Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

McCain picks woman for VP slot


Recommended Posts

Palin was asked what her position would be if Israel felt threatened enough to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, not "...would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran," which you say is the question asked of Hillary. It's not pertinent to our country if Israel is justified in its actions, but it is pertinent to our country what our position would be regarding/in response to the attack.

Whether or not the President of the United States would feel Israel was justified to do such a thing IS pertinent, as it would influence his/her position.

I don't feel the need to know how Dukakis would react if his wife were raped and murdered

The position of a candidate to the Presidency of the United States on the death penalty is relevant. But the question asked to Dukakis was a cheap shot, designed with one thing in mind, make him look bad. Say you'd support the death penalty in this case, after opposing it, and you'll be portrayed as an hypocrite. Say you won't support it in this case, and some will say "you cannot even count on him to protect his wife". Refuse to answer yes or no, and you're denounced as indecisive.

Edited by CANADIEN
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Obama was ahead by 7 before the convention. McCain was ahead by 5 after. As of today, he's ahead by just over 2. His lead is shrinking as Palin's lies are exposed. Now that she's finally admitted her bridge to nowhere lie
you will find his lead disappear and you will soon be back to criticizing the media and questioning the authenticity of poll results.

Obama got a surge from the Democrat Convention. McCain got a surge from the Republican Convention. It tends to happen at each election campaign. The full measure of the Palin factor will be seen in the days and weeks to come, not right after the conventions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah Palin is eminently qualified to step in the job of President of the United States at a moment office because of her executive experience? Sorry, but while state governorship may be a good teaching round, you need more than two years to earn your readiness diploma. And the issues facing mayors do not compare to those facing a Chief of State.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Right..."first evidence"....you can't be serious. Why so much drama...if you don't like the pick, just say so. Democrats picked an inexperienced Obama as well...he should have picked Hillary Clinton!

You know very well that Hillary Clinton comes with too much baggage (Bill, for one thing), and her high negatives also counted against her being the VP choice; after all, we're told that the most important role of the vice president is 'do no harm.' She is too much of a lightning rod, and Obama already has his own problems with voters who don't want to vote for a black man, so having an older white guy who looks like part of the establishment was a better choice. McCain probably decided at the last minute that a high risk candidate could energize his lacklustre campaign and bring in the religious right crowd that despises him -- that may be true, but with all of the skeletons falling out of Sarah Palin's closet revealing her abuse of power as both a governor and small town mayor, a phony record as a reformer, her off the wall beliefs, she might start pulling the poll numbers down as more and more people discover that her first week image was all cosmetic, and has no substance!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh great....that makes him just as qualified as Anne Coulter.

Anne Coulter is more qualified than Sarah Palin in that Anne Coulter would have no trouble defining the Bush Doctrine in detail and giving a detailed opinion on where she stands on it. Coulter just doesn't have the temperament for the job (i.e., she's batshit insane).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah Palin is eminently qualified to step in the job of President of the United States at a moment office because of her executive experience? Sorry, but while state governorship may be a good teaching round, you need more than two years to earn your readiness diploma. And the issues facing mayors do not compare to those facing a Chief of State.

Does this rule only apply to women?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anne Coulter is more qualified than Sarah Palin in that Anne Coulter would have no trouble defining the Bush Doctrine in detail and giving a detailed opinion on where she stands on it. Coulter just doesn't have the temperament for the job (i.e., she's batshit insane).

You are over reaching on the importance of the "Bush Doctrine", now, or in the past. Obama probably doesn't know the "Clinton Doctrine either. It was an interview with the media, not a dissertation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are over reaching on the importance of the "Bush Doctrine", now, or in the past.

It's very important because if she doesn't know rudimentary terminology, there's no way she has spent any time studying the issues.

You can try repeating "Is that all you got?" again, because on that one you're got good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's very important because if she doesn't know rudimentary terminology, there's no way she has spent any time studying the issues.

You can try repeating "Is that all you got?" again, because on that one you're got good.

You don't understand...many Americans don't give a crap about foreign policy. I understand that some Canadians sweat such things, but it is not the number one issue for most Americans. Using Canadian optics for an American election will leave you to believe things like Senator John Kerry winning the election in 2004.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So here we go with the "Palin is a woman, so any negative comment on her is sexist" stupidity again.

President Woodrow Wilson's "experience" included two years as governor of New Jersey....he got us in your war.....shall I go on?

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites
President Woodrow Wilson's "experience" included two years as governor of New Jersey....he got us in your war.....shall I go on?

And Abraham Lincoln had virtually no executive experience or legislative experience, something I have said a few times. A two year experience as state governor does not constitute qualification to be President of the United States, since it says nothing on what a candidate's performance will be if they get the job. After all, Bush Jr.'s failure proves that it takes more than executive experience to be able do the job.

Edited by CANADIEN
Link to post
Share on other sites

That Palin has executive experience says nothing about how good of a President she would be if she ever had to sit in that seat. But what she did in her executive jobs may be telling.

Look at Palin the mayor. On the plus side, she vigourously pushed for funding for local projects, she cut her own salary, she was a mayor close to her constituants (OK, it's easier to phone one citizen every day to check if things go well when you are mayor of a small town than when you are President, but she still did it). And she got elected twice.

On the minus side. Mayor Palin had a bit of an authoritarian and vengeful streak, as demonstrated by the fact she fired or tried to fire most of the city's department heads for "lack of loyalty", namely their support for her opponent during the election campaign. The fact that one of the city officials who received a dismissal letter (later rescinded) was the Chief Librarian who had just answered in the negative on a rethorical question from the mayor on whether or not she would ban books doesn't help give a strong impression that Palin opposes censorship.

Mayor Palin also disbanded the city's Liquor Task force, putting an end to its effort to raise awareness of alcohol related problem, while expending business hours for the two local bars - within days of becoming mayor.

While Palin was claiming that managing a budget of $6 million and a staff of about 50 wasn't rocket science (and it isn't), an administrator had to be hired to manage the day to day business.

And Wasilla was apparently the only town in Alaska that was making victims of rape pay for their rape kit - I hope Palin won't claim that she couldn't have known it was happening because of the size of city staff.

her tenure as Mayor says a lot about Palin, a populist woman who share many of the traits of ordinary folks, someone who will go to bat for her constituants, but also a rigid social conservative who doesn't stand for disagreement and opposition, a so-so administrator at best, and at worse someone who has little empathy for rape victims or just doesn't care.

Edited by CANADIEN
Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't understand...many Americans don't give a crap about foreign policy. I understand that some Canadians sweat such things, but it is not the number one issue for most Americans. Using Canadian optics for an American election will leave you to believe things like Senator John Kerry winning the election in 2004.

Americans sure gave a shit about Foreign Policy right after 9/11. That is how the ignorant and stupid were lead to beleive in false items that lead to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now you say they are not interested in Foreign Policy? It is because of the Foreign Policy that things like the economy, healthcare, price of gas at the pump are the items that were affected by the Foreign Policy. Ignoring how one affects the other is absolute ignorance. And there is no excuse for absolute ignorance. If my feeble Canuckian mind can understand that, any stupid American should be able to understand it.

... Canada again .. But I will use Jerry's idea of, we are not talking about Canada. What do you expect from Canadian Optics. If you don't like the views, there are plenty of political forums in the US that you might feel more comfortable in.

What do you expect from a Canadian political website?? Australian Optics?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Americans sure gave a shit about Foreign Policy right after 9/11. That is how the ignorant and stupid were lead to beleive in false items that lead to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now you say they are not interested in Foreign Policy? It is because of the Foreign Policy that things like the economy, healthcare, price of gas at the pump are the items that were affected by the Foreign Policy. Ignoring how one affects the other is absolute ignorance. And there is no excuse for absolute ignorance. If my feeble Canuckian mind can understand that, any stupid American should be able to understand it.

... Canada again .. But I will use Jerry's idea of, we are not talking about Canada. What do you expect from Canadian Optics. If you don't like the views, there are plenty of political forums in the US that you might feel more comfortable in.

What do you expect from a Canadian political website?? Australian Optics?

Most Americans (and most Canadians) don't care much about foreign policy. So the fact that Palin doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is something that will leave most voters indifferent. But it is one thing not to care that much about foreign policy. It is another thing for a candidate to the job of VP of the United States to be asked a question about the US foreign policy and not even realize at first that it is about foreign policy.

Edited by CANADIEN
Link to post
Share on other sites
Most Americans (and most Canadians) don't care much about foreign policy. So the fact that Palin doesn't what the Bush doctrine is something that will leave most voters indifferent. But it is one thing not to care that much about foreign policy. It is another thing for a candidate to the job of VP of the United States to be asked a question about the US foreign policy and not even realize at first that it is about foreign policy.

Your domestic issues sometimes arise when foreign policy is not good. In the US, they have a 3 trillion deficit, record houseing foreclosures. Two major banks ready to burst. Because the focus was on Foreign and not Domestic. But overall I agree with your statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

Washington Post

Some of you are still stuck on stupid, still sensing a gaffe. Get over it, it's done, it's over, and she's still around. Deal with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

Try to take your blinders off and let something penetrate your closed mind:

It's not about the definition of the Bush Doctrine. It's about her not knowing it was in existence. It's about her obviously knowing nothing about it. She could have picked any of the "four distinct meanings" and said whether she agreed with it or not. But she didn't. Because, as was all too obvious, she couldn't. Because she knew nothing about it. So repeating once again. It's about her not having knowledge of foreign affairs.

Capice?*

*Somehow I doubt it............ :rolleyes:

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

Washington Post

Some of you are still stuck on stupid, still sensing a gaffe. Get over it, it's done, it's over, and she's still around. Deal with it.

In other words... the journalist didn't use the definition I coined, so Palin can be excused for not even realizing at first the question was about foreign policy? The way straws are being grasped at, I am surprised there are any left around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama is way more qualified than Palin just by the fact he was a constitutional law professor.

:lol:

Having finished lawschool and having taken several terribly boring con law classes with fumbling leftover hippie professors I can tell you that no comment in this thread has cracked me up more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Having finished lawschool and having taken several terribly boring con law classes with fumbling leftover hippie professors I can tell you that no comment in this thread has cracked me up more.

Yeah, but he didn't attend or teach at a fly-by-night stoner law school. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:

Having finished lawschool and having taken several terribly boring con law classes with fumbling leftover hippie professors I can tell you that no comment in this thread has cracked me up more.

"Law is BORING!"

"I am smarter than my professors"

LOL

Have you replaced your teach yet grasshoppa?

How did you learn anything if all the profs were "fumbling leftover hippie professors"?

You crack me up. Lawyer, infuckingdeed. LOL

I took a bit of business law and I never thought of it as "boring". If law is so "boring" why did you major in it? Perhaps planning a future in politics? You certainly have the language and rhetoric down pat -- call McCain now! (but only if you are "hot" so you can look good on stage) LOL

Link to post
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...