McCain's vetting process for Palin - 15 minute call?

I'm fine, but for the record, I never missed the point. I never thought you used "evil" in reference to pro life. The label is so common around these parts that Homebiz and I were just getting ready for the onslaught. Again, you thought that I was talking to you, and I wasn't.

My sarcasm? Make no mistake, there is no question that there are people here that will hate her ONLY for that reason.

So now that we have that cleared up, why do you think that Obama is more qualified than Sarah Palin. I've tossed that bait at you a couple of times, but you somehow continue to deftly maneuver around it.

 

Sorry, I haven't replied, and it wasn't any attempt to maneuver, "deftly" or otherwise - just energy, as I've spent a considerable amount of time here dealing with, for instance, creationism, etc.

Firstly, I'm not a screaming fan of Obama. I once supported him as a decent choice, but even that has cooled considerably since his winning the nomination (and his concomitant behavior).

Secondly, to answer you directly, I'm more impressed by ability than raw experience, as a rule. I touched on it elsewhere, and though it may very well freak many out, I never expected a President "Ready on Day One," Hillary Clinton's campaign tactic notwithstanding. I expect a President with the intellectual capacity to handle the complexities of the job, given that no one knows what they're doing until coming in and sitting his or her ass down in the Oval Office. I touched on this earlier, elsewhere, on another Palin thread:

In my opinion, we've had plenty of someone sitting in office, convinced of the divine imprimatur of his mission. Lieberman's lies last night not notwithstanding, to me Obama has displayed an ability to sit down across the aisle and work together, not a bad quality in someone who has to speak for a nation, and not a party. When even the business community hands him cred this way, it speaks to this. (See this for an earlier post, discussing some of this. Please also disregard the spat with Guerilla. We were in a longstanding feud, and I'm thankful to say I think we've both moved on.).

Policies aside - a whole other topic - these touch on where I think Obama has the goods, and Palin - and McCain - don't. Not that I think "brains" are a panacea (the same Palin thread I mentioned above):

And will have to leave it at this for now - a wife glaring, and a rare lunch alone together, with the lad at school...

 

By the way, I am astounded the McCain camp is now calling foul - accusing the media of unduly harassing Palin, and by extension the McCain campaign, by hitting hard on the "did McCain properly vet the Governor?" issue:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26527513

I'd like to suggest to the honorable Senator that one phone call from six months ago, and a virtual unknown sitting on the national ticket, given a host of revelations daily on some pretty significant - potentially lethal - issues stemming from his V.P. choice, well, "did you investigate her positions, actions, and background thoroughly?" isn't exactly in the land of the loony, is it?

Apparently the only thing he knew was that her daughter was pregnant. Nothing on her appetite for federal pork spending, while claiming to be an anti-earmark "maverick;" Nothing on her apparently opportunistic shift from being strongly pro on the "Bridge to Nowhere" project before strongly "anti" when the political wind shifted; nothing on her potential nepotism in pressuring the firing of a state trooper, her sister's ex-husband (with a $95,000 tab to defend her payable by the citizens of Alaska); nothing on her husband's party membership in the secessionist Alaska Independence Party.

These seem like extremely obvious things to find out, whenever considering a potential running mate. The fact they weren't, raises a legitimate question of "what the hell?" And the raising of the question should not invite whining from the camp purporting to be led by a man who stands on transparency, honesty, and courage.

 

You are false, there wee rush to choose a VP and they new what her background was and what dirt the Obama attack dogs would go after. She was chosen as a VP candidate based on her ,resume, economic and reform issues. Issues and resume is something the Obama camp is missing but people can cast a vote for any reason, no thought process is needed.

 

I got a laugh out of the commercial out showing Palin as opposing the 'bridge to nowhere'
Where is the info that she was for it 'before' she flip flopped to be against it, and where is the info that even after she was against it she still accepted the money for other reasons?

Don't companies have to be truthful in advertising? Why don't politicians?

 

I love watching all the youtube ads on Obama. Are you guys sure Obama has a degree from Harvard? I always thought Harvard Alumni were pretty sharp. He canot decide which side of the debates to straddle.

 

Speaking of straddling two sides, I was just watching the Obama/Oreilly interview on youtube and found this gem in related vids showing mainly Fox news analysts flip flop to support Palin.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=JgzGSJvCOZ-2qAOXtMmIDw&q=Bill+O'reilly&vt=lf

 

Excellent clip

 

That is a great clip. I loved it

 

made my day.
people please wake up. fix your party and come back in four years.
the change that we need must be made in the republican party.

 

The dems are worst off than the republicans.

 

Have no idea what the hell "you are false, there wee rush to choose a VP and they new" means, but you can repeat yourself as much as you'd like, Homebiz, and simply pursue your usual tactic of "you're wrong" without any cogency whatsoever, at your pleasure. The fact remains she was chosen from a phone call 6 months ago, and, when it was apparent there would be a party firestorm at the RNC convention over McCain's first choice of Lieberman, he did an 11th hour selection - not knowing many, many significant lapses in Palin's record - not the least of which, is her record of slaking her state's thirst on federal pork, her public lies notwithstanding.

 

There were no rush to pick her and the process took more than 15 minutes. Your thread title is misleading and I have used more than you're wrong. McCain did a complete background check and even knew of her daughter's pregnancy.

He picked her for her economic ideas and action that she has had as Governing. Action you remember what that is, correct?, getting something done instead of just talking about it, tarting a pipeline instead of doing nothing. Not at all an 11th hour selection as stated by the left.

 

there is a bridge on sale here in new york

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainveep30-2008aug30,0,923381.story

Guess Hazelbaker and Black, McCain advisors, are lying then, Biz?

Please show me, where?

Guess the other stuff, particularly the Sarah "Love that federal pork" mayor ($27 million/6500 Population) and Guv ($100's of millions pocketed for a bridge she ran on, then abandoned when expedient, yet pocketed the dough. Maintains to this day the highest pork-per-capita in the Union. Priceless) must have been A-OK with John "Anti-Earmarks" McCain. This is what you're saying, then?

http://www.theage.com.au/world/hasty-selection-forced-on-mccain-20080902-4815.html?page=-1

I'm sure it's just an aussie rag, thoroughly biased in its reporting. Although, there is that pesky issue of Sarah Palin herself being surprised, having no contact since the 15 minute meeting from 6 months earlier:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-vetting3-2008sep03,0,4884389.story

So were a lot of people, apparently.

 

You can't twist the facts.. If you have a problem with women then that fine. Biden and Obama voted for it, Palin killed your little bridge...

 

HAHAHAH. Yep, that's got to be it. I hate women. Brilliant reply, in lieu of anything resembling an answer.

 

maybe not as good as republicans.

 

What does that mean?

 

He means you are a diabolical wordsmith.