There's two ways to take that. One way is that fanatics outside of the US are ignored as fruitcakes. This you have an issue with as the fruitcakes have a valid point, with which you agree. The alternative is that the you are saying that these fruitcakes are fanatics and you find it incredible that in the US they are considered conservative, when they should be considered extreme.

I couldn't really grasp your use of sarcasm (sarchasm).

Can you explain it to me?

Thanks!

Going on a gut-hunch here: Considering that there is an ongoing investigation of her in Alaska for misusing her position for personal reasons, I believe that McCain just made the dumbest decision he could have.

One of the McCain campaign's strongest weapons was the "lack of experience" card. They just trounced all over that argument by selecting a veep with a year and half of gubernatorial experience. Prior to that she was a mayor of an Alaskan town of 7000. People are going to ask themselves if they want Sarah Palin and her "qualifications" to be one heart attack away from the presidency. Not an unlikely scenario given McCain's age and health.

And I suspect her anti-abortion stance won't play well with the disenchanted Hillary supporters.

Biden is going to absolutely dismantle her at the VP debate. I doubt he'll be afraid of "picking on a woman" because heck, the GOP has been doing it to Hillary for years.

I guess non-religious people can be fanatics/fundamentalists as well when it comes to issues although I am yet to see the non-religious hordes who are against abortion in USA. Not saying that you wouldn't know the ones who are. Personally I would call anti-abortionism and it's more extreme variations almost uniformly a religious phenomena in USA.

Oh ok, by that rationale it is still ok to label certain groups of people fanatics/fundamentalists and others as social conservatives, right?

Nisgei,

not sure I follow you there. I'm just trying to distingish the line between fanatics/fundamentalists and social conservatives. Where exactly is the line drawn? Or is it, as I presume, more about something else, like for example the nationality of the said people and the access to power they have etc.

She's looking better and better to me, except for trying to fire her sisters ex-husband from his job as a State Trooper, other than that she looks good.

Quote:

Washington, D.C.: I was an apathetic McCain supporter until this. Now, I am energized. She does not have much experience but she is VP not POTUS. She seems smart, tenacious and just what McCain needs to beat the rap of "more of the same." This is definitely not "more of the same."

She does cause a problem with the Obama claim of more of the same.

No, Muslim fundamentalists are dangerous. The US has had Christian fundamentalists in positions of power, well, forever. Nothing bad has happened (I'm an atheist, myself, BTW, no dog in the fight).

tater

From who's point of view "nothing bad has happened"? I could mention the native Americans, I'm sure they weren't too happy about manifest destiny and stuff.

It's a hopeful vote grab. Pure and simple. And it exposes McCain's desperation...

This is what the obama campaign office had to say as soon as the choice was made. In fact his plane was still on the ground.

This is the second message:

What happened?

Someone had a change of mind about going after lady Palin.

Now if McCain and Palin win ... the people that we always call they (whoever they really is) can now taught Obama for not choosing Clinton.

All I can say is... if McCain picked Palin to try to win the "Hillary" votes as I and a lot of others suspect, He couldn't be farther from the mark. The only thing they have in common is that they're weomen. Palin stands pretty much for everything that Hillary is against. Palin is Anti-Abortion, pro-guns, and pro-big oil. :nope:
She is NOT going to appeal to the Hillary people.

I don't think McCain chose her to attract the Hillary anti-gun, anti-oil, pro-abortion vote. IMHO, he chose her for all her anti-Hillary qualities and to attract those voters who would have voted for Hillary just because she is a woman. She also can't logically be attacked by Obamas advisors as being inexperienced because she has more Executive experience than Obama has. She can't logically be attacked as a Washington insider. She can be lauded for her anti-corruption stance. Unless McCain missed something in vetting her that will come back to bite them later (allegedly having future ex-brother-in-law fired), he made a heck of a good choice.

And you forgot the most important part, she is seemingly more conservative then McCain is :smug:.

:rotfl: All women misuse their power for personal reasons if given the chance!

Heck, if my girlfirend saw me post this it would be "No sex for a month!"

That's basically how my wife see's it. When I came home today, she was very excited and the first things she said: "He chose Palin, and boy.. she is a MILF... Oh and welcome honey."

Well.. that certainly raised an eyebrow on my side.

:lol: No argument there!!! And men can be equally guilty (not me of course :shifty: ).

Still--I don't see this playing out well for McCain. Might be a good long-term move on her part though... Everyone will know who she is now.

They all do it. Ask Bush. Wait a minute, he might be listening in on our conversation. A lot goes on concerning power and who knows what. I do not think this is some gross over-indulgence of power. None-the-less, questions were raised and need to be looked into. I do not think that is that big of a deal. I would hope when vetted they checked eveything. You know, if Biden can get past plagarism, I'm sure she can get past this.

I think this looks like a gamble on the part of the Republicans. I can't really see the numbers of people who would vote for Clinton just because she was a woman being that high.

If you look at her right-wing credentials all I can see Palin doing is attracting people who on balance would probably have voted Republican anyway.

Still its an interesting move by the GOP and either way the US is in for something different whoever wins the election.

It was the Native American's own fault. They were on our land first.. :doh:

Our euphemism for Ethnic cleansing was "removals". It sounds so much nicer that way.

Lesson 1: It is not good to find yourself between an expansionist country and a coast line. It will not bode well for your future.

The more I read, the better the choice seems on many levels. As for not meeting her in person many times, so what? You forget, McCain is a Senator. SOP for them is to have staff put together options, and they pick. From everything I've read since yesterday, the first impression most people have of Palin is that she's great. If you've been well briefed on her and her background by your VP vetters, and she wows you on the first meeting... executive decisions sometimes have to be made like that, nice to see he can do that without having to poll for 3 weeks to find out what he thinks.

She locks the conservative base, and energizes them. This secures the Rove electoral strategy that we know works, but only barely (2000, 2004). McCain still has his crossover appeal (uniquely for a Republican), and can get some of the more moderate dems. Her anti-corruption background doesn't hurt. Biden is an attack dog, but in a VP debate, if he attacks hard he'll look mean (sexism double standard, but the right has to avoid being called racist every time they disagree with Obama, too, which is BS)—if she beats him up, Biden looks worse (getting beat up by a girl). She's nothing if not telegenic, too. While she's very conservative, he personal story about not aborting (either with amnio data, or choosing to go against standard of care for a 40+ YO mom and not get amnio) he Downs Syndrome kid is compelling, and something rational women can at least understand, even if they disagree. Attacking her experience is dangerous ground given the top of the Dem ticket's even lower level of experience.

She's a home run for McCain, IMO. VP rarely helps the ticket, but can hurt. She certainly does no harm, and IMO helps him politically.

I would have to agree with you. IMO McCain had far better choices - some of whom would have been more of a challenge to the Dem ticket. Just can't see Obama or Biden losing any sleep over McCain's choice.

She backs the teaching of creationism in public schools and is against abortion even for incest or rape - that alone will surely make her a hard sell to the majority of women.

I think I can hear Biden licking his lips at the sacrificial lamb that has just been thrown into his den.



Surely the nominee in selecting a VP must ask themselves the "What if" question. When McCain asked himself that question what was he thinking!? How on earth does someone who was no more than a mayor of a town with 7-8,000 people less than 2 years ago be a 'heart-beat' away from leading the free world and convince McCain, who places much emphasis on commander in chief qualities, that she is the one?