Palin Quits

PearlJain wrote:

NoK wrote:

It would be a real shame if she was your first female president. You'd want a milestone like that to be remembered positively by the public which I doubt it will.

Keep in mind - if she is to become a future president - she will be YOUR president, too. I have to "endure" Obama as well. (Like we all endured Bush..and BUSH was GREAT the first FOUR years, IMO) And Obama is now MY president, too. And I exercise my rights to question his motives - like you all did with GW.

weenie wrote:

JR8805 wrote:

I'm not convinced McCain would have won the election, but he would have given Obama a much better run his money. I had respected greatly McCain until he apparently made this decision almost like a roll of the dice. I think he looked at Obama and Clinton & knew that people wanted a change, and he felt, mistakenly, that he could infuse his campaign with a little fire by selecting a woman. Apparently, any woman--a woman who would ask his campaign to essentially lie about her husband's involvement in a secessionist group. To McCain's credit, that one was "no dice" with him. But, bad, bad move on his part in selecting her without a thorough vetting, although being a Democrat, I'm happy he made it.

The country and the Republican party need a candidate the people of the country see as fundamentally honest and above-board. Eight years of Bush--eight years of lies and propaganda washes--have left people pretty tired of obvious dishonesty and insults to our intelligence. Fundamentally, I guess, this is what bothers me most about Palin...she talks about how she doesn't want to pursue politics as usual, but I'm not sure what she means. She's been caught out in one lie after another...is politics as usual to her politics where one is held accountable for what one says? Everything she does and says points to her wishing to return to the Bush years where lies and deception are seen as SOP--that goals picked by the elite are so good and so holy that the means to these goals is immaterial. I think Obama won this election when he said things like, "Well, let me tell you how I believe you demonstrate your respect. You do it by telling the truth and keeping your word, so folks can know that where you stand today is where you'll stand tomorrow." And then telling a hard truth, but saying by working together, we'd make our goals. He spoke to people as if they were intelligent adults and comes across as fundamentally honest, missteps and all. He speaks and acts as if he cares more about the country than he does himself. Sarah Palin does not. Her speech and her actions are very "me-centric"--she makes noises about the country, but they don't come across to me and millions like me as being genuine. She's leaving Alaska for the sake of Alaskans she says, but we all know she's leaving Alaska for Sarah Palin's ambition.

I agree with what you have to say with one exception: I feel that Palin was pushed onto McCain as his running mate and that the "Republicans in charge" totally miscalculated America's ability to see through her.

PearlJain wrote:

weenie wrote:

JR8805 wrote:

I'm not convinced McCain would have won the election, but he would have given Obama a much better run his money. I had respected greatly McCain until he apparently made this decision almost like a roll of the dice. I think he looked at Obama and Clinton & knew that people wanted a change, and he felt, mistakenly, that he could infuse his campaign with a little fire by selecting a woman. Apparently, any woman--a woman who would ask his campaign to essentially lie about her husband's involvement in a secessionist group. To McCain's credit, that one was "no dice" with him. But, bad, bad move on his part in selecting her without a thorough vetting, although being a Democrat, I'm happy he made it.

The country and the Republican party need a candidate the people of the country see as fundamentally honest and above-board. Eight years of Bush--eight years of lies and propaganda washes--have left people pretty tired of obvious dishonesty and insults to our intelligence. Fundamentally, I guess, this is what bothers me most about Palin...she talks about how she doesn't want to pursue politics as usual, but I'm not sure what she means. She's been caught out in one lie after another...is politics as usual to her politics where one is held accountable for what one says? Everything she does and says points to her wishing to return to the Bush years where lies and deception are seen as SOP--that goals picked by the elite are so good and so holy that the means to these goals is immaterial. I think Obama won this election when he said things like, "Well, let me tell you how I believe you demonstrate your respect. You do it by telling the truth and keeping your word, so folks can know that where you stand today is where you'll stand tomorrow." And then telling a hard truth, but saying by working together, we'd make our goals. He spoke to people as if they were intelligent adults and comes across as fundamentally honest, missteps and all. He speaks and acts as if he cares more about the country than he does himself. Sarah Palin does not. Her speech and her actions are very "me-centric"--she makes noises about the country, but they don't come across to me and millions like me as being genuine. She's leaving Alaska for the sake of Alaskans she says, but we all know she's leaving Alaska for Sarah Palin's ambition.

I agree with what you have to say with one exception: I feel that Palin was pushed onto McCain as his running mate and that the "Republicans in charge" totally miscalculated America's ability to see through her.

I admit that the day McCain introduced Sarah as his "running-mate" that he "jumped the shark." I don't know what he was thinking. He should have chosen someone else - because she had a real shot in the future. I feel like McCain's entire campaign workers were against here - and threw her under the bus. I personally support her and will continue to do so. I like her. Even though I'm a vegetarian - Sarah at least has what it takes to shoot her own plate of animal. Unlike Obama - whom continues to allow others to do his dirty work for him (while he "preens" in the mirror). I can't stand the "Palin-bashing."

ledvedderman wrote:

I'm not sold on the argument that she was "pushed" on McCain. I think that when Obama went with Biden, no one was sure how the Dems were going to react. The Hillary backers were still quite bitter. It might have been worth the gamble to try and lure some of them with a woman, but a far right woman was not going to be the answer. If they picked a moderate woman, you might have been able to pick away at the Clinton supporters a bit.

I think that McCain wanted either Lindsay Graham or Joe Liebermann. Neither one of them made political sense to the ticket, so he went pulled the wild card. I think Jindhal or Pawlentey (sp?? on both of those names) would have been safer picks because they had been through the ringer already. Palin was virtually unheard of. Not well versed in national issues. Because no one knew anything about her when they dug into her record and history the McCain/Palin camps cried foul. The woman should have been looked into deeply. She wasn't ready to be a #2 and a heartbeat away from being President. She was safe though because she would get the McCain camp about a week of press headlines...I just don't think they imagined it being as bad as what it got. When it got bad, it all just flooded out and there was nothing to stop it.

As for the infighting. I think Sarah realized early on that she was the star of the ticket and became a "diva" of sort. She had nothing to lose. If McCain loses, she's in a great spot. If he wins...she's in a great spot.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

ledvedderman wrote:

We SHOULD be apologizing. We were arrogant asshole cowboys while Bush was in office. World politics isn't a dick measuring contest. When you fuck up, you own up to it. Al Gore, Barack Obama, and John Kerry would ALL have had the same reaction to 9/11. Go into Afghanistan and take down the Taliban. That should have been THE mission. Like JB said, Bush fucked up when he went to Iraq. The Taliban is where we should have been focusing, and that is where Gore, Obama, and Kerry would have had us. This "Democrats are weak on defense" nonsense is beyond silly. FDR (sometimes), Truman, JFK, and LBJ...all "aggressive" Presidents when it comes to defense and all Democrats.

You are a WEAK individual. I'm done exchanging commments with you now.

if you think that america has no reason to apologize for the way we have treated other countries and bullied them under bush then you are "an IGNORANT individual." i love my country, but i am just as quick to recognize and acknowledge its shortcomings as i am to brag about its accomplishments. it is called being analytical and a critical thinker. do you ever wonder why we are so hated? believe me, it ain't because of our freedom. i do not have the "america fuck yeah rah rah rah" attitude that so many on the right have. i tend to be a little more modest i guess. bravado and cowboy diplomacy gets you nowhere. a little empathy and understanding goes a long way.