McCain's VP Choice

[Gene]

What's yer take on this? It's a 44-year old woman governer of two years from Alaska. No law degree, no forgein policy experience, practically no national presence before this (which had many people saying "Who?"), and she is a very attractive ex-model that photographs very, very well.

To disclaim, I'm not a lockstep partisan guy either way, but I will admit to leaning Democratic. Even so, I have to ask: Doesn't this pick have a ring of being a bit deperate and pandering?

I know VP picks in the past have often been in the interest of providing a balance geographically for vote pull in those area needing of it, but ALASKA?... And, I know politicians have to look pretty good in this age, but this one is an out-and-out FOX!...

And do you think that it's a coincidence that the Dems just got over a photo-finish race for thier nomination where the narrow loser was a woman? Does this smack of a bit of carrot-dangling on the Reps part to entice the dejected Hillary supporters? Do the Reps believe such people see the gender of the candidate as THIS important?

You've gotta admit, this pick is a light-weight. This choice would have had no chance for even a consideration if it weren't for her gender.

Let's not overlook the timing of this surprise anouncement, either. It happened hours after Obama's inspiring packed-statium acceptance speech seen by 38 million people, about when post political analysis attention was at its height. This pick would certainly get the analyst talking about THIS, instead. Ya think a little diverting was the intention, here?...

This pick is being called historic and on the side of change. It has a look to me of deperation and grasping at lifelines...

But, I've been wrong before. What does a VP pick mean anyway? I mean, George Bush 1 won with Dan Quayle, remember!...

[Benji Duncan]

I think McCain's choice was very wise. I don't fault anyone for smart policial maneuvering. If the people are stupid enough to vote for someone just because she's a woman the people deserve what they get. The people have been voting rather based upon really meaningless standards for some time now and continue to elect horrible politicians. Until the people learn, it will continue.

Is it just (the noun "just") that this woman may become vice president just because she is a woman? I don't know, perhaps not.

It it just that the american people may get a bad vice president because they vote based upon superficial standards? Yes.

Yes, I am saying the american people have deserved George W. Bush.

[Gene]

It's pretty clear that the country's idealistic political pendelum is swinging to the left, as a whole, and both parties know it. You can tell by what it is that they're doing. The conservative revolution of the early 80's to now has had a good run, but, as with anything like it, it has to come to an end sometime. That end has come, I think.

In this political climate, both proclaim to be change agents, in the wake of W's awful 8-year term. So if you're a Republican and you find yourself in this situation, what do you DO?

The Republican party has nominated John McCain, which is definitely on the left side of the right (more toward moderate), to be sure. He is no lockstep Rep, and has illustratedly broken with his party on a few things. It was a good gesture that they "get it", as to what's going on with the country, and, I personally favor moderates for this particular office of government, anyway. John McCain would make a decent president, I have no doubt. But from a vote-getting standpoint, did the Reps do ENOUGH here?

Well, looks like they have made moves to make it look more like they're doing more, by nominating this particular VP. On issues, it's mostly the usual Rep traditional things going on here, but in image, it has a LOOK of doing things very UN-politics-as-usual. Now: Is THIS enough to show that the Reps are in step with the times?

I personally say no. It still doesn't reach.

The big losers in this latest course of history is the conservative right. Their party has "blown it" (as any in-power party eventually does), and its just too damaged to be band-aided up to keep on going, despite gestures like this. They will charge, of course, that the reason their party faltered is because their party didn't listen to them, and that's why they're in this mess. Yep; They'll never "get it", in this way...

The Rush Limbaugh zombies are going to go underground for a while, but they won't disappear completely. And that's GOOD: We need their pull and calling attention to occasional bad decisions to keep a reasonable balance. And further, if you ARE one of these folks I'm talking about, don't worry; The in-power party-to-come will certanly go too far, abuse their power, and blow it, too, and pendelum will swing your way again in 8 to 12 years time. It's a certainty, so be ready!...

[Guest]

Rush Limbaugh zombies......so true.

IMO the best thing Palin could do for her party is to bow out and let a qualified person potentially become president.
For McBush to preach "country first" and then pull this political ploy simply, to hopefully, just get votes is a flat out lie of "country first".
A real insult to the people of his party.
Will he run the country with lies like it has been for the last eight years ?
It sure looks like it.

Where is Ron Paul when we need him ?

[Gene]

I'm one that believes that the American presidency has basically become a committee (a "cabinet") of which the president is the figurehead, making the final decisions for the country. (That, and a public address "talking head" for more symbolic and ceremonial purposes.) If this is true, then the president's ability to pick top quality people to surround him is a very important quality to have.

This VP pick said a lot about John McCain. This, along with picking a lot of lobbyists on his present staff.

I'm not lockstep to any party, as I say, and I was one that would have actually humored voting for McCain. But, this move really showed me that McCain would be a poor picker of staff of the most influential people of our country. Imagine picking Secretary of State, justices of the Supreme Court, and so on, using the same methods and standards as what Sara Palin was chosen with!

What's ironic is that this particular VP pick was all about attracting more voters. Given what I said above, it actually has had a polar opposite effect for me, and made his ticket a lot LESS attractive! But, some people seem very anamoured with the choice, though. Clearly, I'm not the kind of guy that they are trying to reach out to, here. Perhaps my kind of vote was seen as "expendible", I guess...

Now when Obama was posed with the same question, he picked Joe Biden, which is a great choice by almost everyone's standards. And, me being middle-middle-class, he seems to be talking to ME and my kind, and addressing issues that I'm most concerned with.

Candidates, no doubt, go through strategies to claim different demographical groups. It's almost a little two-way unspoken bargaining session, like "You take that one, I'll take this one, I'll trade you this one for that one...", and so on. The Reps have let the Dems "have me", clearly. McCain has also pulled out of Michigan, and has given up on my state, while the Dems continue to "court" Michigan very well.

It's pretty clear who I'm SUPPOSED to vote for, here, it seems...