Cheap Move, McCain
So I'm packing away like a good little girl about to leave the country when all of a sudden I heard cheers and hollers coming from my television. I thought to myself it can't be the Democratic National Convention and the Olympics are over… what is going on?!
It all happened in slow motion — my head turned, my eyes shifted from my suitcase to the television and then… there she was: Sarah Palin (WHO?!?).
Sarah Palin as VP? Cool for about 20 seconds.
So at first I'm like "Cool! A female Veep!" and for like 20 whole seconds my democratically-tilted feelings seeped out of my body like one of those birthday balloons that slowly deflates until there's just a floppy, pitiful bag licking the floor.
Yeah… I was falling for it, all right. Then I punched myself in the face, dumped some cold water over myself and pushed my internal 911 button.
What a cheap move, John McCain. I'm gonna come out and say it. The invention of glow in the dark rubberbands for braces was better than this decision. Maury Povich has more tact than you. And he's making money off finding baby daddies and hitting on out-of-control teens.
You know what I think? I think John McCain is a dirty, dirty trickster. At first I thought maybe he just accepted he was going to come in second. But now I see he's willing to stoop real low to win this one. Sick.
First of all, I don't know anything about Sarah Palin. Nobody does, really. Here's what we do know:
(A.) She is less experienced than Barack Obama. She is also younger that the Illinois senator. She's been in the statehouse for less than two years and served two terms as MAYOR of a town called Wasilla with a population of 6,500.
Yahoo columnist Ron Fournie says, "The biggest issue [Palin's had to face] is controlling growth and the biggest civic worry is whether there will be enough snow for the Iditarod dog-mushing race."
You know, I'm all for giving shots to the inexperienced. After all, we have to start somewhere. But should we really be starting as the VICE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA? H. E. double hockey sticks NO.
Oh… wait, wait, wait… I just remembered something! Wasn't it McCain calling out Barack Obama, say, for his entire campaign, on his "inexperience" and "youngness"? Strange how his running mate is considerable less experienced and younger than the soon-to-be-president.
(B.) McCain, do you really think I'm dumb enough to vote for you JUST because you put a woman on your ticket? The guy must genuinely think that people wanted to vote for Hillary only because she was a female.
I can't help but speculate that the only reason McCain chose the unknown woman from Alaska was to snatch all the currently undecided Hillary fans. The ones who haven't yet chosen where they'll place their vote. McCain thinks now that he's got the ticket with the female on it, all those voters will jump on the Elephant bandwagon just so they can support another female. What a sneaky bastard.
We women are smarter than that, McCain. People didn't just like Hillary because she was a female (Well, I'm sure some did, but most didn't). They believed that her policies, experience and personality would get the United States somewhere once she was in the White House. Not her vagina.
(C.) What does all of this say about John McCain? Do we really want this nearly 72-year-old to be one of the most powerful people in the world? On top of his ridiculous campaign, seven houses, friendship with the Bushes and the fact that he practically orgasms every time someone says "War on Terror," he's now a hypocritical, sneaky and untrustworthy candidate (I just changed "candidate" from a considerably less politically correct term).
You know — I never got a good impression of McCain to begin with, but this whole VP thing has left my mouth gaping open for like five hours now.
Seriously, I would rather get my eyebrows threaded every day for the rest of my life (that stuff hurts) than vote for McCain. Especially now.
Okay… back to packing. But can someone check up on me like once ever hour or something? I might need to go to the hospital if I don't stop gagging soon.
Wendy Gould is a freelance journalist for Glamour Magazine, NUVO Newsweekly, Kiwanis International and various publications. She is also a photographer who specializes in portraiture, business, fine arts, and photojournalism. For more about Wendy, visit wendygould.com.
I will say this: Obama's VP choice was a snoozer… McCain's is a shocker. Bold moves and shocking announcements show that McCain really is the maverick he used to be made out to be. And a maverick in the highest office? That's dangerously close to Obama's change message, which is why his campaign has so far tried to paint McCain not as a crazy maverick but as an out-of-touch old guy. Add in the appeal to disenfranchised Hillary supporters and the fact that Palin herself is a bit of a maverick (albeit a far right one) and this is looking like an absolutely brilliant move from the McCain camp.
It's also worth noting that McCain attacks Obama as inexperienced and young and Obama picks an old guy whose been in the senate forever. Obama then attacks McCain as being an old guy whose been in the senate forever and McCain picks someone who is young and inexperienced.
This is getting good.
In fact, not just good but absolutely awesome. This is such a brillaint move on McCain's part. It's risky — David Gergen even called it the biggest political gamble of modern political history. He pulled a woman almost completely outside of the political system and the public eye that two of his bases (religious social conservatives and libratarian conservatives) are just going to eat right up and also offers a lot of women — not you, but a lot of red state women who don't like things the way they are now — it gives them a very compelling figure to rally behind.
If McCain is going to fight this hard to win the hand of America, imagine the hell of a fight he'd put up against anything he saw as a threat to the country he loves. Still, this opens you to so much criticsim. The best one I heard was that, after just a single meeting, McCain certainly would not entrust his two children to Palin in the event of his death… but that after just a single meeting, he would entrust her with 300 million people?
There is no way McCain would have played the Palin ace if Obama had selected Hillary as VP, because then it wouldn't be an ace.
My first impression and now afterthought on McCain picking Palin, was that is was no more than stooping to any level to become President. We already have a person in office that will do anything in office and pretty much tells the world to go fuck itself…….I mean do we really want to have another person in office that does that.
I view it as nothing more than a parlor trick and irresponsible of him to pick someone who is easily under qualified for the Vice Presidency.
from moveon.org:
Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:
* She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.
* Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.
* She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.
* Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.
* She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.
* She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.
* How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.
They're both balancing out their tickets where people say they are weak. It's not sneaky, it's common-sense. And aren't we striving to be above prejudice of all kinds, ageism included?
Wonder how many meetings Obama had with Biden during this process? I don't know about "entrusting my kids" to ANY of them, but I'm leaving our puppy with people I've trusted for years, because of their character and good track record.
I suspect ALL candidates do "whatever it takes to win". This is the highest-stakes game of their life and the world is watching. We can only hope that the "whatever"s are legal and moral.
the point of a vice president is to fill the gaps where the president is lacking. Obama chose a Veep who is very very experienced which makes a lot of sense. I think it was a smart decision on his part.
McCain, on the other hand, chose someone just to get voters on his side. It was a brash decision, as we've all learned and as the media is going crazy over (i'm sure his choice was also intended to get media attention).
I feel that his decision was not to help even out his character but to instead grasp for voters and gain attention. That, in my opinion, is not a man that should rule one of the world powers. I know that all political candidates do shady things - it's like a job requirement or something. But he went a little too far and I am not the only one who thinks so.
Also -
We must keep in mind the fact that should our president pass away (heaven forbid, but it is more likely to happen with John McCain), the VP takes over.
Do we really want a woman with ZERO foreign policy experience and only 2 years as governor in Alaska - a country which is very out of touch with the inland US, also - to take over?
That is TERRIFYING.
Heaven forbid the death-during-term scenario for any president, for sure. Actually, that governing experience (as mayor and then governor) is much better preparation for being president than having only spent a few years legislating. In elected executive leadership, she is actually more qualified to be president (rather than V.P.) than probably both the presidential candidates. Ironic, huh?
I have no idea who drew that conclusion but it is grossly wrong.
It was my own conclusion. I'm not saying it's the ideal situation but we rarely get that luxury in our political candidates (or life in general).
I agree ideal situations hardly ever pan out (bummer! :D ) But, I am sticking to my guns with this one: Palin was too risky of a choice and there is absolutely no way I will give me vote to McCain.
I think Palin gives the spotlight to the republicans right now but I think she will wear off like when you get a new car, pet or clothes. We really know nothing about this woman therefore she is going to have to prove herself, even to many Gops.
At the end of the day I feel as though Palin is a trend, no different then the 80's pants that all the girls are now wearing again. Would there be this much hype if it was someone who looked like Janet Reno…….im guessing no. Even the analysists have commented on her looks in some way or another. Going back to my initial comment, I feel as though this was a "Hey lets get attention on us for awhile and hopefully it works."
If she can prove herself worthy to the american public in the upcoming debates/interviews that she will do then she might stand a good chance. She is certainly inspirational to women all accross the nation but how can she criticize Obama when she's basically governed 12000 people (including polar bears)???
Let's not forget that if this was a democrat the repulicans would tear this woman apart due to her bad parenting/family values by having a 17 year old pregnant unwed daughter in her household. Ahh the republican motto "Do as I say, not as I do"
I agree, Trevor.
I think that Sarah came across as natural, confident and personable last night. However, I found her less moving/charismatic than other speakers (such as Giuliani who imo was great until he went too far and turned into a mean old man). Her comment on lipstick and pittbulls was humorous, yes, but hardly inspirational (or original for that matter). She spoke BLATANT LIES last night - about herself and senator Obama.
Anyway - I don't see any evidence of an extraordinary woman here. Sure, she has accomplished great things, but many many other men/women before her time have also done the same with more nobility. We'll see what else she has to offer, but for now that's where I stand.
In the end, I think that Palin with invigorate the base republicans - I really do. However, I believe she will scare away a large majority of independents (the key people in this election) and infuriate the democrats with her blatant lies and sour persona.
A friend of mine said, "Palin's speech reflected what the pundits were already saying last week and her credentials and qualifications for the vice-presidency are lacking. While it may have contained all of the elements of a good partisan talk-show attack, and would prove acceptable were she running for the second in command position of a third world country, it did not demonstrate "presidential" qualities. We've already proven the failure of electing leaders based solely on their "likability."
Obama is likeable - yes. That is an important part of all this. But I agree with him because my views and ideas align with the positions he holds, and also because I firmly believe he is capable of restoring this rotting country, wallowing in its own economic and political stature. The state of our country is a direct result of the Bush administration's 8 year run. McCain has agreed with Bush more than 90% of the time, he states.
I literally will not be able to live in the United States if McCain is elected presidency. That is a terrifying thought.
ANYWAY — I knew that Palin's remarks (clearly untrue) regarding Obama and herself would come to light the next morning after reporters did their work. Here's some excerpts from a front page story on Yahoo. Written by JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending … and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
The story also investigates the facts by McCain: More here:
news.yahoo.com/s/a…el_pr/cvn_fact_check
I agree with you whole-heartedly Wendy.. it is a terrifying thought and i will be moving to sweden if McLame and this hoe are elected.
Maybe I missed the comments on this one, but who in the Republican or Democratic parties said McCain picked Palin to appeal to Clinton supporters? Did McCain actually say that or are people in the media just speculating? I doubt he chose her for that reason, seeing she is as far away from Clinton as possible.
And I kind of like her, not sure if I'd vote for McCain just because of her though. She sure is a change from who you'd expect for a Republican VP, that's for sure.
The Republicans never came out and said that they chose her to grab Hillary voters but it's so blatently obvious. I think its a slap to women of America to think otherwise. To think that the women of America will feel so empowered just to vote for a women that they will vote for anyone they put up in front of them. Many of the women that I have spoken to on this took the Palin pick as such and view it as nothing more than a tactic to get McCain into office and not a pick that is in there best interest.
Not to mention if you were a women who got raped or abused (god forbid), would you really want Palin in office making it a law that if you get pregnant from such a vile act that you can't get an abortion???
That's what she believes and thats what she stands for.
She is not standing up for women, arent there already enough single women in America with enough road blocks in the way?? How can she be standing up for women across America when she is actually taking rights away from women??
-Disclaimer, I am not a woman…….obviously.
I agree, Trevor. In fact - the next article I will write for this site will be about this…. :D stay tuned.
She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.
* Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest. - Abortion is the stopping of actual beating of a human heart beat. If one person stops a human heart beat, that is also called murder. That's illegal. So, I reckon it's good Palin is against that.
* Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools. - Why shouldn't it? It's a theory just like the rest. At least give it fair play. If you aren't going to teach one theory, don't teach any.
* She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change. - I'm sure there are other forces at work, although I think we are a driving force.
* She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska. - Polar bears are awfully cute, but at this point, I think we really need to put our priorities in line. If solving the energy crisis is as important as everyone says, then why would we not tap into every viable resource? We have to stop making excuses.
Oops. Meant to delete "She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience." from my response.
Kiley-* Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools. - Why shouldn't it? It's a theory just like the rest. At least give it fair play. If you aren't going to teach one theory, don't teach any."
Well the reason science is taught and not religion is afterall Church and State are supposed to be seperate but that seems to be increasingly hard to police and people seem to forget that, whenever it is convenient for them.
Not to mention that we know FOR A FACT that the Earth is older than 5200 years old.
Science can be proven, in rock solid facts (fossils) whereas faith can not, it can only be tested.
Why all of the McCain-Palin ads on WUNT?
Kiley -
in response to this comment you left smeared on the wall here:
"* She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska. - Polar bears are awfully cute, but at this point, I think we really need to put our priorities in line. If solving the energy crisis is as important as everyone says, then why would we not tap into every viable resource? We have to stop making excuses."
It is people like you who will ruin the entire earth.
I hope polar bears eat you in your nightmares!!!
There has to be SOME OTHER WAY to do what we need to do as human beings WITHOUT destroying every last ounce of the natural environment!!! Please, some other way!!
Animals are important - more important than stupid oil that is going to run out eventually anyway. If it is going to run out eventually, then why destroy what is left of our beautiful earth?
"Only after the last fish has been caught, only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned - will you realize that money cannot be eaten."
- Cree Indian Prophecy
I hope polar bears eat you in your nightmares!!!
You know what, 20 years from now, who fucking knows what kind of advanced technology we will have?? Look how quickly technology increases at an exponential rate now, faster and faster. Just 5 years ago we didn't even have iPods - umm and look at that now. That was only FIVE years - think of 10 or 20… we probably won't even need gas!!! but what are we going to do after we destroy the earth?? You can't go back and fix it.
Save the environment! and fuck Palin!!
Let's keep the discourse civil. This is a living room conversation between rational adults.
I'm glad that people are passionate about the subject of eco-friendly lifestyles.
Kiley, you can look at it this way:
-Polar bears are just some animal that will die off. It's just polar bears so what's the big deal?
But that's not very adequate. It fails to look at the big picture. Yes, polar bears are cute (my favorite animal, actually). But it's not just their comprised existence that worries me. Many people are upset because there is no reason that Polar Bears, or any other animal, should face extintion due to human behavior.
I know that you are a religious person, so let me put it this way: One of the main goals of any religion (Christianity included) is to preserve our beautiful Earth. You believe that God created this Earth and as a result don't you think we should protect it?
As for myself, I believe that we should preserve the Earth just because it is the right thing to do. Also, I do not think that humans should act selfishly just because it is easier for them to do so.
With that said, people are upset with you not because you dissed polar bears but because you fail to see the big picture. Unfortunately, there are many others who fail to see the big picture as well.
Not to get all emo and dramatic on everyone, but it really is just a matter of time before the world is more visibly in pain as a result of our selfish human actions.
Hmmm. Polar bears eat me in my nightmares, eh? Now, if I thought they were going to do that, of course I'd want them dead, wouldn't I?
Load of old rubbish.
Of course I don't look at it as if I want polar bears to die. I want as many beautiful (and ugly) animals to live as possible, all I am saying is that my family and my friends and the perseverance of our ability to keep living and thriving has to be a higher priority.
Human rights have to take priority over animal rights - I know that sounds heartless, and I love animals, but I love my life and my job and being able to drive there at a (somewhat) reasonable cost of gasoline to make enough money to buy groceries and pay loans.
Save the polar bears and all endangered species. Heck yeah. BUT, prioritize. If drilling for oil there were the only way, I would hope to God we would go that route rather than make things worse for ourselves.
And, I see the big picture. I really do. I took Cliff Cain's class at FC. Global warming + overpopulation = Earth pain.
I'm all for finding alternative energy resources…but all I ever hear about it is talk…I never see anything put into action. Whichever fella wins the election, I hope he makes that a priority.
I agree Kiley. We run this planet, not animals. We have to prioritize our self being over animals. Yes, we can live in harmony but we are going through a transition that is going to affect everything in our lives from bread to loans.
I'm not saying go out and abuse animals….but like underarmour says "We run dis houuuuuuseee!!!"
Kiley,
You can only control your very own life and actions. With that said, lead by example.
Trevor/Kiley: I agree that human's have more rights than animals, but when animals start to die it's only so long before the top of the food chain is affected. So, in essense, animal rights and human rights are all the same because we all affect each other. Does that make sense? We should deliberately act in a way that would minimize any kind of destruction to our Earth. You can look at it as saving the flora and fauna, but it's really saving human lives, too.
Get what I'm saying?
We should save the animals by killing all the humans. That's what this planet really needs.
Leave your response!
Most Viewed
Most Commented
Recent Comments
Popular Topics