Arizona Senator John McCain (official)

[OH10]

Originally Posted by Bucklion

On the other hand, I remember Obama last night saying he was going to go line by line in the Federal budget and elimiate all of the programs that don't work or aren't buying us anything...he apparently missed the other 534 people as he was leaving the Captial Building that might have something to say about that.

I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with my post...

Presidential candidates talk all the time about laws they would pass and eliminate, as if they are really the lawmakers... Bush did it. McCain's done it. Kerry did it. It's silly, I agree. But for some odd reason, the pundits keep asking Obama what he would do as President. What's he supposed to say? Promise that he'd veto hypothetical bills?

[Bucklion]

Originally Posted by OH10

I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with my post...

Presidential candidates talk all the time about laws they would pass and eliminate, as if they are really the lawmakers... Bush did it. McCain's done it. Kerry did it. It's silly, I agree. But for some odd reason, the pundits keep asking Obama what he would do as President. What's he supposed to say? Promise that he'd veto hypothetical bills?

It has to do with the fact that just because Obama has been on the "National Stage" for 4 years doesn't mean he isn't prone to saying things that are, well, not possible for the President to accomplish. I guess I was just saying dismissing her outright without hearing her say anything doesn't make a lot of sense when Obama has had his fair share of gaffes (as has McCain).

[cincibuck]

Sarah 'Pudge' Palin???? Any relation to Michael Palin?

Is this McCain trying to get back his 'maverick' cred or is this a case of none of the others wanting to take the risk of being on his ticket.

Where is Admiral Stockdale now that we really need him?

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by OH10

It's not really worth debating if you truly believe that two years as Governor of a relatively small population state disconnected with the continental U.S. is comparable to 4 years in the U.S. Senate on a National Stage.

I have to disagree with this one. Governor is executive whereas Senator is legislative. The two roles are completely different, and thus, it's difficult to draw direct comparisons in service.

There are two things that have come to my mind a lot when I think about this Presidential election:

1) Our two choices for President come from one of the worst (if not, worst) rated Congresses of all time. That scares me a lot.
2) The most common former position for most of our Presidents has been Governor of a state.

Personally, I find a lot of valor to the concept of Governor => President instead of Senator => President. And that's primarily because of the type of position it is (Executive v. Legislative).

Just a few thoughts.

[BayBuck]

Originally Posted by OH10

It's not really worth debating if you truly believe that two years as Governor of a relatively small population state disconnected with the continental U.S. is comparable to 4 years in the U.S. Senate on a National Stage.

If you went around yesterday and asked 10 random people if they heard of Barack Obama, all 10 would say yes. On Palin, maybe one or two. That fact, alone, speaks volumes of ridiculous comparison you've made.

What muffler said.

As for "ridiculous comparisons", like experience has anything to do whether anyone's heard of Obama or Palin or Biden or whoever else is on a ticket. Feel free not to debate it, but this governor's been doing as much work that applies to the executive position as Obama has.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by BayBuck

As for "ridiculous comparisons", like experience has anything to do whether anyone's heard of Obama or Palin or Biden or whoever else is on a ticket. Feel free not to debate it, but this governor's been doing as much work that applies to the executive position as Obama has.

Or possibly more considering the roles of the offices.

[JXC]

I don't see how this vote will grab any Hillary democrat backers. The Hillary deomcrat femonists are pretty hard core pro-choice. Palin is pro-life. That's the #1 issue with most of these women. Did McCain make this pick because she is a woman? If he didn't, then I don't see why. You can debate her experience. But, when you look at who McCain had to choose from, there were better choices out there.

She also has a 5 month old child with down syndrome. Now, I do not wish that upon anybody, and I have no idea what she is going through. But, doesn't any 5 month old child need their mother...let alone one with down syndrome. Instead of being home with her baby, she'll be out on the campaign trail 1000s of miles away. I'm not sure if that's what a mother should do, or not. Just curious. Women and people with children probably have more idea about this than I do.

I decided to call my mother to see what she thought. She voted for Hillary, and is undecided. I think this pick went after people just like her...especially people in Ohio. Her exact words, "I think she should stay at home with her chlidren. I will not vote for McCain now."

Maybe that isn't the opinion of most women, but maybe it is.

I think it's a terrible pick.

[BayBuck]

Originally Posted by JonathanXC

She also has a 5 month old child with down syndrome. Now, I do not wish that upon anybody, and I have no idea what she is going through. But, doesn't any 5 month old child need their mother...let alone one with down syndrome. Instead of being home with her baby, she'll be out on the campaign trail 1000s of miles away. I'm not sure if that's what a mother should do, or not. Just curious. Women and people with children probably have more idea about this than I do.

I think choosing to go through with a childbirth knowing the baby will have Down syndrome (I'm assuming she would have known during pregnancy) demonstrates she's no hypocrite on her abortion stance.

There will surely be some women like your mom for whom abortion is the defining issue, but there will also surely be some feminists who will switch because of Palin.

[generaladm]

Originally Posted by BayBuck

2 years as a state Governor compares fairly well with 4 years as a Senator for me: prior to that, both Obama and Palin have state/local political resumes going back about the same length.

Originally Posted by OH10

It's not really worth debating if you truly believe that two years as Governor of a relatively small population state disconnected with the continental U.S. is comparable to 4 years in the U.S. Senate on a National Stage.

If you went around yesterday and asked 10 random people if they heard of Barack Obama, all 10 would say yes. On Palin, maybe one or two. That fact, alone, speaks volumes of ridiculous comparison you've made.

Originally Posted by muffler dragon

I have to disagree with this one. Governor is executive whereas Senator is legislative. The two roles are completely different, and thus, it's difficult to draw direct comparisons in service.

There are two things that have come to my mind a lot when I think about this Presidential election:

1) Our two choices for President come from one of the worst (if not, worst) rated Congresses of all time. That scares me a lot.
2) The most common former position for most of our Presidents has been Governor of a state.

Personally, I find a lot of valor to the concept of Governor => President instead of Senator => President. And that's primarily because of the type of position it is (Executive v. Legislative).

Just a few thoughts.

It's a real stretch to say that Palin's political experience compares well with Obama's. For one thing, lumping local and state level experience in to one category is misleading. 14 of Palin's 16 year political career were served in a township less than half the size of Greenville, OH. Her two years on the state level pales in comparison to Obama's seven, not to mention the four on the federal level. I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that the Illinois State Senate more closely resembles the federal government than the City Council and Mayorship of Wasilla, AK, or the Governorship.

You make a good point about executive vs. legislative, muffler, but the one caveat I have is that the powers of a Governor may vary widely from state to state. Some of our best POTUS have been former Governors, but also some of the worst. The rationale that the Governorship better prepares a candidate for POTUS suggests that Jesse "the Body" Ventura would make a great candidate, so it can go either way. Also, the most common former position for POTUS is US Congressman, not Governor. It's pretty close, and a few served as both, but the advantage goes to Congress. As far as this Congress being one of the worst ever, while that may be, it does not mean that every member of it is a terrible legislator. Again, you make a very valid point, but it's a little over-simplified, in my view. There are many factors that could be argued. Is it the worst because it's the least popular? Least productive? I would venture to say that this has not been the easiest Congress to serve in, considering that Bush likes to spend a good deal of his SOTU Address listing off all the bills he will veto (only after the Dems took majority). I guess my greater point is that how executive compares to legislative, and the quality of this Congress do not matter as much as the character of the candidates in question. I'm not disagreeing with your post, those are just the thoughts that came immediately to mind.

As far as Palin, I think it's a very odd choice. I would have expected a person with a much higher public profile and a resume that complimented McCain's percieved weaknesses. At first glance, it resembles the Quayle pick. The one advantage is that the political headhunters don't have the book written on her yet, so it will be a while before the attack ads will premiere. I'll know more once I hear her speak, but initially, it would seem that putting her in a debate with Biden is like throwing Christians to the lions. Even if Palin's and Obama's credentials are comparable (they're not), Biden has been in the Senate 15 years longer than McCain. That's a situation begging for some Quayle/Bentsen moments. I hope for McCain's sake that it's a good choice.

[JXC]

I don't doubt that. She's a pro-lifer.

[BayBuck]

Originally Posted by generaladm

It's a real stretch to say that Palin's political experience compares well with Obama's. For one thing, lumping local and state level experience in to one category is misleading. 14 of Palin's 16 year political career were served in a township less than half the size of Greenville, OH. Her two years on the state level pales in comparison to Obama's seven, not to mention the four on the federal level. I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that the Illinois State Senate more closely resembles the federal government than the City Council and Mayorship of Wasilla, AK, or the Governorship.

She also spent a year on a state ethics commission--which she resigned to whiste-blow corruption by a fellow commissioner, and it is that "reformer" role that she rode to the governorship. I'm not saying local government is the same as state legislature, but both pale in comparison to being Governor or U.S. congressman, and given similarly short experience in both those places, I'd rather have my inexperienced candidate in the #2 slot on the ticket.

Originally Posted by generaladm

it would seem that putting her in a debate with Biden is like throwing Christians to the lions.

I agree that's probably the place where this pick is most risky, in that she will likely appear completely out of her element against Biden in a debate, but I contend that American voters aren't all that wowed by the kind of Democrat intellectual preening a Washington veteran like Biden can show in those situations (think of Kerry and Gore here), and just keeping her composure and looking good on camera counts for a heck of a lot.

[JXC]

and just keeping her composure and looking good on camera counts for a heck of a lot.

I'm pretty...vote for me!!!

[BayBuck]

Originally Posted by JonathanXC

I'm pretty...vote for me!!!

It didn't work for John Edwards in '04, but it's worth a shot!

[OH10]

Originally Posted by muffler dragon

I have to disagree with this one. Governor is executive whereas Senator is legislative. The two roles are completely different, and thus, it's difficult to draw direct comparisons in service.

There are two things that have come to my mind a lot when I think about this Presidential election:

1) Our two choices for President come from one of the worst (if not, worst) rated Congresses of all time. That scares me a lot.
2) The most common former position for most of our Presidents has been Governor of a state.

Personally, I find a lot of valor to the concept of Governor => President instead of Senator => President. And that's primarily because of the type of position it is (Executive v. Legislative).

Just a few thoughts.

Not to diminsh the role of Alaska in national politics, but I fail to see how being Governor of a state with a population the size of cowtown prepares someone for foreign policy decisions and issues related to the National economy.

If you have a choice between an experienced governor from a continental state and an inexperienced congressman, I guess I could understand your argument. But you have someone less than two years removed from essentially being the Mayor in Northern Exposure. The whole Governor argument doesn't work.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by generaladm

You make a good point about executive vs. legislative, muffler, but the one caveat I have is that the powers of a Governor may vary widely from state to state.

This is true, but I would still believe that the spectrum of governorship responsibilities would be closer to the President than any part of a senatorship if for no other reason than the executive v. legislative portion.

Originally Posted by general

Some of our best POTUS have been former Governors, but also some of the worst. The rationale that the Governorship better prepares a candidate for POTUS suggests that Jesse "the Body" Ventura would make a great candidate, so it can go either way.

I wasn't attempting to make a point regarding the ability of the people, but instead, the direct correlation between the roles as they are both executive. There are good and bad in everything.

Originally Posted by general

Also, the most common former position for POTUS is US Congressman, not Governor. It's pretty close, and a few served as both, but the advantage goes to Congress.

I learn something new everyday. Any stats just for kicks?

Originally Posted by general

As far as this Congress being one of the worst ever, while that may be, it does not mean that every member of it is a terrible legislator.

True. And this would be the flipside to the governor statement above.

Originally Posted by general

Again, you make a very valid point, but it's a little over-simplified, in my view. There are many factors that could be argued. Is it the worst because it's the least popular? Least productive? I would venture to say that this has not been the easiest Congress to serve in, considering that Bush likes to spend a good deal of his SOTU Address listing off all the bills he will veto (only after the Dems took majority). I guess my greater point is that how executive compares to legislative, and the quality of this Congress do not matter as much as the character of the candidates in question. I'm not disagreeing with your post, those are just the thoughts that came immediately to mind.

Understood and appreciated.