Jump to content

Barack Obama Elected President!


Max

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Bombshell: Serious Palin vetting took place one day before official selection

By: SilentPatriot on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 at 6:00 AM - PDT

You gotta be kidding me:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential vetting team until last Wednesday in Arizona, the day before McCain asked her to be his running mate, and she did not disclose the fact that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant until that meeting, two knowledgeable McCain officials acknowledged Tuesday.

In the first and most telling executive decision of his potential presidency, John McCain makes a rash, reckless decision that, God forbid he falls ill while in office, will be disastrous for this country. Is that the kind of judgment we need in the White House for another four years?

Heather caught this video last night from MSNBC of Rachel Maddow blasting Buchanan for praising Palin… after, of course, he said her nomination would be disastrous.

John Cole makes a great point:

McCain had three months free to do whatever- to fund raise, to campaign, to make the case for himself, to shore up the base, to work on the platform, and, presumably, to begin vetting his running partner.

What, then, did the McCain team do with the extra three months they had to choose their candidate? Beats me, but it sure as hell was not a careful examination of Sarah Palin.

Who do you want as Commander In Chief? An intemperate flyboy, or a cautious thinker?

What’s even worse is that despite all the evidence proving the McCain did a piss-poor job of vetting Palin, McCain still insists that the background check was thorough and he’s pleased with the results. Wow. Just wow.

To me, the question is no longer whether or not Sarah Palin is ready to be VP; it’s whether or not John McCain has the temperament and judgment to be President. His choice of the eminently unqualified Palin pretty much answers that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

It will blow over like the JW story did (Which was on 24 hour news for 3 weeks).

This process was beyond shabby, and I don't believe it will blow over.

Alot of people in his campaign did not do their jobs. If this is what people call "Serving at the pleasure of the candidate" they have dropped this ball.

And I still can't get over how, if Obama had picked someone with these very same qualifications, he would be getting blasted by the same people who are praising this pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Abstinence only is great if you can get all teenagers to go along. The likelihood of that is zero percent since it hasn't happened in all these years.

If she has opposed programs that would help pregnant teens then it's easy to jump to the conclusion that she wants them out on the street. It may not be explicit as in her saying this is what I want since she probably never gave the consequences any thought, but it's implicit since that could turn out to be the result of a teen being denied those necessities. Maybe she assumes that every family is going to rally around their pregnant team but unfortunately that's not the case all of the times and sometimes even when the families want to, they can't afford to do it.

Some of this will blow over but considering the rabidity of the media and those who want to stick it to Fox News, they may keep it going for some time. It's not that there is only one story brewing....it's that they've got several.

Double standards exist and that's the reality. Life isnt' fair and that's the reality. Obama has done well for himself despite adversity. He is not going to be afforded the same courtesies and he's going to have to work doubly harder "to prove himself" even when he shouldn't have to do so. That's just a fact of his life and I am sure he has developed thicker skin because of it and a lot of this just bounces off him. I believe he'll ultimately be even mentally tougher because of this experience and more to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just a couple of random thoughts (it's my first time posting on this thread):

Palin's pregnant daughter is clouding the issue. People really should be talking about SP's record as governor (i.e.: Hilary Rosen's piece as posted by Wales).

However, as far as getting pregnant at 17, can you really always blame the parents? Especially nowadays? Once that child gets her driver's license and the family's old Volvo, she is essentially powering a bedroom on wheels. Palin was prob too busy with little Willow, Meadow, River, Bunker, Mountain and Wood Sprite while also running a state chock-full of lucrative petrol, gas and mineral resources to check up on whether lil Bristol really was at the library Saturday night.

I also think that if the Dems (and FTR I am not affiliated with either party but am considering voting for Obama) want to start attacking Sarah Palin on her record (or lack thereof) as I saw last night on CNN, they need to tread very carefully. Obama has equally small political experience and Palin's gubernatorial responsabilites trump his senatorial work. It's going to make them look like hypocrites -- especially the professional feminists who attacked Kansas's female governor for not siding with Hilary Clinton doing the nominations race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes back in the early 70's McGovern dropped his VP pick because it comeout he under went ECT.

IMO McCain is stuck with Palin. I don't think he could recover from dropping her. His team could try to get women all fired up by saying Obama and the media caused her to dropout but i highly doudt it would work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Palin is being blamed because she's aginast Sex Ed and up until now she and peeps like her say that it's all up to parents and it's their fault if their kids get pregnant. So if u go by want she has been saying for years yes it's all her fault. She can't have it both ways.

Don't get y peeps r buying into this whole thing about Palin being Gov trumps Obama. Obama has been the one going on trips and getting all the reports and talking to the top peeps.

Many former and current Gov's have come out and said that they don't really command the NG , that it's all the Millitary they can call them out but they don't really have any say on what they do. Obama can attack her on her record on her support for all of Ted Steven's pet project's or as some peeps call them "scams"???.

IMO McCain is the hypocrite playing the experince card when his VP pick doesn't have any. Obama's VP has more experince that McCain and Palin and Obama put together.

Karl Rove is right McCain picked Palin to win and Obama picked Biden to get things done once he wins.

IMO if McCain wins he will find away to replace Palin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Cat you lost me in reference to her record. In the beginning you say they should be tallking about her record but then you say they should tread carefully in attacking her on her record. I'm unsure as to whether record and experience are being used interchangeably.

The problem with the way the word "experience" has been thrown around for awhile is that it is not being used to express any quality but only quantity, as in he spent umpteen years in the senate and tht makes him qualified. It really depends on what one did qualitatively during all those years for it to be of major significance as far as I'm concerned.

I don't see myself becoming a Democrat any time in the near future but the more this election goes on the more I am convinced that I will never be a Republican unless they completely overhaul that party. What does it mean to take off your Republican hat and put on your American hat because people are in a storm? I thought that Americans were always that first and foremost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The only reason he got the job in the first place was because a democrat was involved in a scandal and Huckabee was the Lt. Gov. But then, he WAS elected two times after that. But I feel like it was mostly because of his religious roots that he got elected. The only memorable good things he did, IMO, was fix the roads (which he actually did do well), and lose weight. Obviously the latter has nothing to do with leading. He vehemently opposed an educational lottery (something that pretty much every surrounding state has) to appease his Baptist supporters. He also granted parole to many convicted felons. IMO, he was always elected to keep things from happening (the lottery and liberal social issues), compared to actually getting things done. We've a had new governor for just about two years and have gotten a lot of new companies and expansion under him already. Huckabee could never manage to actually clinch the jobs from big companies. IMO, our new governor is a lot better just because of the fact that he isn't running the state by religion. He mainly keeps he his hands out of controversial issues and lets voters vote on what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

         
    • @TaoboiI ran into Dani’s favorite party planner again tonight

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I think they’re desperately trying to cover his awful tattoos. But anyway them being unable to style short kings properly has been a major pet peeve of mine for a while now.  I honestly don’t understand what some people expect from actors to even begin considering them for recognition. Let’s be real—awards mostly mean that an actor is respected by their peers and has some level of cultural relevance. Actual judgment on the acting itself? That’s often secondary—highly subjective and shaped by the times. I completely agree on both points. If you’re an actor or a dancer you shouldn’t get any tattoos (sorry not sorry). Tomas’ tattoos are ugly too. And regarding the couples- you’re completely right. These writers are unable to write romance.   Further comments: - Kat cannot be this dumb to keep tampering with evidence over and over again. And I’m officially not a fan of the actress—every time she’s in a scene with Leslie, she doesn’t seem intimidated at all. She plays it like comic relief, which is just too much, especially when paired with Leslie’s histrionics and over-the-top antics. Leslie is older, dangerous, and has literally been portrayed as homicidal—Kat should be at least a little scared. • I also didn’t like Kat playing damsel in distress with the hotel manager. It gave off the same weird energy as Dani with the cop. I would’ve much preferred the version Paul Raven suggested, with her sneaking in through housekeeping. • And yes, Dani again accused Hayley of faking the pregnancy—this time even specifying she might be using a pillow under her shirt. (No fake miscarriage being mentioned) I stand by my take: this is ridiculous writing. No one in the real world—except us, the chronically online soap watchers—would even think of such a conspiracy theory. Haley is no Beyoncé. • What in the world was Chelsea wearing in her hair the other day? And this whole thing with Madison is beyond cringe. Chelsea’s coming off as needy and toxic—basically like every other Dupree. • I’m glad the casino storyline is moving forward, but it’s still boring as hell. Honestly, I’d be so here for a plot twist where Vanessa and Doug take Joey out. • The direction and editing lately have been rough. Abrupt cuts, weird pacing… something just feels off overall. There’s a strange uneasiness to how it’s all coming together. • And finally: Tomas is too much of a saint. Where are the messy sluts when you need them? (Vanessa doesn’t count.)
    • I was watching some August 1987 episodes and they brought back so many memories. I had some thoughts: Lisa and Jamie were so dull. Lisa was such a nothing character. It boggles my mind that so much story was centered around her in such a short amount of time. Joanna Going is a talented actress, but the material was just not there.  It was so good to see Wallingford and Mitch again. I know there was talk about Felicia a while back, but these episodes reminded me how integral Felicia was for the show.  Sally Spencer was done so dirty. She is turning in superb performances in an icky storyline. I wish she had stuck around longer. She has chemistry with everyone. The McKinnons should have lasted longer. Spencer had some strong stuff with Stephen Schnetzer and Mary Alexander. AW waster such a talented actress by getting rid of her. Justice for Cheryl too. I also missed Ed Fry when he left. Sandra Ferguson was a star from the moment she came on. She was charismatic and just popped. She had immediate chemistry with RKK and blended in well with Wyndham and Watson. I'd forgotten about the teenage Matthew.  I have no memory of Peggy Lazarus. She must not have lasted long. Was the original plan for John that he was going to turn out to be the twins' real father?      
    • If the new and improved copies that @rsclassicfanforever has uploaded can be manually moved into the "by month, by year" folders, that would be awesome. I personally don't think it's necessary to keep the older versions (which either have Dutch subtitles hard coded on them, or are lesser in picture quality). That's a lot of valuable drive space that could be cleared. Just my view but can appreciate others may feel differently. The structure had been by month by year previously, so I think it would be easier to conform to that, where so much prior work to get it to that format has already been done. Hopefully you can "drag and drop" so the new copies are in the right month/year? Re Clips, I never look at them now we pretty much have the episodes in full. Appreciate others may use, however. Thanks for all your hard work here @BoldRestless!
    • Oh yes defintely, Josh Griffith repeats and repeats the same storylines.
    • Isnt’t this storyline similar to the Cameron Kirsten situation though? Sharon thought she killed him. He ended up being alive and Sharon was being tormented with thinking she was seeing his face everywhere and that’s how we got that iconic scene with her and Nikki in the sewers.   I understand in Mariah’s case this is different circumstances but it does seem like a play on that whole thing. Maybe I’m wrong. I just wish if they were going to make any character follow in Sharon’s foot steps it would be Faith. Mariah wasn’t even raised by her, and her personality is different. I would expect her to take a different path. I understand I could be completely jumping ahead because the storyline hasn’t even played out yet but we’ll see. 
    • Thanks again @Paul Raven Monica was completely without redeeming qualities at this point. I always found the whole Monica = Carly narrative regressive, as I don't think shows comparing characters so heavily is ever a great idea, but she's actually worse than Carly was. Was it the Pollocks who had Leslie have a miscarriage?  Giving her a child, especially by rape, was not a good idea, but a part of me wishes they'd committed to it just to see what story it might have had in later years.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy