You didn't know she was a mayor?
You didn't know she is currently the governor of Alaska?

Have you looked up what a governor is responsible for?
You know... Budgets, running the state.. that kind of stuff

I'm sorry... what experience does Obama have running something from a "Execute standpoint?"

Answer me this.. how long has Obama been a US Senator?
How long has he been a Illinois state senator?
What foreign policy experience DOES HE HAVE?

Aww shucks .. it doesnt matter... hes the annointed one

Right, mayor of 9,000 people, who could all fit comfortably into a small theater. And she put them in debt.

Governor of 600,000 folks, smaller than many many cities. In 20 months, her accomplishments were becoming the subject of an investigation, and selling the state airplane on e-bay.

So these "mayor" and "governor" "experience" labels do not pass the giggle test when they refer to Wasilla and Alaska, IMO. "Drill baby, drill" .

This is especially funny coming from the camp that went out of their way to blast Obama for lack of experience - he looks like an elder statesman compared to Palin, and having seen McCain roam around the stage today all confused, I think she'd be only a half heartbeat away from Presidency. I'd rather vote for Mickey Mouse.

AGG

Be snobby about the small town and small state (population wise) all you want, but it's still more executive experience than Obama and Mickey Mouse combined.

As a Brit I can say I think Palin is a very clever Political choice of running mate.

Her major detractions from candidacy are the same as Obamas ( inexperience, relative newcomers to politics etc) and so it effectively shut up the Obama team from slating her.

Also she offers a freshness to the "alt." voters like Obama does: He is young and black : she is young and female.

So the Democrats can't really leverage those " assets" uniquely either.

The choice of Palin places tight fences around what peripheral attributes Obama can leverage to gain advantage. Good heavens this might even become a * gasp* POLICY based election !

Its funny, the arguement that the needs of the family should be above career ambitions was always an agruement made by conservatives in this country. Whenever it was presented, the left expressed their outrage by attacking the messanger instead of the message.

I happen to agree with it, but I just think its funny that the two faced LEFT is now crying "family obligations" and the two faced right is no longer aware of the plight of latchkey kids.

I tend to be conservative. But spend one week following the political process and you need a case of TUMS and a bucket right by your side just in case. Honestly, I feel like I have to shower every fifteen minutes.


Oh yeah, and only SOMEONE BLIND with partisanship would deny that Palin was HAD MORE RESPONSIBILITY AND EXECUTIVE POWER than McCain AND the democratic ticket combined. And THAT isn't saying much.

B

She had a brilliant night last night.

"I'm amazed that a 44 year old woman with 4 children decided to have a 5th child."

My mom had me when she was 44 and my little brother when she was closing in on 46. I'm sure people questioned my parents' choice to have 15...but they supported all of us and brought us up with a love of education and self-reliance.

ps
They did it w/o expecting help from "big daddy" government.

Go Palin/McCain!!!

Two things about this VP pick stick out to me ...

1. It was another example of McCain's knee jerk decisions and poor judgment. When you have vetting teams arriving in the pick's hometown less than 24 hours prior to the announcement, you know that this was a last minute consideration, and likely a compromise between feuding factions within the campaign.

2. It was a desperation pick for a struggling campaign. When you are 60 days out from the general election and trailing in all of the polls, and you have to make a pick to rally your base, rather than reach out to undecideds, it illustrates just how badly the Republicans view their own candidate.

Politics wise

Picking her was A BRILLIANT MOVE. They took a page right out of the democratic playbook.

THe republicans now have the womans vote, minus FRINGE feminist and abortion champions. They now have the votes of woman with marital discord, family problems, the small town woman who see this successful woman who grew up NOT with ANY advantages BUT being born in this country.

The left better hope that the minority and young voters turn out with their VOTE instead of just their mouths, because that HASN'T been the case in the past.

This move was awesome. If it was kneejerk, well then McCain and his crew better come up with MORE kneejerk choices. She's comfortable with people, shes physically very appealing (like it or not, it IS a big deal)she comes across as STRONG but not a BEETCH (unlike SOME female politicians). And the dems were SHOCKED by the pick. In fact, one of the lame reasons they are ticked was EXACTLY that...that McCain NEVER gave them her name on his 'short list'. They KNOW this election has turned. The dems and their followers are in full panic mode right now.

She handled last weeks "controversy" perfectly. SHe handled it completely OPPOSITE of the way the left tells the public that christians would handle it. According to them christians are haters of people, and christians always say, they hate the action, not the people involved. ANd guess what? She handled it exactly that way. She voiced her dissappointment in her daughters lack of judgement......and moved on. To support and love the daughter, the grandchild, and the future husband. PERFECTLY DONE. ANd the left CANT STAND IT.

Now, again, who knows if she will be any good. ANd really, I have always maintained that an election is picking the lesser of two evils. Both sides suck. They both lie. Its all a big act with us as pawns. The economy seems to go it 7 year cycles, so in about 3 more years, WHOEVER is in office, the economy will improve.

The republican might bite the big one, but the dems are so so much worse. And they are so much worse ON MY DIME.


POLLS? Don't look now....... dems are harping about how polls don't mean anything...........wonder why?

How does Obama look like an elder statesman in comparison? Seriously, I'd like to know how someone who's never drafted a single law or amendment is qualified, but someone who's been a mayor and governor in a small pop town and state isn't. And she's not even top of the ticket. That's part of the discombobulation IMO.

Anyway, I still think Palin is a brilliant choice. She's got the right ideals to reinvigorate the base (something McCain hadn't been able to do on his own), and politically it's pretty savvy because Biden is either going to have to wimp out during the debate in order to avoid looking like a sexist bully, or act like himself, and look like a sexist bully.

Maybe he can find some old speeches to take inspiration from.

I agree that it is a choice of the lesser of two evils, but the Republicans are the ones that have wasted all YOUR DIMES over the past 8 years.

To date, the Iraq war has cost the US $551,186,102,343 for a war that we will never win. Yet, they keep spewing crap about how it was necessary. I say bullchit. You are no safer today than you were before they INVADED Iraq under false pretenses. I sure would bet the money wasted there could have done a tremendous amount to help our fledgling economy, abysmal education system or declining job market.

Want2Stay

TEMPORARY THREADJACK WARNING!!!

W2S,

We were just discussing you last night ... you ears must have been burning.

Anyway, could you check out Noname2's thread in GQII? He needs some perspective about being ready and willing to walk away from this mess if his WW won't recommit, and I know you have a relevent story to relate to him. He needs some encouragement (heavy on the courage) and a shot of testosterone.

Good to hear from you.

Sorry for the T/J ... you are now returned to your regular programming.

<TJ>

MyRev,

I hope it was all good stuff.

I'm still here lurking a lot. I liken MB to the "Hotel California." I'll catch up on Noname2's thread and see what I can offer. LaLa and I are extremely busy right now trying to dig out of our financial mess, but all in all things are getting better one day at a time. The rollercoaster sure does suck though. Hope you and FF are doing well.

Want2Stay

</TJ>

What is her level of education?

Neither McCain or Palin seem all that bright to me.

Mmm, despite the inevitable fate of this thread, I can't resist.

"the two faced LEFT is now crying 'family obligations'"

Name one prominent person on the Left who's made that argument.

Also... this has been bothering me: the Congressional "bridge[s] to nowhere" earmark ceased to exist in November 2005, a year before Palin was elected. She didn't "tell" Congress "thanks but no thanks" or anything else about that money. It's a self-glorifying lie.

Obama-#1 in his Harvard Law graduating class; Wrote both of his books WITHOUT collaborators...

McCain- 5th from the lowest in his US Naval Academy graduating class...

I'm fearful of another repeat of George Bush who to me can hardly speak in sentences..even when he is reading them...

I always love this little dig at the president. Bush had better grades/better class standing, IIRC than either of his last two opponents, yet Democrats want to paint him as not being very smart.

What does that say that if a man not so smart is able to beat his opponents.

Maybe he's right, and they mis-underestimated him

It's one thing to disagree, and to propose your plan for how you would like to do something.

However, personal attacks, such as hinting that someone is not intelligent, especially when that person defeated your guy or gal, seems to be a tactic of the petty and desperate.

Yup. Especially considering that she did not oppose the project, and gladly took the earmark:

Why is it petty or desperate to question the intelligence of someone running for President?? I would hope that we all question such things - who wants a dummy for a President??

AGG

Well, in the case of the Democrats, they are saying, (wrongly by the way, Bush had better grades and class standing) that they were beaten by someone who they say isn't smart.

So either they are telling the truth, and they were beaten by someone they claim is not as smart, which means they are wrong about how smart their guy/side is.

Or they are lying about this person, and they are really smarter than they are.

Either way, it must be a desperate tactic when you have to resort to trying to tear down the other guy instead of building up your guy.

Why not say our guy is smarter? Because it seems the grades and class rankings didn't really support that.

Instead of questioning the intelligence of another person, why not just highlight the intelligence of your own candidate?

There is no need to tear down another, it never makes you look good. So why would anyone think that trying to tear down Bush or McCain, or Obama or Biden, or anyone else would make them look good?

Why would the Democrats think that trying to tear down a guy who beat them twice would make them look good?

It doesn't.

It appears as a desperate measure of a losing party.

He's dumb, but he beat us twice?

It's about as smart as saying Bush spent us into trouble, yet spending is done by the Congress, and Congress has been run by the Democratic party for some years now.

So who really spent us here?

How many folks really understand that Congress spends the money?

But folks want to blame the president, because that makes them feel better.

Mad about spending. Blame congress.

Look it up. Spending is done by bills, not by executive order.

So spending is 100% on Pelosi and Reid.

Wanna complain about spending? Take it to those two democrats who lead their respective legislative bodies.