Sarah Palin?

[SuzySunshine]

Re: Sarah Palin?

If the "historic vote" was McCain's goal there are many more qualified woman in the republican party that he could have selected.

Palin ran for her first office in 1992, so while she has only been governor for a year and a half she's been involved with politics for 16 years, Barack wasn't even elected to the IL senate until 1997, his first race. She may only have 1 1/2 years of executive experience but thats 1 1/2 years more then Obama. Oh wait, she's not running against Obama.

I'm pretty sure just like any job, government positions are at will, you serve at the pleasure of the person in charge. If she wanted to fire the Public Safety Commission I'm pretty sure that's her right.

She appears to me to be just another corrupt, small-time politician who got a break simply because of her gender.

This is the 2nd time I've heard someone call her corrupt since her selection. Corrupt for what? So what if she got the oil companies to pay back some money to her state, it went to the residents not her. When she took office she sold the million dollar jet the former governor was running around in and put them money back in the budget. I'd like someone to tell me what she is corrupt for.

She initially supported the "bridge to nowhere" but backed down when it became a national disgrace.

I'm pretty sure most politicians have changed their minds more then once. Maybe instead of ridiculing her for this one people should point the finger at the senator that originally requested the pork barrel spending, oh right he's being investigated for fraud.

Someone said earlier in this thread or in some other thread that we'll never elect a woman to pres or VP because woman can't come together behind one. I'm not saying everyone should get behind her just because she's a female - I don't think any votes should be placed based on race, religion, etc. But the things she's being picked apart for would never be an issue if McCain had picked a male governor with the same experience.

Re: Sarah Palin?

I'm pretty sure just like any job, government positions are at will, you serve at the pleasure of the person in charge. If she wanted to fire the Public Safety Commission I'm pretty sure that's her right.

From the one blurb I read about that, if her ex-bil did taser his 11 year old, I think he should be fired or severely reprimanded. If his boss doesn't care of it, then the boss should be dealt with. It doesn't sound like that big a deal to me unless she is making up stuff about the ex-bil.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Sarah Palin?

Someone said earlier in this thread or in some other thread that we'll never elect a woman to pres or VP because woman can't come together behind one. I'm not saying everyone should get behind her just because she's a female - I don't think any votes should be placed based on race, religion, etc. But the things she's being picked apart for would never be an issue if McCain had picked a male governor with the same experience.

It sounds like you're saying we should elect her to be VP because she is a woman. I know you then back up and say it's not what you're saying. But, that is what it looks like from your first sentence.

Let's evaluate her just like we would a man: She has no business experience. She has little government experience - and that is almost entirely in a miniature, rural setting. She hasn't even served full term as a governor. She doesn't know what being vice-president means (Hello, Dan Quayle all over again!). She has no real accomplishments beyond happening into a lucky election situation.

She's simply there to take away the "historic" aspect of Obama's vote. She's a token. And, as a woman I find that offensive.

And, in the little time she has had in office if she is already under an ethics investigation and has been sued for political firings then that tells me she is, indeed, a "barracuda" interested in winning and getting her way at all costs - ethics be damned. She has a history of dismissing entire committees and filling them back up with people who will only do exactly as she wants. That's not a maverick. That's someone who wants to be surrounded by yes men.

Ask yourself this: Do you want her to be your president? She is one stroke away from that spot if McCain is elected. Is she really the most qualified person in our nation to be a heart attack away from the presidency? Really? Because THAT is what she should be evaluated on. And, I find her lacking.

She has less experience than Obama. Anyone who didn't want to vote for Obama because of his lack of experience is now in a real pickle because the person who would be a heart beat away from the presidency has even less experience - and definitely the least foreign policy experience of the entire crew.

I'm disappointed in this entire election. The take-home message is that you can be a woman or ethnic minority and run for pres or veep - but only if you have an old white guy as your partner. This isn't historic. This is shameful. Obama has to get some old white guy in order to appear to be more serious and experienced. And, the other old white guy gets a younger, hot chick to run with him in order to come off as not the same as all the other old white guys. I get so tired of hearing that this is historic.

And, yeah, at this point I'm steamed. It's the first time I have felt like there were no good leaders among the major parties candidates. So, I now get to "throw away" my vote by voting for the Libertarian candidate.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Sarah Palin?

Yes, this is how I feel: :badday: :banghead:

[SuzySunshine]

Re: Sarah Palin?

It sounds like you're saying we should elect her to be VP because she is a woman.

As usual, not what I said. In another thread there was a discussion about how Hillary was criticized for showing emotion. I'm not talking about Governor Palin's experience that people are criticizing. I'm talking about the fact that she went back to work 3 days after having a special needs child and specific female comments like that.

Politicians should be taken task on their stances and their POLITICAL experience. I get that she has very little and for most people that's a sticking point - fine, don't vote for her. But don't judge her on female issues that a male candidate wouldn't be judged on.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Sarah Palin?

It sounds like you're saying we should elect her to be VP because she is a woman.

As usual, not what I said. In another thread there was a discussion about how Hillary was criticized for showing emotion. I'm not talking about Governor Palin's experience that people are criticizing. I'm talking about the fact that she went back to work 3 days after having a special needs child and specific female comments like that.

Politicians should be taken task on their stances and their POLITICAL experience. I get that she has very little and for most people that's a sticking point - fine, don't vote for her. But don't judge her on female issues that a male candidate wouldn't be judged on.

Thanks for clarifying that.

I agree that those are not reasons to vote for or against her ticket.

And, she does need to be examined on a genderless basis. Definitely.

But, part of what bothers me about McCain's choice is that I think he chose her based entirely on her gender. We can examine her as we would a male candidate but if she was chosen because of her gender that is equally wrong to me.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Sarah Palin?

As usual, not what I said.

BTW, Could you explain this?

[SuzySunshine]

Re: Sarah Palin?

As usual, not what I said.

BTW, Could you explain this?

Oh come on, you like to pick one little half sentence out of people's arguments and twist them to serve your purpose that is why most members on this sight won't debate you anymore, its not worth it.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Sarah Palin?

Sarah Palin says she doesn't know what a V.P. does

It's really not so shocking...there are only two Constitutionally recognized duties of a VP: assume the office of the President upon the President's death or incapacitation, and serve as Pres Pro Tem of the Senate.

Honestly, everything outside of those two duties is made up as you go along. Every VP has had different responsibilities.

[Sheherezade]

Re: Sarah Palin?

No personal comments, please. Stick to topic and keep personal matters to PMs.

:adminpower: :adminpower:

This has been a great, civilized debate. Let's not ruin it now.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Sarah Palin?

Someone said earlier in this thread or in some other thread that we'll never elect a woman to pres or VP because woman can't come together behind one. I'm not saying everyone should get behind her just because she's a female - I don't think any votes should be placed based on race, religion, etc. But the things she's being picked apart for would never be an issue if McCain had picked a male governor with the same experience.

It sounds like you're saying we should elect her to be VP because she is a woman. I know you then back up and say it's not what you're saying. But, that is what it looks like from your first sentence.

Let's evaluate her just like we would a man: She has no business experience. She has little government experience - and that is almost entirely in a miniature, rural setting. She hasn't even served full term as a governor. She doesn't know what being vice-president means (Hello, Dan Quayle all over again!). She has no real accomplishments beyond happening into a lucky election situation.

She's simply there to take away the "historic" aspect of Obama's vote. She's a token. And, as a woman I find that offensive.

Respectfully, I would suggest that your analysis is a little harsh. To be fair, I wouldn't described the Governor of one of the most important states, from an energy perspective, as a token, regardless of how long she's served. AK and its oil power isn't some backwoods, no-money, rinky-dink operation. These are big dollars with big influence. Before being Gov, she has served on the AK commission overseeing the production/regulation of oil in the State...and she cleaned it up. AK state politics, esp. where oil is concerned, has been very corrupt. When she called out the corruption, she got no internal support from the then-Gov, so she resigned and ran on her own for Gov and won. And, despite the allegations related to her BIL's employment situation--which have gone nowhere thus far--she has a very good reputation in her home state for being a real ethics reformer, in a state that had badly needed it for a long time.

The fact that she wasn't well known to most Americans before yesterday speaks more to Americans' ignorance than her lack of accomplishment. If it's not Gov. Arnold, Gov. Rudy, or Gov. Crist, (and maybe Gov. Jindal), they've never heard of them. Bill Kristol, a conservative commentor and editorialist, noticed her long ago and has been suggesting her as a solid, "reform-minded" VP pick.

Her limited experience aside, I am not sure that I would write off that experience which she has as de minimis in terms of substance.

She has less experience than Obama.

Neither have a lot as an elected official, but she has more in terms executive experience (the Pres/VP position is executive, not legislative).

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Sarah Palin?

No personal comments, please. Stick to topic and keep personal matters to PMs.

:adminpower: :adminpower:

This has been a great, civilized debate. Let's not ruin it now.

Was this directed to me? I'm sorry--I didn't mean my previous comment to be personal... I was just suggesting that the VP job is not a particularly well-developed one, from a Constitutional perspective.

[Sheherezade]

Re: Sarah Palin?

She also has more executive experience than McCain....but I wouldn't want the ticket reversed. I'm not sure how much credence I (personally) give to the whole "executive experience vs. legislative experience". We've always elected people with experience running a state during my lifetime and I'm not that concerned about giving a senator a chance. People like to kick Carter - and he was a Gov. So was Bush. Meh.

As for the AK gov experience, I guess my concern is that it is a limited time in a state that is very different from most of the USA *and* that it is small. AK Pop. = 800,000? NYC pop = 8 million. :huh:

I'd like a pres that has been around a bit. She grew up in a small AK town, went on to its city council in her twenties and then was elected mayor of the same town - her own hometown. The population she governed = 8,000 people with similar concerns. Now she has had 20 months of experience governing a larger population with some varying issues -- but I'm not sure she is ready to UNITE this country. As a native Floridian turned New Yorker turned Philadelphian turned Baltimore resident turned Boston resident turned small town Ohio mom, I'm looking for someone more worldly and experienced as a leader. AK small government and even governership seems too limited, too regional. I'd be happy with McCain in this regard. He's dealt with all types and is familiar with the values and desires of many of the corners of this country. I don't agree with many of his policies, so my vote won't go there. If I did plan to vote for him, this choice would give me pause because 1) smells like pandering 2) lack of national/international experience 3) McCain's age ( and four times battle with cancer) is a real risk in my mind.



JMHO.

ETA: No, not you GMW.

Re: Sarah Palin?

And if picking her is pandering, well, that is pretty much what politicians do. To think otherwise is a joke, both sides do it. :huh: And truly, if he picked her and Hillary was on the democratic ticket they would have said it was pandering too.

Absolutely. Picking a VP for electoral college reasons, fill-the-perceived-void reasons, whatever the reason - it's what is done!

I was shocked to learn that McCain had only met her 1 time before though, in February 2008. All discussions between then and Sunday happened through his campaign manager. On Sunday Palin & McCain had a phone call, and on Thursday she arrived at the McCain home where he offered her the job. Obviously I don't know how vetting normally works - but I'd be shocked if that's how it normally occurs.

Re: Sarah Palin?

I would be floored if they set her up to step down. If they're pandering to women voters, the idea that the GOP won't "back her up" (over whatever issue) would just infuriate them more.

I've been thinking Harriet Miers pretty much since day 2, but not in any other way than "wouldn't have been the pick if she weren't a woman" and "I'm SURE there are more qualified women out there."

I have no doubt that she's an intelligent, capable woman - but I know LOTS of intelligent, capable men & women who aren't qualified to be President.