<p>It's insulting to the American people that McCain is running such a trashy campaign. Conservatism is taking a hard beating - choosing Palin is insulting to the intelligence of all the Republicans. Every day, I hear rants from other people talking about how stupid people are for liking McCain and Palin.</p>
<p>US Conservatism is supposed to be about maintaining the ideals of the conservative Christian ethic - hard work, truthfulness, chivalry and justice; the republican party from Bush to McCain seems to have lost that.Choosing a woman for dressing up an image for a campaign - a woman who has zero foreign policy experience who could very well become the president considering McCain's age - is extremely careless.</p>
<p>It seems that the Republicans are splitting into three - the Capitalists, the Protestant Evangelicals, and the war hawks - and I for one believe that this party, by pursuing a manipulative and image-blurring campaign - will shoot itself in the foot.</p>
<p>The McCain campaign is using gutter politics - I have never felt as a conservative so insulted to be a part of an ideology that stands for autonomy, determination and dignity - that has used manipulation and psychology as a weapon of swaying public opinion. If I were 18, I would vote for Obama, not because I agree more with his policies, but because the atmosphere of the Democratic campaign is freer from ingenuousness.</p>
<p>Yeah, us Republicans are now three - I'm a Capitalist myself.
Do you really think Palin was chosen solely to dress up an image for the campaign? As if the Republican committee is stupid enough to think that would actually work?! I can guarantee that nobody on the team that chose her actually thought that the fact that she's a woman would seriously sway any serious voter her way. Like a Hillary supporter would ever vote for Palin, just because she's a woman? Uhh, no.</p>
<p>Also, please explain to me what Obama's foreign policy experience is - because if it's that important that a VP candidate has it, then it sure as hell had better be MORE important for a Presidential candidate.</p>
<p>I feel like Palin's just an idiot. Even if she does understand what exactly is going on in the country, she is completely incapable of putting it into complete sentences. I also completely oppose her stance on the constitutional interpretation of the VPs job. She would be worse than Dick.</p>
<p>well I don't know about ya'll but I like McCain.
Every presidential year you all will hear how 'this presidential election is the most important in history and how America depends on it'
And every election you will have someone going "but this time it really is"
Anyways.
McCain has integrity and experience and I want him in Office when Russia is fixing to run rampant.
Nothing too much will change, despite what everyone says. If things get worse, Obama/McCain will get the blame (who ever becomes pres.) even if its not their fault.
Half the things people blame bush for are not bush's fault, or i,even in his control.
The fact is politics is dirty and in a true democracy, no one should every be happy. real democracy is loud and dirty.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Like a Hillary supporter would ever vote for Palin, just because she's a woman? Uhh, no.
[/quote]
hmm...I guess my mom doesn't count...</p>
<p>McCain is a right leaning moderate, something that I am...So I actually like him. I like Obama too, but I just don't think he is ready to be in office.</p>
Does your mom honestly not care about political stances and whatnot? I can't understand just voting for somebody just because of their gender or race.</p>
<p>And yeah, I'm a right leaning moderate, which is also why I like McCain and can very easily live with Sarah Palin's opinions and views.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also completely oppose her stance on the constitutional interpretation of the VPs job.
[/quote]
It's funny how nobody actually TALKED after the VP debate about how actually Sarah Palin's "interpretation" was correct. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all -Article I, section 3, clause 4 actually says "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided." President of the Senate? What could that mean? Well, it actually means that the VP gets to interpret the rules of the Senate itself and 60 SENATORS are needed to overrule the VP's decision. That sounds like a legislative decision to me, since legislature = "of or relating to the enactment of laws," and interpreting the rules OF the Senate [which enacts laws] would highly affect those laws.
Biden says that "The primary role of the vice president ... [is] to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit." Huh. That's funny. Because the Consitution IS explicit. The VP always presides over the Senate. The VP can only cast his/her OWN VOTE when there's a tie, but VP always has authority over the Senate [hence the term... "President of the Senate"].</p>
<p>Sarah Palin, on the other hand, even though her answer wasn't very good, at least understood the Constitution and realized that the VP does preside over the Senate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does your mom honestly not care about political stances and whatnot? I can't understand just voting for somebody just because of their gender or race.
[/quote]
Well she does, she actually liked McCain and Hilary.
But she thought it was time to have a women in office, and she didn't hate Hilary. She has always been a Left winged Moderate, maybe in her earlier years (:P) a pretty strong democrat.
But she did vote for her because she was a women, but she didn't switch over to McCain for Palin.
This will be the first time she will vote for a republican candidate is a presidential race.</p>
<p>I am a moderate conservative myself, and a supporter of McCain, but I am strongly against the use of trashy ads by the McCain Campaign. They are unclassy and tarnish his image. The Obama campaign has been much much cleaner in their adverstisements. I do believe, however, that issues are the first and foremost topics that the candidates should be focusing on, not how many houses someone owns, but you and I both know that the issues are not always given the most attention. For the people who hate the woman former Hiliary supporters who now support Palin just because of her gender, I would like to point out that the democratic party had absolutely no problem with those women when they were on their side, but now that the tables have turned, they are getting upset. If Hilary had received the nomination, then these "dumb" women would have voted to place Hilary into the White House, and the same democrats who object to the women who vote for Palin because of her gender would have no problem with those same women voting for Hilary because of her gender.
I don't think that generalizations should be made about party members such that members of the republican party are stupid or retarded because that statement itself has no evidence to back itself and thus discredits the statement altogether. It also serves no purpose, making those who are undecided think that people of either party who make such statements are incapable of articulating an intelligent statement through an object analysis, and thus make them wary of joining those people in a common interest. I believe that Senator Obama has accomplished a lot during his young career and that we can expect great change from him in the future, but I truly believe that Senator McCain is the better choice in this election.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But she thought it was time to have a women in office, and she didn't hate Hilary. She has always been a Left winged Moderate, maybe in her earlier years (:P) a pretty strong democrat.
[/quote]
But why have a women in office if she isn't even qualified? I mean I totally support having a women in office but by having Sarah Palin in office it wouldn't do any good for the image of a women in office. Honestly whatever Palin says anybody here could have said something better with more knowledge. She would do nothing but tarnish the image of women in office.</p>
<p>^
That is flaming material.
That is arguable...
I think she qualified, we can't expect her to know it all. She is only human.
Its like saying Barrack didn't know how to say Medvedev, the Russian dude's name...
SHe is knowledgeable.</p>
<p>"I think she qualified, we can't expect her to know it all. She is only human."</p>
<p>Maybe not know it all, but at the very least know the vast majority of it. I mean it is the second highest position in the country, I want someone who knows what to do and being able to make intelligible sentences helps too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the people who hate the woman former Hiliary supporters who now support Palin just because of her gender, I would like to point out that the democratic party had absolutely no problem with those women when they were on their side, but now that the tables have turned, they are getting upset. If Hilary had received the nomination, then these "dumb" women would have voted to place Hilary into the White House, and the same democrats who object to the women who vote for Palin because of her gender would have no problem with those same women voting for Hilary because of her gender.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm one of these people, but would never identify as being a Democrat. I didn't support the women who voted for Hillary simply because of her gender. I most DEFINITELY don't support those who originally voted for Hillary because of gender and are now planning to vote for Sarah Palin because she's a woman. It's one thing to be a Democrat and pick your Democratic nominee because she's a woman, but it's a totally different level of unintelligence that will vote for a different PARTY with utterly different policies because that party happens to include a woman nominee. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.</p>
<p>Okay, I have a lot to say. First off, with the Hillary/Palin argument. Personally, I believe that it is stupid for someone who was originally going to vote for Clinton to vote for McCain/Palin. As far as I am concerned, if someone does that they either strongly dislike Obama, or they're voting that way because Palin is a woman. Don't get me wrong though, there are people who will vote for Palin simply because she is female. While I think that is wrong, that is because I try to base my decisions on ideologies (not that I can vote :P). That being said, I disagree with the common thought that McCain chose Palin to get feminists. I don't think that is the case. Sure, it may be an extra bonus, but I think that he chose her to gain the support of social conservatives / Evangelical Christians. McCain is a pretty moderate Republican and Palin is pretty far right. By adding her to his ticket, he was able to unite the Republican party (which goes along with the split that is becoming pretty obvious). I also feel that as a person, Palin is pretty likeable. I think that she has the potential to connect to the people very well.</p>
<p>As for Palin. I don't really like her. Sometimes I do, most of the time I don't. She does come off VERY unexperienced and unknowledgeable. I do think, however, that she deserves some credit. I think that entering this campaign, she was a pretty far longshot for the VP spot. Because of that, I doubt that she got much prep and studying before she was exposed to the public. I think that we need to remember that the Presidential canidates get taught A LOT of this stuff, they don't just magically know it. Perhaps, Palin wasn't given enough time to learn prior to getting out there in the publics eyes. I mean, a lot of people think that McCain and his people didn't vet her enough prior to annoucing her (with her pregnant daughter and all) but I don't think so. I think her whole family thing works with her and connecting to the people. So, I think that we need to give Palin some credit, but still... </p>
<p>I think that if she never learned all the foreign policy stuff enough, then she NEVER should have agreed to do interviews with Gibson and Couric (I think those are what really hurt her). She was like a deer in the headlights literaly. I mean, when a VP canidate is having trouble with Katie Couric, we have a problem, I mean, she's not that tough. Watching those interviews was nausiating. At some points I seriously felt as if I could do better than her. I think that the prepping is obvious when you take into account how she did on the VP debate. While she still did terrible IMO, she did FAR better than I expected. As far as substance, she never has much and she sounds really scripted, oh and she only seems to answer what she wants (didn't impress me) but still, she did better than she could have. I think she has to stop with all the colloquials though, it was just unbearable to listen to them again and again. Darn right!</p>
<p>Now McCain. I think that parts of his campaign are really good. I think the highlight for me was the part during his speech at the RNC when there was a riot and he said that Americans need to stop yelling at each other, or something like that. The audience just chuckled, and I think it went right over their heads. To me, that statement shows that he realizes that Americans need to just work things out and compromise with each other. I think McCain has it right, but I'm not sure that the rest of the Republican party does. So while I like McCain, there are times that I don't like the Republican party as a whole (like during Giuliani's speech at the RNC) which leaves me a little confused.</p>
<p>YOu guys do realize that McCain didnt choose Palin. The republican party behind the show practically mandated it. He originally went with lieberman, you know, and of course conservatives freaked. He then went with a that dude who was pro choice, but a very reasonable, moderate-conservative. Then the republican party suggested Palin and he had to go with it.</p>
<p>Palin is just <em>bleh</em>. I mean, she said that she was disappointed when she got to the UN because most of the people there were foreigners LMAO!</p>