Palin for VP - Inspired or Disastrous?

cookiemonster wrote:

I am very, very sorry, AT.

Thanks cookie, that means a lot to me.

Quote :

I am neither an identifiable Democrat nor Republican and I was rooting for Hillary from the start but given the choice between Obama and the old man or the other old man and Hottie McHottie I'd go with the latter. Mainly because I believe Obama is full of hot air and not much else and a political liability but also because I think McCain in more honest and would make a better president, even if I don't agree with all his policies. Than and his vice president is an exciting choice and certainly stirred up the political scene in the US.

Sure why not? Hillary 2012 here we come!

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Sure why not? Hillary 2012 here we come!

I think so. It's in her blood now, she has to do it!

cookiemonster wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Sure why not? Hillary 2012 here we come!

I think so. It's in her blood now, she has to do it!

Yep, and then Chelsea can run after her and we can all live happily!

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Ambitious women are seen as cold, unfeeling and frighten the life out of the 50-something white male TV and newspaper executives and their savagery is a reaction to that. Attacking Obama like that is seen as racist and those same executives trip over themselves not to appear racist so they over-compensate by giving Obama a free ride. White America has a huge guilt complex about racial issues and the soft focus on Obama is a function of that.

But that is a cop out and comes nowhere near to explaining the free ride Obama is getting.

Why is no one running stories on his drug use? It was Cocaine not Embassy Regal. I have not seen one story on the extent of this use? Equally I have not seen any substantive stories on his achievements in Chicago, his very murky rise in Chicago politics etc.etc. etc. There is nothing racist about addressing such issues fairly and squarely. In fact I would go further I think if they had been addressed Hillary would now be running against McCain. Nothing I can see in his Chicago past improves my opinion of him.

We have a presidential candidate that himself has not been properly vetted and there seems to be a stubborn refusal to do it. There now appears to be obstruction being put in place to prevent people from doing so. IMO There is something very wrong here.

I would like to know if the person seeking to led the most powerful country in the world and its armed forces has had a drug problem. It is not a trivial consideration and it is not at all racist to wish to know.

I agree that the free ride to Obama is freaky, and should be compared with the treatment that previous Democratic candidates have received.

Could it be as simple as the fact that the economy is down the pan and its suits to let the Democrats have the next term ? I half felt that FF wouldn't have minded losing the last election - it was only the shocking opposition performance that handed it to them.

Obama is a demagog: they are always worrying. He also has powerful backers.
But surely they would not be able to reel in and control the whole Republican Party and media to suit a conspiracy to place him in power?

When I drape myself in tin foil I can see more clearly.

Obviously it was a conspiracy, the Republicans wanted to lose this election as they knew things were a mess so why not some waffler, who after 4 years of economic punishment will be easy to beat.

Nearly worked except Mr Grumpy is living up to his maverick persona and is putting up a bit of a fight. He doesn't realise he is supposed to lose and isn't acting at all predictably. Why he has even managed to energise the Republican base and brought in some frontiers lady complete with guns and children, who does over Republicans before breakfast and goes head to head with oil companies. On the other side who would have believed that Dr Doolittle with a voice that charms could be so daft as insult the people whose votes he needs to win key states.

Yhee Ha sure is depressing.

Why oh why do the electorate not have the whit to go out and vote for Nader and some of the others IN MASS. What the Democrats and Republicans are offering is an insult. It is like inviting people to dinner and serving up spam and beans.

Of the people currently running Nader would make and excellent President and I say that as someone who does not necessarily agree with him on many issues. Tragic they are going to pick someone else.

What would Nader do about the US economy?

cactus flower wrote:

What would Nader do about the US economy?

I think he would have a fair go at cleaning up corporate USA and reduce spending on the military. His site is here

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

More importantly he would be acting on behalf of the electorate and not the usual vested interests. Even if I don't agree with some of his utterances I think he is a person of integrity and has a very sharp mind.

Squire wrote:

Why is no one running stories on his drug use? It was Cocaine not Embassy Regal. I have not seen one story on the extent of this use? Equally I have not seen any substantive stories on his achievements in Chicago, his very murky rise in Chicago politics etc.etc. etc. There is nothing racist about addressing such issues fairly and squarely. In fact I would go further I think if they had been addressed Hillary would now be running against McCain. Nothing I can see in his Chicago past improves my opinion of him.

I agree with you, but they still don't want to go too hard on the first African-American candidate for President since they don't want to appear racist. They are over-compensating in this regard and sacrificing journalistic integrity for fear they rile an ascendant African America.

Some MSMBC anchors have just been demoted for being too kind to Obamba, according to Fox News. Perhaps the honeymoon is over.

Is that Palin video more of the "we'll hunt them down and smoke them out of their caves?"

"President Bush seeks to rid the world of Islam Extremism - he's great" ?

She is a warrior woman who relishes battle. It was obvious from the moment it was announced that a "complete unknown" had been picked that she would be a tough one. She is just sending her own child off to Iraq and is delighted to be doing it.

The thing is, that it doesn't matter who you picked at the moment in the US, it is an entity that is warlike and intends to subdue the rest of the world.
Not everyone is going to lie down, and I hear that Chavez has given marching orders to the US ambassador to Venezuela in support of Bolivia.

cactus flower wrote:

She is a warrior woman who relishes battle. It was obvious from the moment it was announced that a "complete unknown" had been picked that she would be a tough one. She is just sending her own child off to Iraq and is delighted to be doing it.

The thing is, that it doesn't matter who you picked at the moment in the US, it is an entity that is warlike and intends to subdue the rest of the world.
Not everyone is going to lie down, and I hear that Chavez has given marching orders to the US ambassador to Venezuela in support of Bolivia.

I agree with the first paragrah. She was chosen for her gun loving, moose slaying, old-fashioned American ideals. On that score I think she has thus far exceeded all expectations. However that interview proves that she is very raw. As I was saying over yonder on p.ie, if ever there was a candidate who should have the 'more of the same' banner draped all over her it is Sarah Palin. Another dangerously ill-informed non-entitity who takes her cues from the glorious troika of Steve Shmidt, her 'gut' and the man upstairs.

In regard to the second paragragh (and with the greatest of respect) I think it is lefty nonesense. To define the entire United States as an entity is probably stretching it but then to label it warlike with an intention to subdue the world is ridiculous. I don't think America has any stomach for another war in the near future. That's why I would consider Palin quite a dangerous person.

unaligned wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

She is a warrior woman who relishes battle. It was obvious from the moment it was announced that a "complete unknown" had been picked that she would be a tough one. She is just sending her own child off to Iraq and is delighted to be doing it.

The thing is, that it doesn't matter who you picked at the moment in the US, it is an entity that is warlike and intends to subdue the rest of the world.
Not everyone is going to lie down, and I hear that Chavez has given marching orders to the US ambassador to Venezuela in support of Bolivia.

I agree with the first paragrah. She was chosen for her gun loving, moose slaying, old-fashioned American ideals. On that score I think she has thus far exceeded all expectations. However that interview proves that she is very raw. As I was saying over yonder on p.ie, if ever there was a candidate who should have the 'more of the same' banner draped all over her it is Sarah Palin. Another dangerously ill-informed non-entitity who takes her cues from the glorious troika of Steve Shmidt, her 'gut' and the man upstairs.

In regard to the second paragragh (and with the greatest of respect) I think it is lefty nonesense. To define the entire United States as an entity is probably stretching it but then to label it warlike with an intention to subdue the world is ridiculous. I don't think America has any stomach for another war in the near future. That's why I would consider Palin quite a dangerous person.

I would refine the second paragraph by saying that the US is currently controlled by a cabal who want to subdue the rest of their world to their economic interests. The members of the cabal have said this many times themselves. If its lefty nonsense, then Rumsfeld is as Red.

That interview was far too stiff. Unfortunately it is too early to get a feel for Palin over a range of issues.

This quasi religious foreign policy mumbo jumbo is not the angle interviewers should be taking. I don't want to know about her religion, but how she actually views China, Russia etc. Let her bring religion into the equation if she so desires, but framing it that way around is stupid.

On economics and cutting expenditure I think she would probably be for balanced budgets, big plus.

On issues relating to families and care for disabled probably slight plus.

On guns, for me big minus but I just can't get this love of guns and hunting at all.

On environment, I just don't know. Polar bears in Alaska probably go down as well as calls to reintroduce the wolf in Ireland.

Foreign policy, I just don't know. They all worry me. US foreign policy is the complete opposite to what i want.

Energy, for self sufficiency. Very big plus and solves many of foreign policy issues.

On Corporates I think her inclination is with the common man, and that may explain Fox's dislike of her. I can't see her being overly impressed by corporate USA, she has had a run in with the oil companies. I could see her responding a lot quicker to fellow Americans, their families, their homes and their jobs.

She hasn't got where she is now by being soft and a push over. We have to remember that she didn't exactly endear herself to the Republican Party in Alaska. So either she has some convictions about integrity and some basic values, or is an extremely astute operator!

The Democrats are making a pigs ear of this. She is not the soft under belly of the Republican Party. They really should be addressing McCain and the undecided voters in swing states rather than pitching effort at the other sides VP. All the nonsense about contesting every state needs to be jettisoned along with other ego baggage.

In a year where many want the Republicans out the Democrats pick a candidate who is struggling against a weak Republican candidate. Obama just does not connect with any real base beyond young academia, African Americans and party faithful.

Initially, he was connecting with those who just want an end to the Republicans.

Palin - maybe a touch of the Danas blended in with a bit of Thatcher?
And then there is that frontier spirit, gone from most of the States but a big part of the emotional baggage. Thatcher was picked out and groomed by Airey Neave, an M16 operative who became shadow Northern Ireland Secretary

http://www.irishdemocrat.co.uk/features/airey-neave

Perhaps the question we should be asking about Palin is who picked her.

cactus flower wrote:

Initially, he was connecting with those who just want an end to the Republicans.

Palin - maybe a touch of the Danas blended in with a bit of Thatcher?
And then there is that frontier spirit, gone from most of the States but a big part of the emotional baggage. Thatcher was picked out and groomed by Airey Neave, an M16 operative who became shadow Northern Ireland Secretary

http://www.irishdemocrat.co.uk/features/airey-neave

Perhaps the question we should be asking about Palin is who picked her.

Rove or if the Phoenix is to be believes it may have been Declan ganley! It wasn't McCain, that's for sure.

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Initially, he was connecting with those who just want an end to the Republicans.

Palin - maybe a touch of the Danas blended in with a bit of Thatcher?
And then there is that frontier spirit, gone from most of the States but a big part of the emotional baggage. Thatcher was picked out and groomed by Airey Neave, an M16 operative who became shadow Northern Ireland Secretary

http://www.irishdemocrat.co.uk/features/airey-neave

Perhaps the question we should be asking about Palin is who picked her.

Rove or if the Phoenix is to be believes it may have been Declan ganley! It wasn't McCain, that's for sure.

Your a sharp one Cookiemonster - she could be run by Rove all right - Tucker Eskew, who ran the Bush/Cheney campaign that shafted John Kerry, was taken on to write her speeches and coach her. McCain - would he be Pentagon intelligence and there is no love lost between the neocons and the CIA. Eskew defended Rove over the Valerie Wilson outing.

btw - Eskew (good name for a spin merchant) also shafted McCain and his Cindy and is said to have "scarred them for life" when McCain was running against Bush. The fact that the McCain campaign team now take on Eskew would make me wonder how much McCain is in charge of his "own" team.

This is what they have been doing over the past few days to make Sarah more attractive to the republican base.

Riadach, you c**t!

The power of Rove.

Always remember Richard Neville when considering King makers. In the end the King may not prove pliable and have a will of his own.

riadach wrote:

[image censored, for the children's sakes]

This is what they have been doing over the past few days to make Sarah more attractive to the republican base.

Republicans really are a strange bunch.

905 wrote:

riadach wrote:

[image censored, for the children's sakes]

This is what they have been doing over the past few days to make Sarah more attractive to the republican base.

Republicans really are a strange bunch.

Stereotype much?

cookiemonster wrote:

905 wrote:

riadach wrote:

[image censored, for the children's sakes]

This is what they have been doing over the past few days to make Sarah more attractive to the republican base.

Republicans really are a strange bunch.

Stereotype much?

Is the closet gay Republican a stereotype? I thought it was just Doonesbury.