Liverpool FC Forum

by **Bad Bob** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:41 pm

Not sure if anyone's been following developments over the last day and half, thanks to the transfer window, but it's gotten very interesting. McCain's picked a running mate and the move may just shoot him in the foot. He's gone with the current Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, which seems to be a concerted effort to:

1) Swerve the standard group of Washington insiders and bring in someone fresh, thus reinforcing his "maverick" cache
2) Try and siphon off some of the female vote from Obama, especially given the fact that many Clinton supporters aren't best pleased with Obama

But, the whole thing is in the process of blowing up in his face for a few reasons:

1) She's only been Governor less than 2 years but he's trying to put her in a position that's a heartbeat away from the Presidency (and he's no spring chicken). Not surprisingly, the Obama camp have pointed out the irony that the Republicans have gone for someone with so little experience after spending the better part of the summer attacking Obama for having very little experience. So, in effect, choosing Palin has effectively removed one of the main criticisms that McCain can use against Obama.

2) Predictably, she's a social conservative who's pro-life and who supports removing sex ed programs from schools. She won points with other pro-lifers for recently giving birth to a child with Downs Syndrome when it was possible to terminate the pregnancy (obviously the child's condition was diagnosed during the pregnancy). But, she might have a little bit more trouble justifying her no-sex-ed pro-abstinence message since it's just been revealed that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant!!! :wwww

Apparently, the daughter is committed to keeping the baby (natch!) and marrying the father but the press are having a field day. Obama, of course, has taken the moral high ground and is refusing to talk about a political rival's family (safe in the knowledge that the press and liberal blog writers will do more than enough talking about it without his input).

3) She's also being dragged into a controversy about abuse of power. Apparently, as Governor, she's had her sister's ex-husband fired from his position as a state trooper. It sounds like there may be ample justification for that but the details are getting lost in the buzz about potential abuse of power.

All of this raises the question about how well the McCain camp vetted Palin as a running mate. Some rumours suggest he picked her after only a 15 minute conversation. He may--in fact probably will--recover from all of this but it's been an uncomfortable few days for the Republicans, who couldn't escape this story despite the fact that another hurricane has just side-swiped New Orleans. Crazy! :pirate

by **JoeTerp** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:33 pm

but amongst republicans, they are crazy about the nomination despite being not so crazy about McCain. The main republican argument about inexperience still holds however in that it is good to have balance between fresh faces and experience, but the dems have it in the wrong order.

by **Bad Bob** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:53 pm

JoeTerp wrote:but amongst republicans, they are crazy about the nomination despite being not so crazy about McCain. The main republican argument about inexperience still holds however in that it is good to have balance between fresh faces and experience, but the dems have it in the wrong order.

Perhaps it is good to have that blend, Joe, but McCain's in his 70s and so having an extremely inexperienced running mate takes on a different complexion when she stands a small but not insignificant chance of having to take over the Presidency in the event of a medical emergency/death.

by **JoeTerp** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:03 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:but amongst republicans, they are crazy about the nomination despite being not so crazy about McCain. The main republican argument about inexperience still holds however in that it is good to have balance between fresh faces and experience, but the dems have it in the wrong order.

Perhaps it is good to have that blend, Joe, but McCain's in his 70s and so having an extremely inexperienced running mate takes on a different complexion when she stands a small but not insignificant chance of having to take over the Presidency in the event of a medical emergency/death.

not sure if that is going to be in play for the dems unless McCain actually does show signs of seriously poor health other than just being old.

they can't ask him in a debate: what if you die old man?

but I do agree that it is more important in McCain's case to have a solid back up than in obama's.

I still think that VP talk is big for like 3 days the day each one is picked and the VP debate, other than that its going to have a marginal impact. Interesting that nobody picked VPs from big border states that could have helped in the battleground. Probably would have been played by the other side as a purely policitcal scheme move and not what is in the best interest of the country.

by **Bad Bob** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:09 pm

JoeTerp wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:but amongst republicans, they are crazy about the nomination despite being not so crazy about McCain. The main republican argument about inexperience still holds however in that it is good to have balance between fresh faces and experience, but the dems have it in the wrong order.

Perhaps it is good to have that blend, Joe, but McCain's in his 70s and so having an extremely inexperienced running mate takes on a different complexion when she stands a small but not insignificant chance of having to take over the Presidency in the event of a medical emergency/death.

not sure if that is going to be in play for the dems unless McCain actually does show signs of seriously poor health other than just being old.

they can't ask him in a debate: what if you die old man?

but I do agree that it is more important in McCain's case to have a solid back up than in obama's.

I still think that VP talk is big for like 3 days the day each one is picked and the VP debate, other than that its going to have a marginal impact. Interesting that nobody picked VPs from big border states that could have helped in the battleground. Probably would have been played by the other side as a purely policitcal scheme move and not what is in the best interest of the country.

Agreed. This furor will die down because, at the end of the day, the VPs are not big news.

Still, watching CNN was fascinating yesterday. Most of the day they focused on Hurricane Gustav with only a small, "oh by the way, Palin's daughter's pregnant" bit thrown in. As the hurricane passed and the damage reports came in, reassuring people that this was not Katrina part 2, they started to focus more and more attention on Palin. By the end of the night you'd be hard pressed to learn anything about the Hurricane besides what the ticker said. You could, however, hear James Carville explain for the 15th time why McCain made a blunder in picking Palin.

by **JoeTerp** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:16 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:but amongst republicans, they are crazy about the nomination despite being not so crazy about McCain. The main republican argument about inexperience still holds however in that it is good to have balance between fresh faces and experience, but the dems have it in the wrong order.

Perhaps it is good to have that blend, Joe, but McCain's in his 70s and so having an extremely inexperienced running mate takes on a different complexion when she stands a small but not insignificant chance of having to take over the Presidency in the event of a medical emergency/death.

not sure if that is going to be in play for the dems unless McCain actually does show signs of seriously poor health other than just being old.

they can't ask him in a debate: what if you die old man?

but I do agree that it is more important in McCain's case to have a solid back up than in obama's.

I still think that VP talk is big for like 3 days the day each one is picked and the VP debate, other than that its going to have a marginal impact. Interesting that nobody picked VPs from big border states that could have helped in the battleground. Probably would have been played by the other side as a purely policitcal scheme move and not what is in the best interest of the country.

Agreed. This furor will die down because, at the end of the day, the VPs are not big news.

Still, watching CNN was fascinating yesterday. Most of the day they focused on Hurricane Gustav with only a small, "oh by the way, Palin's daughter's pregnant" bit thrown in. As the hurricane passed and the damage reports came in, reassuring people that this was not Katrina part 2, they started to focus more and more attention on Palin. By the end of the night you'd be hard pressed to learn anything about the Hurricane besides what the ticker said. You could, however, hear James Carville explain for the 15th time why McCain made a blunder in picking Palin.

I was watching a lot of the Gustav coverage early when the mayor was saying it would be worse than katrina and there were predictions of the entire French Quarter going under water and the like. But once it died down to a force 2 and the levies seemed to be holding (albeit with water spilling over the top), I redirected my attention to tranfer news and then to American football. Very dissapointed with U Tenn. loosing to UCLA in the rose bowl. Tennasee certianly are far from my favorite team, but I root for all the SEC schools to win all their non-conference games and they clearly dominated the play but blew it with special teams (equivalent of creating loads of chances but having a schocking day with finishing and then getting nicked with a goal from a set piece). Despite the upset loss, SEC went 10-2, not too shabby.

by **jeffiroquai** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:43 pm

Love the election drama. All the bible banging Right wingers praying for Rain during Obama's speech, then having Gustav hit at the kick off of the RNC.

McCain, that crazy old :censored:

nominates the Alaskan Milf and then finds out her daughter is an unwed belly sweller.

LOL

You couldn't make this :censored:

up in a made for TV movie.

Meanwhile, neither of these :censored:

care about what is going on in this country. We are still dumping 10 plus billion a month in Iraq, the economy is the :censored:

, and both parties are lining up to please Israel instead of doing what is best for America. After 8 years of Bush, there needs to be some serious house cleaning. I am all for supporting change and tossing out the Republicans. Don't really support much of the left wing platform, but I am not mega rich, or an oil oligarch, so the Republicans could give a right toss about me or my family. I like the Biden pick. This guy is smart, and has good ideas about getting out of Iraq, economy, etc. Obama is a wild card, and while it is always good to shake things up every once in a while, I don't see him getting elected. It is still far to rascist here, and even if he did get in, some cracker down south would probably shoot his :censored:

anyway.

by **Bad Bob** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:52 pm

jeffiroquai wrote:the Alaskan Milf

She does have a bit of the 'frisky librarian' about her doesn't she?

by **JoeTerp** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:07 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
jeffiroquai wrote:the Alaskan Milf

She does have a bit of the 'frisky librarian' about her doesn't she?

she was runner up Miss Alaska in the 80s

by **Bad Bob** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:11 pm

JoeTerp wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
jeffiroquai wrote:the Alaskan Milf

She does have a bit of the 'frisky librarian' about her doesn't she?

she was runner up Miss Alaska in the 80s

Aye, she was. :nod

I would then. I still would now. :;):

by **Sabre** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:02 pm

Very interesting the insight. I don't get all of it, but it's more than enough to improve my info

About 5 years ago I made an "interchange" with a young american girl. That is, while she was in San Sebastian, one day we talked in Spanish, and the other day we talked in English to improve our language. Despite she was ginger and very american looking with all the freckles, she had a basque surname, Aldana. The thing is she was a democrat, but all her family of Washington was Republican. Question: Does ideology normally inherit from parents to sons? for what I learned from her or I think I understand to Jeffiroquei it seems so. But is it very common?

by **metalhead** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:07 pm

Hey Joe, been hearing from some American buddies that some people in the south have been raising confiderate flags in some towns.

This must be a scary situation.

by **JoeTerp** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:09 pm

metalhead wrote:Hey Joe, been hearing from some American buddies that some people in the south have been raising confiderate flags in some towns.

This must be a scary situation.

people have been raising Confederate flags for over a hundred years. A lot of state capitols up until very recently and I still think some might, fly it along with teh state flag and American flag.

by **metalhead** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:17 pm

JoeTerp wrote:
metalhead wrote:Hey Joe, been hearing from some American buddies that some people in the south have been raising confiderate flags in some towns.

This must be a scary situation.

people have been raising Confederate flags for over a hundred years. A lot of state capitols up until very recently and I still think some might, fly it along with teh state flag and American flag.

Though what if Obama wins? some southerners won't take that lightly because there is still alot of racisim issues going on there.

by **JoeTerp** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:26 pm

Sabre wrote:Very interesting the insight. I don't get all of it, but it's more than enough to improve my info

About 5 years ago I made an "interchange" with a young american girl. That is, while she was in San Sebastian, one day we talked in Spanish, and the other day we talked in English to improve our language. Despite she was ginger and very american looking with all the freckles, she had a basque surname, Aldana. The thing is she was a democrat, but all her family of Washington was Republican. Question: Does ideology normally inherit from parents to sons? for what I learned from her or I think I understand to Jeffiroquei it seems so. But is it very common?

only in the rarest (and very very frowned upon) of circumstances will you see people indocrinated with their parents politcs. I am sure a lot of times it happens on a more subconcious level. I think it used to be a bigger deal in the 1950s, 60s and 70s for kids to join a differnet political party than their parents, but what was a bigger deal was Wives belonging to different parties than their husbands. This was a big shock because the main reason why women couldn't vote was that everyone figured it would just be like doubling all the votes and making it harder to count because every woman would vote whatever their husband told them to.

But today this is not a shock and nor is it rare. Young people tend to skew very heavily to the democrats. I guess its the ideal of being part of something bigger. Plus most people who become teachers tend to be more liberal, and there are just a LOT more liberal messages bombarding children from a very young age. I am not 100%, but I am pretty sure and it makes sense to be logically (ill have to check the facts later) that women skew democrat as well. Democrats are pro choice (meaning women have the right to choose to have an abortion if they wish to)

was this American girl from Washington state (north-west pacific coast) or Washington DC (Mid-atlantic capitol of the country)? A white girl living in DC with republican parents, I would probably guess that she was democrat (although you already told me so its an easy guess

) Washington State, pretty much evreybody is democrat, so I would think the parents might have moved there from somewhere else. (all of these being gross over-simplifications because you are going to find dems and republicans everywhere

Liverpool FC Forum

United states of america presidential elections - + some folklore

Who is online