The Respectfully Republican Conversation

saluki · August 2008

Okay the attack machine is already at it so here is a little from American Thinker

--------------------------------

August 29, 2008
Defending Against the First Attacks on Sarah Palin
By Patrick J. Casey
As John McCain has shocked pretty much everybody with his pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, it's important to prepare for the attacks on her that will be launched, starting this afternoon, by the Democrats and the media. For attack they will, relentlessly. And they'll start with these three things:

First - "Palin has no experience". That's an easy one to dismiss. Sarah Palin has had more executive experience, meaning experience in running either a business or a government, than either Barack Obama or his running mate, Joe Biden. She has more executive experience than even her running mate, John McCain. Governor Palin served as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska from 1999 to 2002. She was elected as President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. She was elected as Governor of Alaska in 2006. And she has quite a few concrete achievements, considering the amount of time she's been in office.

Second - "Palin's part of the corrupt GOP establishment in Alaska (Stevens, Young, etc.)". That's an even easier one to dismiss. Governor Palin has always run as the anti-corruption candidate. She served as Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004, when she resigned in protest over the actions of her fellow Alaskan GOP leaders, including then-Alaskan Governor Frank Murkowski. She was furious over the fact that they ignored her reports of rampant GOP corruption. When she chose to run for Governor, the GOP establishment ignored her and supported the incumbent Murkowski. Palin beat him, and went on to beat former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles with no support from Alaskan GOP leadership. She has actively supported and helped the GOP primary opponents of current indicted Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young, and denounced both of them often in public.

Oh, and the forthcoming claim that Palin's in the pocket of big-oil? Her ethics complaints were filed against people who really were in the pocket of big oil - she was on the outside, investigating.

Third - "Palin used her position as Governor to get back at the man whom her sister was divorcing, and fired the man who refused to fire her sister's ex-husband". This is the slimiest attack that the Democrats and the media will launch. It concerns a current investigation into allegations that Governor Palin fired former Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan because he would not bend to her will.

When Palin fired Monegan, her office gave no reason for her decision. As the Commissioner serves at the discretion of the Governor, no reason is needed. In an effort to save his job and get back at the person who fired him, Monegan claimed that he was fired because he would not fire an Alaskan State Trooper, Michael Wooten, who was going through a messy divorce with Palin's sister. Recently, the Associated Press ran an article about some tapes that surfaced regarding phone calls made by some of Palin's staff worried about Wooten - and worried about the safety of the Palin family:

    JUNEAU, Alaska - Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday said at least two dozens calls were made from her staff members to Department of Public Safety officials questioning the employment of a trooper who went through a messy divorce with Palin's sister.

    But Palin maintained none was done at her direction, a claim backed up by one administration member caught on tape.

    ...The Palins have accused Wooten of drunken driving, illegal hunting and firing a Taser at his 11-year-old stepson, Palin's nephew. These allegations led to an internal investigation, which occurred before she ran for governor.

    Todd Palin has said the family was concerned about the governor's safety, claiming Wooten threatened to kill Sarah Palin's father and made vague threats to her. Todd Palin has said he took concerns about Wooten directly to Monegan.

So, the tapes seem to prove that Governor Palin was unaware that anyone from her office was aware of this, which should take care of questions about Palin's possible complicity. But we should go past that, and look at the facts of the entire situation. Even if this investigation shows that someone in Palin's office did pressure the Public Safety Commissioner to fire Wooten, this is a fight that we should relish having with the white male hierarchy of the Democratic Party and the drive-by media. Let's get all of the dirt about Wooten out in the open. Show that the police union and the Commissioner were protecting him, and then ask why? What would any American do, if faced with the same situation - an overt threat to their family?

Over the years, many of the allegations against Wooten - including the fact that he Tasered Palin's sister's 10 year old son and threatened the life of Palin's father - have turned out to be true:

    Grimes suspended Wooten for 10 days. He also was punished for illegally shooting a moose and using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson. The trooper admitted to using the Taser on his stepson in a "training capacity" and said he shot a moose on his wife's tag, but didn't think the act was illegal.

    ...Wall's investigation did find that Wooten threatened Palin's sister, Molly McCann, with shooting her father if he hired a lawyer to represent her. Wooten denied making the statement, but Palin, McCann and Palin's son all confirmed that he did.

    Wall said the act wasn't a crime because Palin's father was not present when Wooten made the statement.

Who the heck uses a Taser on a 10 year old kid!? It appears as if Wooten's gotten off scott-free so far, and it's those that are protecting him that should be ashamed. And once the facts of the entire situation come out, the voters will largely agree. I can't wait until Keith Olbermann attempts to use this!

Read as much as you can about Sarah Palin. Her story is remarkable and inspiring. She's about as solid a conservative as you can find right now. There will be many attacks on her launched in the media over the next 60 plus days, primarily because she is such an excellent pick for McCain. A suggestion - don't rely on the ads or the pundits, go to the Internet and read the original source material. Then launch a counter-attack, armed with the facts.

When this year's Presidential campaign started, shortly after the 2006 elections, I felt that this would be the last of the old-guard GOP elections. Regardless of who wins this election, I felt that 2012 and beyond would belong to the likes of Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. As a matter of fact, I was kind of rooting for a one-term McCain Presidency followed by a Jindal-Palin or a Palin-Jindal ticket.

I'm pleased that the future of the GOP is coming a little early.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/defending_against_the_first_at.html at August 29, 2008 - 07:26:30 PM EDT

Naniam · August 2008

Ladies, Want to ask if any of you saw on MSNBC today this

BREAKING NEWS

How many homes will Palin add to Republician ticket

ibcspouse · August 2008

Experience:\

Gov. Palin has made billion dollar decisions on taxes, budgets, rebates, gas lines and cuting pork.

B O made a bargain buy of a million dollar house, and even he admits he used bad judgement.

Naniam · August 2008

Ladies,

Am wondering if any of you saw this on MSNBC today -

BREAKING NEWS: How many homes will Palin add to ticket (I may not have the exact words but it was under breaking news and made that snide comments)

As a female that just makes my blood boil - now what was BREAKING NEWS about that remark?

I wish every female in the US would email and demand an apology and demand to know why that comment was necessary under breaking news. It was demeaning to her nomination of a VP pick.

saluki · August 2008

Demeaning????? You should have heard Paul Begala on CNN--a political pundit and Soros associate---- laughing about her poise, composure and speaking ability attributing it to being a beauty pageant contestant.......Infuriating and its going to backfire on them----

The Democratic party may have let them get away with it and encouraged it but I think the Republicans will show them as overplaying their hand.

saluki · August 2008

Since I no longer watch MSNBC I didn't see it but maybe some of you did.......If it is true someone has lost control of that station.......

I'm hearing on Countdown Michael Moore said this.....

He said Gustav was a sign that there is a God because it's going to make landfall at the start of the RNC.

Unbelievable!!!!!!

Naniam · August 2008

I am not surprised by anything he says. Chemo brain has kicked in and can't remember Jack's last name on CNN but it starts with a "C" but he really came after her too. He said the Rep. were finished by nominating her, etc. I didn't watch Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman on MSNBC tonight but I can only imagine they were just as bad as Paul Begala.

I''m still excited

saluki · August 2008

Naniam

Was it Jack McCafferty?----I heard he was having a tantrum as well.....

There is a C there. Wink LOL

I'll be curious to see how Lou Dobbs handles this Monday..............

saluki · August 2008

New tactic-----Just in case you can't scare everyone threatening the overthrow of Roe vs Wade in every sentence--let's see how many times we can say the word CANCER within 2 minutes................. Honest-- I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't of seen it...............SNL could have done a skit on it-----they probably will----truly bizarre.

Anonymous · August 2008

O'Reilly showed MSNBC's little "breaking news" thingy. Here it is. O'Reilly was livid! Yeah, Olberman and Rachael Maddow (whoever she is) are trashing her. I found it on YouTube, but won't post it here. I hate to post the trash for everyone to see (if you know what I mean) instead of doing some homework before making a judgment. In the video below you can see what O'Reilly is talking about...don't even have to do your homework. Sickening!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j239jGvfVrU

Anonymous · August 2008

The dems are scrambling. They're mad that today's announcement disrupted Obama's "spectacle." I can't wait to see what all they start accusing her of. I've sneaked on some other sites (secrets are best when whispered..I'm whispering) and it's quite laughable. Let's talk about Ayers, Rezko, the "boneheaded" (Obama's adjective about what he did) decision to buy the lot next door to him from Rezko's wife. I wonder why he called it "boneheaded."

This should be a very interesting next couple of months.

I do wish they'd put off the convention until this horrible storm passes. I so hope Louisiana gets spared from a disastrous storm like they had three years ago. I am glad they are making evacuation plans now though.

Shirley

I must go to bed now. I can't stay up past three like I did this morning.

Anonymous · August 2008

I wonder how many houses Oprah has? LOL

Good nite!

SherriM · August 2008

I think another one of the attack angles they're going to use is that it is just a stunt to get the women's vote. I heard Bob Beckel on one of the Fox shows (chemo brain set in and can't remember which one) blurt out "Does anyone seriously believe she'd be on the ticket if she wasn't a woman? I mean, how stupid do they think women are?". Uh....huh? Like Hillary didn't almost get where she got cause she is a woman? Or worse, cause she's married to Bill? But I digress.

It's not like Palin just showed up on McCain's short list last week when BO didn't pick Hillary. She's been on the list for months. And McCain didn't have to wait until this week for BO to not pick Hillary--it's been known for months that BO wasn't going to pick Hillary. I think this idea that last week when BO didn't pick Hillary, John McCain slapped his forehead and said--"hey, I know! Lets pick a woman and get all those women's votes!" is a media/pundit created myth.

I think more than just being a woman on the ticket, she serves him in the two primary ways that he needs: 1, she solidifies the conservative base--they're stoked. 2, she reflects and exemplifies his 'maverick' status, which is what he needs with moderates/independents. I think she's been on his short short list for a long time. That she is a woman is just icing on the cake, as far as I can see.

I think it's going to be an interesting 2 months!!!

McCain Kiss Palin 2008

ibcspouse · August 2008

top 5 reasons McCain picked

5. Had a nice 5 bedroom house to rent

4 Needed some one close that could change diapers

3 Since agreeing to Public Financing could only pay VP 77% of full pay

2 Needed someone that could beat OB in basketball

1 Cindy won't let him hire intern for oval office

I love this pick. The more the dems attack, the more fear they have. Bugala questioned JMc patrotism saying how could he choose politics over the security of his country. I guess he is saying if you elect someone with limited experiance, you put the country at risk. Gee would have thought someone could have mentioned that at the DNC.

saluki · August 2008

By the way if any of you guys wondered why Dems like James Carville and they folks at MSNBC were trying to connect Palin to Buchanan and why they'd be repeating it over and over----

Simple ---Those little old Jewish ladies in Florida.....The ones who accidently voted for Buchanan instead of Gore because of his placement on the ballot........Believe me--- this is not the name they want to hear....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Palin_on_Israel.html

From AllahPundit at Hot Air

"Update: A crucial news bulletin: Palin never actually donated to Buchanan but may have been at a fundraiser for him 12 years ago. Ergo, she hates Jews. I literally laughed aloud at the thought of Chris Matthews trying to paint her as a hatemonger with the hatemonger-in-chief sitting right across from him on his own show."

saluki · August 2008

By the way here is what Factcheck.org has to say about the Obama speech:

FactChecking Obama

August 29, 2008

He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.

Summary

We checked the accuracy of Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination, and noted the following:

Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.

He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.
He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."

Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would "tax people’s benefits" but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.
He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.

Analysis

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accepted his party's nomination Aug. 28, speaking before more than 84,000 people in Denver's Mile High football stadium. Some of his comments were worthy of a ref's yellow flag.

Not Quite Every Dime

Obama reassured voters that he can pay for all his spending proposals:

Obama: Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow.

This is misleading. Even by his own campaign’s estimates, closing corporate loopholes and tax havens won’t pay for all of Obama’s new plans. In July, the campaign told the Los Angeles Times that they estimate the yearly cost of their proposed tax cuts at $130 billion. They put revenue from closing tax loopholes at just $80 billion. Obama also proposes to raise taxes to pre-Bush levels for families earning more than $250,000 a year and singles making more than $200,000, yielding additional revenue. But he didn't mention that in his speech.

But Obama’s claim is misleading on another level. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, "without substantial cuts in government spending" Obama’s plan – and McCain's, too – "would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor told FactCheck.org that the Tax Policy Center's analysis "fails to take in account Senator Obama's spending cuts, including ending the Iraq war." That's true, but Obama's proposed cuts are dwarfed by the Tax Policy Center's projected deficits. Obama’s new spending programs might be completely offset by new revenue and spending cuts. But overall spending will still exceed overall revenue, and the nation would face at least 10 more years of annual deficits.

Afghan Muddle

Obama twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, incorrectly implying that McCain saw no need for more troops there.

Obama: When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11

Actually, McCain said in 2003 that the U.S. "may" muddle through, not that we obama_convention

could or would. He also said he was very concerned about a rise in al Qaeda activity there. He said then that he was "guardedly optimistic" that the government could handle it.

McCain, 2003: I think Afghanistan is dicey. I think that there are certain areas of the country, particularly along the Pakistani border, that are clearly not under the control of either Pakistan or the Afghan government. ... There has been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border. There has been some increase in U.S. casualties. I am concerned about it, but I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I'd be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that – in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan.

So I'm guardedly optimistic, but I am also realistic that the central government in Kabul has very little effect on the policies and practices of the warlords who control the surrounding areas.

Recently, however, both candidates have called for an increased troop presence in Afghanistan. In July, Obama proposed sending two more combat brigades, drawn down from Iraq. McCain immediately followed this with a call for three more brigades, but later clarified that some of those troops would be NATO forces. A McCain spokeswoman said that the U.S. would "contribute" troops to the increase under McCain's plan.

Tax Spin

Obama said: “I will cut taxes ... for 95 percent of all working families.” And he said McCain proposes “not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans,” a claim his running mate, Joe Biden, made the night before.

Obama is right about his plan's effect on working families. More broadly, though, the plan cuts taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009, according to the Tax Policy Center. The TPC also says McCain’s tax plan would leave 65.8 million households without a cut, not 100 million.

The TPC’s calculations factor in what's in effect a hidden tax on individuals that results from taxing corporations. McCain proposes to lower the corporate income tax rate, and Obama proposes billions of dollars in increased corporate taxes in the form of “loophole closings.” Individuals wouldn’t experience those changes as an increased tax bill from the government, but both the Congressional Budget Office and TPC allocate all corporate tax to owners of capital rather than to consumers. That means rather than flowing through to consumers in the form of higher prices or lower wages, corporate tax changes would show up as higher or lower returns on investments, which typically come in the form of corporate dividends, and profits or losses from stock sales.

Only by ignoring the hidden benefit to individuals can McCain’s plan be said to produce no cut for 100 million households. According to a calculation the TPC did at FactCheck's request, 101.9 million see no benefit if the effects of a corporate reduction are set aside.

For the record, Obama aides say the indirect effect on holders of capital won't be as large as TPC says. "We dispute TPC's methodology here," says Brian Deese of the Obama campaign. He says several of the "loophole closers" that Obama is proposing won't affect corporations or are on offshore activity that will not directly filter through.

We'd also note that retirees would fare quite a bit less well than working families under Obama's tax plan: The TPC estimates that 32 percent of households with a person over age 65 would see a tax increase.

Rich Humor

Obama used a clumsy attempt at humor by McCain as evidence of his supposed insensitivity to middle-class economic realities:

Obama: Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn’t know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year?

What McCain actually said at the Saddleback Church forum on Aug. 16 was that he favors low taxes for all income levels. He drew a laugh, then said, "but seriously" as he struggled to make his point:

Pastor Rick Warren, Aug. 16: [G]ive me a number, give me a specific number - where do you move from middle class to rich?

McCain: I don't want to take any money from the rich – I want everybody to get rich. ... So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?

(LAUGHTER)

But seriously, I don't think you can - I don't think seriously that - the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously – and I'm sure that comment will be distorted – but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.

Health Care Half Truths

Obama gave only half the story when he described a feature of McCain's health care plan:

Obama: How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people’s benefits...

McCain proposes to grant families up to a $5,000 tax credit to use for health benefits. The flip side of that proposal, which McCain seldom if ever mentions, is that the value of employer-sponsored benefits would also become taxable. Both candidates are trading in half-truths here; McCain talks only about the pleasurable side of his plan, while Obama's speech mentioned only the painful aspect. Neither gives a complete picture.

Party Hearties

Obama painted McCain as a Republican partisan who's supported the unpopular President Bush consistently:

Obama: And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.

It's true that McCain's voting support for Bush policies has averaged slightly above 89 percent since Bush took office, according to Congressional Quarterly’s vote studies. But it has ebbed and flowed. It reached a low of 77 percent in 2005. Last year it was 95 percent. By comparison, Obama's own record of supporting Bush policies has averaged slightly under 41 percent since the senator took office. However, Obama's voting record is no less partisan than McCain's. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of "breaking with his party" if Senate votes are the measure.

He Didn't Mean It

Obama also pulled some sleight of hand when he stated that "the average American family" saw its income "go down $2,000" under George Bush. That's not correct. Census figures show average family income went down $348.

As it turns out, when Obama said "average family income," he didn't mean "average," and he didn't mean "family," either. An Obama aide says he was really referring to median income – which is the midpoint – and not to the average. And Obama was talking only about "working families," not retired couples.

For all families, median family income actually inched up under Bush by $272.

– by Brooks Jackson, with Viveca Novak, Justin Bank, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller, Lori Robertson and D'Angelo Gore

Sources

Burman, Len, et. al. “An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans: Revised August 15, 2008.” Tax Policy Center, 15 Aug. 2008.

Table T08-0182, Senator McCain’s Tax Proposals as Described by his Economic Advisors, Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009. Tax Policy Center, 19 July 2008.

Gleckman, Roberton Williams and Howard. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans." 28 August 2008. The Tax Policy Center. 29 August 2008

Nicholas, Peter. "Adding Up the Cost of Obama's agenda." 8 July 2008. The Los Angeles Times. 29 August 2008

CQ member Profiles: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). 1 Apr. 2007. Congressional Quarterly, 9 June 2008.

CQ member Profiles: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill). February 2008. Congressional Quarterly, 12 June 2008.

Transcript, "Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum" CNN.com 16 Aug. 2008.

Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, "Table T08-0203 - Senator Obama's Tax Proposals of August 14, 2008: Economic Advisers' Version (No Payroll Surtax), Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009" 14 Aug 2008.

saluki · August 2008

Here is the fact checking on the Obama speech...........

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

Daffodil · August 2008

Sarah, you go, girl! Even if we don't agree with all her politics, DC Republicans are stoked!

Odalys · August 2008

I haven't been following this thread but decided to come here today because I am outraged that McCain would use women this way. Does he actually think we are a bunch of brainless twits following each other around in a pack. That is the kind of mentally that will keep us from getting equal pay, better health care, better ecomny and better education for our children.

So, what do I think about him electing a female as his running mate at the last minute.....stupid, stupid man! This will cause him BIG and will certainly not get him those 18 million votes he so desperately needs. Yes, I am a Hillary fan and will always be. Will I vote for Obama just because he is the Democratic pick....NO. Will I vote for McCain just because he elected a a woman VP....NO! Will I vote..YES! I didn't escape communism to now turn around and not vote. I will give my vote to the third party. If there is no third party on the Ballot then I will write Hillary's name in.

Those two clowns are not getting my vote. All I can say is .....God help America!

FEB · August 2008

Okay maybe we need to let the press know that it was the lobbyist's here at our little Repbulican forum who convinced McCain to put up Palin. After all, Rosemary has been writing to him all the time and maybe someone on his staff has been lurking here. LOL Remember when we were saying that this would give the McCain ticket the excitement it needs! Well we were right on! The buzz is unbelievable and it is so much fun to see how irate the dems are that she stole the thunder from the great one's extravaganza. Hey, even some of the die hard dems in family are taking another look. Now both tickets look equal. People have to look at the issues. It is no longer about change. It is about who will do best for this country. I love the GOP theme, "Country First". I think this will really work well against BO-BI "change for the sake of change".

I have 2 nieces with downs syndrome. They often are born with heart or organ defects. I hope that her baby will be okay because this could be a problem, should their son need surgery like my nieces both did. It was pretty scary. I am thrilled though that we will have a women on the podium who can call attention to what families with special needs kids have to go through.

Don't you just love her little accent!

Naniam · August 2008

Odalys, I disagree.

She had to be one of those being "veted" for a long time. Newt Genrich has pushed her name for a very long time; so has many other Rep. I've heard her name being floated for a long time In fact, DebC had posted to some of this several months ago when it first came up saying they would hate to loose her because she was so well liked in Alaska.

The Dems are saying this was a bad move - some women are angry, some are excited. I don't think though that this was a last minute choice without much thought.

Yes, Jack Cafferty!!! He was definitely on a rant

Brenda

FEB · August 2008

Brenda, you hit the nail right on the head. People who only watch mainstream media were totally blindsighted by Palin for vp because they have never heard her mentioned like we have. And I suspect that the Hillary fans are ticked because their party did not pick a woman and we did. They are mad because if Palin and McCain prevail, they know that Hillary will have a much tougher chance next time, and if BO wins she will probably have a long wait to run again. NOw they are in a lose/lose situation.They are also irate because they hate the fact the republicans have beat them at their own game and become the party of change. The reason I have always been a McCain fan, is because he has never been a party loyalist. This is what we need. People who make a decision for the good of the country, not for political gain. Obama will be a puppet to the party line, spending us into oblivion. And I do not care what he says, he will raise taxes on most of us. He did it here in Ilinois. They take lower one tax to look good and then raise another. He wants socialism and that costs a fortune. Illinois has turned this way with the dems in power and our deficit makes the Feds' look like pocket change. He did nothing for Illinois and he will do even less for this country. I shudder to think what he will do with Iran or Russia.

SherriM · August 2008

Odalys--Dems are the only ones saying he did it at the last minute for the women's vote, how do you even know it was at the last minute? All we know is that she, as his pick, was an extremely well-kept secret up to the last few hours. We've known for months that Obama wasn't going to pick Hillary--it was no surprise to anyone--and he didn't dare pick another woman over her for VP. There was no reason for a last-minute pick on McCains part.

Personally, I think picking Palin was aimed at 2 things: energizing/solidifying the conservative base and solidifying his identity as a maverick. That she's a woman just makes the whole thing wonderfully sweet and delicious.

saluki · August 2008

Arthur Culvahouse a fomer Reagan counsel known for maximum discretion led McCains VP search and vetting team. He quietly flew to Alaska at the end of May. McCain's people know how to keep things close to the vest.

Rosemary44 · August 2008

And here come the Evangelicals as expected. I may have this wrong, but at the very beginning of the Saddleback forum they mentioned a number of Evangelicals and I thought I heard them say that they're 50 million strong? Could this be correct? If so, we can start our election party plans early:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080830/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_evangelicals

FEB · August 2008

Rosemary, that was a good link. While the dems are convinced that he chose a woman because of the Hillary factor, the truth is, she is the best candidate for solidifying the base. The fact that she is a woman is a bonus. He will still probably draw some of the Hillary supporters who are not so hard core dems, especially when they hear how she managed to play tough with the corruption in her own party in AK.

Susie, thanks for the link. I sent it to my son. If he actually reads it and takes it to heart, I owe it all to you! I am still hoping that he will see the light. We spent over $100,000 sending this kid to a catholic college(University of Dayton). What are they teaching these kids these days?

Odalys · August 2008

The beauty of this wonderfull country of ours is that we can all have different opinions and we can chose to agree to disagree. I came from a country where that basic right is not allowed. I really appreciate your comments and respect everyone's opinion. At the end of the day, what will prevail are the votes. I really hope everyone goes out there and casts their vote.

Rosemary44 · August 2008

Linda,

My son can top your son. He owns a small business and his profits totally depend on gas prices. Now add to that higher small business taxes, capital gains, and ...oh why even bother. We are here as parents to cast our votes to save them from themselves. One more time we have to step in.

saluki · August 2008

Okay--I'm just very confused....... Am I understanding right.... If you contribute to McCain, does he have to use that money up by the time he accepts the nomination this week??????

How the heck will they be able to compete with the Obama money machine????

Someone enlighten me????

saluki · August 2008

I thought all of you would appreciate this article from the New York Post.......

------------------------------

New York Post

A BRILLIANT TRAP MAKES DEMS THE MALE CHAUVINISTS

By KIRSTEN POWERS

August 30, 2008 --

SHE'S just a beauty queen.

She's another Dan Quayle.

And ironically, the biggest criticism of Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep choice, is she has no experience. Funny, coming from the Barack Obama camp.

Following McCain's announcement of Palin - the first female to be put on a GOP ticket for the White House, and only the second in US history - the Obama campaign skipped the niceties and blasted her as the "former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience." She's also a governor of Alaska (my home state), the first woman in that office and the youngest elected in state history. She has an 80-plus percent approval rating. She has turned the state upside down with her reformist zeal and has made enemies of the Republican establishment.

And she can talk energy policy, one of the biggest issues facing this country.

Is she a gamble? Definitely. But so is Barack Obama, who has himself dismissed experience as a prerequisite for leadership, despite his spot atop the Democratic ticket.

At this point, Palin is so unknown, there's no way to make a clear judgment about her. But listening to Obama supporters take to the airwaves to shriek with indignation about her lack of experience is just a little too rich. Where were they when Obama, two years into the Senate, announced his candidacy for president?

One Obama supporter and political operative blogged, "In picking an unknown, untested half-a-term governor from Alaska . . . John McCain is following in a long line of reckless men who have rolled the dice for a beauty queen."

Do we really have to do this again?

No sooner was Hillary Rodham Clinton out of the race, and a new woman is in the cross hairs.

On CNN, during a discussion about whether it was appropriate for Palin to accept this job when she has a baby, Dana Bash pointed out it's unlikely anyone would ask this of a male candidate.

I can't help wondering if this is a trap. The McCain camp watched and learned as Obama supporters offended Hillary supporters by their treatment of her. The McCainiacs had to know that this group is incapable of behaving, that Palin would bring out their worst instincts.

One top Republican said to me: "Just wait until she is debating Joe Biden and he starts attacking or condescending to her. Hillary voters are going to say, 'Oh yeah, I remember this.' "

The McCain camp has already made clear it stands at the ready to scoop up these voters. Yesterday, Palin proudly acknowledged her historic selection, the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton and the woman who paved the way for her, Geraldine Ferraro.

Ferraro told me she's excited for another woman to be on a presidential ticket. She sees Palin as a risky choice - but also dismissed the idea that she's unqualified.

And she rejected the idea that all the so-called "Hillary voters" would be repelled by Palin's staunch anti-abortion views. These voters know the Senate will have a veto-proof Democratic majority, so that lessens the potency of that issue.

Howard Wolfson, Hillary's top strategist, said "it won't help with most Hillary voters, but it could help with some."

"Some" of 18 million people is what the McCain camp is after.

The other potential trap is luring the Obama campaign onto the "experience" field. The early conventional wisdom says McCain's pick was boneheaded because it takes the experience issue off the table. But it seems that it has done the opposite: The importance of experience is the topic of the day.

The more Democrats complain about this, the more Republicans can turn it on them and say, "If you are so concerned about the amount of experience of the vice president, what about the top of your ticket?"

Obama's argument thus far has been that experience isn't what counts; it's judgment. By attacking the Republican woman relentlessly on this issue, Democrats are undermining their own man.

Kirsten Powers is a Fox News analyst and frequent Post contributor.

kirstenpowers@aol.com

The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Comments

Categories