What is ok because she is Republican? I'm still trying to figure out what she needs to apologize for.

I think she is qualified to be VP because she has been the top executive of a state government. The difference in decision making of an executive and a legislator is vast. McCain realized the importance her experience in that respect will add to his administration.

She actually recieved more votes when she was elected as Mayor of Wasilla than Joe Biden did in his bid for President this year.

I didn't say she needed to apologize, I meant her qualifications don't matter since she's a Republican. I'm guessing that if she were a Democrat on John Kerry's ticket or say Joe Biden was the presidential candidate and he selected her as running mate, the Republicans would have a field day going on and on about her being a bad choice. But since she's on their ticked, they have to fall in line, suck it up and pretend like she's best choice in the whole USA. And I don't believe every last Republican think she's great either. Otherwise I'd want to know who controls the brain.

If she's qualified because of that then McCain isn't since he was sitting in Congress for 26 years instead of governing going by the logic you've intorduced.

Since there are so many cities in my state that are way more populous than Alaska then I'm more impressed with the mayors all around California's executive experience but then again I'm not the one singing the experience song anyway. She's a better speaker than McCain but that's not too hard to accomplish. Even I can express myself better. I feel smarter than George Bush so I'm ready to lead the country now.

I didn't say she needed to apologize, I meant her qualifications don't matter since she's a Republican. I'm guessing that if she were a Democrat on John Kerry's ticket or say Joe Biden was the presidential candidate and he selected her as running mate, the Republicans would have a field day going on and on about her being a bad choice. But since she's on their ticked, they have to fall in line, suck it up and pretend like she's best choice in the whole USA. And I don't believe every last Republican think she's great either. Otherwise I'd want to know who controls the brain.

If she's qualified because of that then McCain isn't since he was sitting in Congress for 26 years instead of governing going by the logic you've intorduced.

Since there are so many cities in my state that are way more populous than Alaska then I'm more impressed with the mayors all around California's executive experience but then again I'm not the one singing the experience song anyway. She's a better speaker than McCain but that's not too hard to accomplish. Even I can express myself better. I feel smarter than George Bush so I'm ready to lead the country now.

Her qualifications do matter a great deal. But remember that she is the VP nominee, and her qualifications are a good fit for this initial appointment. Republicans have not been shy in pointing out that the role of the POTUS is a more important one than the VP. I like to say that it is similar to a very large pot calling a smaller kettle black.

I do not think that she was the best choice in the USA. I would rather have had Mike Huckabee, but she was the choice of McCain. In the spirit of party unity, I feel it would be in the best interest to support the decision. I am sure there were several Obama supporters that felt Clinton would have been a much better choice than Biden. For the obvious reason of her have a MUCH stronger showing in the primaries than Biden. But they are not being knocked for supporting Obama's decision.

I think she is qualified to be VP because she adds to McCain's experience as a long time legislator. Her executive experience does not take away from McCain IMO. They will be a team in their administration and will have differing view points on how to lead. Obama/Biden will have similar view points since they both come from the same branch. They will be of the same brain more so than republican voters. I do not understand why it is a bad thing to support the decision of your candidate.

Edited September 2, 200817 yr by Casey008

If you have defended her on the pregnancy issue then what is your major gripe with Palin? Is it the investigation?

I'm playing along with the hypocrisy of McCain who thinks experience is a big deal. I think I can defend her on the pregnancy issue and still see her as a bad choice. She didn't help by lying about the Bridge to Nowhere on her first outing.

IA that Obama voters brushed off the aligations against him, much like republicans are doing with Palin's. That is the point I was trying to make.

You brought up the "dirt" on Obama as a way of trying to equate it to what Palin's experiencing. Once again it's not the same thing. Had Obama stepped into the race and been bombarded five days later with accusations, he would have been history. So it's not the same thing by a long shot.

I like the fact that most of the comparisons have been transposed into Obama/Palin comparisons rather than Obama/McCain.

You;re the one who made the comparison otherwise I wouldn't have brought Obama up at all. I was responding to your saying that there was dirt brought about him, etc. Other than that the media may be pointing to McCain's hypocrisy on the experience chanting and that's it.

Personally, I would rather compare Obama/McCain and Palin/Biden. I think it becomes more balanced in this respect.

Go right ahead but remember you said that in case you decide to go back to your other comparison.

I'm still wondering why Obama has gotten no credit for saying that Palin's personal life is off-limits?

I'm playing along with the hypocrisy of McCain who thinks experience is a big deal. I think I can defend her on the pregnancy issue and still see her as a bad choice. She didn't help by lying about the Bridge to Nowhere on her first outing.

You brought up the "dirt" on Obama as a way of trying to equate it to what Palin's experiencing. Once again it's not the same thing. Had Obama stepped into the race and been bombarded five days later with accusations, he would have been history. So it's not the same thing by a long shot.

You;re the one who made the comparison otherwise I wouldn't have brought Obama up at all. I was responding to your saying that there was dirt brought about him, etc. Other than that the media may be pointing to McCain's hypocrisy on the experience chanting and that's it.

Go right ahead but remember you said that in case you decide to go back to your other comparison.

And, the arguments keep jumping.

When it is posted that the "liberal" media has been harder on Obama than McCain, nothing.

When all this information about Palin keeps getting posted, it is ignored.

But, the same points about Obama keep getting said, and even when they have been proven or disproven, they continue.

I think the reason why our voting process is such a joke is because the BS and lies override the facts. As Stephen Colbert says "Why let facts get in the way?"

I'm playing along with the hypocrisy of McCain who thinks experience is a big deal. I think I can defend her on the pregnancy issue and still see her as a bad choice. She didn't help by lying about the Bridge to Nowhere on her first outing.

Yes McCain does feel that experience is a major consideration for the role of President. Obviously he does not feel that the vice president should have experience as such a vital qualification. She flip-floped on BTNW, ok. So does that mean Biden is a horrible choice because he plagiarizes?

You brought up the "dirt" on Obama as a way of trying to equate it to what Palin's experiencing. Once again it's not the same thing. Had Obama stepped into the race and been bombarded five days later with accusations, he would have been history. So it's not the same thing by a long shot.

Dirt is dirt. I do not see how the time period in which it has come out has anything to do with it. I heard several parts of Obama's past very early on in the primaries.

You;re the one who made the comparison otherwise I wouldn't have brought Obama up at all. I was responding to your saying that there was dirt brought about him, etc. Other than that the media may be pointing to McCain's hypocrisy on the experience chanting and that's it.

By noting the hypocrisy of McCain, it is implied that you are pointing out that Obama and Palin have similarly thin resumes. That is drawing comparisons between the two however not directly. Several other posters have been bringing up Palin's inexperience, while not naming Obama specifically. Parallels have been drawn between Obama and Palin as of late more so than any other comparisons.

Go right ahead but remember you said that in case you decide to go back to your other comparison.

You should become a moderator on this board. I have noticed that you like to dictate the way the conversation should go. Because I said I would rather compare Obama to McCain, I can no longer compare Obama/Palin?

Edited September 2, 200817 yr by Casey008

By Paul Kane

ST. PAUL -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.

After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.

According to Passage House's web site, its purpose is to provide "young mothers a place to live with their babies for up to eighteen months while they gain the necessary skills and resources to change their lives" and help teen moms "become productive, successful, independent adults who create and provide a stable environment for themselves and their families."

Palin's own daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant and has plans to wed.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family," Palin said in a statement released by the McCain campaign. "We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy, as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

Earlier today the Associated Press reported that Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, opposed funding to prevent teen pregnancies, a position that Palin also took as governor. "The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support," she wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates.

Reporters asked McCain in November 2007 whether he supported grants for sex education in the United States, whether such programs should include directions for using contraceptives and whether he supports President Bush's policy of promoting abstinence.

"Ahhh, I think I support the president's policy," McCain said.

So does that mean Biden is a horrible choice because he plagiarizes?

Yes if you're a writing teacher!

Yes if you're a writing teacher!

Ok. I had to stop laughing first!

Double post.

Edited September 2, 200817 yr by Roman

Her qualifications do matter a great deal. But remember that she is the VP nominee, and her qualifications are a good fit for this initial appointment. Republicans have not been shy in pointing out that the role of the POTUS is a more important one than the VP. I like to say that it is similar to a very large pot calling a smaller kettle black.

What do you mean by initial appointment? Is he going to make another appointment?

Are you suggesting that Democrats and maybe others don't think the role of President is more important than the VP? In a way Cheney is more of a President than VP and maybe even more than George Bush but I'll play along. I think the Republicans have a patent on hypocrisy right now. I think they've made their own brand of kettle now.

You think she's great and I think she's a poor choice

.

I do not think that she was the best choice in the USA. I would rather have had Mike Huckabee, but she was the choice of McCain. In the spirit of party unity, I feel it would be in the best interest to support the decision. I am sure there were several Obama supporters that felt Clinton would have been a much better choice than Biden. For the obvious reason of her have a MUCH stronger showing in the primaries than Biden. But they are not being knocked for supporting Obama's decision.

If you want to suggest that Biden or Clinton is the equivalent of Palin great. I think there's a difference in Palin as a second choice than Biden as a second choice. It's not like the bottom of the elevator dropped out with the choice of Biden as is the case with Palin.

I think she is qualified to be VP because she adds to McCain's experience as a long time legislator. Her executive experience does not take away from McCain IMO. They will be a team in their administration and will have differing view points on how to lead. Obama/Biden will have similar view points since they both come from the same branch. They will be of the same brain more so than republican voters. I do not understand why it is a bad thing to support the decision of your candidate.

So if everyone coming from the same branch of government have similar view points then there's no need for different parties. They just need to run branches against each other. Clearly, I think your logic here is questionable. It's background and experience that make people different. I've never heard of Senate think before or legislative speak. They won't be of the same brain since they haven''t been pretending to totally agree on everything.

There is nothing wrong with supporting the decision of your candidate if you truly believe in it. There is something wrong with being unable to admit when your candidate makes a mistake. There is something wrong with seeing the faults in the opposing candidate and not being able to see a single one with your own candidate. There is something with constant spin (and I'm not saying you do this), I'm saying the GOP in general does it.

Wow.

Bushies Come to Palin's Aid

Michael Isikoff

By Michael Isikoff

The McCain team has hastily assembled a team of former Bush White House aides to tutor the vice-presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, on foreign-policy issues, to write her speeches and to begin preparing her for her all-important Oct. 2 debate against Sen. Joe Biden.

Steve Biegun, who once served as the No. 3 National Security Council official under Condoleezza Rice at the White House, has been hired as chief foreign-policy adviser to the Alaska governor, campaign officials told NEWSWEEK. After taking leave from his job as vice president for international affairs at Ford Motor Co. last Friday, Biegun flew to St. Paul and, together with McCain’s foreign-policy guru Randy Schuenemann, began briefings for Palin on national-security issues—an area where her resume is conspicuously thin.

Biegun is hardly the only Bushie to be tapped for Palin duty. Among others:

Matt Scully, a former Bush White House speechwriter who helped draft some of the major foreign-policy addresses during the president’s first term, is working on Palin’s acceptance speech to the convention Wednesday night.

Mark Wallace, a former lawyer for the Bush 2000 campaign who served in a variety of administration jobs including chief counsel at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and deputy ambassador to the United Nations, has been put in charge of “prep” for the debate against Biden.

Wallace’s wife, Nicolle Wallace, the former White House communications director, has taken over the same job for Palin.

Tucker Eskew, another senior Bush White House communications aide, is serving as senior counselor to Palin’s operation.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former chief economist at the Council of Economic Advisers who has been serving as top economics guru for the McCain campaign, has moved over to serve as Palin’s chief domestic-policy adviser.

The proliferation of former Bush White House aides in the Palin team may strike some as ironic—and could even provide some fodder for the Democrats—given the McCain camp’s efforts to distance itself from the unpopular president. (It has been widely noted, for example, that while the president is addressing the convention tonight by satellite, neither the president nor Vice President Cheney will be coming anywhere near St. Paul. And when Palin's selection was announced last week, McCain aides touted it as an example of the senator returning to his "reformer roots" and rebelling against the GOP establishment.)

One administration critic, Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation, said today that while he personally liked Biegun and viewed him as “extremely competent,” his retention as Palin’s foreign-policy tutor could have unpleasant consequences. Describing Biegun—a Russia expert who once served as staff director for Sen. Jesse Helms at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—as a “big gun” in conservative foreign-policy circles, Clemens said “he will turn her into an advocate of Cheneyism and Cheney’s view of national-security issues.”

But another former colleague, Matthew Waxman, said that he saw Biegun as more of a pragmatist than ideologue when they worked together at the NSC under Rice. “Steven Biegun was one of the steadiest hands I worked with in government,” said Waxman. “He was kind of the chief of staff of the NSC. He was running day-to-day operations, and he did so extremely effectively.”

How effective he is in instructing Palin on the fine points of national-security and foreign-policy issues may now turn out to be one of the biggest questions of the campaign.

Now, if she has all this experience......why does she need to be tutored?

Edited September 3, 200817 yr by Roman

Yes McCain does feel that experience is a major consideration for the role of President. Obviously he does not feel that the vice president should have experience as such a vital qualification. She flip-floped on BTNW, ok. So does that mean Biden is a horrible choice because he plagiarizes?.

I guess there is no difference with you between the past and present. I believe Jess addressed tat it was one instance. I read an article on Sunday in which it was brought up and he apologized for it. It's like reliving the same moment over and over again.

I don't see why her lying means you need to rehash something Biden did many years ago? Do you think she should stand up and defend it by saying well Joe Biden didn't give proper credit in a speech way back? Does that make it okay?

If McCain doesn't feel experience is vital for the VP then his judgment is even more questionable.

By noting the hypocrisy of McCain, it is implied that you are pointing out that Obama and Palin have similarly thin resumes. That is drawing comparisons between the two however not directly. Several other posters have been bringing up Palin's inexperience, while not naming Obama specifically. Parallels have been drawn between Obama and Palin as of late more so than any other comparisons.

When I point out the hypocrisy of McCain it's just that. I am not saying Obama has a thin resume or that it's similar to anyone else's McCain is the one questioning his experience so it is hypocritical that he picks someone who has little experience. I don't know how you concluded that I agreed with McCain from that. I am not going to delve into what other posters meant. Maybe they mean the same thing I mean in terms of his hypocrisy.

You should become a moderator on this board. I have noticed that you like to dictate the way the conversation should go. Because I said I would rather compare Obama to McCain, I can no longer compare Obama/Palin?

Since you feel that way about my posts then I don't see why you should respond to my posts. I thought I was being tolerant in having what seems to be a circuitous exchange at times but since I can't help the way you or anyone else chooses to interpret my tone then let's leave it at that. If you feel I've been rude to you then I apologize.

I'm glad you decided to return to posting. I hope your other experiences posting here are more enjoyable. I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts. I do this strictly for entertainment and I don't need the aggravation since I make an effort to be respectful.

Have fun!!!

What do you mean by initial appointment? Is he going to make another appointment?

I have heard several people make comments about her potentially becoming CIC. I was trying to say that VP is her initial appointment, not President.

Are you suggesting that Democrats and maybe others don't think the role of President is more important than the VP? In a way Cheney is more of a President than VP and maybe even more than George Bush but I'll play along. I think the Republicans have a patent on hypocrisy right now. I think they've made their own brand of kettle now.

You think she's great and I think she's a poor choice

By calling McCain a hypocrite, thus implying that his choice for VP would in any way relate to his critisism of Obama's experience it is the democrats comparing the role of president to the role of the vice president. So yes. That is the impression I am getting.

If you want to suggest that Biden or Clinton is the equivalent of Palin great. I think there's a difference in Palin as a second choice than Biden as a second choice. It's not like the bottom of the elevator dropped out with the choice of Biden as is the case with Palin.

I was noting the disenfranchisement of Hillary supporters that Obama caused by choosing Biden. Republicans would perfer to avoid that type of dispute at all costs.

The bottom of the elevator fell out? According to whom? If you are looking at the polls, Biden caused a dip while Palin caused McCain's numbers to rise.

So if everyone coming from the same branch of government have similar view points then there's no need for different parties. They just need to run branches against each other. Clearly, I think your logic here is questionable. It's background and experience that make people different. I've never heard of Senate think before or legislative speak. They won't be of the same brain since they haven''t been pretending to totally agree on everything.

Their roles in government along with their political ideologies sets candidates apart.

There is nothing wrong with supporting the decision of your candidate if you truly believe in it. There is something wrong with being unable to admit when your candidate makes a mistake. There is something wrong with seeing the faults in the opposing candidate and not being able to see a single one with your own candidate. There is something with constant spin (and I'm not saying you do this), I'm saying the GOP in general does it.

I would be quick to point out if I felt McCain made a mistake. I did not agree with McCain/Feingold OR McCain/Lieberman, and I am not shy about admitting that.

Every Republican under the sun when asked if Palin was the right choice, they dodge the question like no tomorrow Its quite funny, in the media that is.