McCain's Choice?

[geojen]

[QUOTE=kork13;185989]Don't see this validated or important... Does she believe what she does because she's republican, or is she republican because that's what she believes? I suspect the latter, as is the case with nearly every other American. I don't really consider myself Republican, but I do find I agree more often with their policies than I agree with those of the Democrats, because what I personally believe in aligns more toward republicans than democrats--though not always by any stretch.


Umm, did you not watch the interview with Charlie Gibson?

Gun control--even semi-automatic assault rifles should be available
Abortion--absolutely not, under any circumstances except the death of the mother
Stem Cell--no
Gay Marriage--unknown, she only said she "doesn't judge"
Bush Doctrine-believes in it, after it was explained to her what that meant
Energy--Drill baby drill

This is the bulk of the Republican Party Platform.

As for your second point, it makes no difference. My point was that McCain is trying to sell himself (with some past credentials to back him up) that he has crossed the line and even holds some moderate beliefs and as worked with Democrats successfully. Palin is coming from a place where that doesn't seem likely, which makes me question the wisdom in choosing her.

[cptacek]

I guess I think he shouldn't have picked her because A) he obviously didn't want to, and that goes against his whole "maverick" image he's trying to create for himself B) she totally walks the Repub party line on pretty much every topic, so that also goes against his (at least former) credentials of working across party lines. C) She does nothing to help him bolster his credentials in the economy or foreign policy. Most Americans agree that being able to see Russia from your house doesn't mean diddly-squat.

I guess I feel that you should pick a running mate that will help fill in the holes in your expertise, rather than one who will be good only for getting you in the White House. And since he's already said he would rather lose a campaign than see the country worse off, well..........

"Maverick" doesn't mean "always against the Republican party." (That is what "Democrat" means) It means "thinking for yourself and standing up for what you believe, even if others in your party are for it." She took on the Republican party of entrenched ol' boys in Alaska and has an approval rating about 7 times higher as Governor than the current United States congress. She roots out incompetence, fraud and doesn't care who stands in her way. You will take that last sentence out of context and throw out "trooper gate" which, if you investigate a little, you will realize is nothing about wanting to fire her tasing-a-kid ex-brother-in-law trooper and more about the guy going around her to request more money then she wanted to allocate to his department....i.e., insubordination.

As for C., McCain doesn't need help with foreign policy. Obama does, and that is why he chose Biden. Palin knows energy, and that is what we need in this country...a comprehensive energy policy that involves more than "No, you can't drill there or there or there. No you can't put the windmills up, it hurts the bats. No, you can't extract oil from shale. No, you can't extract fuel from coal. No, you can't put up any more nuclear power plants. Hey, just inflate your tires!"

[cptacek]

Gun control--even semi-automatic assault rifles should be available
Abortion--absolutely not, under any circumstances except the death of the mother
Stem Cell--no
Gay Marriage--unknown, she only said she "doesn't judge"
Bush Doctrine-believes in it, after it was explained to her what that meant
Energy--Drill baby drill

This is the bulk of the Republican Party Platform.

If you look at her past record, she has NEVER tried to push through anti-abortion legislation, anti-stem cell legislation, anti-gay marriage legislation, etc. in her state. She may have personal beliefs that are not what you believe, but she hasn't tried to get any laws passed about these things.

[cptacek]

He didn't believe in drilling in ANWR, but now he says yes because she says yes.

She is the governor of freaking Alaska. Don't you think maybe she has a better idea of what is good for Alaska and the environment up there than you do?

She's not the brightest bulb when she says Global Warming is not caused by humans. And he now agrees with her.

31,000 American scientists agree:
Home - Global Warming Petition Project

He WAS against pork barrel spending. BUT as Governor of Alaska, she was pushing for money for the bridge to nowhere. And after getting $27 for the bridge, then cutting the project because it was unpopular, she KEPT the Federal Government money. So whose the dumb one? Him or her? Whose right?

Obama and Biden voted FOR this bridge multiple times, even when it was proposed to send the money to the gulf for Katrina cleanup instead.

[geojen]

She is the governor of freaking Alaska. Don't you think maybe she has a better idea of what is good for Alaska and the environment up there than you do?

Ummmm, nope, because its been proven that she doesn't have a freakin clue about how much energy Alaska supplies to the U.S. Besides that, being governor in no way makes you an expert on the environment.

FactCheck.org: Energetically Wrong


Obama and Biden voted FOR this bridge multiple times, even when it was proposed to send the money to the gulf for Katrina cleanup instead.[/QUOTE]


So what? It's not about whether the project was right or wrong. I really have no opinion on whether the project was pointless or not. From what I understand, the bridge is needed to connect a city to it's airport. This may indeed be pork barrel spending, since it is is a lot of money that benefits only a few. But that is not the point. It's about the fact that she is going around saying she said "thanks but no thanks" when in fact, what she said was, thanks! It doesn't have anything to do with who voted for it!

[geojen]

She is the governor of freaking Alaska. Don't you think maybe she has a better idea of what is good for Alaska and the environment up there than you do?

Quote:
She's not the brightest bulb when she says Global Warming is not caused by humans. And he now agrees with her.
31,000 American scientists agree:
Home - Global Warming Petition Project

I've looked at the petition. No where does it say where these scientists now currently make their living.

Also, the make-up of signers includes several who may or may not (probably not) be qualified to sign the petition. Several thousand are general engineers. Some are medical doctors. What makes them qualified? Because they got a bachelor's degree. Sorry. Not buying it.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

First of all she's LYING. No way you can cut it differently. She is now saying she said no and she's a liar.

FactCheck.org: GOP Convention Spin, Part II

How is that good?

Second, the article on your 31k scientists is published in American Journal of Physicians and Surgeons. Discredit it. It's not even in Science, Cell, or Nature or PNAS.

Um the guy whose writing it was the former president of PNAS. Which means he has the connections to get it peer reviewed for the PNAS. It was rejected. It has to be submitted by a member, which it likely did and got VETOED.

Second, he probably submitted it to many journals and got rejected, including relevant environmentally based journals. The journal isn't in the top 500 science journals. If it's a good paper but not ground breaking it should have at least gone to an environmental journal. http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/cardio/high-500.ht

Here's a new PNAS paper. If you want to talk about credentials then the paper written and sponsored by the previous president of the PNAS should easily have been peer reviewed and accepted if it had merit.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18801921?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[cptacek]

We can agree to disagree on the anthropomorphic global warming argument and the environment question in Alaska. We aren't going to convince each other, so let's stop bickering about it.

We have gotten off track here. The original question was 'why the hell did mccain pick palin'. You guys don't like her views - so don't vote for McCain. It's not like anyone he would have picked would have made you vote for him.. But the point is that lots of people DO like her views and WILL vote for him because of her.

[kork13]

But the point is that lots of people DO like her views and WILL vote for him because of her.

I actually saw an interesting poll today... forget who by, but compared Sept 15 to June 15 on women's thoughts on which candidate "better understood women's issues" (note: not which candidate they would vote for, strictly related to this one issue)

Results: June -- Obama 48%, McCain 13%. Sept -- Obama 42%, McCain 44%.

I know that it would be dangerous for me to stand by or comment on these results, but I simply thought it was curious that there was such a dramatic change for one and barely any for the other.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

cpatek, typical republican attitude. When someone points out ideas have holes and why they don't stand up. LOL, I'll agree to disagree about global warming, but you should tell me why the site you cited stands up to peer review really?

Why should it stand up against peer reviewed articles in better journals? Better journals are journals that are more cited.

And why is the PNAS paper I put up recently published contradicted with more recent data about Global warming? That's the other thing about science. It's constantly being reupdated with new research. The group you cited can't keep up with new data produced.

But that aside, why shouldn't we be concerned that Sarah Palin is influencing McCain? I used to think he was okay, not horrible, now he's definitely fallen into the typical Republican mold.

[geojen]

I agree, there was a time when I actually really liked McCain. I was happy that he won the primary. I thought to myself "finally, we have two candidates for president that I could be satisfied with." Because, for years, McCain has had a good record of reaching across party lines and stepping outside the repub platform to get things done. In fact, for years, he has spurned the far-right evangelical wing the republican party. Not being religious himself, he has never made any special effort to identify with this aspect of his party, which I respected. I never support a candidate going after the far-right or far-left aspects of their parties. This article is an interesting assessment of what Palin brings to the ticket:

Colorado Independent » Evangelical leader smacks McCain for lack of ‘principle’

To me, and apparently to many others, this is an obvious attempt to pander to this aspect of the party, after so many years of saying, in essence, "everything in moderation." This is why I don't like his choice, I think it goes against most of what he has said he believes in for all these years.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

OMG an evangelical talking about global warming and trying to spread the word is bashed by his own party. LOL. hilarious.

[kork13]

I agree, there was a time when I actually really liked McCain. I was happy that he won the primary. I thought to myself "finally, we have two candidates for president that I could be satisfied with." Because, for years, McCain has had a good record of reaching across party lines and stepping outside the repub platform to get things done. In fact, for years, he has spurned the far-right evangelical wing the republican party. Not being religious himself, he has never made any special effort to identify with this aspect of his party, which I respected. I never support a candidate going after the far-right or far-left aspects of their parties.

This is why I don't like his choice, I think it goes against most of what he has said he believes in for all these years.

Another point that I regularly remind myself of is the fact that this is an election year... IMHO, election year politics, campaigning, policies, etc. are all only 25% legitimate anyway. All actions are for the benefit of getting one's own party's candidate elected. This is why the history of candidates, as you bring up, is so very important. Yes, Palin is solidly conservative, which is backed up by what we know of her record. However, McCain (serving 26 years in the Senate) has shown himself to normally be much more moderate (-ish) than many others in the republican party. After this election madness is done with (can't wait, I'm counting down the days... and i got my absentee ballot today, so at least my part will be done), I strongly expect McCain to shift back toward his historical streak. It's hard to change 26 years of habit in a matter of months.

I believe Palin was (wisely) a play to the strong conservatives in the nation (there are many of them). Having a more moderate Pres and conservative VP has the best bet of reassuring the largest possible chunk of people that their views will be heard and considered. What we have here is a VP to stand in the background whispering the opinion of the conservatives, then a moderate pres to look across at the conservatives, strict moderates, and liberals and make a decision. IMO, the best possible combination (at least as far as the scale of conservative vs. liberal goes).

[LivingAlmostLarge]

But since when I asked this of moderate Republicans and more liberal republicans, actually more libertarians than republicans, since 2000 and Bush it appears that the Republican party is only catering to the extremist evangelical vote.

They are the ones courted, the loudest heard, etc. They do not represent I believe the Majority of the party. There are a lot of moderates, but these extreme social conservatives push their ideals as "republican".

So here we have McCain a guy who said he stands up to his party and "takes them on" for "reform" and "change" yet he backs down on a very important pick for VP.

Strange. Especially since this was his chance to attract moderates and independents. I think he could have reimaged the republican party.

Now all you think about is the extreme right.

[tark]

I have always been a republican voter, this year I really don't know who to choose. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.