The point remains...she might as well be running for president...McCain is...sm
Posted By: ... on 2008-08-29
In Reply to: First of all, - Chele
a heartbeat away from the inevitable not just because he is old enough to be Palin's granddaddy but because of his medical history so with all that said...Palin is practically running for #1 and that's just the honest to God SCARY truth of the matter.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Who is running for President - McCain or Palin?
Since Palin has come on the scene, she has been out front at every campaign stop. It seems as if she is running for President while McCain remains in the background and just applauds her. I don't think I've seen him open a campaign speech since her appointment. I wonder if this was intentional. Did they need to get him out of the spotlight or did she just take over? 
Fact remains....McCain saw this meltdown coming....
and the Dems would not listen. They did not want to upset the golden apple cart. And we the people are left holding the bag. Do I want one of them in the white house while we are trying to work our way out of this? No way, no how, nobama.
Probably because he's running for president, no?
Where do you people live? What era? Geez.
but those 4 are not running for president! nm
x
If you were running for President ---
Okay, I have an idea. If you were able to run for President or even be the top adviser for the next President, what would your plans be for getting us out of this economic crisis? Everyone seems to hate Obama's plans, and nobody really knows McCain's plans, so help us out here - what would you do?
He already has. Hello? He is running for president. All sm
candidates are cleared way before the actual election. They would not take the chance of having someone elected president and then find out he fails to pass an FBI check.
If they are running for our president, we SHOULD know this...
00
well that good cos she's not running for president
you all seem to forget she is not running for pres. Barack and McCain are.
Obama is running for president of what
xx
Bush is not running for president...nice try.
As far as JOhn McCain's birthday...is there some law or moral wrong to eating cake on your birthday? Where was Obama when katrina hit? What was he eating?
First, Ray Nagin refused to make evacuation mandatory until a full 24 hours after he was asked to do so. He is the first line of defense for his city. He dropped the ball. I don't see you ragging him here. Second, the President expected FEMA to do its job. Just like Barack Obama would have done.
However...this is a nonissue. George Bush is not running.
Again...John McCain's birthday, and yes, he was eating cake. I want to know where Obama was, and what he was eating.
I don't mention them because they aren't running for president. s/m
care to comment on this:
http://mccainkeatingfive.com/?page_id=22
Ayers is not running for president. He is not O's advisor.
O's sponsor. Dr. Ayers is entitled to vote for whomever he likes. He can donate to the campaign of his choice. They served on the board of a community organization which addressed poverty relief and social mobility. I find that to be a noble cause and certainly do not hold it against either of them. The Ayers smear campaign is beyond absurd. I agree with Stardust. Time to move on.
You're not running for president and refusing to wear it nm
x
If I was running for president, I sure wouldn't associate with terrorists, no ma'am. sm
I would not knowingly associate with a criminal of any sort, but you can best believe I would not be hanging out with a known terrorist, even if he lived next door.
mccain is running
quit trying to deflect the issue. McCain a poon dog.
clinton not running McCain is
nm
Pick McCain's VP running mate!
MSNBC has a "Veepstakes" where you get to make picks on who McCain will pick for VP, and that's kind of fun. I have no idea who he will pick, but here are some names that are bounced around:
Bobby Jindal (I think too young at 36, but religious right seems to like him, which is more than I can say for McCain, so maybe that would help him there).
Charlie Crist (McCain totally owes him for helping him boost to front runner affter Florida, but he's kind of liberal for base's tastes).
Mitt Romney (the favorite in the "Veepstakes." Would help McCain in some places like Michigan, could hurt in deep south).
Mike Huckabee (may help in the south, but I can't see any other benefit).
That Bill WAS our president at one point and a good one at that....sm
DUH!
lol
McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT! :)
XXXX
McCain for President....sm
McCain for President
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 24, 2008; Page A19
Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302867.html
Does this sound like McCain is qualified to be president?
Well, we've heard the interview now. And John McCain either doesn't know who the Prime Minister of Spain is, thinks Spain is a country in Latin America, or possibly both.
In case, you haven't seen our updates from last night, yesterday John McCain was interviewed on the Florida affiliate of Spanish radio network Union Radio. And in the interview McCain appeared not to know who the Prime Minister of Spain was and assumed he was some anti-American leftist leader from South America.
After the interviewer presses him a couple times on the point and tries to focus him on the fact that Prime Minister Zapatero isn't from Mexico and isn't a drug lord either McCain comes back at her saying, "All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the Hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."
Then there's a moment of awkward pause before she says. "But what about Europe? I'm talking about the President of Spain."
McCain: "What about me, what?
Interviewer: "Are you willing to meet with him if you're elected president?"
McCain: "I am wiling to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for humans rights, democracy and freedom. And I will stand up to those who do not."
At this point, the interviewer gets tongue-tied presumably because she can't get over McCain not knowing what Spain is.
Yep, McCain has potential to be a good president too....sm
Like Rush says, though, we may have to drag him kicking and screaming over the finish line.....LOLOL.............
You do know that McCain isn't technically eligible to run for president, right?
The hypocrisy in all of this just ... man. Sometimes it's really hard to remain independent, just because the draw to be anti-McCain is so, so strong.
Please, please know that John McCain is absolutely NOT constitutionally eligible to be president either. The blame goes both ways (if, in fact, Obama turns out to not have been born on Hawaiian soil).
It's an issue EITHER WAY. Regardless of WHO IS ELECTED (if the above caveat is met).
Feel free to educate yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/11/McCain_not_natural-born_citizen_prof_says/UPI-86721215783410/
This possibility exists, but also as McCain as president...sm
so let's try a different approach with President-elect Barak Obama.
Therefore the majority voted for Obama.
My candidate is only Mccain because I don't see the point in writing in someone else
I'm sorry you all are too DENSE to see what will happen when Obama is president. I'm so over this. We will meet back here in a couple of years and see what all you Obama lovers are saying when half your paycheck goes to a bunch of lazy bums who won't get off their butts and get a job. You are all obviously to enthralled with his nice speeches and pretty features to look any deeper.
It doesn't matter what we say or how we say it or what evidence we bring up, you will blindly follow that man off a cliff, and sadly, you will be dragging the rest of us with you.
I don't care if he is black mexican european greek or chinese. he is not what we need for our country. Let him take his socialist view points elsewhere.
I didn't miss the point - I have been a McCain supporter
I have been on this board arguing over and over why McCain is the better choice. I used to support Obama until a few weeks ago after he beat out Hillary and then all this stuff about his life and the people he associates with (forget Rev. Wright- I could care less about that little dweeb), but his affiliations with the worst of the worst, his voting record, his lies about how he will not tax us, yet has consistently voted to raise taxes on who? The middle income (around $42,000 - if you would call that middle income anymore). His not cutting back on any of the programs he wants to fund. The list goes on and on and on about what I don't like about Obama.
As for McCain - I think he's a decent guy. I think he's way more decent than many of the politicians in Washington. I think he has always been on the side of the people and has shown that by consistently arguing against both dems and pubs if it doesn't benefit the people. I strongly supported the ticket mainly because of Palin. She is certainly one of the most qualified out of the other 3. She has consistently balanced the budget as governer, cut back pork filled bills, stopped wasteful spending, and has done nothing but good things for the people of her state and I believe that will carry over if the republicans win.
I was so expecting a really good debate and believed Gov. Palin helped him tremendously with her outstanding debate outcome, so was expecting nothing but good with McCain. There were so many issues people were talking about with what McCain would need to do to win the debate. I didn't see any of it last night and left me wondering, who does he meet with before debates and speeches and does he listent to any of them. To me his performance last night was so bad shuffling around the stage. I was sitting here typing and heard loud and clear McCain say "that one" not only saying it, but the tone of his voice just hit a raw nerve with me. DH and I just looked at each other and shook our heads. As I stated earlier I was very disappointed as I have been on this board arguing over and over and over for McCain and against Obama. But I don't know what was worse. His saying "that one" or him overusing "my friends". Why hasn't anyone told him to knock it off. He uses it in almost every single sentance he says. Like I say, I got disgusted and turned off the debate. Right now I don't care anymore who wins the election. I'm voting for the constitutional party, if I do even vote at all.
It remains to be seen if
they will no longer be here. I personally don't believe they will leave.
However, since their alleged departure, the Conservative board is a much more serene, friendly place to visit. There is actually intelligent discussion happening there now, and people's views are being respected and not attacked any more by those three. Hopefully it will encourage more intelligent debate. I even felt free to post there today, because in their alleged absence, I don't feel I will wind up in the middle of a war zone.
You refer to someone wishing a poster to "burn in hell." That's a horrible thing to say to anyone, but I think a bigger question is, how much goading and attacking does it take to get someone to that point?
The Conservative board has almost 1,900 posts on it. Most of these aren't intelligent debate. They're attacks by these three, wherein they attack a single poster 3 to 1, then come back to "high-five" each other after stomping the poster so far into the ground, they just give up. More like a street gang mentality than loving, tolerant Christians.
Though there are also attacks on this board, many of them are provoked by one or more of this "gang." If you take a close look at the Conservative and Liberal boards, the more intelligent, tolerant debate, hands down, is found on this board.
I agree with you that we should move on. I also feel that we shouldn't feel too secure in the peace and serenity that is currently being felt, because I personally believe it will be short lived. I believe in my heart they will be back, because they obviously are "pets" of the owner of this board, and I truly doubt that there's another forum out there that would tolerate them. They seem to harbor too much hatred and rage and anger to be content to stay away from here for too long. Just my personal opinion. I have respected yours. All I ask is that you please respect mine, as well, and then maybe we CAN move on to engage in intelligent, thoughtful, open debate, which presumably is the reason for these boards to begin with. 
I think that remains to be seen.
he's off to a pretty good start with this particular issue and I am so looking forward to having the shame of the shrub's years replaced by the pride I can take in a president who takes that document seriously.
The fact remains....sm
On the whole, republicans give more than Democrats.
Just ask Joe Biden. Just ask the Clintons. They only gave to their own foundation, which didn't do much of anything, except pay themselves.
Warren Buffet, billionaire liberal democrat, gives next to nothing. He's leaving his billions to Bill Gates foundation....but what did he give away during his lifetime?
The list goes on and on.
Fact remains that
whether you believe the Constitution's language regarding church and state or not, ours is a secular nation. I will not take the time to answer this viewpoint since I do not buy into it, but I have read the same wacko blogs and sites that promote this nonsense.
There are so many of America's true traditions that were eroded (some beyond recognition) during W's reign, and blurring the lines between church and state is high on that list. Do not look for that minority initiative to survive much longer. Most Americans understand the wisdom in the concept. Get all indignant and outraged if you like. Flame away. It won't change the fact that theocracy is a Middle Eastern concept that is not likely to "catch on" stateside anytime soon.
This still remains the unanswered
was evaded through the entire campaign and never answered. There is no tax cut for 95% of Americans as 52% of them were led to believe (and naively did so), just a welfare check issued out those who do not pay income taxes to begin with!
This still remains the unanswered
was evaded through the entire campaign and never answered. There is no tax cut for 95% of Americans as 52% to 53% of them (which is a far cry from a landslide win as some would have us believe) were led to believe (and naively did so), just a welfare check issued out those who do not pay income taxes to begin with!
This still remains the unanswered
was evaded through the entire campaign and never answered. There is no tax cut for 95% of Americans as 52% to 53% of them (which is a far cry from a landslide win as some would have us believe) were led to believe (and naively did so), just a welfare check issued out those who do not pay income taxes to begin with!
The fact remains as you so artfully ignored...
Clintons laid the groundwork for outsourcing to India and the rest of the hierarchy of your party blocked any attempt to stop said outsourcing. Where does the majority of outsourcing of MT work go? India. Lame, lame comeback, GT. That is so simple even YOU could get it, to use your own words.
When you are proven wrong on one point, counter with another. You can complain all you want about the Repubs...I could care less. Not my party. Like I said...Dems lite. However, the law being what it is, you have to register as SOMETHING to vote, if I in my ignorance
remember correctly. And you won't see me registering as a Democrat in this lifetime...because you, my friend, are indicative of what it has become and again...NO thank you. lol.
But the fact remains, old timer...it is they..
we are fighting now, and she was speaking about soldiers being deployed now. So her answer was correct.
Fact remains...your guy is in just as deep...
and dirty, and McCain at least tried to head it off, while your guy became their #2 recipient. Now THAT is an INCONVIENIENT truth. lol.
But the bigger question remains:
X
The fact remains....Joe is NOT the issue.
Obama's answer to the question is the issue. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to answer it. He could have walked awawy with one of his nonanswers like he has done before, but he chose to answer it. And he gave an honest socialist answer. Because he is a socialist. Try to deflect it to Joe....but the fact remains. Obama gave a socialist answer because he is a socialist. Period, end of sentence.
I suppose you think it is fair that a person asks a question and then state law enforcement does a background check on them?? What if you asked McCain a tough question in a townhall and they didn't like it and had you investigated and publically lacerated??
THAT will hurt Obama as much as his socialist answer.
Yes, I know, but the fact remains my question has still not been answered. SM
How is it that people feel they can make these kind of egregious statements about someone so effortlessly and not support those statements with facts. Pardon me if I am a little insistent that credible proof be provided that Laura Bush was drunk when she was involved in the accident that killed her friend.
"second thing" remains a mystery
I understand they were the arresting officer's words. I am just curious as to what the second thing is. Did he lose his train of thought?
But the fact remains...she has more executive experience than your #1 guy.
That is indisputable. In fact, more than her running mate and your #2. To say she is inexperienced only shines the same light on Barack Obama. That is not a slam, it is a fact.
While a fetus remains a part of MY body, is sure
And it will never be yours, or anyone else's.
But oldtimer...the fact remains...if those 94 democrats...
had voted yes, it would have passed ANYWAY, no matter what the Republicans did. enough Republicans voted for it that the 94 democrats would have made the difference. It would have passed. Not all republicans voted against it.
liberal fuzzy math....the fact remains....
she has a higher approval rating than most of the governors in the lower 48...quite possibly THE highest. Nice try...no cigar.
The fact remains, she gave the correct answer.
and Gibson did not expect her to even know what NATO was. Point, Palin. Obama has been interviewed numerous times by the liberal press. Not a one of them asked him about foreign policy other than the chance to talk about how he was against the war in Iraq. No one asked him about his experience. No one looked him in the eye and said are you ready, and he is running for the #1 spot.
There is the video where he himself said he would not be ready to run in 2008. Biden said during the primaries he wasn't ready. That makes two of them, and I agree 100%.
If customary deference to a sitting president by president elect
for the rest of us who understand such concepts as respect and traditional protocol, it would qualify as a darned good reason.
Fact remains, she has made executive decisions for a year and a half...
as governor, and before that as a mayor. He has made none. Zero, zilch, nada. The only time she will "legislate" is if she has to vote to break a tie Not hardly the same thing as running a state...or a country.
I think BB has a point here in that the main point on the board is political discussion, and let'
face it, there is SO MUCH going on right now, changes, problems, disasters, and so much debate on what should/could be done, but so many tims the political discussion disintegrates in a finger-pointing, name-calling exercise, spouting religion all over the place. Yeah, our spiritual beliefs are dearly held and we would all strive to be the best we can be, and do whatever we can whatever the ideology is, but sometimes I wonder, since we have a board EXPRESSLY for Faith isuues, where relgious debates/discussions/forums, etc are welcome, why does THIS board have to be turned into RELIGION BOARD PART II, especially if one ideology wants to dominate or ridicule/condemn those who come on here for lively inteligent discussion, debate of issues in Congress and in our lives, and just want their beliefs held separately? CNN is not EWTN or any other Christian network, and there are constant informative, bright, lively, balanced discussions from all over the political spectrum on the credentialed news stations, as well as C-Span, but they are not constantly hiding behind a cross, rosary, bible, star of David, or whatever....can we not strive to do the same and put religious debate on the Faith board?? Just a thought to ponder, MHO, it might work beter, who knows?
is the the starting point or the end point for the middle class?
x
That is not what HE says he is running as, it is what...sm
everyone else says he is running as.
Yes we do have the right. If you are running for ...sm
the hightest office in the land, we have the right to logically judge whether that person could reasonably be expected to complete his term. If someone has a serious disease that could affect his/her capability of doing so, we have the right to know that before we cast our vote. This goes for both candidates. Transparency, isn't that what both candidates say they are for?
|
