Oh My God...McCain could win if he picks Palin!!!

[U2isthebest]

Just out of curiousity, do you think Abraham Lincoln was qualified to run for President in 1860? His elected office experience at the time was 8 years of being a state representive from sangamon county Illinois with a population of around 10,000 people. He did have some national experience serving in the US House of Representitives from the 7th district in Illinois for just one term of 2 years. 7th district in Illinois at that time had about 25,000 people. He held those positions in the 1830s and 1840s, and held no elected office in government for over 10 years prior to the election of 1860.

Absolutely. In terms of state legislature he had around the same amount of time in office as Obama. Some Republicans have mentioned Obama's time in the state legislature as not enough experience. I could say the same thing about Lincoln, and he turned out to be our greatest President. Therefore, it would just be a pointless debate between both sides, so I'm not going to comment on that. As for the rest of the things you mentioned (and even the state legislature situation), I truly don't think it's something that one can even compare. Lincoln was Commander in Chief over 150 years ago. The United States looked completely different then in terms of size and other issues. The political campaigns and issues faced then were often vastly different than the ones facing us right now, and voters, themselves, were far different than today. I really can't see a comparison. I understand, to be clear, the point you're trying to make, but I don't think in today's political climate it's relevant to any of the candidates.

 

[Strongbow]

You miss the point(maybe on purpose). It wasn't just a 'look how great Obama is' post. It was a 'running a presidential campaign IS executive experience' post.

Well, what about when he announced that he was running for President at the start of 2007, when he had only been a Senator for two years. Do you think he was qualified in January 2007 to be President of the United States?

 

[Se7en]

It's an interesting game of chess.

Obama picks Biden in an attempt to take the sting out of lack-of-experience criticisms, but in doing so also neutralises the 'McCain too old to be President' argument.

McCain then picks Palin to neutralise the 'not a true conservative' argument, and, arguably, steal some of the more centrist or conservative-leaning Hillary voters, but in doing so runs the risk of re-opening the 'McCain too old and too many health issues to be President' argument and adds a new twist - 'Are you telling me if McCain dies, the world will be run by a former town major?'. But, the Dems will be wary of raising that line again, lest it re-opens the 'But hold on. Should the world be run by a guy that until 2 years ago was a common-or-garden Illinois state legislator?' angle.

Of course, only the naive would suppose that both sides haven't done all of these calculations many times, but only one side will ultimately prevail.

that's what i just said, except in about 32479263827364 more words.

let's make out.

 

[namkcuR]

Well, what about when he announced that he was running for President at the start of 2007, when he had only been a Senator for two years. Do you think he was qualified in January 2007 to be President of the United States?

Yes, but then again, I think you and I measure 'qualified' in different ways.

 

[financeguy]

Obama's experience, or lack thereof, is a bigger issue than Palin's.

Aha.

But you are forgetting your Machiavelli:-

"Men in general judge more from appearances than from reality"

 

[indra]

I f'ing hate this place sometimes...

I gotta agree with you on this. But I find virtually any political forum is pretty much the same during presidential campaigns (not that they are all biased toward one party, but that so many normally fairly decent people become vile).

I'm making sure to limit my time here this time around -- both to avoid the nastiness from others and also to avoid behaviour in myself that I despise.

As for attacks by one side on the other, my theory is attack ads are ads the other guy runs.

 

[Bluer White]

Will they have a similar choice re: Palin? Do people vote for the ticket or the nominee alone?

The nominee.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Aha.

But you are forgetting your Machiavelli:-

"Men in general judge more from appearances than from reality"

That could cut both ways

The sad thing is that while Obama seems to be an agnostic or atheist (that vouches for the community benefit of church) being labelled as such would be worse than being slurred as a Muslim.

 

[Strongbow]

Absolutely. In terms of state legislature he had around the same amount of time in office as Obama. Some Republicans have mentioned Obama's time in the state legislature as not enough experience. I could say the same thing about Lincoln, and he turned out to be our greatest President. Therefore, it would just be a pointless debate between both sides, so I'm not going to comment on that. As for the rest of the things you mentioned (and even the state legislature situation), I truly don't think it's something that one can even compare. Lincoln was Commander in Chief over 150 years ago. The United States looked completely different then in terms of size and other issues. The political campaigns and issues faced then were often vastly different than the ones facing us right now, and voters, themselves, were far different than today. I really can't see a comparison. I understand, to be clear, the point you're trying to make, but I don't think in today's political climate it's relevant to any of the candidates.

Ahh, if it was x number of years ago it does not count?!?! How can you say that being a state representive qualifies someone to be President, but being a Mayor and a Governor is not qualification to be President?

Please, don't bring up the size of Alaska today, because Illinois in Lincolns time, could be regarded as the Alaska of his day. Chicago had a population of 250 when Lincoln first ran for elective office in Illinois.

 

[Bluer White]

You miss the point(maybe on purpose). It wasn't just a 'look how great Obama is' post. It was a 'running a presidential campaign IS executive experience' post.

On the job training ???

 

[U2isthebest]

Ahh, if it was x number of years ago it does not count?!?! How can you say that being a state representive qualifies someone to be President, but being a Mayor and a Governor is not qualification to be President?

Please, don't bring up the size of Alaska today, because Illinois in Lincolns time, could be regarded as the Alaska of his day. Chicago had a population of 250 when Lincoln first ran for elective office in Illinois.

I'm not bringing up anything, because as I already said, you can't compare the political landscape, and more importantly, the politicans of today's world to those of the world of the mid 1800s, in my opinion. As I've said I see your point, and I disagree. We're not going to convince each other, so I suggest we stop wasting time trying.

 

[Strongbow]

Yes, but then again, I think you and I measure 'qualified' in different ways.

Ok, when precisely did Obama become Qualified to be President. For you its obviously January 2007 or earlier? I'd like you state a point in time.

If you don't think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President, how much further does she have to go?

 

[Strongbow]

I'm not bringing up anything, because as I already said, you can't compare the political landscape, and more importantly, the politicans of today's world to those of the world of the mid 1800s, in my opinion. As I've said I see your point, and I disagree. We're not going to convince each other, so I suggest we stop wasting time trying.

Well, its the same country, same constitution(but with more amendments), same system of government.

Tell me, what point in time are we allowed to go back to?

 

[U2isthebest]

The nominee.

Normally, I would tend to agree with you. I do wonder, though, if this trend will apply to the McCain/Palin ticket, given, fair or unfair, McCain's age and health concerns. Statistically speaking, McCain is far more likely than Obama to die in office. To get it out of the way, most staunch Conservatives are going to vote Republican no matter what, as most staunch Liberals will vote for the Democrat, regardless. However, the biggest group(s) at play in this election are the moderate and independent voters. They are likely looking carefully at both candidates. I would assume that they are also looking closer at McCain's VP pick given the reasons I stated earlier. That's not to say they're not looking at Biden thoroughly either, it's just a simple fact of life that the VP of an older candidate is probably looked at with more concern than that of a younger one. When moderates and independents, who usually tend to have a more centrist view on most issues, see a heavily Conservative person, with little to no positions or policy-making decisions on national issues, I think they might be less likely to support that ticket.

 

[anitram]

The nominee.

So then the voters will have a chance to voice their opinion regarding Obama's readiness in November, but nobody will have a democratic referendum on Palin's should she become President someday?

 

[U2isthebest]

Well, its the same country, same constitution(but with more amendments), same system of government.

Tell me, what point in time are we allowed to go back to?

As I said, I'm not arguing with you anymore about this. I already answered in detail while I feel the way I do, and I'm not getting into a ridiculous debate with you where you can twist my words to fit your argument.

 

[Strongbow]

As I said, I'm not arguing with you anymore about this. I already answered in detail while I feel the way I do, and I'm not getting into a ridiculous debate with you where you can twist my words to fit your argument.

Could you at least answer the following questions:

Ok, when precisely did Obama become Qualified to be President. For you its obviously January 2007 or earlier? I'd like you state a point in time.

If you don't think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President, how much further does she have to go?

 

[U2isthebest]

Could you at least answer the following questions:

Ok, when precisely did Obama become Qualified to be President. For you its obviously January 2007 or earlier? I'd like you state a point in time.

If you don't think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President, how much further does she have to go?

I feel Obama was somewhat qualified by the time he announced his candidacy because he'd spent 2 years in the Senate studying and making policy on national issues. However of the year and half of the campaign process, I've seen enough to know that he is well-versed and knowledgeable on the issues, and I've studied his policy goals and plans for implementation. Again, this is over a 19 month process. Palin will never be able to prove to me in 2 months that she's ready to lead, considering she's never even publicly made policy OR spent months outlining her positions on issues and policy. I would need to be able to hear from her for at least a year before I would feel confident that she knows enough to lead.

 

[martha]

see limo example.

That's it? That's all you got without looking something up? Talk about drinking the kool-aid.

 

[Bluer White]

So then the voters will have a chance to voice their opinion regarding Obama's readiness in November, but nobody will have a democratic referendum on Palin's should she become President someday?

Huh???

I'm sure American voters will have their chance to weigh in....personally I have to assume McCain will be alive and kicking in four years.

But if you are on the fence on McCain's mortality, maybe the other ticket is for you ???

 

[diamond]

That's it? That's all you got without looking something up? Talk about drinking the kool-aid.

see dread's post.

 

[diamond]

Could you at least answer the following questions:

Ok, when precisely did Obama become Qualified to be President. QUOTE]

moron, u overlooked the virtues of affirmative action.

<>

 

[financeguy]

Palin overall seems to me to have strong conservative, as opposed to neo-'conservative' credentials.

One of the VP candidates mooted was Joe Lieberman, a neo-'conservative' like McCain himself; McCain took a gamble on the relatively unknown Palin in the hope of winning over true conservatives AND centrist Hillary Clinton supporting Democrats.

The question is, does Palin change the equation enough to prevent one of the most disastrous decisions McCain will make in office: invading Iran?

 

[Boston01]

I feel Obama was somewhat qualified by the time he announced his candidacy because he'd spent 2 years in the Senate studying and making policy on national issues. However of the year and half of the campaign process, I've seen enough to know that he is well-versed and knowledgeable on the issues, and I've studied his policy goals and plans for implementation. Again, this is over a 19 month process. Palin will never be able to prove to me in 2 months that she's ready to lead, considering she's never even publicly made policy OR spent months outlining her positions on issues and policy. I would need to be able to hear from her for at least a year before I would feel confident that she knows enough to lead.

It is often said that past performance is the best predictor of future returns. My opinion on on all the candidates is based on their actions, not on their beliefs, speeches or promises. Here is my take. I realize it is meaningless to most!

Obama's election to the Illinois state senate and U.S. senate were largely a matter of circumstance. He was handed an opportunity to be elected to the Illinois state senate and screwed the person who gave it to him. His voting record was basically noncommittal on most issues; for example, voting 'Present'. His run for the U.S. senate was won when the two leading candidates were hit with scandal. His associations to Wright, Rezco and others to me show poor judgment. He is a political opportunist. I am not blaming him for taking advantage of opportunity, but that is what it is. He is a 'politician' and nothing more. He has found a following in people looking for hope after being misled for so long.

Biden. Use your own words or at least give credit when you borrow someone elses. Enough said.

McCain. Enough with the POW talk. Those who respect it just DO. There are many who don't. That is just sad. He is experienced and has a history of being bipartisan. The man almost changed parties in the past few years, yet he is accused of being the next Bush. He does not even like Bush!!!! He maybe too old, but he seems pretty lucid.

Palin. Her approval rating in her home state is immense. She took on her own party and got her state back on track. She has her beliefs and doesn't apologize for them. I would rather know where I stand with someone and disagree with them than deal with someone whose beliefs change based on circumstance. So far in this race, she is the only agent of CHANGE that I have seen. The next few months will show how she fares.

My vote as of this moment (subject to change) is with McCain/Palin. If they act nutty, I will vote accordingly. The argument of platform seems irrelevant to me with a check and balance in congress. That was the original idea wasn't it? I happen to vote by issue and I find myself on both sides of the fence depending on the issue. I find it really sad that people are so polarized by party, personality or demographic. For those of us in the U.S., we should vote for right and wrong, not what is hip so enough with the hype on both sides. I just want someone who can actually LEAD us in a better manner than we have been led in a long time. I want someone who puts leadership ahead of politics. That may be idealistic, but I think it is what we should aspire to.

 

[U2isthebest]

^Then, you and I have completely different qualifications and qualities we feel are important for leadership on this level. There's nothing wrong with that. I enjoyed reading your point of view.

 

[anitram]

Shocking show of disunity, surely to be covered by the networks....

'Ronvoys' bring supporters to rally for Ron Paul

There's no room at the Xcel Energy Center for maverick Ron Paul, so his acolytes have packed their cars, hitched rides on "Ronvoys" and will pitch tents at Ronstock '08 in defiance of this week's GOP convention.

Almost 9,800 tickets had been sold for the Rally for the Republic, being held in Minneapolis, which seeks to bring together activists who oppose war, government regulation, immigration, taxes, the Federal Reserve and outsourcing but support individual liberty, civil liberties and Paul.

The Ronvoys — fleets of buses and vans carrying Paul's loyalists — were to begin arriving Saturday. A few rally-goers planned to walk from Green Bay, Wis., and join Paul for the final miles of their Walk4Freedom.

Paul, a congressman from Lake Jackson who failed in a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, considers the rally a celebration of traditional Republican values of limited government — and a poke in the eye of the GOP. They don't plan to crash the Republican party but to show they and their Campaign for Liberty are not going away.

"No matter how much our message is ignored or ridiculed, as was done in the campaign, no matter how much they did to us, it only energized our grass roots," Paul said.

 

[namkcuR]

It is often said that past performance is the best predictor of future returns. My opinion on on all the candidates is based on their actions, not on their beliefs, speeches or promises. Here is my take. I realize it is meaningless to most!

Obama's election to the Illinois state senate and U.S. senate were largely a matter of circumstance. He was handed an opportunity to be elected to the Illinois state senate and screwed the person who gave it to him. His voting record was basically noncommittal on most issues; for example, voting 'Present'. His run for the U.S. senate was won when the two leading candidates were hit with scandal. His associations to Wright, Rezco and others to me show poor judgment. He is a political opportunist. I am not blaming him for taking advantage of opportunity, but that is what it is. He is a 'politician' and nothing more. He has found a following in people looking for hope after being misled for so long.

Biden. Use your own words or at least give credit when you borrow someone elses. Enough said.

McCain. Enough with the POW talk. Those who respect it just DO. There are many who don't. That is just sad. He is experienced and has a history of being bipartisan. The man almost changed parties in the past few years, yet he is accused of being the next Bush. He does not even like Bush!!!! He maybe too old, but he seems pretty lucid.

Palin. Her approval rating in her home state is immense. She took on her own party and got her state back on track. She has her beliefs and doesn't apologize for them. I would rather know where I stand with someone and disagree with them than deal with someone whose beliefs change based on circumstance. So far in this race, she is the only agent of CHANGE that I have seen. The next few months will show how she fares.

My vote as of this moment (subject to change) is with McCain/Palin. If they act nutty, I will vote accordingly. The argument of platform seems irrelevant to me with a check and balance in congress. That was the original idea wasn't it? I happen to vote by issue and I find myself on both sides of the fence depending on the issue. I find it really sad that people are so polarized by party, personality or demographic. For those of us in the U.S., we should vote for right and wrong, not what is hip so enough with the hype on both sides. I just want someone who can actually LEAD us in a better manner than we have been led in a long time. I want someone who puts leadership ahead of politics. That may be idealistic, but I think it is what we should aspire to.

That's a lot of writing to say "I'm a conservative."

 

[financeguy]

Shocking show of disunity, surely to be covered by the networks....

Come off it.

Ron Paul supporters were never going to rally behind a neo-'conservative' candidate.

There's absolutely nothing surprising or unexpected about this, and it's largely insignificant for the McCain campaign (unfortunately. I wish that Paulites were a bigger block).

 

[anitram]

Or is it that they are a larger bloc than voting indicates, but with a completely disorganized ground game?

The thing is the Paul supporters were/are as rabid and organized on the Internet as the Obama people. They were able to compete financially with Obama who is the best fundraiser out there and they certainly outcompeted McCain & Co.

Interestingly this did not convert into votes. The question that Paulites have to ask themselves is what did the Obama campaign do right to be able to mobilize the young voters on the campuses of Iowa that the Paulites failed to do in basically every state. If anything, they could learn a lot here.

 

[anitram]

Come off it.

Ron Paul supporters were never going to rally behind a neo-'conservative' candidate.

Oh but Hillary voters are going to rally behind a woman who is by every single indicator the complete opposite of Hillary and about a 100th as accomplished.