The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain on Friday announced Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate, calling her "the running mate who can best help me shake up Washington."

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin hugs Sen. John McCain at a rally Friday in Dayton, Ohio, announcing her selection.

"She's exactly who this country needs to help me fight the same old Washington politics of me first and country second," the presumptive Republican nominee said at a Dayton, Ohio, rally of about 15,000 supporters, who welcomed the surprise pick of the relatively unknown politician with cheers and flags.

"She's got the grit, integrity, good sense and fierce devotion to the common good that is exactly what we need in Washington today," McCain said.

Palin, 44, described herself as a fighter against corruption and a bipartisan reformer in her first appearance as a candidate for vice president, an office she said she never expected to seek.

"I was just your average hockey mom in Alaska" before getting involved in politics, she said. "When I found corruption there, I fought it hard and brought the offenders to account."

Palin told the crowd, "To have been chosen brings a great challenge. I know that it will demand the best that I have to give and I promise nothing less." Watch Palin say she's honored to be picked »

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/ ... index.html

Well, there's the woman the Democraps were clamoring for.

She's not that bad looking either....well....looks better than Hillary either way

Cappster wrote:She's not that bad looking either....well....looks better than Hillary either way

The big picture, Cappster. Focus. Her husband is in oil.
She has less political experience than I do.
This is not who we want backing a 72 year old man with one foot on the proverbial banana peel ...

I didn't think it was possible for McCain to hand the election back to Obama, but I think he just gave away half of his own party's votes.
There is nothing conservative or traditional about this choice.

By the way, I hate both politicial parties equally, so this isn't a shot strictly at the Republicans so much as a "What was McCain thinking?"

Cappster wrote:She's not that bad looking either....well....looks better than Hillary either way

That's a pretty low bar to set for beauty standards.

Cappster wrote:She's not that bad looking either....well....looks better than Hillary either way

Well, I'm aghast, aghast I tell you that your first thought is to consider her looks over her value as a person and candidate for office. Simply shameful. Oh, sorry Cappster, I was talking to myself again.

You're right you know. Then there are some MEN who look better then Hillary. As to her politics, I know NOTHING about them. That she's a Republican seriously makes me doubt she's a fiscal Conservative though. Just slowing the train to socialism a little is not "fiscal Conservatism."

GSPODS wrote:

Cappster wrote:She's not that bad looking either....well....looks better than Hillary either way

The big picture, Cappster. Focus. Her husband is in oil.
She has less political experience than I do.
This is not who we want backing a 72 year old man with one foot on the proverbial banana peel ...

I didn't think it was possible for McCain to hand the election back to Obama, but I think he just gave away half of his own party's votes.
There is nothing conservative or traditional about this choice.

By the way, I hate both politicial parties equally, so this isn't a shot strictly at the Republicans so much as a "What was McCain thinking?"

I thought it was a clever move. Democrats are running the "first black president" ticket. The Republicans can run the "first woman vice president" ticket. I know nothing about her political stance and it really doesn't matter, because I won't be voting for McCain (or Obama). I made the correct call when I said she wasn't bad looking. I am, after all, a man and that is usually a knee jerk reaction when I see a female. Kazoo jokingly admitted checking her out before asking for her credentials.

Young / Now

Cappster wrote:Young / Now

She's got kind of a Stockard Channing thing going on:

Cappster wrote:Democrats are running the "first black president" ticket. The Republicans can run the "first woman vice president" ticket.

Geraldine Ferraro?

JSPB22 wrote:

Cappster wrote:Democrats are running the "first black president" ticket. The Republicans can run the "first woman vice president" ticket.

Geraldine Ferraro?

Gerri was the first woman vice president candidate... There has yet to be a "first woman vice president".

Countertrey wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Cappster wrote:Democrats are running the "first black president" ticket. The Republicans can run the "first woman vice president" ticket.

Geraldine Ferraro?

Gerri was the first woman vice president candidate... There has yet to be a "first woman vice president".

Bush Sr.?

He said "ticket."

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Cappster wrote:Democrats are running the "first black president" ticket. The Republicans can run the "first woman vice president" ticket.

Geraldine Ferraro?

Gerri was the first woman vice president candidate... There has yet to be a "first woman vice president".

Bush Sr.?

He said "ticket."

Since there has been no woman vice president, what I said was correct. I didn't say "first woman vice presidential nominee."

Cappster wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Cappster wrote:Democrats are running the "first black president" ticket. The Republicans can run the "first woman vice president" ticket.

Geraldine Ferraro?

Gerri was the first woman vice president candidate... There has yet to be a "first woman vice president".

Bush Sr.?

He said "ticket."

Since there has been no woman vice president, what I said was correct. I didn't say "first woman vice presidential nominee."

No, you said "first woman vice president" ticket.
Modale/Ferraro was the first. So what you said was not correct. No big deal, but don't try to change history. The quote is there for all to see.

JSPB22 wrote:

Cappster wrote:Since there has been no woman vice president, what I said was correct. I didn't say "first woman vice presidential nominee."

No, you said "first woman vice president" ticket.
Modale/Ferraro was the first. So what you said was not correct. No big deal, but don't try to change history. The quote is there for all to see.

The beauty of the ever ambiguous English language. You're both right. You can read his statement to mean:

- The first woman ON a ticket

- The ticket to elect the first woman to be the Vice-President. Even though to your point there was a woman on a ticket before, she lost. So this is still a ticket to elect the first woman Vice-President.

You know me, always looking for common ground! Defusing disagreement! The kind and gentle Kazoo! But seriously, it can be read either way.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Cappster wrote:Since there has been no woman vice president, what I said was correct. I didn't say "first woman vice presidential nominee."

No, you said "first woman vice president" ticket.
Modale/Ferraro was the first. So what you said was not correct. No big deal, but don't try to change history. The quote is there for all to see.

The beauty of the ever ambiguous English language. You're both right. You can read his statement to mean:

- The first woman ON a ticket

- The ticket to elect the first woman to be the Vice-President. Even though to your point there was a woman on a ticket before, she lost. So this is still a ticket to elect the first woman Vice-President.

You know me, always looking for common ground! Defusing disagreement! The kind and gentle Kazoo! But seriously, it can be read either way.

Not really, because the first sentence states Obama is the first black candidate ticket, and as far as I know he hasn't been elected yet.

JSPB22 wrote:Not really, because the first sentence states Obama is the first black candidate ticket, and as far as I know he hasn't been elected yet.

Actually that works in reverse too.

- The Democrats have the ticket to elect the first black President
- The Republicans have the ticket to elect the first woman Vice-President

The way you're reading it's not wrong, English is ambiguous that way, that was my only point. Can't we all just get along?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Not really, because the first sentence states Obama is the first black candidate ticket, and as far as I know he hasn't been elected yet.

Actually that works in reverse too.

- The Democrats have the ticket to elect the first black President
- The Republicans have the ticket to elect the first woman Vice-President

The way you're reading it's not wrong, English is ambiguous that way, that was my only point. Can't we all just get along?

Kazoo is that you? This is probably the first time you've actually tried to settle a disagreement. Anyway, it think you explained it best on what I meant by what I said.

Cappster wrote:Kazoo is that you? This is probably the first time you've actually tried to settle a disagreement

Just keeping you off balance!

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Not really, because the first sentence states Obama is the first black candidate ticket, and as far as I know he hasn't been elected yet.

Actually that works in reverse too.

- The Democrats have the ticket to elect the first black President
- The Republicans have the ticket to elect the first woman Vice-President

The way you're reading it's not wrong, English is ambiguous that way, that was my only point. Can't we all just get along?

Wonderful, but the word elect is nowhere in his statement. And the Dems ran the first ticket to elect a female VP, anyway. Just because it didn't happen, doesn't change that. He got it wrong. No big deal, like I said. I'll drop it now, it's not really that interesting.

Presidential scholars say Palin appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era.

GSPODS wrote:{Liberal} Presidential scholars {ignoring Obama's zero experience running anything} say Palin {out of the self serving desire to deflect Obama's record}appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party {aka, the Republican} ticket in the modern {aka, the period required to make their pre-determined point} era.

Wow,

Obama #1
Palin #2.

She's a Governor, Obama's done NOTHING. At least she doesn't head the ticket. Personally that's not the issue to me though, that would be Obama Bin Ladin's Marxism and desire to appease terrorists. I oppose the war out of pro-Americanism, a totally different thing. But I do like the liberal media harping on "experience" of the Republican VICE Presidential nomination. God Bless the New Media, we now have the monopoly of the Left over information at an end. Wow, multiple points of view! What a concept.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:{Liberal} Presidential scholars {ignoring Obama's zero experience running anything} say Palin {out of the self serving desire to deflect Obama's record}appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party {aka, the Republican} ticket in the modern {aka, the period required to make their pre-determined point} era.

Wow,

Obama #1
Palin #2.

She's a Governor, Obama's done NOTHING. At least she doesn't head the ticket. Personally that's not the issue to me though, that would be Obama Bin Ladin's Marxism and desire to appease terrorists. I oppose the war out of pro-Americanism, a totally different thing. But I do like the liberal media harping on "experience" of the Republican VICE Presidential nomination. God Bless the New Media, we now have the monopoly of the Left over information at an end. Wow, multiple points of view! What a concept.

The McCain Campaign just released this statement:

"The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of Vice President. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Governor Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Senator McCain."

Here's the full article. Palin is very weak on experience. Weaker than even Obama or Agnew:

Politico

GSPODS wrote:Here's the full article. Palin is very weak on experience. Weaker than even Obama or Agnew:

Politico

First of all, it's not possible to be "weaker" then Obama. How can you have less then no political experience? He just found the men's room in the Capitol building. At least she's run something for 2 years. Or are you saying Governors of backwater States like Alaska and ARKANSAS should be rejected out of hand? Funny how experience suddenly becomes an issue for you libs only when it applies to Republicans. So what is your point? You were hoping to have an "experienced" politician? As if they've done such a great job running this country? Which is a huge part of the problem. Politicians WANT to run the country. We need the government to STOP trying to do that and the way to get that is term limits. I would limit Senators to one term and Representatives to 3. 12 years in Congress is plenty for anyone. Beyond that it IS a career and we need to stop having Congress BE a career.

Being a career politician is being a sell out because that's the only way you make it work. We need more people with less political experience. Political hacks of both parties are what's causing our issues with energy, socialism, oil, personal responsibility, ... Political experience has nothing to do with my opposition to Obama. I have no opinion yet on Palin because I don't know what she stands for. But sakes alive, oppose her because she's not been a politician long enough to sell out yet? Why would I do that?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Here's the full article. Palin is very weak on experience. Weaker than even Obama or Agnew:

Politico

First of all, it's not possible to be "weaker" then Obama. How can you have less then no political experience? He just found the men's room in the Capitol building. At least she's run something for 2 years. Or are you saying Governors of backwater States like Alaska and ARKANSAS should be rejected out of hand? Funny how experience suddenly becomes an issue for you libs only when it applies to Republicans. So what is your point? You were hoping to have an "experienced" politician? As if they've done such a great job running this country?

Being a career politician is being a sell out because that's the only way you make it work. We need more people with less political experience. Political hacks of both parties are what's causing our issues with energy, socialism, oil, personal responsibility, ... Political experience has nothing to do with my opposition to Obama. I have no opinion yet on Palin because I don't know what she stands for. But sakes alive, oppose her because she's not been a politician long enough to sell out yet? Why would I do that?

What's with the "you libs" remark?
I haven't taken a position either way, and I didn't write the article.
I wanted to see what other people's reactions would be to McCain's choice. So far, we've gotten commentary about Palin's looks compared with Clinton and Ferraro, and argument of facts not in evidence. I also posted the McCain camp's response, so it should be obvious I haven't taken sides in the debate.

As of this very moment, I don't particularly care for either option. I haven't convinced myself that voting for any 2008 candidate is a good exercise of the right. I'd like some other opinions so that maybe someone will convince me one way or the other. Name-calling, yet another form of politics as usual, certainly isn't going to convince me of anything.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:liberal media

Your political posts always seem level-headed and logical until you drop this phrase in. That the main-stream media in this country has a liberal slant is a patently ridiculous idea.