Mccain's VP.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

20. The Alaska republican party is in tatters as it attempts to handle multiple corruption scandals.

I think you already said this- yes, number 6.

Oh, I really blew it on my response to this one! This is not the same issue as number 6, in fact this is probably the very worst example you could have possibly used to show that Palin is a bad choice.

I mean, you know what her role in those corruption scandals was don't you?

Palin was against the corruption of others in her party, but perhaps not against a little corruption to achieve a little revenge for her sister if it turns out there is anything to the story of her trying to get her ex-brother in law fired and in a snit firing/making sure his supervisor was fired.

This strikes me as being quite similar to the Rezko scandal that may/may not be an issue for Obama. It will be interesting what happens when more facts come to light.

However, nothing is making me more amused that "corrupt Alaskan politics" is talking point for some Democrats because - you know - the Chicago machine is such a shining example for the rest of the country.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

However, nothing is making me more amused that "corrupt Alaskan politics" is talking point for some Democrats because - you know - the Chicago machine is such a shining example for the rest of the country.

[GaryC 7]

20. The Alaska republican party is in tatters as it attempts to handle multiple corruption scandals.

I think you already said this- yes, number 6.

Oh, I really blew it on my response to this one! This is not the same issue as number 6, in fact this is probably the very worst example you could have possibly used to show that Palin is a bad choice.

I mean, you know what her role in those corruption scandals was don't you?

Palin was against the corruption of others in her party, but perhaps not against a little corruption to achieve a little revenge for her sister if it turns out there is anything to the story of her trying to get her ex-brother in law fired and in a snit firing/making sure his supervisor was fired.

This strikes me as being quite similar to the Rezko scandal that may/may not be an issue for Obama. It will be interesting what happens when more facts come to light.

However, nothing is making me more amused that "corrupt Alaskan politics" is talking point for some Democrats because - you know - the Chicago machine is such a shining example for the rest of the country.

McCain is no idiot. He would have fully vetted Palin before naming her as his VP pick. I would assume that they determined that the charges didn't have legs and would blow over. I doubt if this will mean anything to anyone other than the hard core Obama supporters.

[Dan J 277]

20. The Alaska republican party is in tatters as it attempts to handle multiple corruption scandals.

I think you already said this- yes, number 6.

Oh, I really blew it on my response to this one! This is not the same issue as number 6, in fact this is probably the very worst example you could have possibly used to show that Palin is a bad choice.

I mean, you know what her role in those corruption scandals was don't you?

Palin was against the corruption of others in her party, but perhaps not against a little corruption to achieve a little revenge for her sister if it turns out there is anything to the story of her trying to get her ex-brother in law fired and in a snit firing/making sure his supervisor was fired.

This strikes me as being quite similar to the Rezko scandal that may/may not be an issue for Obama. It will be interesting what happens when more facts come to light.

However, nothing is making me more amused that "corrupt Alaskan politics" is talking point for some Democrats because - you know - the Chicago machine is such a shining example for the rest of the country.

McCain is no idiot. He would have fully vetted Palin before naming her as his VP pick. I would assume that they determined that the charges didn't have legs and would blow over. I doubt if this will mean anything to anyone other than the hard core Obama supporters.

I don't think she was fully vetted. If he was going to go for a relative unknown, Pawlenty would have been the much better choice. He doesn't have a scandal brewing behind him, and is in a better position for McCains experience arguments.

Palin was choosen to go after disaffected Hillary supporters, but honestly, isn't a slap in the face if McCain thinks that Palin is a good replacement for Hillary?

[GaryC 7]

20. The Alaska republican party is in tatters as it attempts to handle multiple corruption scandals.

I think you already said this- yes, number 6.

Oh, I really blew it on my response to this one! This is not the same issue as number 6, in fact this is probably the very worst example you could have possibly used to show that Palin is a bad choice.

I mean, you know what her role in those corruption scandals was don't you?

Palin was against the corruption of others in her party, but perhaps not against a little corruption to achieve a little revenge for her sister if it turns out there is anything to the story of her trying to get her ex-brother in law fired and in a snit firing/making sure his supervisor was fired.

This strikes me as being quite similar to the Rezko scandal that may/may not be an issue for Obama. It will be interesting what happens when more facts come to light.

However, nothing is making me more amused that "corrupt Alaskan politics" is talking point for some Democrats because - you know - the Chicago machine is such a shining example for the rest of the country.

McCain is no idiot. He would have fully vetted Palin before naming her as his VP pick. I would assume that they determined that the charges didn't have legs and would blow over. I doubt if this will mean anything to anyone other than the hard core Obama supporters.

I don't think she was fully vetted. If he was going to go for a relative unknown, Pawlenty would have been the much better choice. He doesn't have a scandal brewing behind him, and is in a better position for McCains experience arguments.

Palin was choosen to go after disaffected Hillary supporters, but honestly, isn't a slap in the face if McCain thinks that Palin is a good replacement for Hillary?

Your confusing vetting with strategy. Vetting means that they explored her background and found nothing that would do harm to the ticket because of a scandal. What you are talking about is whether she will help the ticket because of her value to the ticket.

As for a "slap in the face" in regards to "replacing Hillary" I don't see it. Hillary is Hillary and Palin is Palin. They are not interchangeable and aren't meant to be.

Edited September 1, 2008 by GaryC

[Dan J 277]

20. The Alaska republican party is in tatters as it attempts to handle multiple corruption scandals.

I think you already said this- yes, number 6.

Oh, I really blew it on my response to this one! This is not the same issue as number 6, in fact this is probably the very worst example you could have possibly used to show that Palin is a bad choice.

I mean, you know what her role in those corruption scandals was don't you?

Palin was against the corruption of others in her party, but perhaps not against a little corruption to achieve a little revenge for her sister if it turns out there is anything to the story of her trying to get her ex-brother in law fired and in a snit firing/making sure his supervisor was fired.

This strikes me as being quite similar to the Rezko scandal that may/may not be an issue for Obama. It will be interesting what happens when more facts come to light.

However, nothing is making me more amused that "corrupt Alaskan politics" is talking point for some Democrats because - you know - the Chicago machine is such a shining example for the rest of the country.

McCain is no idiot. He would have fully vetted Palin before naming her as his VP pick. I would assume that they determined that the charges didn't have legs and would blow over. I doubt if this will mean anything to anyone other than the hard core Obama supporters.

I don't think she was fully vetted. If he was going to go for a relative unknown, Pawlenty would have been the much better choice. He doesn't have a scandal brewing behind him, and is in a better position for McCains experience arguments.

Palin was choosen to go after disaffected Hillary supporters, but honestly, isn't a slap in the face if McCain thinks that Palin is a good replacement for Hillary?

Your confusing vetting with strategy. Vetting means that they explored her background and found nothing that would do harm to the ticket because of a scandal. What you are talking about is whether she will help the ticket because of her value to the ticket.

As for a "slap in the face" in regards to "replacing Hillary" I don't see it. Hillary is Hillary and Palin is Palin. They are not interchangeable and aren't meant to be.

Troopergate is going to be a problem. McCain may thought wasnt when he picked Palin, but he is going to constantly get hammered on it. Partly because Palins own behavior related to this scandal, has been to avoid and deflect it, rather than come clean about it.

Alot of people don't know Palin. How is she going to be defined? There is alot more amno for the Democrats to define her than for the Republicans. With the hurricane disrupting the plans for the RNC, he will be competing for media coverage at an important time in his campaign. He needs to define Palin now on his own terms, or the Democrats will on thiers.

She is a much riskier choice than Pawlenty and the strategy she was choosen on may backfire.

[symbiosis 0]

two terms as mayor of a city with a population of 5500 and less than 2 years as gov. of a state 1/6 population of chicago. this is not the kind of resume we generally look for in a person who very well could be president. More of the same incompetence of the last 8 years. Who is advising McCain anyway?

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Troopergate is going to be a problem.

cool, there is already a name for it!

[GaryC 7]

20. The Alaska republican party is in tatters as it attempts to handle multiple corruption scandals.

I think you already said this- yes, number 6.

Oh, I really blew it on my response to this one! This is not the same issue as number 6, in fact this is probably the very worst example you could have possibly used to show that Palin is a bad choice.

I mean, you know what her role in those corruption scandals was don't you?

Palin was against the corruption of others in her party, but perhaps not against a little corruption to achieve a little revenge for her sister if it turns out there is anything to the story of her trying to get her ex-brother in law fired and in a snit firing/making sure his supervisor was fired.

This strikes me as being quite similar to the Rezko scandal that may/may not be an issue for Obama. It will be interesting what happens when more facts come to light.

However, nothing is making me more amused that "corrupt Alaskan politics" is talking point for some Democrats because - you know - the Chicago machine is such a shining example for the rest of the country.

McCain is no idiot. He would have fully vetted Palin before naming her as his VP pick. I would assume that they determined that the charges didn't have legs and would blow over. I doubt if this will mean anything to anyone other than the hard core Obama supporters.

I don't think she was fully vetted. If he was going to go for a relative unknown, Pawlenty would have been the much better choice. He doesn't have a scandal brewing behind him, and is in a better position for McCains experience arguments.

Palin was choosen to go after disaffected Hillary supporters, but honestly, isn't a slap in the face if McCain thinks that Palin is a good replacement for Hillary?

Your confusing vetting with strategy. Vetting means that they explored her background and found nothing that would do harm to the ticket because of a scandal. What you are talking about is whether she will help the ticket because of her value to the ticket.

As for a "slap in the face" in regards to "replacing Hillary" I don't see it. Hillary is Hillary and Palin is Palin. They are not interchangeable and aren't meant to be.

Troopergate is going to be a problem. McCain may thought wasnt when he picked Palin, but he is going to constantly get hammered on it. Partly because Palins own behavior related to this scandal, has been to avoid and deflect it, rather than come clean about it.

Thats what you and the dems are hoping for. In reality it isn't going to be a problem. I would think that Obama's relationship with an unrepentant terrorist, religious leaders who say "God Damn America" and slum lords convicted of major crimes that help him buy his house would be bigger issues.

[GaryC 7]

two terms as mayor of a city with a population of 5500 and less than 2 years as gov. of a state 1/6 population of chicago. this is not the kind of resume we generally look for in a person who very well could be president. More of the same incompetence of the last 8 years. Who is advising McCain anyway?

As apposed to someone that is a two term state senator and has less than one term as a Senator? In reality Palin has more time as an elected official than Obama does. The real truth here is McCain is the most qualified of all of them if your talking about elected experience and life experience.

[symbiosis 0]

two terms as mayor of a city with a population of 5500 and less than 2 years as gov. of a state 1/6 population of chicago. this is not the kind of resume we generally look for in a person who very well could be president. More of the same incompetence of the last 8 years. Who is advising McCain anyway?

As apposed to someone that is a two term state senator and has less than one term as a Senator? In reality Palin has more time as an elected official than Obama does. The real truth here is McCain is the most qualified of all of them if your talking about elected experience and life experience.

You can't really compare a state like Illinois (population 13 million), in the center of the nation with the country's third largest city, with Alaska (population 670,000). No way, no how. Can you safely say Illinois' concerns represent the concerns of the nation? I think so. Alaska? Hardly.

Wasilla even smaller than we thought:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/08/ju...silla_alak.html

Edited September 1, 2008 by symbiosis

[jundp 191]

Nothing can be worse than what we have now.

And I reiterate: just because someone has little experience doesn't automatically mean he or she will do a bad job.

[Ggreen 12]

two terms as mayor of a city with a population of 5500 and less than 2 years as gov. of a state 1/6 population of chicago. this is not the kind of resume we generally look for in a person who very well could be president. More of the same incompetence of the last 8 years. Who is advising McCain anyway?

As apposed to someone that is a two term state senator and has less than one term as a Senator? In reality Palin has more time as an elected official than Obama does. The real truth here is McCain is the most qualified of all of them if your talking about elected experience and life experience.

[GaryC 7]

two terms as mayor of a city with a population of 5500 and less than 2 years as gov. of a state 1/6 population of chicago. this is not the kind of resume we generally look for in a person who very well could be president. More of the same incompetence of the last 8 years. Who is advising McCain anyway?

As apposed to someone that is a two term state senator and has less than one term as a Senator? In reality Palin has more time as an elected official than Obama does. The real truth here is McCain is the most qualified of all of them if your talking about elected experience and life experience.

You can't really compare a state like Illinois (population 13 million), in the center of the nation with the country's third largest city, with Alaska (population 670,000). No way, no how. Can you safely say Illinois' concerns represent the concerns of the nation? I think so. Alaska? Hardly.

Oh really? So what your saying is Alaska isn't a part of the USA and it's people don't matter? Your reaching and insulting at the same time. I am from Illinois and Obama does not in any way represent my concerns. He represents Chicago and the Chicago political machine and not much more.

But this is OK. Go ahead and run with that line of reasoning. It only helps us.

[symbiosis 0]

Nothing can be worse than what we have now.

And I reiterate: just because someone has little experience doesn't automatically mean he or she will do a bad job.

Agree with both statements.

Bush. Worst. Ever.