McCain's Surprise VP Pick; governor, pilot, and can wield an M4

[BrandonJ1780]

One thing on that, evolutionists do not believe that humans evolved from apes, they believe that there was a common ancestor, that evolved one way into the great apes and the other way into hominids, of which we became the dominant form.

meh. threadjack, but you're saying:
1. common ancestor.
2. some kind of split--great apes//chimps (?)
3. big apes stay big, some kind of chimp morphs human-style, while another chimp stays chimp-like.
4. end result: big apes still big, chimp-to-humans, and regular chimps.
I don't know man, chimpanzees are tree-swingers, and I saw too many goons bite it off the monkeybars back in elementary to ever believe we came from that...
Sorry to jack the Palin thread...Carry on.

 

[PropStop]

From your post, she sounds a bit like a conservative Democrat...? Is there more detail to her taxing the oil industry, I mean why crush the most important industry in your state as governor...? Also, it does sound like re-distribution of wealth...

I'll ferret around for some more details on that oil taxation thing and post a link about it.

She has been nigh-hostile towards the oil industry, they do not appreciate her very much. On the other hand, the oil industry does do some shady stuff (Exxon...), but the vast majority of their workers are honest, hard working, and dedicated folk who are often more energy conscious than most greenies. Never the less, the industry has a bad rap, so smacking them around is never an unpopular move. I just don't want to see the oil industry in Alaska decline if it costs too much to do business, they have largely been good corporate neighbors.

 

[PropStop]

Hey! That's Governor Palin. We're not on a first name basis with her!

 

[Random8145]

1. common ancestor.
2. some kind of split--great apes//chimps (?)
3. big apes stay big, some kind of chimp morphs human-style, while another chimp stays chimp-like.
4. end result: big apes still big, chimp-to-humans, and regular chimps.
I don't know man, chimpanzees are tree-swingers, and I saw too many goons bite it off the monkeybars back in elementary to ever believe we came from that...

Well the human brain uses something like 40% of your body's energy supply, so we humans are very physically weak. Chimpanzees have much less capable brains, but their strength is phenomenal, they can do things like break truck tires in half with their bare hands and so forth. So if you believe in evolution, it decided that for humans, we did not need super physical strength to survive, but very good hands and powerful brains to build tools.

What evolutionists theorize is that there was a common ancestor, that went one way and became the great apes (gorilla, orangutan, chimpanzee) and then the other way that became the hominids.

However, I think it would be more complex than that, as it seems chimpanzees and humans come directly from one common ancestor, since we are so genetically close. The other great apes seem to be from something else. Also hominids such as neanderthal, were not more primitive versions of current humans, but something else altogether it seems.

Anyways, one group evolved into tree-swinging apes, the other in hominids is what I believe.

I'll ferret around for some more details on that oil taxation thing and post a link about it.

She has been nigh-hostile towards the oil industry, they do not appreciate her very much. On the other hand, the oil industry does do some shady stuff (Exxon...), but the vast majority of their workers are honest, hard working, and dedicated folk who are often more energy conscious than most greenies. Never the less, the industry has a bad rap, so smacking them around is never an unpopular move. I just don't want to see the oil industry in Alaska decline if it costs too much to do business, they have largely been good corporate neighbors

I'm all for sticking it to big corporations that mistreat workers, however I do not believe in redistribution of wealth if it is not rightly the workers. However, maybe Big Oil has a reputation for not treating workers properly or something...?

For example, you said: "She stuck it to the oil companies (a favorite past time there) and she's giving a lot of money back to the people." I would disagree with that. Businesses create wealth and that statement implies that the pie is fixed and she is just taking wealth that was originally the people's and giving it back. In reality, she is taking wealth that was created, away from the company, and giving it to the people, which I usually view as wrong, unless the company is truly without morals or something. Maybe oil is...?

 

[PropStop]

I'm all for sticking it to big corporations that mistreat workers, however I do not believe in redistribution of wealth if it is not rightly the workers. However, maybe Big Oil has a reputation for not treating workers properly or something...?

For example, you said: "She stuck it to the oil companies (a favorite past time there) and she's giving a lot of money back to the people." I would disagree with that. Businesses create wealth and that statement implies that the pie is fixed and she is just taking wealth that was originally the people's and giving it back. In reality, she is taking wealth that was created, away from the company, and giving it to the people, which I usually view as wrong, unless the company is truly without morals or something. Maybe oil is...?

The money isn't really the workers, but it goes to building the company up. If you look at stock options, then it really is the workers.

I'd say that the oil companies take very good care of their people (in Alaska). The jobs are the best paying in the state and the bennies are second to none. The money is the company's, rightfully earned through free trade of oil, the price of which is not even remotely determined by US oil companies. I'm all for fair taxes of companies, but not for windfall profit taxes - that isn't capitalist.

Oil companies have done dishonest things, and they should be punished for that. Taxing the crap out of their profits is, as I see it, punishment for doing what a company is supposed to do - make money!

 

[muted0]

Does it not bother anyone that Sen. McCain passed over many incredibly more qualified people and made his VP pick for purely political reasons. I think its irresponsible. Gov. Palin has zero foreign policy experience, she has been the mayor of a small town, and the Gov. of a small state for not even 2 years. Obama has at least been on the senate foreign relations committee, has been to Afghanistan and Iraq and met with American Military leaders on the ground.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Does it not bother anyone that Sen. McCain passed over many incredibly more qualified people and made his VP pick for purely political reasons. I think its irresponsible. Gov. Palin has zero foreign policy experience, she has been the mayor of a small town, and the Gov. of a small state for not even 2 years. Obama has at least been on the senate foreign relations committee, has been to Afghanistan and Iraq and met with American Military leaders on the ground.

I wasn't aware that the VP needed so much foreign policy experience. I really thought that was the reason the President had a Secretary of State. Hmmm go figure.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Does it not bother anyone that Sen. McCain passed over many incredibly more qualified people and made his VP pick for purely political reasons. I think its irresponsible. Gov. Palin has zero foreign policy experience, she has been the mayor of a small town, and the Gov. of a small state for not even 2 years. Obama has at least been on the senate foreign relations committee, has been to Afghanistan and Iraq and met with American Military leaders on the ground.

Way to cut-and-paste the Dem talking points, dude.

Going on a trip and sitting on a committee is somehow vastly more experience? Obama hasn't done anything productive with his career except write books about himself and run for whatever's the next highest office. Hasn't argued any big law cases, written any legal commentary (despite being editor of the Harvard Law Review, which I understand is pretty amazing), or written any books that weren't about himself and the audacity of hope, never sponsored any legislation (co-sponsoring is meaningless - it's just tacking your name on someone else's bill and a popular one may have literally dozens of co-sponsors), never cast a controversial vote or bucked his party.

Sarah Palin is inexperienced, true, but she's at least made good use of the time she has had in office. I'd say it's pretty obvious, based on PropStop's post, that love her or hate her she's made a big splash in a short time. If we're going to vote someone inexperienced into office, I'd at least rather it be someone who has walked the walk, even if it's a short distance, than someone who can only pinky-swear, up and down, cross my heart, that he'll be a reformer.

The reality is, there just wasn't a perfect "someone more experienced" pick for McCain. If there was, it'd have been known long ago.

Romney brings too much baggage from the primaries, and being LDS hurts the ticket with Evangelicals.

The far right was already threatening open revolt if he picked Lieberman. You think the GOP would want to take that into the convention?

Pawlenty is a nice guy, but doesn't bring anything to the ticket. The "safest" choice that doesn't hurt, but ho-hum, another white male. Plus, it'd be an excuse for the Dems to run endless pictures of that bridge collapse.

Hutchison is another Senator, and there's already three in the race. Doesn't help your message of change and reform. Plus, she's from Texas, which is more "McSame!" nonsense for the Dems to throw around.

So who else was there? Who else doesn't hurt the ticket and adds anything?

Palin has at least energized the base - the Christian Right and pro-life folks seem to be absolutely delirious, and it's safe to say the Second Amendment folks will be onboard with "a lifetime NRA member and avid hunter," they can at least make a play for the Union vote and it does help big with the soccer moms.

 

[phrogpilot73]

I think there's a number of reasons John McCain selected Palin:

1. She's a woman. There, I said it. But I don't think that it's to pander to disgruntled Clinton supporters. It's because it's a very visual way to try and lessen/eliminate the Obama camp's argument that he is 4 more years of Bush.

2. She's conservative. McCain is hardly what one would call a traditional conservative. He's very moderate. This shores up the Republican base.

3. She's got executive experience. Like it or not, a lot of it or not - she's the only one on any ticket that does.

4. Obama can't attack his VP pick for being "inexperienced" without highlighting his inexperience.

AND, the top reason (I think) McCain picked her?

5. She's a pilot. I think he wanted to be able to sit around Air Force 1 and bullshit with his VP about flying.

 

[airgreg]

Sarah Palin is inexperienced, true, but she's at least made good use of the time she has had in office. I'd say it's pretty obvious, based on PropStop's post, that love her or hate her she's made a big splash in a short time. If we're going to vote someone inexperienced into office, I'd at least rather it be someone who has walked the walk, even if it's a short distance, than someone who can only pinky-swear, up and down, cross my heart, that he'll be a reformer.

Best summary I've read so far.

Rope-a-dope. "Rope-a-dope is also commonly used to describe strategies in areas other than boxing, where one party purposely puts itself in what appears to be a losing position, and then becomes the eventual victor." - Wikipedia's definition

Everybody come look at my VP candidate who has very little international experience. Attack her for it, please.

The Democrats just got rope-a-doped.

 

[abracadabra11]

I can't believe some of the remarks that are in this thread. How can anyone be satisfied with this pick? McCain has real health concerns and he's old. He needed to choose someone with substantial experience that could just as easily be the President. And there are plenty of individuals that fit that billing. Instead, he's chosen an inexperienced Governor from Alaska. It seems irresponsible and foolish. This is precisely why I think politics is such bull...

And don't bother countering with 'well, obama has no experience either'. This isn't about Obama. It's about McCain making a terrible decision for his VP.

Am I the only person that wants a President that makes this country strong economically, politically, and militarily? Unfortunately, neither candidate appears to be capable of offering that now.

 

[Pugs]

Am I the only person that wants a President that makes this country strong economically, politically, and militarily? Unfortunately, neither candidate appears to be capable of offering that now.

No you are not. However you are apparently the only one who has any question about the candidate team that will deliver that and not complete ruin on those two issues.

I say two as I can't figure out what "strong politically" means.

McCain/Palin will be an interesting and worthwhile team and IMO the Democrats got completely out maneuvered.

 

[HercDriver]

I think there's a number of reasons John McCain selected Palin:

1. She's a woman. There, I said it. But I don't think that it's to pander to disgruntled Clinton supporters. It's because it's a very visual way to try and lessen/eliminate the Obama camp's argument that he is 4 more years of Bush.

2. She's conservative. McCain is hardly what one would call a traditional conservative. He's very moderate. This shores up the Republican base.

3. She's got executive experience. Like it or not, a lot of it or not - she's the only one on any ticket that does.

4. Obama can't attack his VP pick for being "inexperienced" without highlighting his inexperience.

AND, the top reason (I think) McCain picked her?

5. She's a pilot. I think he wanted to be able to sit around Air Force 1 and bullshit with his VP about flying.

Yep, I think you nailed it for the most part. However, McCain's biggest attack that would stick was that Obama has no experience and isn't "ready to lead". This dulls that criticism somewhat.
Of course it innoculates Gov Palin from the same criticism, but this race is not about her. It is all about Obama and whether the American people are comfortable with a former state senator/US senator being in charge with little executive experience. That is how this race has been framed by the right and will continue to be framed.
She does a good job at shoring up the base (evangelicals/social conservatives/fiscal conservatives/NRA members) and she may attract some women. Also, the Dems have a "Western State Strategy"...she will def cut into that with her snowmobile/gun toting side. And her hubby is a Union member who works in the oil fields...(Ohio, Pennsylvania anyone?) We'll see how it shakes out, but it has re-framed the media narrative quite a bit and kept the media from going over the DNC convention through the weekend. Good timing.

 

[roogs25]

And don't bother countering with 'well, obama has no experience either'. This isn't about Obama. It's about McCain making a terrible decision for his VP.

The Obama camp had better make sure this whole debate about experience is short lived because if it is the middle of October and the only argument the dems are coming up with is "McCain made a horrible VP pick because he is about to die and she is not strong enough politically to take over" (I agree with Pugs - what does that mean?!?) then they are going to be in trouble. Maybe I give the American voter too much credit - but I think they will tire of this line of thought quickly as the election is for President, not VP, not to mention every time it is brought up - it is a big mirror for Obama.

Also, one thing that might be getting slightly overlooked is that this pick cuts Obama's message of change out at the knees - or at least takes out one knee (and at this point that is his only message). His argument that he is the only one who can bring change to Washington doesn't have the same punch it did earlier this week.

 

[nittany03]

I understand where you are coming from. My statements mainly arise from all the media hooplah that surrounds VP nominations that ultimately conveys a message to the viewers that a VP nomination will mean something in terms of policy with the current Presidential nominee. That is the regard in which the VP is meaningless. Putting Palin on the ticket doesn't make McCain anymore "liberal" or "conservative" than he was 3 days ago. He's still the same guy with the same views, he's the one running for office, so he's the guy we're casting the vote for or against.

True.