Friday, August 29, 2008


All the talking heads on TV are shocked that John McCain has picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his VP. Anybody that reads blogs has known for months that she was in the running. My friends at the have been pushing for her since the winter and are thrilled by the choice. She has some baggage that will come out once the glow wears off but for now I think it helps McCain answer the change and historic meme.
The first local reaction is from Chris Hackett:
“Sarah Palin’s strong record of reform and opposition to wasteful spending is a profile in political courage. We need real reformers in Washington like John McCain and Sarah Palin. I could not be more excited to be running on a ticket with them. John McCain has never asked for any earmark pork projects, and Sarah Palin rejected Alaska’s Bridge to Nowhere. I proudly join them in the fight to stop the corrupt and wasteful spending system in Washington.”


JediMaster9780 said...

So this is what I wanna know. John McCain and the GOP have made their case that Obama is inexperienced to lead this nation.

Yet, McCain picks someone to be Vice-President, a heartbeat away from the presidency, who has NO experience other than being on city council, mayor, and governor for less than two years.

By contrast Obama has had much more experience on a national scale.

So how can these hypocrites justify picking someone who clearly is inexperienced?

And ANY woman, who voted for Hillary, that votes for McCain/Palin because she is a woman would be insulting Hillary Clinton, feminism, and liberalism.

Zen said...

Obama has experience? At what? Since being elected to the senate he has logged a whopping 143 work days. Less than half a year. She has right at 2 years executive experience as a governor.

prsent said...

How much executive experience did Obama have? Answer - none.

What kind of record to change things for the better does Obama have? Answer - none

Did you ever read his biography? because if you did you would know that he's just running for President because he wants to be somebody.

Let's flip this to the other side. Assume Obama dies in office as President (hey, he's scared of gun-toting conservative rednecks - he said so in Pittsburgh). Do you want a "white haired dude" as President to succeed Obama?

As far as picking someone inexperienced, uhm... Obama has lots of experience as a freshman senator?

I know it's not fair to pick on liberals and make a valid point at the same time. Let's face it arguing with a liberal is like arguing with your wife (or KAR) - you can't use reason.

For the record, I'm not a fan of McCain but if he is one heart beat away from croaking then I want to see a younger, better looking female President who actually has a record of taking a stance against politics as usual than some "old hag" beating down at you. Most men have that at home already... lol

JediMaster9780 said...

Obama has served in the Illinois Senate for 7 years from 1997-2004. He has served as the jr Senator from Illinois from 2005.

That makes him far more qualified than someone who has barely served 2 years as a governor.

McCain's choice is transparent as hell. It is a sham move to attract women.

Out of the current Congress McCain has missed the most votes.

And we haven't even gotten to how she will handle herself against Joe Biden...He will tear her apart in that debate plain and simple.

JediMaster9780 said...

And to refute prsent's comments which I have just seen now.

What executive experience does John McCain have? He has none either. He has just served in the Senate a lot longer and has the ability to exploit his POW status.

I am not saying that Obama is greatly experienced. What I am saying is that it is hypocrisy for the GOP to have attacked him for being inexperienced and then go and pick someone with less inexperienced than the guy they are saying is inexperienced.

prsent said...

Granted, Palin and Obama both have very limited experience on the federal level. However, compared to Obama, Palin has an established record as someone who stood up for and implemented change. Obama has no such experience.

Also, isn't it hypocrisy on the part of the dems to call McCain "old" and then turn around and have Biden become their VP nominee? Just food for thought.

JediMaster9780 said...

I agree with you. It is hypocrisy to call McCain old and then have someone about seven years younger as vice-president. You are absolutely right on that prsent.

Strategically I don't see her as a good choice. Her appeal is mainly to disgruntled Hillary supporters.

Palin is also under investigation for abuse of power, so we'll see where that goes.

Bringing Alaska to the spotlight is good for the Democrats because now they can focus on attacking corrupt Senator Stevens and corrupt Representative Young.

I will give Palin credit since she has attacked Stevens over his credibility.

On a personal level she seems like a likable woman and she is probably a good governor. However I do not see her as VP material.

Anonymous said...

Hypocrisy by the GOP. Pleeeasseee.

The Dems have been getting away with it for years. They blame a lie about the weapons of mass destruction on George Bush. How about Bill Clinton's speech February 17, 1998 - Speech given to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff concerning the need to deny Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. "Should it be necessary for me to exercise the option of force" If you listen to Paul Kanjorski he says Bush lied to him. If you believe that then Bill lied long before Bush.

Obama on Special Interest Groups or should we say his rally cry for change yet the DNC convention had the most lavish lobbyist sponsored parties including tickets to see Kanye West at normally $1000.00 apiece. They decry corporations but they didn't mind all expense paid parties put on by corporations. I guess the liberal media are not corporations, only Fox News is.

Dem Commercials about the high price of energy and how its affecting every American. The energy issue needed a resolution so Nancy Pelosi and Paul Kanjorski vote to turn out the lights and turn off the microphones, goes home as their answer to conserving energy refusing to come back for a vote. I guess his

Chris Carney talks about how he goes against his party which must mean his votes support Bush some of the time. Yet Kanjorski says it is Lou Barletta who supports Bush. Barletta was never in Congress so he never could have supported Bush on anything. So should people avoid Carney because he supported Bush? How many times has Paul Kanjorski supported Bush? Take a look for yourself

Two Dem delegates from the area stated they went to the convention to take back America from George Bush. That's a no brainer. Did anyone whisper in their ear that George is gone whether they went to Denver or not.

Obama says he's for change. The change in America today is not the change America is asking for; it is the change others want America to make. If he is truly for change why is his average donor donating shy of $1,100.00. Any of you reading this able to give a candidate $1,l00.00? I know I can't. then

The Dems claim they are the party of the people, the common folk. As of 7/31/2008 Obama has raised $401.311,983.00. Do you have any idea how little $400 million corporations there are in this country? I understand the Republicans do the same but they aren't the ones labeling others greedy corporate people.

So be careful when you go down the path of hypocrisy. I've been around long enough to know that the bull you are feed doesn't come from the same livestock Washington insiders feed from.

The best healthcare paid for, vehicle leases paid for, gasoline paid for, $169,300 salary. Did you know that Congress received a $4,100 pay raise while the average senior received a paltry $288.00 in Social Security raise offset by an increase in the Medicare premium. Did you know that in 1990 they voted themselves a $26,500.00 pay raise? Heck I know families who don't make that working for a year. Right from the horse's mouth-

When you learn it is us vs. them not Dems vs. Republicans you will have your epiphany. If the Dems are so great why hasn't Chris Dougerty come out of Act 47 in Scranton so his police and firefighters can receive a raise? They haven't receive one cent in six years. Sounds like a party representing unions and looking out for the union man.

Anonymous said...

Barack Obama, the first African American to ever win a party's nomination for president accepts that nomination in front of 86,000 people and what is everyone talking about today?


D.B. Echo said...

Yes! McCain is rreduced to cheap publicity stunts! BRILLIANT!

Anonymous said...

cheap or not, on sunday's shows the talk will be mccain not obama

and how much money did it cost for obama's spectacle? i wonder if the dnc, obama's campaign, taxpayers of colorado, denver or the u.s. paid for any part of it?

Anonymous said...

d.b. Cheap publicity stunts....

How about Bill getting his jollys off in front of America then addressing America telling us how Hillary is backing Obama. I don't know about your wife but mine already told me my manhood would be relegated to a historical perspective. The audacity for infidelity to be displayed in such a public manner. Obviously they wouldn't let John Edwards speak because he had an affair and lied about it. So they sent the A team in- Bill Clinton...Have a cigar...

The ironic part about that whole episode is that we make fun of the fact we can't track down illegal immigrants....the Secret Service didn't see what was going on in the White House....

America wake up...we are about to embarck on a historic step in either way or the other history is to be made....I don't like reading history as much as I like writing is your vote to write history... Do you want to vote for a President with minimal experience or not? This election or any before it was never about the Vice President. We are placing a leader in the White House not a follower. If you want a follower write in Alexander Haig. If in God's name can you proffer to America Sarah Palin is wrong but Barack Obama is right..

McCain-Palin...vs. Obama-Bi(nla)den. Get real.....

Anonymous said...

From wikipedia- "The name is delivered from United States' rich tradition of immigrants coming to the US looking for something better and having their cultures melded and incorporated into the fabric of the country. Most of them did not possess wealth or power in their home countries. Most were not highly educated. Other than these few commonalities of what they didn't possess, their backgrounds were vastly different. The thread, however, that bound these immigrants together was their vision of improving their current situation. Emma Lazarus, in a poem entitled "The New Colossus," which is inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty tells of the invitation extended to those wanting to make the US their home. "… Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…" (Encyclopedia Americana, 1998, Vol. 25, 637)"

Throughout history until today anyone coming to America had to declare the fact they wanted to be American. Read it here- also

Yet we are questioning the process and asking why are we looking at illegal immigration. This isn't Hotel America. This is America..You come here to be American. I have a black friend who told me he was sick and tired of being called "Black." He was born in America, raised in America, served America, was employed in America, and retired in America. He feels it is damn time he is recognized as an American.

How many of you salute the American flag? Or do you pull out the flag of your parent's or grandparent's heritage? We are Americans.

And today we are under attack because we are Americans. We are attacked abroad because we are American. France would not let us fly over their country because we are American. Turkey eventually had issues because we are American. Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria don't like us because we are American. North Korea..damn...Russia recently said it is once again prepared for Cold War...Not one of them knows you and me personally but they don't like Americans.

This election is about America. This election is about protecting America, expanding America, and the future of America. We cannot sit idly by and watch others tell America how it needs to change. We cannot afford to give entitlement after entitlement when Katrina victims and those in Iowa are suffering.

We need to elect leadership with vision. We need to elect leadership with passion. We need to elect leaders who will encite others to follow.

We need Americans to feel proud again. We need to address all of the obstacles to growth- the financial crisis, the energy crisis, the healthcare crisis, the baby boomer crisis, the immigration crisis, the crisis of political strangulation creating stagnation.

If there was ever a time for a call to revolution it is not now. If there ever was a time for a call to reform through a revolution of voting it is now.

If you are happy with what you see, keep the present. If there is a vison of what you want to see chart by vote the future.

Our present choices are not the answer, only the waypoint to a destination. Make sure when you vote that the you mark the correct waypoint for it will be on the path to our destiny. Our destiny is a choice but only we can make it.

We don't behead. Drug dealers in Mexico do. Terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan do. It is a legal form of execution in Egypt..

Keep the faith but don't be lead astray. That is the reason Catholics have confession. They believe in their faith but need forgiveness due to a lapse in faith. But in reality they remember their faith. Remember America. Stray but do not leave; wander but do not forget. For America is great as long as we remember to preserve American values.

Anonymous said...

John McCain cheated on his wife with Cindy. At one time he called Cindy the "C" word. I wonder if he has a boner on for Sarah. Maybe that's why he picked her for VP. What other reason would he have? She's not qualified for the position. I don't like his tactics. Why? Because I am WOMAN! and a working class woman at that.
How can she compare herself to Hillary Clinton? She could never fill her shoes. Barack Obama is a loving family man that wants to take care of me and my family, and he's never called his wife anything but loving. He is a devoted family man. How can you call McCain that when he cheated on his wife?

Anonymous said...

Obama threw his ailing grandmother who raised him under the bus in his quest to be President by suggesting she held unfounded fears based on race, and later claimed she is a "typical white" person. Barack Obama attacked his "white" grandmother's character all in the pursuit of political gain. He also admitted to smoking pot in college. So lets not feign a better moral character.

Oprah stumping for Obama. Her net worth is $2.5 billion. Two economists have quantified that her support gave him 1 million votes. But he claims he does not take special interest money.

pj the wb lefty said...

I could refute many points here but I think I'll pick on prsent and Hackett here for a little...
It's not fair not pick on lberals because they don't use logic?
Just get done with your new Ann Coulter book and wanted to try out a line?
If you're gonna bring it at least bring something that's not your textbook rightwing boilerplate talking points, alright?
Secomdly you threw in that Palin was 'good looking'. So I guess that's something as a staunch conservative you'd look for in a person to run the free world. Much better with someone like Kate Moss with her finger on the nuclear trigger that that big ugly John McCain, no?
And as for Hackett and his reform drum beat, she fits right in with him as she's chenged her position to fit her political needs at the time. The right blasted Kerry for his flip flops? This ticket is worse and if anyone pays attention it'll come out. And that bridge to nowhere? Seems she was for it before she was against it...
Check it out:

Question number 5

D.B. Echo said...

Oh, yeah. For once I'm looking forward to the Sunday Squabble Shows. They're gonna eat Palin alive, while Repug apologists try to spin this into something other than the pathetic bit of transparent pandering that it is.

prsent said...


There's no doubt that she's young and good looking. While looks don't qualify anyone for any kind of office, the average voter who doesn't have a clue about politics and - paraphrasing the "Family Guy" - the undecideds who are usually the biggest idiots in the world may end up voting for McCain because of her looks and youthfulness (remember Kennedy? Don't forget that youthfulness helped Bill Clinton get elected). There is a great potential that Palin can get a lot of the soft female republicans to vote for her (i.e. soccer moms). Plus, the fact that she is a principled woman who not only talks the talk of a Christian but also walks the walk can help sway the Christian Right to vote for McCain. She can bring a lot of pull come November.

Just to be fair, by no means she would never be the perfect VP choice for any other of the republicans who ran in the primary. I'm certain that Romney, Gulliani, or Huckabee would have never even given her a first glance. But with McCain running as a maverick, Palin fits the bill well.

The fact that she has very little name recognition within the lower 48 is a big concern for me. Otherwise, I will stick to my position that Palin was a brilliant move.

Getting back to your question about whether she is really qualified for the position (and doing so without right wing jargon), I will admit that she has no experience on the federal level. However, she does have executive experience and a proven track record. This is enough for me, especially when you take into consideration that she will be well mentored prior to any need arising for her to be President. Compared to Biden, there's no comparison. Biden is a well seasoned politician on the federal level who needs no mentoring and is obviously the better VP candidate. However, what concerns me is that someone running for President - not VP (because there's also the opportunity for mentoring and coaching while in the position) - should already be well seasoned on the federal level. Obama lacks that experience.

when you look at things from a business perspective as I usually do, most CEOs are well seasoned business professionals. I wouldn't want someone who worked as a supervisor or mid-level manager for three years being the CEO of a company I have a vested interest in. However, it's not uncommon for VPs and sub-executive managers to be hired right out of graduate school, provided that they have relevant experience in some executive position.

While I don't like either Presidential candidate, I would be more comfortable with McCain as President than Obama because of the experience issue. Sarah Palin, having executive experience and a record of challenging politics as usual would make her qualified as VP, although - political ideology aside - if I had a choice between her and Biden I would choose the latter.

Also from a business perspective, I take into consideration the fact that a CEO should indeed have some company pride and a vision. Both Presidential candidates have vision
(although Obama's better at getting others to see it), but Obama doesn't prove that he has that pride in his country, as evidenced by his relations with Ayers and his own refusal to recite the pledge.

So there are my thoughts without conservative right wing rhetoric.

pj the wb lefty said...

Good points...not that I agree with many of them. The business analogy is one I that had never heard explained like that before. And point well taken on the undecideds...a concern as a lib.

Anonymous said...

come one at least she aint like heifer hilary. she can wear a dress or skirt cause she got no cankles

JediMaster9780 said...

Well yeah that's a plus. At least she won't be wearing any pantsuits.

pj the wb lefty said...

The only flaw in that whole CEO arguement is that if a CEO suddenly dies, the junior executive isn't automatically thrust into the CEO role ready or not...