Who said she was? I didn’t see Sarafeehna say they weren’t more qualified. Were they even asked?
I have no doubt that it was a political move, any person with as interesting and diverse a background would have been an interesting political pick for him. Do Snow e and Hutchinson have that as well?
I see no one has even so much as mentioned gas prices etc and what Alaska has to offer insofar as helping in this current energy crisis. The answer is “a LOT”. And Sarah does have experience in that as well as the guts to see it through with the big oil companies. That is one of the things McCain mentioned in his introduction of Palin, and he has even softened his position on ANWR from “not ever” to (paraphrased), “I’d be open to discussion”.
That is one thing she has that the other two don’t. Though not being familiar with Snowe’s and Hutchinson’s credentials, that’s all I know regarding comparisons of their various qualifications.
I don’t see anyone here denying that gender was a factor – or even denying that it was a significant factor. We might quibble over whether it was a “major” factor or not, but I suspect that most would agree that gender had something to do with her selection.
That’s entirely different from saying that she was specifically selected because she was a woman – or worse, because she “has a vagina.” As I said earlier, if someone were to claim that Obama was fielded as a candidate because he’s black, his defenders would doubtlessly cry “Of course not!” The more honest defenders would admit that his race played a role, but they would surely object to the statement that this was why he was their chosen candidate.
Except for the “easy to find republicans to badmouth her”. I know Murky hates her (and most of we Alaskans feel the same way about him, talk about evil Rebublican good ole boy!!!).
She’s got an 80% approval rating up here. I don’t know how many of my fellow Alaskans are full on pubbies though, a lot of my friends, students, and coworkers are either dems or non-partisan (like I am).
Obama won his nomination through a democratic primary system – He wasn’t “fielded” by another player or by his party as a demographic strategy. He placed himself on the field and ran against his own party machine and got elected by 18 million voters and (eventually) by the unanimous acclamation of his party. Palin was chosen by one guy, and she was chosen purely for cynical strategic purposes – she’s a socially conservative woman. McCain was hoping to score with both demographics. He only scored with one…the one he already had. Dumb move.
Except I’m not a republican, only an Alaskan who does have an insiders view.
The information regarding her being head of the guard was something I wasn’t aware of until this afternoon, and was provided by a local LEFT talk show. But as tiny as it is, it’s still more than Obama has on foreign policy, that was my only point. Unless you count his speech in Germany I guess.
I have not yet seen any experience of Obama’s that “trumps” an executive position. He’s been a junior senator for a short time. And? What are his accomplishments? In his speech in Germany he claimed to be head of a financial banking committee he wasn’t actually head of (at least not as is posted on the portion of the US website dealing with what senator is posted to what committees).
My views of Obama come from his speeches alone since the media has done nothing but praise him.
His claims of “I pushed through a bill that repealed welfare benefits” actually turned out to be he’d initially voted against some welfare reform, and then later, along with every other senator and congressman, he signed a milder bill into being. Not exactly “I’m responsible for this bill”, but “I was one of several hundred to sign this bill”.
Someone (sorry poster I can’t remember your name, it’s been a slammed couple of weeks at work, I apologize!) posted a link to one of his websites where there were supposed to be actual concrete solutions he had for when/if he gets into office.
I still saw no concrete solutions for problems, other than a couple of REALLY bad ideas, like national health care. I just saw more of the same, along with hidden between the lines information about how much we’re going to get screwed with raised taxes.
I’ve been voting for over 30 years now, I’ve never had a party affiliation, I’ve been non-partisan since I was 18 and I’ve always voted for both democratic candidates and republican ones (did not vote for G. Sr. or G Bush the first go-around) and this is the first time I’ve actually been actively afraid of what a candidate could do once he got into office.
I’ll take a solid man (albeit not the greatest, I’d have picked almost any of the other candidates, even Hillary…UGH over him), and a Kick Ass Alaskan woman over an unsteady, potentially damaging component any day.
I apologize, I know so many people just adore him, and I can certainly see the attraction and charisma, but I’m just mind-boggled that so many people are so naively charmed by the rockstar-ness that they aren’t seeing the lack of substance. And worse, aren’t seeing the damaging beliefs as evidenced by his wife and other associates
If you don’t believe her, she’s guilty of exactly what Monegan accuses her of. If you do believe her, she’s guilty of either utter stupidity or gross incompetence for having all this going on with so many people in her administration (not to mention her own husband) and being completely oblivious to it all, over the course of many, many months.
I found this article which has downloads for some of the documentation. The article also contradicts Sam’s assertion that the fired Commissioner Monegan said she never asked him to fire Wooten.
What, those shills?
Sam? Sarahfeena? Not to call you out specifically, but it would be interesting to hear your take(s) on the credibility/outcome and its impact.
Taken in the worst light, does it change anything?
What about taken in the best light?
Rather than put words in your mouth, I’ll leave it to you to define what the worst light means (e.g., not worst light from a rabid Obamite’s p.o.v., but worst light from removing benefit of the doubt, giving the tie to the runner, etc.).
And even that 65% number is largely because Alaska is swimming in cash, and most any Governor can maintain a high approval rating if they don’t rock the boat.
I saw a poll that said 85% of Alaskans believe she lied about troopergate, though (I think the audiotape had something to do with that).
I know you asked other posters but, I’ll bite too.
Taken in the worst light, I think it’s sad. It will heavily color people’s opinions and that’s going to help make this one of the most mudslinging, ugliest campaigns (if that’s possible) ever.
Taken in best light, I’m disappointed in Sarah that she wasn’t better informed as to this issue. In a recent local news tidbit, a few weeks before the VP announcement, it was disclosed that an aide may have stepped outside his/her authority and done something on this troopergate issue, but word from the Gov’nrs aides was that this person had been put on leave pending investigation.
I didn’t know that, as others have posted, there was so much other seeming ignorance on the Gov’s part. Based upon her other actions and behaviour during her time in office, I’d say, (again sadly), that she just wasn’t paying enough attention to what was going on, rather than being an active part and abusing her power.
I guess we’ll all just have to wait and see. Sure am glad I didn’t try to buy that bigger condo!!! If Obama gets into office, I’d be eating top ramen and walking to work!
You know, you might want to actually READ THE THREAD. Back in post #59, I linked to an ABC article which cites a couple of the Alaska state Senators who are involved in the investigation. Here’s the article, for the second time. She has changed her story a couple of times regarding the pressure put to bear on Monegan, and the investigators have already stated that based on what they have already uncovered their report, due out on October 31, is not likely to be favorable toward the Governor. The Senators also make the exceedingly clear point that NO ONE from the McCain campaign contacted them regarding Ms Palin or her investigation prior to the announcement of her choice as his VP candidate. One would assume that a thorough vetting would involve speaking to state Senators who’ve been commissioned by the overwhelmingly Republican state government to investigate the governor, but then again I’m a librul Democratic Obamaniac who obviously does not understand the arcane mysteries of the Republican VP choosing process.
Yes, there is a credible cite for that. There are credible cites for a lot of the stuff I and some of my librul compatriots are saying about Governor Palin. What I am NOT seeing are any blue, underlined areas going to credible cites for those apologists who are STILL insisting that this woman has any sort of credibility as a VP choice. It’s a rather glaring difference, actually. Especially since it also seems that those who have no blue underlines in their posts haven’t bothered to click on the blue underlines in other posts to see what might lie behind them, out there in the real world where real people are finding out real information to base their claims on.
I’m sure someone will be along in a moment to explain why magical Republicans don’t NEED to cite sources and all that mundane stuff us libruls feel compelled to do for our own unfathomably silly reasons.
Odd, the same channel KTUU that was quoted above as vilifying Sarah on troopergate, was the one that stated that number for approval ratings a few nights ago on the nightly news. But okay, written word trumps empty headed anchorperson.
Re: Any governer? Not so, Murky was practically ran out of town on a rail thanks to his actions in govt. At least judging from the gubernatorial election 2 years ago. The man is pretty much hated by most of us, again, based upon local talk.
Unless you’re talking some rightie talk show idiot like Rick Rydell who thinks “it’d be really awesome to just have a bunch of wolves and stuff out in a field and you could just go out there and kill everything standing, that’d be great” Or former Mayor of Anchorage (I believe it was Tom Fink,again on wolf control) “you can’t just let nature run wild you know”. Republicans like that you mean? Yeah, I agree with you there. But that’s just not Sarah.
What does it say about her abilities as an executive and an administrator if this stuff can go on under her nose – including the involvement of her own husband? That’s a pretty big pass to give Palin, that she didn’t know what her own husband was doing. I can’t imagine it would ever be believed that Hillary Clinton wasn’t aware of Bill doing something like that (or Barack Obama being unaware of Michelle doing it).
Yeah, I’m sure after four more years of McSame, we’ll all be farting through silk.
Sorry I missed your post – it was Sam’s assertion that DtC was responding to, so I thought things were still up in the air to an extent. I had seen a Youtube clip that looked like a screen cap of local (Alaskan) CBS news coverage, but I couldn’t find it again. I know it’s either somewhere in here or in one of the other Palin threads, but again, based on Sam’s post, I thought for a there was a discrepancy.
Reading your link, there’s also this:
That’s quite an assertion – and with the flap over Hillary’s missing-found FBI files (which, I assume, will be used as some sort of defense to the allegations), it will be interesting to compare then-and-now quotes from Republicans over its import.
Sorry, didn’t mean to be that snarky–it’s just that I’ve been beating my head against a wall, posting nothing BUT good links to reputable information and getting back nothing but the same tired-ass repuglican talking points, it’s the rhetorical version of “I know you are, but what am I? x infinity” Then I get a headache because this isn’t in the Pit and I can’t call a spade a spade when it needs to stop shovelling… :smack:
I should just pop a pain pill and go the hell to bed… Sorry again, may I offer you a conciliatory terrorist fist jab?
What it says to me is either way, it’s no different than every other Washington politician. And I’m unhappy with that. But I’m still less unhappy with it than I would be if it were Obama.
Well, I certainly don’t expect that either, but at least he won’t try to break the backbone of the country like Barrack will. If Obama, as he has made quite clear through his speeches, gets his way and starts punishing those in the top earning percentages, well, sorry to be unlady-like, but shit rolls downhill.
The very rich, those who financially support the country will pass the pain on April 15 etc on to the upper-middle classes. They’ll add their own pile of shit, and then pass it down to the middle-middle classes, the backbone, eventually all of the shit will end up on top of the very people that Obama says he is trying to help, the very poor and so on and so forth.
I certainly am not looking for silk, but I’ve worked my ass off to get where I am, FINALLY, and I’m much too old and decrepit to have to start over.
Okay Canvas at least now we can talk policy issues.
So it sounds like you believe in trickle-down, in both forms, prosperity and shit. Thing is that giving the wealthiest the biggest breaks has been what’s been tried by the Bush administration and indeed McCain is promising to do the same except perhaps with a bigger hammer. How’s that worked for you so far?
The wealthiest are actually the least likely to have their spending effected by the marginal tax rate. The middle OTOH are more likely to have spending patterns influenced by the amount left on the pay stub each month. In reality trickle-up is a more realistic model. Prosperity rises. The economic machine is powered by the many more than by the few.
Trickle-down has failed. You may want to consider the wisdom of trickle-up.
