MCCAIN'S VP CHOICE: Sarah Palin

[GILSAN]

Would like to know your opinion on this choice.

Do you think it was a smart, wise, bold, stupid or don't give a damn choice?

 

[johname]

not enough experience, dan quale the 2nd

 

[Fragger]

The democrats are scared out of their minds. I have been reading Obamacrat blogs all day and the only thing they can keep saying is, "She has no foreign policy experience." Yet...... where is Obama's foreign policy experience? They talk about her ethics situation for getting some cop fired... What about Obama and the terrorist Ayers, Obama and questionable donations to the Acorn Foundation, Obama and Rezko scandal, Obama and wright... ect ect ect. I think the democrats are truly scared by this pick. Who wouldn't want a female vice president that can handle an m4 assault rifle as well as a family of five. I mean, seriously...

 

[.X.]

She is Hot!

Good move? I am not convinced of that yet

Condo Rice from a political stand point, would have been a great choice, and she could run the US if needed, no problem at all.

 

[Fragger]

She is Hot!

Good move? I am not convinced of that yet

Condo Rice from a political stand point, would have been a great choice, and she could run the US if needed, no problem at all.

Major problem with Condo though is that in the eyes of the public she will always be associated with the Bush administration. Simply wouldn't have worked at this point.

 

[Idees]

This VP pick is a political card for McCain.

He basically knew he had to take drastic measures to try to keep up with Obama in this race.

 

[GILSAN]

Being an outsider but with an enormous interest in the US elections as it allways has an impact worldwide, I can't help feeling that this was a really smart move from McCain. Yesterday McCain aparently put a TV ad congratulating Obama on his nomination and then a few hours later... Bang! he nominates a relative unknown woman who is bound to get many upset Hilary voters. Experience is something that has been bashed so much that its looks like stale bread. To be a good president or a good governor or a good CEO you need to pick and sorround yourself with the right people.

This VP choice took a lot of the sparkle from the Democratic convention which seemed to be a great success. The ball is now on Obama's court.

 

[homebuyer]

Brilliant

Brilliant move by McCain. She is the kind of woman that can only add perceived value to the Republican ticket because she walks, talks and looks like a winner. Furthermore, since she has no real reported positions on many of the issues, www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm , she can be packaged and marketed to suit the party's needs over the next 67 days.

Quite frankly, this election reminds me of two seniors running for high school class president - with each one is trying to get one up on the other using anything cute, clever, popular or cool.

 

[deleted984054565403]

Quite frankly, this election reminds me of two seniors running for high school class president - with each one is trying to get one up on the other using anything cute, clever, popular or cool.

:bingo:
Kind of sad, really.

 

[nstalk]

Palin is an unknown with almost zero knowledge of world politics...or even country politics for that matter yet McCain chooses her to be the one to lead the most powerful country in the world if he dies in office....which is very likely should he be elected.

I can only conclude this is a choice of a senile old man who has all but given up any hope of winning. Before this is over he will suffer the biggest lost in republican history and be the laughing stock of his party.....its really sad in my opinion.

 

[GILSAN]

Palin is an unknown with almost zero knowledge of world politics...or even country politics for that matter yet McCain chooses her to be the one to lead the most powerful country in the world if he dies in office....which is very likely should he be elected.

I can only conclude this is a choice of a senile old man who has all but given up any hope of winning. Before this is over he will suffer the biggest lost in republican history and be the laughing stock of his party.....its really sad in my opinion.

Presidents don't need to know everything because they are surounded by dozens of advisers and speach writers who do most of the thinking for them. In most cases all they need to do is say yes or no. Bush is a classic example of someone who is not very proficient in the English language, who doesn't know the names of many important world leaders, who just 3-4 months ago did not believe there was $4.00 a gallon gas in the US, and who only seems to talk about "the war on terror" just to name a few examples

Did he write all his speaches? Did he make all the decisions by himself? Does he know that much on foreign policy? Yet the American people voted for him for 8 years! Amazing. Here in Europe hardly anyone comprehends how he was voted twice into office.

So having been the Governor of the big State Texas (Bush) make him smarter and a better President than the present Governor of Alaska?

They should be talking about the real issues that worry people, not if so and so is more experienced than the other. Experience doesn't allways mean you are smarter or wiser or better. Other factors are just as important when judging a potential Presidential or VP Candidate.

 

[Idees]

That idiot barely won his elections, so your statement that the "American people" voted in Biush is completely incorrect.

2000 election: Popular vote (Bush) 50,456,002 (Gore) 50,999,897
2004 Election: Popular vote (Bush) 62,040,610 (Kerry) 59,028,444

That means over 100 million people did not want Bush to be president for 8 years.

Did he write all his speaches? Did he make all the decisions by himself? Does he know that much on foreign policy? Yet the American people voted for him for 8 years! Amazing. Here in Europe hardly anyone comprehends how he was voted twice into office.

 

[johname]

That idiot barely won his elections, so your statement that the "American people" voted in Biush is completely incorrect.

2000 election: Popular vote (Bush) 50,456,002 (Gore) 50,999,897
2004 Election: Popular vote (Bush) 62,040,610 (Kerry) 59,028,444

That means over 100 million people did not want Bush to be president for 8 years.

plus if he could run again he would have zero chance of wining! Bush is a poor example to try to prove any point. The Bush experience factor? at the time the thought was 6 years govenor of Texas plus a dad that was vice press 2 terms and 1 term pressident. Bush was a Govenor of Texas three times as long as Palin is of Alaska

 

[GF]

That means over 100 million people did not want Bush to be president for 8 years.

That's not accurate. You're counting people twice. The people who didn't want him in office the first time most likely did not want him to be re-elected.

:zzz:

 

[GILSAN]

2000 election: Popular vote (Bush) 50,456,002 (Gore) 50,999,897
2004 Election: Popular vote (Bush) 62,040,610 (Kerry) 59,028,444

Thats amazing that Bush won in 2000 with less votes. That is something that should be changed IMO, but I don't seem to recall much interest in changing that except right after the 2000 vote recount in Florida if I'm not wrong.

The best and fairest way to count votes, is and allways will be 50% plus 1 vote for the winner

 

[GF]

Thats amazing that Bush won in 2000 with less votes. That is something that should be changed IMO, but I don't seem to recall much interest in changing that except right after the 2000 vote recount in Florida if I'm not wrong.

The best and fairest way to count votes, is and allways will be 50% plus 1 vote for the winner

The Electoral College system is unfair, in my opinion.

A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. California has 55 electoral votes (53 Congressional districts + 2 Senators).

If George Washington receives 25,000,000 votes and Abraham Lincoln wins 25,000,001 - Abraham Lincoln wins all 55 electoral votes.

In my opinion, this doesn't convey the actual "will of the people." It would be more accurate to breakdown the electoral votes by Congressional district, and to allot the Senatorial votes to the candidate who wins the largest percentage of overall votes, or something similar to that.

If we allotted electoral votes proportionally instead of a "winner-take-all," it would force candidates to compete everywhere for as many electoral votes as possible.

I wrote a 50 page research paper about this in college, so that's why I love this topic :D

 

[GILSAN]

Why not go for simple straight forward popular votes from the whole country.

A great example is the 2000 election:
Popular vote (Bush) 50,456,002 (Gore) 50,999,897

Gore should have been President since he got over half a million more votes than Bush.
It's simple maths! Unless offcourse people are happy with the present system. It actually doesn't seem to be a fair system.

The Electoral College system is unfair, in my opinion.
If we allotted electoral votes proportionally instead of a "winner-take-all," it would force candidates to compete everywhere for as many electoral votes as possible. :D

Proportional electoral votes sounds like a much fairer system to me and would probably avoid a repeat of the 2000 election fiasco, where the loser is the winner.

 

[livinglegendlee]

Very smart move in my opinion.
SL

 

[RJ]

Why not go for simple straight forward popular votes from the whole country.

It's setup to use electoral votes to be fair to smaller states. Similar to the way congress numbers are determined.

In my opinion, this doesn't convey the actual "will of the people." It would be more accurate to breakdown the electoral votes by Congressional district, and to allot the Senatorial votes to the candidate who wins the largest percentage of overall votes, or something similar to that.

If we allotted electoral votes proportionally instead of a "winner-take-all," it would force candidates to compete everywhere for as many electoral votes as possible.

I like your idea of distributing electoral votes proportionally. Would this have affected the result of the last few elections?

 

[briman1970]

It's a gimmick.