Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

McCain picks woman for VP slot


jdobbin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hmm...that strikes me as blatantly racist....shall we draw the same conclusion for an "unqualified" Barack Obama?

How is that blatently racist? Thomas was appointed to a position he did not even begin to have the experience to fulfill. He made the Supreme Court after spending 1 year as a judge and having little or no experience practicing law. What other reason can you think of for appointing him besides his race?

As for Obama, I don't know if I would consider him unqualified, but certainly barely qualified. However, lets compare.

Thomas 1 year as a judge, 20 years as a poltical hack

Palin. Less than 2 years as governor of a state smaller than a major city, and another few years as the mayor of hamlet that was smaller than some city blocks.

Obama. 8 years as a state representative and a few years as a US senator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that blatently racist? Thomas was appointed to a position he did not even begin to have the experience to fulfill. He made the Supreme Court after spending 1 year as a judge and having little or no experience practicing law. What other reason can you think of for appointing him besides his race?

Yep....just another racist rant to me. You may not think Justice Thomas was a qualified jurist, but the nomination process in his country failed to reject his "blackness". Would you have claimed the same thing for a "white" nominee?

As for Obama, I don't know if I would consider him unqualified, but certainly barely qualified. However, lets compare.

I agree...you certainly don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep....just another racist rant to me. You may not think Justice Thomas was a qualified jurist, but the nomination process in his country failed to reject his "blackness". Would you have claimed the same thing for a "white" nominee?

YES. Bush has appointed loads of unqualified white people to different jobs. Michael Brown was appointed to FEMA despite having no disaster experience (until he screwed up Katrina). Loads of people who worked on his campaign got jobs they were not qualified for (for example, the guy who got into NASA without a degree and demanded top scientists put the word "theory" in front of "big bang".

While his daddy may have picked the least qualified member of the justice system, Bush Jr certainly did more damage by turning the Justice Department into a political arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Obama, I don't know if I would consider him unqualified, but certainly barely qualified. However, lets compare.

Thomas 1 year as a judge, 20 years as a poltical hack

Palin. Less than 2 years as governor of a state smaller than a major city, and another few years as the mayor of hamlet that was smaller than some city blocks.

Obama. 8 years as a state representative and a few years as a US senator.

Yes, let us compare.

Sarah Palin:

2 Terms On City Council

2 Terms As City Mayor

Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

Alaskan Governor Since December 4, 2006

Barack Obama:

7 Years In Illinois Senate

120 Working Days In United States Senate Before Running For President

Now, if they were both VP choices, I could understand. But Barry wants to be President, with a resume that's less substantial than Palin's. Barry also has no executive experience, while Sarah Palin's service as Mayor and Governor are equivalent to managing a small and medium size business.

The Obama/Biden ticket is clearly inverted, and should obviously be Biden/Obama. Unfortunately, Biden doesn't give as good of a speech as Barry, at least a prepared speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just as Obama has finished beating up on Hillary, he's presented with another to lower the boom on and I expect with more ferocity.

And this is the fatal flaw in the Republican strategy: 'we need a woman.....and with our limited reservoir of qualified women and minorities, any woman will have to do!'

There's a huge gap in qualifications between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, and she better be as smart and charismatic as Republican mouthpieces are now claiming, to avoid falling flat on her face during a debate with Joe Biden.

The Republicans have a track record of promoting their relatively few minorities into jobs that they aren't able to manage: Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, or the attempt to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court come to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that blatently racist? Thomas was appointed to a position he did not even begin to have the experience to fulfill. He made the Supreme Court after spending 1 year as a judge and having little or no experience practicing law. What other reason can you think of for appointing him besides his race?

Yeah, look who's throwing around charges of racism now!

The honest truth is that Clarence Thomas is a dud, who sits through oral arguments on the bench without asking questions or offering any comments. All he does is vote with Antonin Scalia. If Scalia wasn't there, he'd be lost!

The only reason he's on the Supreme Court is because the Democrats were too scared of being charged with racism if they blocked his nomination!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...) Can you imagine Sarah Palin who was once named Miss Congeniality in a beauty pageant as Commander-in-Chief, confronting Putin, Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea.

Does McCain really think Palin is qualified to be President? Does Palin think she's qualified to President?

(...) Or failing that, true to form, John's fallen for another beautiful woman--a former beauty queen. It'll be interesting to see how Cindy responds.
Perhaps if McCain had chosen one of the many hundreds of remarkable Republican women who would, arguably, be qualified to take over from the aging, cancer-riddled McCain should the worst befall him.

Women will not fall for this, and most, in my view, will be insulted by it, seeing it for what it is: pure ham-fisted tokenism. You can be sure that if it's true that Palin is McCain's VP choice, laughter mixed with incredulity is roiling through the world's newsrooms.

I can see the headline now, "Miss Congeniality McCain VP pick".

I love how "progressives" are completely opposed to sexism ...unless it's directed against someone whose political views they oppose.

Dubbing her "Miss Congeniality", mentioning repeatedly that she competed in a beauty pageant 25 years ago, suggesting that McCain picked her because he thinks she's hot and that Mrs McCain should be jealous... this kind of stuff lumps you in with the "progressives" who mounted sexist attacks against Belinda Stronach when she announced she was entering the Conservative leadership race.

Hey, Steve, women might not support Sarah Palin yet, but if you "progressives" keep up this kind of crap, women will support her before long.

-k

Edited by kimmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an unrelated thought about Governor Palin that hasn't been made an issue yet, and that's regarding her youngest child, born with Downs' Syndrome. Everyone outside of Alaska is now becoming aware that Sarah Palin has all of the social conservative credentials that John McCain needed from a Vice President, to improve his standing with Evangelicals, prolife Catholics and other single-issue voters: she is 100% prolife, pro-gun, opposed to birth control.......and that's the rub! She would have been 43 years old when she started this, hopefully final pregnancy; and her age is an obvious factor that may have contributed to her having a baby with Downs Syndrome. This is either wreckless disregard for the increasing odds of complications during pregnancy, or an unthinking acceptance of anti-abortion, anti-birth control dogma. Either one is revolting!

So far, the Chicago Tribunes blogger 'The Swamp' is the only place where I've found anyone raise questions about her decision to have a fifth child in her 40's:

Her youngest child's plight underscores Palin's commitment to the "pro-life'' cause which McCain has pledged to make a central concern of his administration. She was not dissuaded by prenatal testing of the child and has said of him: "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection.... Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?''

Edited by WIP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES. Bush has appointed loads of unqualified white people to different jobs. Michael Brown was appointed to FEMA despite having no disaster experience (until he screwed up Katrina). Loads of people who worked on his campaign got jobs they were not qualified for (for example, the guy who got into NASA without a degree and demanded top scientists put the word "theory" in front of "big bang".

For being "white"? I don't think so....your racist ranting has been exposed.

While his daddy may have picked the least qualified member of the justice system, Bush Jr certainly did more damage by turning the Justice Department into a political arm.

Yea....I guess the "white" people would know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an unrelated thought about Governor Palin that hasn't been made an issue yet, and that's regarding her youngest child, born with Downs' Syndrome. Everyone outside of Alaska is now becoming aware that Sarah Palin has all of the social conservative credentials that John McCain needed from a Vice President, to improve his standing with Evangelicals, prolife Catholics and other single-issue voters: she is 100% prolife, pro-gun, opposed to birth control.......and that's the rub! She would have been 43 years old when she started this, hopefully final pregnancy; and her age is an obvious factor that may have contributed to her having a baby with Downs Syndrome. This is either wreckless disregard for the increasing odds of complications during pregnancy, or an unthinking acceptance of anti-abortion, anti-birth control dogma. Either one is revolting!

So far, the Chicago Tribunes blogger 'The Swamp' is the only place where I've found anyone raise questions about her decision to have a fifth child in her 40's:

Her youngest child's plight underscores Palin's commitment to the "pro-life'' cause which McCain has pledged to make a central concern of his administration. She was not dissuaded by prenatal testing of the child and has said of him: "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection.... Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?''

Wreckless disregard? There's a 1.8% chance of a woman giving birth to a Downs' Syndrome child at age 43. How is that wreckless?

And how are you faulting a mother for seeing perfection in her new born baby, even if it's Downs'? I think that's beautiful, not something to deride. And the only thing I find revolting, is the idea that the acceptance of "anti-abortion" or pro-life dogma contributed to this situation. Killing an unborn child because it's developed Downs' Syndrome is about as disturbing and disgusting a proposition that I've heard. God, I can only hope that the Obama campaign goes along with that ridiculous critique. My fingers are crossed. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wreckless disregard? There's a 1.8% chance of a woman giving birth to a Downs' Syndrome child at age 43. How is that wreckless?

Are you pulling those numbers out of some bodily orifice, or do you have a source to back it up with? If so, why didn't you post a link? Don't forget, there are many other age-related birth defects besides Down's Syndrome that women becoming pregnant after age 40 are at risk for!

Her personal medical history, complications during pregnancy, and other genetic factors may have had an impact on the level of risk for Downs Syndrome -- who knows! And if I take your numbers as accurate, an almost 2% risk of Down's Syndrome is still significant. Maybe that alone was enough for her doctor to do an amniocentesis, which provided advanced warning that her baby would be born with this genetic mutation.

And how are you faulting a mother for seeing perfection in her new born baby, even if it's Downs'? I think that's beautiful, not something to deride. And the only thing I find revolting, is the idea that the acceptance of "anti-abortion" or pro-life dogma contributed to this situation. Killing an unborn child because it's developed Downs' Syndrome is about as disturbing and disgusting a proposition that I've heard. God, I can only hope that the Obama campaign goes along with that ridiculous critique. My fingers are crossed. :lol:

Yes, I know; you dogmatic prolifers think every deformed child brought into this world is beautiful (provided you don't have to incur the cost of looking after them!)

I am faulting the mother because her "gift from God" is evidence that either:

a. She didn't have her tubes tied.

or

b. Her husband didn't have a vasectomy.

That means her fifth child's health defects are not a random Act of God, they are evidence that the parents ignored the risks of pregnancy over the age of 40!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Are you pulling those numbers out of some bodily orifice, or do you have a source to back it up with? If so, why didn't you post a link? Don't forget, there are many other age-related birth defects besides Down's Syndrome that women becoming pregnant after age 40 are at risk for!

The chances of having a Down's Syndrome child do increase dramatically with age, but the percentage shady gave is pretty accurate. According to The American College of Obstetrics and Gynocology, the chance of a 43 year old having a baby with Down's Syndrome is 1 in 49 and the risk of having a child with any chromosomal disorder is 1 in 33. This compares with the chances of Down's Syndrome at age 35 being 1 in 378 with the risk for any chromosomal disorder at age 35 being 1 in 192. At age 25 the risk for Down's Syndrome is 1 in 1250 while the risk for any chromosomal disorder is 1 in 476.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, an estimated 25 percent of Down syndrome cases can be attributed to increased age of the father.

If Palin doesn't believe in birth control, that's fine for her. I don't think that makes her guilty of having "reckless disregard" for the children she and her husband conceived. Many women these days have babies after 40 and women in general are waiting longer to have babies. I don't think that means women in general have less disregard for their babies. And Ms. Paulin's baby is "beautiful." I strongly hope no one would dare make any negative comments about her baby as part of the campaign.

Her personal medical history, complications during pregnancy, and other genetic factors may have had an impact on the level of risk for Downs Syndrome -- who knows! And if I take your numbers as accurate, an almost 2% risk of Down's Syndrome is still significant. Maybe that alone was enough for her doctor to do an amniocentesis, which provided advanced warning that her baby would be born with this genetic mutation.

There most definitely is an increased risk of Down's Syndrome at her age. Any pregnancy after age 35 is generally considered "high risk" by the medical field. Yet I don't see this as something to be used against her.

Yes, I know; you dogmatic prolifers think every deformed child brought into this world is beautiful (provided you don't have to incur the cost of looking after them!)

I'm as pro-choice as they come, and I think every child is beautiful-- and they are. Beauty is not dependent on perfection. Every life is precious and to insinuate that Ms. Palin's baby is less beautiful because it has Down's is really an inappropriate comment, imo. Furthermore, there are many people with Down's who are wonderful people living very happy, fulfilling lives, so taking that view is a real insult to them. Not to mention there are many classically beautiful, highly intelligent people living miserable lives.

I am faulting the mother because her "gift from God" is evidence that either:

a. She didn't have her tubes tied.

or

b. Her husband didn't have a vasectomy.

Nor were either of them required to. So why should they be faulted? To fault them for that is truly bizarre.

That means her fifth child's health defects are not a random Act of God, they are evidence that the parents ignored the risks of pregnancy over the age of 40!

Plenty of people over the age of 40 have babies. Plenty of people under the age of 40 have babies with one problem or another. Maybe some of them didn't eat 'right,' or have the best medical care for one reason or another, or drank alcohol on occasion, or smoked, or this-that-and-the-other thing they did that may not have been 'by the book.' If we start faulting Ms. Palin for her decision to have a baby and "blame" her for the baby having Down's Syndrome, we start going down a scary slippery slope.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I guess it had nothing to do with graduating from Yale Law School, chairing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and then serving on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Yeah, other than that, his sole qualifcations were being black and conservative. :rolleyes:

Thomas got into Yale because he was Black. He was named to the EOC because he was Black. He was made a judge because he was Black. He was named to the Supreme Court because he was Black and pro-life. Then he turned around and said he was against affirmative actions. PHhtt! Hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all Argus, whichever party the US selects is fine with me and I truly don't see that my life will be affected by the choice one way or another.

But I'm interested in international politics and concerned about events around us. I don't want a weak, naive, inexperienced US President going up against the Russians, Chinese and Iranians. That concerned me about Obama, but the idea of this woman as President is downright scary.

I see merit in all the nominees. Yet, I'm not prepared to concede that the Republicans selected a presidential candidate who has one foot in the grave. I have more faith in the US electorate than that.

The statistics are pretty clear. He DOES almost have one foot in the grave. Add in his previous health issues and he should have been responsibiel enough to ensure that whoever he named as his backup would be capable of stepping into the job. That's the whole point of having a Vice President.

I've read good things about this woman, and if she were to finish her stint as governor and then spend another decade or so as a senator she might be ready for consideration. But right now the numbers are what concern me.

73 - John McCain's age

75 - life expectancy of American white males

5000 - the population of the town she was mayor of (is that even a full-time job?)

18 - months since she was a small town mayor

670,000 - the population of Alaska - no more than a small to midsized city

60% - percentage of Alaska which is federally owned and not even under the governor's purvey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see how people can say in the same breath "Obama is not experienced enough but two years as the Governor of a small state is sufficient experience" or "let's not worry about Obama lack of experience, but Sarah Palin is clearly not experience enough".

That neither or them have had the opportunity to show by doing it how they would react to the challenges of being President of the United States doesn't prove that they would not be up to the task. Say what you want about Obama and Palin, but they bring more legislative or executive experience to the job than Abraham Lincoln.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't buy the "experience" requirement when it comes to the job of the US president. I am saying this is defence of both Palin and Obama so it is not a partisan POV. The job of the US president is to lead the people of the US. When it comes to making important decisions the president is never alone and would be expected to consult with any number of people before coming to a decision.

Sorry, but you're simply wrong. The job of the leader in a democracy is to build consensus, to convince opponents, to negotiate and made decisions based on his long years of experience in the give and take of high stakes deal making. You're right that he doesn't often personally negotiate with foreign leaders, but he does pass the final judgment on those deals - in concert with the advise he or she is given, and by using his or her judgment with regard to what those foreign leaders have told him or her. What you seem to be saying is we shouldn't care if the president is too raw and inexperienced to know anything because his or her advisers will be really good. That's what they told us about Bush. I didn't like it then. I like it less now.

See, when you don't know anything much and "experts" are giving you advice, it's really hard to tell if that advice is right or not. It's really difficult to judge whether they're simply giving you a slanted version of something based on their own agenda - or if, quite frankly, they're idiots. You need, just as a start, to be able to look for what they're not saying, and to be experienced enough to consider a variety of implications. Because even small decisions in that office can have enormous consequences not just there but throughout the world. You can make a minor decision on tariffs or tax credits to benefit some small sector of the economy which will then through hundreds of thousands of workers out of their jobs in impoverished third world countries - for instance. Maybe you don't care, but as a president you ought to know about that. Bush never had much of a clue, and relied on "experts" and those experts, it turns out, weren't always very knowledgeable, or had their own agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope...I don't even care about that. I don't give a crap about "the issues", or even the political process. I only care about the impact on economics, which is far more important to me. In the end, America will elect another presidential ticket, just as it always has, and they will be Americans.

OMG....cry me a river! Half of Americans don't even give a damn. Why should you in such a close but far away land?

Half of Americans are idiots, and I care because who is in the white house affects the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, let us compare.

Sarah Palin:

2 Terms On City Council

2 Terms As City Mayor

Of a town of about 5,000 people

I haven't read much on this little town, but I'm wondering if these are even full-time jobs. A city councilor in my city, well now, that's a full-time job. You're representing about 75,000 people, dealing with a budget in the hundreds of millions, with thousands of employees. But some of these tiny towns - their council meets for an hour or two once a month maybe. There are 4 members of the town council of this town, which doesn't lead me to believe it was a vipers nest of deal making.

Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

For less than a year before quitting.

Alaskan Governor Since December 4, 2006

pop of alaska is less than an average city, and more than half the state is owned by the feds anyway.

Barack Obama:

7 Years In Illinois Senate

120 Working Days In United States Senate Before Running For President

Columbia University and Harvard law school grad, president of the Harvard Review, civil rights attorney, taught constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School. You forgot those.

Now, if they were both VP choices, I could understand. But Barry wants to be President, with a resume that's less substantial than Palin's
.

If you think Obama's resume is less substantial than Palin's than I would consider your judgment to be seriously flawed if not completely irrational.

Barry also has no executive experience,

Nor has John McCain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how "progressives" are completely opposed to sexism ...unless it's directed against someone whose political views they oppose.

Dubbing her "Miss Congeniality", mentioning repeatedly that she competed in a beauty pageant 25 years ago, suggesting that McCain picked her because he thinks she's hot and that Mrs McCain should be jealous... this kind of stuff lumps you in with the "progressives" who mounted sexist attacks against Belinda Stronach when she announced she was entering the Conservative leadership race.

Hey, Steve, women might not support Sarah Palin yet, but if you asswipes keep up this kind of crap, women will support her before long.

-k

Kimmy, like it or not, the people who most disdain beauty contest contestants are not men but women.

Sarah Palin seems like quite a capable person, and perhaps, if she had more experience she might be considered a viable option as a VP candidate. But given the numbers, the lack of experience, and given how old McCain is, well, I just don't see it.

And btw, I really liked the idea of Belinda Stronach as tory leader - until I saw her first press conference and how she floundered against the press. She clearly didn't know much about even common issues, and didn't know how to cover that or simply say so. The only thing Belinda had going for her was her daddy's money and her looks. Given that, it's not surprising people mocked her as a rich, daddy's girl in expensive designer outfits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarah Palin seems like quite a capable person, and perhaps, if she had more experience she might be considered a viable option as a VP candidate. But given the numbers, the lack of experience, and given how old McCain is, well, I just don't see it.

In a world of quick sound bites Palin is the latest star. Her 15 minutes will soon be over.

She is not the savior for McCain as socons would like us to believe. But she is not the klutz the liberals tells us she is.

She was elected governor so she can handle herself in public. She will make the odd gaffe, but then so might Biden. The debate between the two should be of some interest.

This election is about McCain and Obama and after a flurry of shots of Ms Patin when she was a "glamor queen" focus will return to the two guys at the head of the tickets.

BTW, if she does become Prez at some point I am sure she will be able to give Vladimir Putin some tips on the art of cooking moose meat. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is the fatal flaw in the Republican strategy: 'we need a woman.....and with our limited reservoir of qualified women and minorities, any woman will have to do!'

There's a huge gap in qualifications between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, and she better be as smart and charismatic as Republican mouthpieces are now claiming, to avoid falling flat on her face during a debate with Joe Biden.

The Republicans have a track record of promoting their relatively few minorities into jobs that they aren't able to manage: Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, or the attempt to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court come to mind.

They have lots of qualified women available. Thats what drives me NUTS!. What causes very smart, very experienced politicians like the first Bush and McCain to screw their chance at being elected but putting a ball of fluff on the ticket ?

(note, when I say "ball of fluff" in regards to Palin, I am talking about her resume) She seems like a very bright, very personable lady. She has an 80% approval rating or something as a governor.

This would have been a reasonable pick if McCain were desperate, a "hail Mary" pass if you will. But the score is getting tighter and its still early in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

All this speculation about McCain getting the disappointed Hillary supporters is a bit difficult to figure. I know I didn't support Hillary because she's a woman, I supported her because I thought she was the best candidate. It's not as if I'm going to say 'oh! another woman! I'll just support her. one woman's the same as the other, after all.'

Palin is about as inexperienced as it gets, and because of McCain's age, his VP takes on a new importance. And on top of his age, according to Phillip Butler, who spent years as a POW with McCain, "we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost."

I read a poll that showed more Americans are concerned about McCain's age than they are Obama's inexperience, so I can't see his VP pick helping him in that area. In fact, seems as if it would have the opposite effect.

But I'll say this: anyone who was critical of Obama's inexperience and isn't critical of hers is a blind partisan hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...