Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Just East of the Southern Portion of the Western Part of PA
1,272 posts, read 3,709,101 times
Reputation: 1511
Advertisements
I am still somewhat torn over McCain’s choice of Palin as his running mate. I have two ways that I have been approaching this, and I was curious as to what you all thought about it:
I propose the following two options that McCain faced before he made his decision:
1)Choose an experienced and “safe” candidate for VP, such as Mitt Romney.
Pros:
This would allow McCain to continue beating the Obama camp with the “you don’t have experience” club. It would add a younger, more charismatic face to the ticket and would eliminate any concerns of experience in the event that McCain has health problems while in office. It would also give McCain the economic expertise that Romney brings to the table.
Cons:
Romney is just another white male Republican, and this would strengthen the Obama camp’s message of “more of the same” from the Republican Party. The choice would not likely woo support of Hillary supporters who were on the fence (and who probably wouldn’t vote at all). Romney also has some flip-flopping in his past that the Dems would certainly focus on.
2)Choose a less experienced female candidate for VP, such as the conservative Sarah Palin.
Pros:
This would allow McCain to be seen once again as a reformer, and would give him the ammo he needs against the Obama camp’s “more of the same” attacks. It would shore up some of the problems McCain is having with the conservative base, including the evangelical crowd. It would add youth, charisma, and a pretty face to an otherwise old male Republican Party. This could serve as a counter punch to Obama’s “change” campaign. Potential for some Hillary voters to change course with a female on the ticket.
Cons:
Palin has only served two years as Governor of Alaska, so further attacks by the McCain camp against Obama’s experience will have to be limited and more calculated at best (this could, in effect, take away one of McCains biggest weapons against Obama). Palin’s experience and ability to lead in the event of McCain health problems will certainly be questioned by the Obama camp (the “heartbeat away from the President” argument). Impact on Hillary supporters most likely limited due to Palin’s Pro-Life stance.
In the end, I’m guessing that McCain simply didn’t think that putting another white guy like Romney on the ticket would be enough to overcome Obama’s theme of “change” and “more of the same” from the Republicans. It looks to me like McCain is feeling a little of the Obama pressure and decided to roll the dice with Palin, despite all of her potential drawbacks.
I am still somewhat torn over McCain’s choice of Palin as his running mate. I have two ways that I have been approaching this, and I was curious as to what you all thought about it:
I propose the following two options that McCain faced before he made his decision:
1)Choose an experienced and “safe” candidate for VP, such as Mitt Romney.
Pros:
This would allow McCain to continue beating the Obama camp with the “you don’t have experience” club. It would add a younger, more charismatic face to the ticket and would eliminate any concerns of experience in the event that McCain has health problems while in office. It would also give McCain the economic expertise that Romney brings to the table.
Cons:
Romney is just another white male Republican, and this would strengthen the Obama camp’s message of “more of the same” from the Republican Party. The choice would not likely woo support of Hillary supporters who were on the fence (and who probably wouldn’t vote at all). Romney also has some flip-flopping in his past that the Dems would certainly focus on.
2)Choose a less experienced female candidate for VP, such as the conservative Sarah Palin.
Pros:
This would allow McCain to be seen once again as a reformer, and would give him the ammo he needs against the Obama camp’s “more of the same” attacks. It would shore up some of the problems McCain is having with the conservative base, including the evangelical crowd. It would add youth, charisma, and a pretty face to an otherwise old male Republican Party. This could serve as a counter punch to Obama’s “change” campaign. Potential for some Hillary voters to change course with a female on the ticket.
Cons:
Palin has only served two years as Governor of Alaska, so further attacks by the McCain camp against Obama’s experience will have to be limited and more calculated at best (this could, in effect, take away one of McCains biggest weapons against Obama). Palin’s experience and ability to lead in the event of McCain health problems will certainly be questioned by the Obama camp (the “heartbeat away from the President” argument). Impact on Hillary supporters most likely limited due to Palin’s Pro-Life stance.
In the end, I’m guessing that McCain simply didn’t think that putting another white guy like Romney on the ticket would be enough to overcome Obama’s theme of “change” and “more of the same” from the Republicans. It looks to me like McCain is feeling a little of the Obama pressure and decided to roll the dice with Palin, despite all of her potential drawbacks.
The question is – did he make the right decision?
What say you?
I have been thinking all of the same things you stated. I am still not sure Romney would not have been the best pick or Bobby Jindal even, but maybe they are seen as the future of the party since this election is rather iffy. I am just not big on strategic politics and usually they bite you in the butt. I think you should just pick the best person for the job and not base it on anything else (race, religion, gender). I wouldn't vote for someone base on anything else. I try to be color blind, gender blind and disregard religious preference.
Palin engergized the Republican base, and now allows McCain a piece of the "change" narrative, since Obama chose generic old white establishment male candidate #2459 for his running mate.
It's why McCain raised something like 10 million in 2 days following the announcement.
Palin is as accomplished, and experienced or more experienced than Obama. PERIOD.
If you keep harping on Palin's inexperience, despite Obama's paper thin resume, it will only highlight your own messiah's lack of experience (and no children, "running a campaign" is NOT good enough. My how low the bar has been set by Obama in 2008!)
I have been thinking all of the same things you stated. I am still not sure Romney would not have been the best pick or Bobby Jindal even, but maybe they are seen as the future of the party since this election is rather iffy. I am just not big on strategic politics and usually they bite you in the butt. I think you should just pick the best person for the job and not base it on anything else (race, religion, gender). I wouldn't vote for someone base on anything else. I try to be color blind, gender blind and disregard religious preference.
I am just amazed he did not pick a really strong woman candidate. There are strong women in the Republican party who outshine Mrs Palin, that is what has so many dumbfounded. Unless they are just using this ticket as a throwaway unitl 2012.
I am just amazed he did not pick a really strong woman candidate. There are strong women in the Republican party who outshine Mrs Palin, that is what has so many dumbfounded. Unless they are just using this ticket as a throwaway unitl 2012.
Same thoughts here. I think the thinking might have been she is sort of unknown, appeals to the base by being very conservative, and wouldn't upstage McCain.
Location: Just East of the Southern Portion of the Western Part of PA
1,272 posts, read 3,709,101 times
Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixiegirl7
Same thoughts here. I think the thinking might have been she is sort of unknown, appeals to the base by being very conservative, and wouldn't upstage McCain.
Yeah - I guess McCain liked the fact that Palin was from Alaska, which is about as far from Washington DC as you can get.
This strengthens her role as a reformer and not "more of the same"
Palin is as accomplished, and experienced or more experienced than Obama. PERIOD.
Really? She is? Let's take a look.
Palin
B.S. in Journalism from the University of Idaho minored in Political Science
4 years on city council of Wasilla, Alaska (pop: ~8,471)
6 years as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska
1 year as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
2 years as Governor of Alaska (pop: ~683,478)
Obama
B.A. in Political Science from Columbia University spec. International Relations
3 years as director of Developing Communities Project in Chicago
J.D. from Harvard
12 years teaching Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School
8 years as senator of Chicago's 13th district (pop: ~781,037)
2005-Current US Senator of Illinois (pop: ~12,852,548)
I don't like either McCain or Obama; I think they are both tools. Let's just keep the bull**** at the door, k?
It's also noteworthy to point out that there were things I left out for both. Like Palin winning a Miss Wasilla beauty contest and Obama working for a law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
