wouldn't criticize anyone for thinking that the NRA is too far out there, though.
I also do not believe that believing in a god or not is a classification of intelligence. There has been a wide array of highly intelligent people directly associated with various faiths and believes.