Cynical Nation

It's going to be Pawlenty or Romney and my guess is Pawlenty. He's evangelical, a governor in a swing state, and his ego isn't bigger than Utah.

Can you imagine the never-ending jokes? "I've had pawlenty of McCain"... "How d'ya like McCain's veep? Pawlenty!"... and what if his dad offers him more mashed potatoes? "No thanks, I've had pawlenty, Paw Pawlenty!"

I think McCain effectively ended his campaign by his choice today. It is a totally disastrous choice for him, despite the appearances at first glance.

If she were a man, would she have been chosen? I think not! 18 months governing 600,000 Alaskans, zero D.C. experience, zero foreign policy anything, an older Pres nominee with some health issues. Plus she's anti-choice and pro-creationism teaching, which marks her as a loon, albeit a little hot, in my book.

"If she were a man, would she have been chosen? I think not! 18 months governing 600,000 Alaskans, zero D.C. experience, zero foreign policy anything, an older Pres nominee with some health issues. Plus she's anti-choice and pro-creationism teaching, which marks her as a loon, albeit a little hot, in my book." (Fred)


Hmmmm, man that sounds somewhat familiar. I’ve heard more than one person say, “If he weren’t black would the MSM have gone so ga-ga over him? Less than half a term in the U.S. Senate, zero foreign policy experience, etc., etc.... I don’t much like that argument either.

Barack Obama bested Hillary Clinton straight up in the Democratic Primaries by making Liberal Democrats smile and now he’s making Centrists smile by changing his mind on drilling and supporting cutting the Corporate tax rate.

So, he’s light on experience and he has a lot of suspect connections (Bill Ayers, Jerremiah Wright), no foreign policy experience and no executive experience, still, he deserves to be heard out.

As to, “Zero D.C. experience”, most Americans seem to see that as a very good thing...and it must be noted that she’s the ONLY one of the four with ANY executive experience at all.

OK, so “she’s anti-choice” – the latest NY Times/CBS poll (could you get a more liberally biased poll than that?) has Americans OVERALL: 39% supporting abortion “generally available,” 38% “available but with stricter limits than now" and 22% "not permitted." So, in a country in which at least 60% of the population wants stricter limits on abortion than we have now, how does an anti-abortion stance hurt her?

And you’re claiming she’s a creationist?

Based on what?

Her statement, “Teach both [evolution and creationism]. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”???

Sounds like she's arguing in favor of differing points of view being taught in the schools.

I mean there are people who still claim that "socialism can work" and add insane justifications like, "If government can run NASA, it could certainly run an efficient economy."

That view has been discredited by both economic science and by history and yet, there are still (surprise, surprise) Leftists around!

Come on! If we're going to use the standard of embracing discredited doctrines as the basis for calling people "loons," then Leftists are, by dint of their embracing an even more thoroughy discredited (economic) doctrine, bigger "loons" than creationists are. In fact, Leftists would have to be out there with flat-earthers and dinosaur-deniers.

Wouldn't you agree?

She's anti-choice without exception, even in cases of rape or incest.

I don't believe that is what most Americans are talking about when they say they want stricter limits and many who oppose abortion allow for exceptions.

It's an extreme position, in my view.

>It's an extreme position, in my view.

Perhaps, but no more so than Obama's, IMO. And he's the one at the top of a ticket.

Perhaps, but no more so than Obama's, IMO. And he's the one at the top of a ticket.

So Barry, is that evolution? I mean your evolution to anti-choice now? I was under the impression that you are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Am I wrong?

And, seriously, how can you be supporting a totally reckless pick like Palin's for VP? McCain is 72 with history of serious illness and there is a real good chance that Palin could become president in the very near future if the ticket won. And please, dont answer by comparing her to Obama. Obama has proved he can make it. He democratically beat the Clintons that have lots of experience. Palin was randomly picked by McCain who seems more and more that he could care less about America. Totally reckless.

"Obama has proved he can make it. He democratically beat the Clintons that have lots of experience." (BW)

Ironically enough, that's an argument FOR Palin!

For that matter so is Hillary Clinton who had NONE, absolutely ZERO political experience, before running for Senate in New York.

And that's frankly not all that uncommon.

Carolyn McCarthy has been representing a Long Island district in Congress since her husband and son were shot by Colin Ferguson on the LIRR...and her ONLY previous political experience was housewife.

What the Palin pick does is take away McCain's weapon of "experience" over the Obama team, but people don't elect candidates on "experience" EVER.

Hell, "likability" is more important to most voters than experience.

And that's one area where I'd agree with most voters LIKABILITY is indeed more important than political experience.

"She's anti-choice without exception, even in cases of rape or incest." (PE)

About a quarter of the population agrees with that, so it's hardly "extreme."

OK, how's this, "It's no more extreme than supporting abortion on demand right up through the 9th month. About a quarter of Americans support that as well.

Heck, I'm even reconsidering my decision to vote for anyone (up to and including Obama) other than McCain.

Not that I've changed my mind about The Maverick or think that he has a canapes' chance at a Democrat fund raiser of winning this election. I just want to see Sarahcuda get the best possible setup for 2012.

I can picture it now: Hillary's heart all aglow as Palin is nominated the first woman major party presidential candidate.

I can picture it now: Hillary's heart all aglow as Palin is nominated the first woman major party presidential candidate.

With one caveat: It will be the first woman major party presidential candidate in a 3rd WORLD COUNTRY. That is where America will be heading if the reckless McCain-Palin ticket wins and replaces the reckless Bush-Cheney administration. The signs are already here since 2005. If you can not see them, I can not help you.

WoW! BW's apparently taken a stand in favor of an even MORE free market economy and LESS government intervention in the economy?!

I commmend him for that.

BUT, one of the challenges facing those of us who support that common-sense viewpoint is the egregious "mortgage bailout Bill" that both the Pelosi-Reid Congress and the Bush administration wrongly support.

There's simply no way to save people from the bad decisions they've made and no way to save institutions that have made bad loans.

As Fred might well say, "Bailing them out only encourages more bad/irresponsible behavior."

Amen!

BUT the Pelosi-Reid Congress, and inexplicably, the Bush administration have both supported the ill-conceived Keynesian "stimulus package" and now, an equally ill-conceived mortgage bailout plan!

That's probably why Bush's approval rating remains at 28% despite the tremendous gains made in Iraq (this weekend the U.S. Military will be handing enforcement duties in Anbar province back to the Iraqi government) and the Pelosi-Reid Congress' approval ratings remain in the mid-teens!

I had three economics profesors in College who, way back then endorsed keynesianism and said crazy things like, "Under the right circumstances, socialism's command economy could work and provide more economic equality for all." Even then (back in the mid-1970s) they were woefully out of step with the vast majority of economists.

Today, only one of those guys remains an ardent Leftist. The other two are major supporters of market economies and Supply Side economics.

He still says carzy stuff that would no doubt drive the likes of BW and Fred absolutely nuts! Things like, "If our government can manage NASA, a nationwide postal service, air safety, food inspections, etc. it could certainly manage an economy efficiently as well and there's no doubt it could and would provide more economic equality and a decent standard of living for all."

As you might expect, he was a die-hard Dennis Kucinich supporter and doesn't trust any of the other leading Democrats, claiming "mainstream only means corporately controlled."

In short, the guy remains the same asshat he was over three decades ago.

I'm always heartened to see that what little support guys like that have had, continues to wane, as even one time Leftists like BW have come to reject those kinds of ill-conceived ideas.

I'm always heartened to see that what little support guys like that have had, continues to wane, as even one time Leftists like BW have come to reject those kinds of ill-conceived ideas.

WoW! BW's apparently taken a stand in favor of an even MORE free market economy and LESS government intervention in the economy?!

Are you drunk?

I am.

Wasn't that your intent in the above post, to renounce the failed policies of the past 20 months (a "stimulus package" scam and the misguided "mortgage bailout" proposals)?

It certainly seemed like it was and I was lauding you for taking such a common-sense approach to the issues!

Could I have been wrong about your intent?

I am prone to give people credit for coming to good ideas (like espousing global capitalism and free markets) prematurely.

Perhaps you're merely coming around a bit slower than I gave you credit for?

If you think about it, the Sarah Palin choice isn't all that surprising, in that she's what all republicans want in a woman: young and inexperienced.

Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen, I'll be here all week, enjoy the buffet!

Get a grip, folks. People vote for presidents, not vice-presidents. The VP matchup is at best a sideshow. I interpret the choice mostly as a nod to the neo-con view that government is the problem, not the solution, therefore qualifications and experience are irrelevant.

I am.

lol. Well when you are out of the hangover, see if you can answer my question above.

If you think about it, the Sarah Palin choice isn't all that surprising, in that she's what all republicans want in a woman: young and inexperienced.

Good point. And, as you said, the more incompetent a candidate is, the better he/she is by neocon standards. It is a matter of principle for them.