John McCain can't even competently choose a VP candidate who will help his campaign. He rushed off half-cocked and picked probably the single-worst possible candidate.

GOP insiders and conservative analysts from coast-to-coast are in agreement that his impulsive pick of Sarah Palin is going to hurt him. the only question is, "how much".

now, THIS is the kind of guy we want picking at least two (2) new Supreme Court justices, maybe more? THIS is the kind of guy we want deciding if and when nuclear force should be used against enemies?

this guy can't even help himself. Its not like he didnt have MONTHS to choose a proper candidate, yet he waited til 3 days before the convention and in haste picked a candidate he knew nothing about, and now he's gone and shot himself in the foot. what makes anyone think he's capable of leading the largest economic and military power in the world?

really, people. this is not bombast. this is serious. the guy has no capacity for clear judgement.

Quote :

"Palin Disclosures Raise Questions on Vetting ST. PAUL — A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket. On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father. Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state's public safety commissioner ... Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin. Although the McCain campaign said that Mr. McCain had known about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy before he asked her mother to join him on the ticket and that he did not consider it disqualifying, top aides were vague on Monday about how and when he had learned of the pregnancy, and from whom. While there was no sign that her formal nomination this week was in jeopardy, the questions swirling around Ms. Palin on the first day of the Republican National Convention, already disrupted by Hurricane Gustav, brought anxiety to Republicans who worried that Democrats would use the selection of Ms. Palin to question Mr. McCain’s judgment and his ability to make crucial decisions. At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain’s running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described. Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania. But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates. Perhaps more important, several Republicans said, Mr. McCain was getting advice that if he did not do something to shake up the race, his campaign would be stuck on a potentially losing trajectory. With time running out — and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, as too predictable — he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later. Advisers to Mr. Pawlenty and another of the finalists on Mr. McCain’s list described an intensive vetting process for those candidates that lasted one to two months. “They didn’t seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before,” said a Republican close to the campaign. “This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn’t get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge.” In the final stages, two Republicans familiar with the process said, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, emerged as a key advocate for Ms. Palin. Mr. McCain’s advisers said repeatedly on Monday that Ms. Palin was “thoroughly vetted,” a process that would have included a review of all financial and legal records as well as a criminal background check. A McCain aide said the campaign was well aware of the ethics investigation and had looked into it. “It was obviously something that anybody Googling Sarah Palin knew was in the news and there was a very thorough vetting done on that and also on the daughter,” the aide said. People familiar with the process said Ms. Palin had responded to a standard form with more than 70 questions. Although The Washington Post quoted advisers to Mr. McCain on Sunday as saying Ms. Palin had been subjected to an F.B.I. background check, an F.B.I. official said Monday the bureau did not vet potential candidates and had not known of her selection until it was made public. Mark Salter, Mr. McCain’s closest adviser, said in an e-mail message that Ms. Palin had been interviewed by Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., a veteran Washington lawyer in charge of the vice-presidential vetting process for Mr. McCain, as well as by other lawyers who worked for Mr. Culvahouse. Mr. Salter did not respond to an e-mail message asking if Ms. Palin had told Mr. Culvahouse and his lawyers that her daughter was pregnant. In Alaska, several state leaders and local officials said they knew of no efforts by the McCain campaign to find out more information about Ms. Palin before the announcement of her selection, Although campaigns are typically discreet when they make inquiries into potential running mates, officials in Alaska said Monday they thought it was peculiar that no one in the state had the slightest hint that Ms. Palin might be under consideration. “They didn’t speak to anyone in the Legislature, they didn’t speak to anyone in the business community,” said Lyda Green, the State Senate president, who lives in Wasilla, where Ms. Palin served as mayor. Representative Gail Phillips, a Republican and former speaker of the State House, said the widespread surprise in Alaska when Ms. Palin was named to the ticket made her wonder how intensively the McCain campaign had vetted her. “I started calling around and asking, and I have not been able to find one person that was called,” Ms. Phillips said. “I called 30 to 40 people, political leaders, business leaders, community leaders. Not one of them had heard. Alaska is a very small community, we know people all over, but I haven’t found anybody who was asked anything.” The current mayor of Wasilla, Dianne M. Keller, said she had not heard of any efforts to look into Ms. Palin’s background. And Randy Ruedrich, the state Republican Party chairman, said he knew nothing of any vetting that had been conducted. State Senator Hollis French, a Democrat who is directing the ethics investigation, said that no one asked him about the allegations. “I heard not a word, not a single contact,” he said. A number of Republicans said the McCain campaign had to some degree tied its hands in its effort to keep the selection process so secret. “If you really want it to be a surprise, the circle of people that you’re going to allow to know about it is going to be small, and that’s just the nature of it,” said Dan Bartlett, a former counselor to President Bush. Former McCain strategists disagreed on whether it would have been useful for Ms. Palin’s name to have been more publicly floated before her selection so that issues like the trooper investigation and her daughter’s pregnancy might have already been aired and not seemed so new at the time of her announcement. “It’s a risk,” said Dan Schnur, a former McCain aide who now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “No matter how great the candidate, it’s a significant risk to put someone on the ticket” who hasn’t been publicly scrutinized. “They obviously felt it was worth the risk to rev up the base and potentially reach out to Clinton supporters,” Mr. Schnur said. "

my god. this guy is hopeless. he cant even manage his own campaign.

9/4/2008 1:04:22 PM

Would now be a good time to bring up Joe Biden's "bona fides" on civil liberties and the War on Drugs as a reflection of Obama's potential picks, or would this be deemed "irrelevant?"

I mean, just wondering here if There Can Be Only One (fatally flawed candidate).

9/4/2008 1:57:23 PM

sure why not. no one else is biting.

9/4/2008 2:00:49 PM

Well, ever wonder how those quirky rascals in the Senate managed to whip up that laundry list of powers in the PATRIOT Act so quickly? Joe Biden, as it were, is not the only plagiarist in the Senate - hell, they ripped off a bill virtually point-by-point he introduced in 1995 (right after OKC) with virtually identical provisions:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEED7103AF932A15757C0A963958260

Incidentally, Biden then bitched about it getting "watered down" by anti-government conservatives and civil libertarians.

http://www.tnr.com/columnists/story.html?id=ba9b09bb-ed01-4582-b6ec-444834c9df73

But I'm totally, totally sure the pick of one of the least friendly Senate Democrats to civil liberties has absolutely no reflection upon the priority an Obama administration will put upon the subject. Particularly when it comes to judges. In fact, who would have known that Biden would be so stridently anti-civil liberties and pro-Drug War, unless they'd actually worked with the guy...

...oh, wait. Nevermind.

9/4/2008 2:08:40 PM

LOL at all the hate for Sarah Palin.

I can't see how all this virtriol from the left won't be accompanied by a backlash from independents as they get to know her better.

9/4/2008 2:11:58 PM

LOL at all the hate for Sarah Palin.

I can't see how all this virtriol from the left won't be accompanied by a backlash from independents as they get to know her better.

9/4/2008 2:13:24 PM

^ too bad her Social Conservative Christian values platform has very little independent/libertarian/moderate appeal.

Quote :

"THIS is the kind of guy we want picking at least two (2) new Supreme Court justices, maybe more? THIS is the kind of guy we want deciding if and when nuclear force should be used against enemies? "

This is one reason i am gaining supporting toward Obama. While i like GOP congressman closing the penny bad from spend happy liberals. On the other hand i can count on liberal SCOTUS respecting the constitution and my rights more than "conservative" judges. Conservative judges who likely would be making decisions restricting rights based on Christian morals; as well as not restricting the power of the presidents actions which are conviently labled as for the good of "national security".

[Edited on September 4, 2008 at 3:16 PM. Reason : a]

9/4/2008 3:16:22 PM

well, shit, you've gone and done it again.... something i can almost agree with 100%












we gotta quit meeting like this. folks will talk

9/4/2008 4:40:44 PM

Quote :

"In fact, who would have known that Biden would be so stridently anti-civil liberties and pro-Drug War, unless they'd actually worked with the guy... ...oh, wait. Nevermind."

hmm... i find your theory interesting.

i shall ponder it at length later, when i have time to concentrate.

9/4/2008 4:42:32 PM

Quote :

"John McCain can't even competently choose a VP candidate who will help his campaign. He rushed off half-cocked and picked probably the single-worst possible candidate. GOP insiders and conservative analysts from coast-to-coast are in agreement that his impulsive pick of Sarah Palin is going to hurt him. the only question is, "how much". ..... in haste picked a candidate he knew nothing about, and now he's gone and shot himself in the foot"

this is the biggest load of horseshit i've read all day...does coast-to-coast mean the coasts of San Francisco up to the coasts of Seattle?

By and large, GOP insiders and conservative analysts thought Palin "hit it out of the park" last night...all they've done the last ~18 hours is praise her and you have the fucking nerve to just matter of factly lie and imply that 99% of conservative analysts say its a mistake?

Your whole thread premise is "conservatives think Palin was a mistake, look how bad McCain fucked up, you want him leading the country?" when the majority of conservatives love the pick...you are a pathetic partisan sheep

9/4/2008 6:17:56 PM

Hitler's speeches captivated and energized his audiences also. Doesn't mean he was the right guy for the job.

9/4/2008 6:29:29 PM

^
Obama's entire campaign.

9/4/2008 6:30:54 PM

So....Democrats think that Palin is a bad choice? Surprise, Surprise.

9/4/2008 6:33:47 PM

^^ hey i don't even really support obama. I support/supported McCain until he picked Palin

^ liberals should be happy w/ Palin as it helps increase their odds of winning

[Edited on September 4, 2008 at 6:50 PM. Reason : l]

9/4/2008 6:49:34 PM

Quote :

"liberals should be happy w/ Palin as it helps increase their odds of winning"

i dont know where exactly you're getting this idea

9/4/2008 6:54:10 PM

^^
Not calling you out or anything. Just pointing out that Obama gives great speeches but really doesn't have much of a record, or specific plans.

9/4/2008 6:56:16 PM

Quote :

"So....Democrats think that Palin is a bad choice? Surprise, Surprise. "

I am still trying to figure out how you can go from Edwards to Clinton to Palin.

9/4/2008 6:58:42 PM

The fact that liberals are wailing and slamming her makes its perfectly clear that McCain made the right move.

9/4/2008 7:55:40 PM

Palin could be the worst choice in the entire country, it's really kind of irrelevant to SCOTUS picks. We already know that they go through a brutal Congressional approval process, and it strikes me as highly unlikely that McCain is going to have a Republican majority in either house to make it easy.

9/5/2008 1:22:02 AM

I think McCain is a lot more centrist than he says he is, specially in regards to social conservatism. He just realized in 2000 that to have any chance at becoming president he needed to pander to the social conservatives. So, if he is elected, and that is a big if, I don't foresee him picking any crazy judges. I'm more concerned with Obama for 8 years, and him installing a Warren like court.

9/5/2008 1:28:32 AM

I think his pick will only highlight his age. Apparently he's like 72 and has had cancer 4 times or something like that. The hypothetical situation of McCain kicking the bucket and Palin becoming President is going to come up a lot.

Does anyone really think that she's ready to be President? I mean really? I can't even imagine how poorly she would run the country. I'm not saying she won't ever be ready to possibly be President one day, but she is not ready RIGHT NOW. I think the possibility of this even happening is enough to kill any desire I might have had to vote for McCain. And it hasn't even gotten to the debates yet which is where I would really decide. He's going to have to run an absolutely perfect campaign to pull this off and I don't think he can do it.

9/5/2008 2:59:37 AM

Wow. GrumpyGOP thinks that Palin is the worst VP ever. Yet...The Iraq war was not a bad idea (even if it was predicated on false information) and Bush was justified in starting it.

Quote :

"ive said it before and ill say it again, i think its highly likely that bush fed us a lot of things that werent true, but until you can demonstrate to me that his motives for the war were evil or self interested i consider those lies to be acceptable, because i think saddy had to go and that no matter how good the other reasons were the country wouldnt OK the war unless we felt personally threatened by WMD or ready for vengeance over 9-11. if thats the bullshit that had to be fed to the masses to get them to support what i continue to believe was a just war, then the ends justify the means, and i wouldve done the same. ditto, incidentally, for any fdr pearl harbor conspiracy."

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=325855&page=1#6982439

Talk about judgement issues.

9/5/2008 8:56:14 AM

So you get your talking points from Rudy Gullani?
If something pisses off Democrats, it must be right. is that it?

9/5/2008 8:58:07 AM

That's right.

Kick 'em in the voonerables.

9/5/2008 9:39:31 AM

Wow, I didn't know that about Biden, DrSteveChaos. I'm a little scared now. I also see he's a big supporter of copyright protection.

9/5/2008 9:52:08 AM

SCOTUS picks are actually the ONLY reason I'm voting for Obama v McCain. I really don't care for either one at all, but I think McCain (or fate forbid, Palin) would make worse and more damaging choices than Obama in that category.

9/5/2008 10:08:16 AM

Quote :

"Does anyone really think that she's ready to be President? I mean really? I can't even imagine how poorly she would run the country. I'm not saying she won't ever be ready to possibly be President one day, but she is not ready RIGHT NOW."

I'm not the biggest fan of Palin, but the arguments about whether she has enough experience to run the country does cut both ways. A lot of the questions on whether or not she has experience... they almost seem word for word the same as what was leveled against Barack Obama back in the spring. Is he ready to run? Sure he would make a great president, but not RIGHT NOW. I think there were plenty of different articles and such that were quoted before comparing the effectiveness of different presidents versus their experience.

Again, I'm not endorsing Palin, she's a bit too conservative socially for my tastes, but the experience argument rings a bit hollow at times.

9/5/2008 10:12:56 AM

^ To go along with that, I prefer people who don't have that "experience." Why do you have to be in politics for x number of years in order to be President? Why can't you be a distinguished X(pick a profession) and want to serve and lead your country? I would love to see one and done term limits. You know, have people become politicians for 4 years as a break in their actual careers, instead of politics becoming a career.

9/5/2008 10:31:31 AM

I didn't say shit about experience. I just said I don't think she would make a good president at all.

9/5/2008 10:46:35 AM

Your statement implied that she doesn't have enough experience, but given that you and I both aren't particularly fond of her, I don't think its a point worth debating.

9/5/2008 11:09:37 AM

Quote :

"I think McCain is a lot more centrist than he says he is, specially in regards to social conservatism. He just realized in 2000 that to have any chance at becoming president he needed to pander to the social conservatives."

I agree and this is why i supported McCain. However, Palin's political positions are in complete contrast of my views; Except for pro gun rights and blasting liberals on their do-gooder free handout views on social welfare. McCain though has been drifting toward the right both economically and socially; and I would rather not risk Palin being a first of the types he is going to surround himself with in his cabinet. Also, the kind of people he would appoint to the SCOTUS.

If I or anybody voting in the Republican primaries wanted our country to move in the direction of hard core social conservatism they would have picked Huckabee or Thompson. McCain thus is alienating his moderate/indie base that helped him oust Romney and the rest of the bunch.

The GOP lost majority in the 2006 because they were tired of the direction the George W’s neo-con politics were taking us. This policy of favoring Big business, declaring fiscal responsibility with lip service only while spending big $$, gov’t legislation of morality, and disgruntlement with Iraq. The majority will not be to fond of voting back in a new administration that looks like just a copy/past of the old. Palin is not helping this.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 11:22 AM. Reason : a]

9/5/2008 11:18:00 AM

Quote :

"The GOP lost majority in the 2006 because they were tired of the direction the George W’s neo-con politics were taking us."

and so the Dems gained a majority in both the House and Senate...(almost) 2 years later, what have they done?

9/5/2008 12:17:05 PM

^ so, you are OK with Obama appointing terrorists like Bill Ayers, though, right? give me a break.

Quote :

"On the other hand i can count on liberal SCOTUS respecting the constitution and my rights more than "conservative" judges."

Kind of ironic, given that liberals are, frankly, quite liberal on the Constitution's meaning. Anyone who can invent a right out of thin air can hardly be said to be "respecting" the Constitution.

9/5/2008 12:17:45 PM

Quote :

"Anyone who can invent a right out of thin air can hardly be said to be "respecting" the Constitution."

So... Ninth Amendment means what, exactly? Filler space, since 10 looked like a good number?

Also, you'd be on much more solid ground if you were making reference to decisions like Heller and Kelo, where the liberal justices views on individual rights appear to be much more... uh... "conditional." But this argument above is garbage.

9/5/2008 2:46:43 PM

Dude. They invented the "right to privacy." Out of thin air. You can't deny that fact.

As for the 9th Amendment, surely you aren't suggesting that an actual part of the Constitution is comparable to Supreme Court justices adding to it without authority to do so, are you? And "10" was not just a round number. There were several other amendments included in the original Bill of Rights. not all were ratified. don't show your ignorance.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2008 2:50:27 PM

Do you even know what the Ninth Amendment is? I'm serious, here, since you're going out of your way to avoid my question. The "nice, round number" remark is precisely because of the fact that you're simply pretending it doesn't exist.

Also, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Hardly seems like a counter-intuitive leap to make it from there to privacy, Judge Bork.

9/5/2008 2:59:06 PM

uh, dude. Where are the words "right to privacy" in that? "Privacy" is a concept which is far different and more encompassing than simply saying you a right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures."

The 9th Amendment, as I understand it, off the top of my head, is that all rights are not explicitly enumerated. Looking at Wikipedia, that is what it is.
By the way, an amendment doesn't have to grant a right. Take the 18th. Or the 27th.

9/5/2008 3:04:18 PM

Now for some critical thinking time. What exactly do you suppose it means if we say that rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution are not to be taken as evidence of their absence or lack of protection under the law?

Hint: Looking for the word "privacy" as your first grasp indicates you fail at the concept.

And the idea that privacy isn't the same as search & seizure is the point. It's an extension of an existing principle which undergirds the structure of the written framework (i.e., the Fourth Amendment). That common law principle might be... why we have a Ninth Amendment! Such that jackasses don't go poking around saying, "Well, that's not written in the Constitution! Anything not prohibited to the government is expressly allowed!"

9/5/2008 3:08:49 PM

Nice counter. The purpose of the 9th Amendment is NOT to allude to some "ghost rights." It is to prevent the gov't from saying "hey, we can do this because it doesn't say we can't." Even YOU say so. It is to say "we haven't necessarily listed them all." However, that does not EQUATE to "we haven't listed them all." And it certainly does not equate to "there are some rights hidden in here like easter eggs that we didn't explicitly mention."

Quote :

"And the idea that privacy isn't the same as search & seizure is the point. It's an extension of an existing principle which undergirds the structure of the written framework"

And if it were so important to the framers that it supports such a structure, then why not explicitly mention it? Also, how can it be an extension of an "existing" principle which is stated and, by definition, doesn't exist? in law, such a thing can't fucking exist unless it is expressly stated that it does!

9/5/2008 3:23:32 PM

Do the words "common law" have no meaning to you? This would be what these "ghost rights" you're talking about are. Rights enshrined in common law principles, which are the foundation of the Anglo-Saxon model of jurisprudence which we happen to follow.

The Ninth Amendment explicitly exists to protect the idea of common law. And you were to actually read the Federalist papers, pretty much the Founding Fathers say explicitly - "It would be stupid and counter-productive to try and enumerate everyone's rights." This principle, in fact, was why FFs such as Madison opposed the very idea of the Bill of Rights - they feared some crackheads in the future might do exactly as you are doing and pretend that written list is exhaustive.

Quote :

"And if it were so important to the framers that it supports such a structure, then why not explicitly mention it? Also, how can it be an extension of an "existing" principle which is stated and, by definition, doesn't exist? in law, such a thing can't fucking exist unless it is expressly stated that it does"

Because the explicitness already there seemed obvious enough? They're pretty explicit in all the objects and places to be protected from unreasonable search. And they pretty much set that out as a right - the right to be secure in [...] shall not be violated. Which seems to indicate a pretty obvious principle against unwarranted governmental intrusion. It's hard to get much more explicit than that without making it so broad as to make is applicability to any specific circumstance suspect. In fact, they pretty much were going out of their way on that one to hammer out the point against unreasonable intrusion into any aspect of a private domain without explicit warrant.

Meanwhile, hard to imagine I know - but an underlying principle can exist and still be implicit. Which does away with the rest of your rhetorical sophistry. Again - this is what common law is for.

9/5/2008 3:31:44 PM

Christian conservatives and Neo-cons i can understand. For other republicans like TT and aaronburro who seem to be more concerned on economic conservatism and not really social conservatism; please explain what the appeal is with Palin??

I don't get it. Wooo McCain is your boy and i still like him too. No one though has yet to answer my previous queries about what the attraction we have with Palin. Beyond just being a Washington outsider it seems like her politics are contrary to the movement we tried to move by choosing McCain in the primaries.

9/5/2008 3:35:57 PM

^ I like Palin on her own merits, mainly due to her actual conservatism. But I'm still not voting for McCain.

Quote :

"The Ninth Amendment explicitly exists to protect the idea of common law. And you were to actually read the Federalist papers, pretty much the Founding Fathers say explicitly - "It would be stupid and counter-productive to try and enumerate everyone's rights.""

And I agree. The problem comes in when the government invents a right in order to actually suppress other rights. And that is what they did with the "right to privacy." They invented a right in order to suppress the 10th Amendment. Which right would be more important? A ghost-right, one that isn't mentioned, or one that is explicitly stated? If anything, the 9th Amendment allows the People to create more explicitly stated rights as needed and gives them the support that "not all rights have been stated."

Quote :

"This principle, in fact, was why FFs such as Madison opposed the very idea of the Bill of Rights - they feared some crackheads in the future might do exactly as you are doing and pretend that written list is exhaustive."

That is hardly what I am doing. I'm not saying that the government can do something because it isn't forbidden from doing so. Rather, i'm saying the government can't say that the States can't do something based on something the federal government just invented as a right. Do you not see that as a problem? Do you not see how it could be bad that the federal government comes out and says, without following the Amendment process, that people have an additional right of the federal government's choosing?

Quote :

"the right to be secure in [...] shall not be violated."

Speaking of rhetorical sophistry. The right. (What right?) The right to be secure. (Secure in what?) The following. Shall not be violated. The right is security in what follows. Sorry, man, that is pretty explicit in its own right (no pun intended).

9/5/2008 3:58:19 PM

i think as we "get to know" Sarah Palin better and better, this election is going to get more and more entertaining. But, you're not going to hear a lot about Sarah Palin from Sarah Palin herself because she's not talking to the press...which I know I'm shocked about. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/05/no-questions-palin-wont-t_n_124256.html

9/5/2008 4:04:26 PM

Quote :

"please explain what the appeal is with Palin??"

how about not as bad as Obama/Biden

speaking of SCOTUS, good thing we currently have a 5:4 Cons:Lib ratio or it might still be illegal for residents of Washington DC to own a handgun for home protection...I fear a couple Obama-appointed justices would shit all over the 2nd amendment

9/5/2008 4:05:53 PM

I know. She really should want to talk to people who dragged her daughter through the mud less than 3 days after meeting her. She really should want to talk to people who insinuated that she faked a fucking pregnancy.

Tell me, if I walked up and fucked you in the ass after having just met you, would you want to have a civil conversation with me afterwards? Would you at least cuddle?

9/5/2008 4:07:01 PM

^^

Quote :

"Except for pro gun rights and blasting liberals on their do-gooder free handout views on social welfare"

9/5/2008 4:13:21 PM

I'm just bringing up the point of how justices that Obama would likely nominate will shit all over the 2nd amendment...schmoe obviously didnt mention that in his original post...but he also claimed that all conservative analysts thought Palin was a bad pick, when all the conservative analysts i've heard over the last few days love the pick

9/5/2008 4:15:20 PM

she's running for vice president.. she should be willing and able to answer questions and do interviews... are you dumb enough that you can't see that the republicans are not letting people learn more about here because maybe (just maybe) they will find out that she is not qualified?

9/5/2008 5:05:01 PM

speaking of not qualified, what does it say when the Democratic PRESIDENTIAL candidate feels the need to try and compare his own accomplishments and experience to the Republican VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate?

Quote :

"the republicans are not letting people learn more about here because maybe (just maybe) they will find out that she is not qualified?"

I could say the exact same thing about Obama...seriously, attacking the VP's experience is not good when your P's experience is dwarfed by McCain's

its like downplaying McCain's war record...why would Democrats do that when their candidate's war record is blank?

I don't get it...Obama himself touts his own executive experience as running a presidential campaign...what presidential candidate HASN'T run a presidential campaign?

9/5/2008 5:06:03 PM

so you completely avoid the topic (the transparent strategy to hide Sarah Palin from any sort of situation where she'll actually be tested), and switch to another attack about Obama's lack of experience. nice

9/5/2008 5:11:47 PM