McCain Picks Palin

Agree with Refman that the five-month-old with Down's is off limits. While someone could say it's about judgment, I think these sorts of personal decisions are complex enough that we voters will never get enough of the whole story to make accurate assessments.

This is the same, exact reason that I don't care about each two-minute soundbite from the decades-long speaking career of Obama's former pastor, or the work of his mechanic, or the failings of his mailmain.

 

Excellent rebuttal. Hear. Hear.

 

I think there is plenty to criticize McCain about for picking Palin, and I would bet plenty will be found about Palin to deserve criticism, but I seriously have no interest in discussing her children. If they were home-schooled, that would be a legitimate topic for political discourse, but I don't want my party attacking a woman for having kids and having a kid with disabilities.

Doing that is politically stupid, in my opinion, and looks as bankrupt as the typical Bush/Rove/Cheney mantra of political discourse, like when they went after McCain in 2000 through his adopted child. That disgusted me and is one of the things I find hypocritical about McCain hugging Bush and his policies, when Bush/Rush were unspeakable in their campaign against McCain back then. Not interested.

 

I would say yes. Don't you think there is a difference in being governor of California than say Arkansas?

 

My bad. For once, I wasn't kidding.

 

Quoted for rocketball, who perhaps did not see this post a few above his own.

 

Didn't Clinton govern Arkansas and Reagan govern California before their respective election? Yeah, it appears Reagan was a much better President than Clinton as a result.

 

about 2 million people and 8 years difference, but who's counting?

 

After reading the responses of McCain backers around the internets this morning all I can say is...

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR MCCAIN!!!

And the Obama camp responds...

FLOP!

 

The five month old has rights, no one is saying something bad about the infant....just that he has a right to his mother's attention and time.

How much time she spends with her sick kid is not comparable to what someone that Obama knows said or didn't say or do.

 

Size matters because it makes things more complex in nature and there are a lot more people and issues you have to worry about. Can you honestly say that heading the government of Alaska is the same as heading the government of Texas?

I hope she does more than just read reports. I haven't said anything about anybody being better but I don't doubt that China would be difficult to manage either.

 

About 2 mil people, the budget and issues to deal with, and the amount of time spent doing it.

 

Yeah they both did govern their respective states. What makes Reagan better? What makes Clinton worse? Who is better is generally opinion, I mean their are Republicans who think Bush Jr. was better than Clinton and there are others who think that idea is crazy.

 

Oops mc mark -- this quote is not entirely factual. She fought Big Oil in Alaska and won. There is no proof she is continuing Bush's economic policies any more than Obama is continuing the Idiot Wright's hate speeches. She and McCain have a record of changing things, while Obama is only promising change. We have no proof as of yet. Biden certainly was a "change" in D.C. politics.

 

I understand your point of view and really doubt that ANY politician would bring up this issue as I have. I can do it because I am not a politician. I DON'T expect this to be on tv at ALL!

This issue to me is about those older republican or independant religious strong family valued women that will be thinking about this before they go to vote. That's all. They have minds of their own and don't need the media to put that on their minds.

 

No, I didn't say one was better or worse. I was just following your logic to its logical conclusion.

 

Yet you bring it up here.

 

Karl Rove on Obama picking Tim Kaine for VP ("Face the Nation" 8/10/08):

And what do you believe he thinks of McCain's pick? I'm not exactly sure how but this needs to be an ad.

 

It is not 2 million people difference, is I believe the population of Arkansas around 1996 was ~2 million. Either way I understand that difference, granted then you could argue land mass and overall issues each of the states faces, one of which is a big topic of this election and that is energy and gas - which is right down Palin's lane (possibly her states biggest issues).

My point is whether you are governor of Alaska, Arkansas, California or whichever it should not be a disqualifier from being a good and qualified VP/Presidential pick, the later two weren't bad presidents.

 

Umm, how do you get that as a logical conclusion? And you clearly said Reagan was better in your post.