As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

American Presidency: Let's get Eric!

ElkiElki get busyModerator, ClubPA mod
edited September 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
NEVER let it be said that politics deals no surprises. After weeks of speculation about his choice for vice-president on the Republican ticket, John McCain bypassed the names most often mentioned, such as Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney. On Friday August 29th he chose a little-known candidate—Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska for less than two years.

Ms Palin is the first woman on a Republican ticket; by selecting her the McCain campaign will hope to expand its reach to female voters, though she may be a tough sell to disaffected supporters of Hillary Clinton. Born in small-town Idaho, Ms Palin moved to small-town Alaska when she was a child. She is a former beauty queen and a keen sportswoman—her aggressive style of playing basketball earning her the nickname “Sarah barracuda”. As a mother of five she will be able to empathise with other hard-pressed female professionals balancing home and career.

Opting for Ms Palin may also go some way towards soothing the nerves of social conservatives, who were aghast at Mr McCain’s recent suggestion that he would not necessarily rule out picking a vice-president who supports abortion rights. Mr McCain may have heeded the warning that such a selection would cause “the base” to stay at home on election day; one poll found that 20% of McCain supporters would be less likely to vote for him if his veep was pro-choice. But Ms Palin is a staunch Christian, a member of the National Rifle Association, and enjoys fishing and hunting.

Although she is popular with conservatives, Ms Palin will not be able to cement the evangelical wing of the party to Mr McCain in the same way that the selection of Mr Pawlenty would have done through his strong ties to the National Association of Evangelicals.

But the risks of choosing such an unknown quantity are enormous. An important aspect in selecting a vice-president is to reassure the electorate that should anything happen to the man in the Oval Office there is a competent and trustworthy stand-in ready to take over. John McCain’s age (he is 72) is an underlying factor with voters. Although Ms Palin’s youthfulness, she is 44, is an eye-catching contrast to the top of the ticket, questions will be raised about her ability to run the country if Mr McCain should ever be incapacitated.

And the tenures of both Al Gore and Dick Cheney as vice-president have raised the profile of the office. Vice-presidents were once expected to be solid and reliable but mostly boring. Messrs Gore and Cheney took on policy portfolios, such as government reform or preparing for war with Iraq. Barack Obama’s pick of Joe Biden for the role now seems all the more wise.

By choosing the governor of Alaska as his running mate, Mr McCain also turns the spotlight on the state’s politics, which is currently entangled in corruption scandals. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator ever, faces corruption charges in relation to building work on his home. Other state officials are under investigation in separate cases. And Alaskans are going through a period of introspection about politics and energy interests, on which the state has thrived.

Mr McCain lauded Ms Palin's “record of delivering on the change and reform” needed in Washington, DC, and clearly recognises her as a fellow maverick. She was elected as Alaska’s youngest ever governor in 2006, a bright spot in a dreadful year for the Republican Party, which lost control of Congress in the mid-term elections. She arrived in Juneau, the state capital, with a squeaky-clean agenda, vowing to reform the state’s politics and root out corruption. She built a reputation for taking on the state's big oil interests with their links to the Republican Party. However, Ms Palin has become embroiled in a minor scandal concerning the sacking of a state trooper, though she adamantly denies any wrongdoing. The state legislature is now investigating the whole affair, to Ms Palin’s embarrassment.

Still, come Monday and the start of the Republican convention in Minneapolis-St Paul, there will be a new star in the Republican firmament. Whether she will help or hinder Mr McCain’s campaign against Barack Obama is far from clear.
"Don't bully her"

MANY are saying, on the talk shows this morning, "Joe Biden has to be careful not to appear to be bullying Sarah Palin in their debate." I wrote it myself the other day. But I'd like to walk it back and explain it. This is actually bad news for John McCain. In many cases it's conservatives saying this. They are unconsciously reinforcing an idea—regardless of whether it is true—that she is is so weak or inexperienced that she can be pushed around by an American senator. Many will wonder whether she's ready to handle Vladimir Putin if she can't handle Joe Biden.

smCQ5WE.jpg
Elki on
«13456763

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    No political speakers tomorrow night.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2008
    Every article The Economist has published over the past few months about this election/primary cycle has, without fail, made me more disenchanted with them than the last.

    Oboro on
    words
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    What would I be indicating by saying I think she is a wash as opposed to great or bad?

    Quid on
  • King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    I dunno... I just went with bad.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    What would I be indicating by saying I think she is a wash as opposed to great or bad?

    She'll have no net impact on McCain's chances to win the election is how I interpreted it.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    What would I be indicating by saying I think she is a wash as opposed to great or bad?

    That she gives as much as she takes away.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    edited August 2008
    I put a wash because I have a feeling this knee-jerk reaction of a pick could become a deathblow for the Mccain camp. I think everyone can agree that this was a roll of the dice, and you sure as hell don't gamble when you're confident with your current chances of winning.

    No-Quarter on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Every article The Economist has published over the past few months about this election/primary cycle has, without fail, made me more disenchanted with them than the last.
    The Economist or the elections?

    Fencingsax on
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Elki wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    What would I be indicating by saying I think she is a wash as opposed to great or bad?

    That she gives as much as she takes away.

    Oh damn it. Can I change mine to bad then?

    No-Quarter on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2008
    If I put this up in the previous thread I would've picked "great." Thinking about it more makes me think less of her, though.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    Every article The Economist has published over the past few months about this election/primary cycle has, without fail, made me more disenchanted with them than the last.
    The Economist or the elections?
    The Economist.

    If I were simply getting my information from The Economist, I'd actually feel better about the election, but their attempts at being 'objective' as-of-late often have them planting a flag too firmly within the right-wing spin than I'm comfortable with.

    Oboro on
    words
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Went with not ready and a wash. I think she'll be an overall plus for a while but something about her makes me think something will happen before November.

    Quid on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    The Economist.

    If I were simply getting my information from The Economist, I'd actually feel better about the election, but their attempts at being 'objective' as-of-late often have them planting a flag too firmly within the right-wing spin than I'm comfortable with.

    The Economist has always had a strong (European) liberal slant. They don't pretend otherwise.

    enc0re on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2008
    I said 'not ready, and great' because I wholeheartedly believe -- at face value -- she was the best pick for an otherwise failing campaign.

    Whether this bears out or not, you have to consider whether it could have borne out with any other veep slotted in to begin with. I considered her choice a vile and despicable ploy, but I'm willing to honor that it was a risk that may necessarily have had to be taken ... for all the wrong reasons, unfortunately. Politically? A great pick, even if it makes my stomach churn.

    Oboro on
    words
  • SpoonySpoony Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Palin might be what McCain needed to actually get the social conservatives off their asses and to the polls come Novemeber. She's about as far right as you can get and that might excite the clinic bombers.

    On the whole it will likely drive some moderates and the lingering Hillary "I don't really like Obama" malingerers into Obama's open arms. And like most of the political freakshow that gets trotted out for an attention grab, she'll probably fade into the back either when people weary of her annoying accent and/or her incompetence. She'll show up for the VP debate and look good on certain questions where you can give a mindless, one sentence answer but be Biden's punching bag for anything that is remotely complex. You'll also see the McCain camp try to force her to the back so that the mouthpieces that go on the networks won't be struggling to come up with new ways to call her "experienced" when 80% of the nation knows she's a fucking rookie.

    Spoony on
  • CrimsondudeCrimsondude Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    So who here is shocked that the Republicans are using a (potential) catastrophe for political gain?

    Anyone?

    Republicans Suspend Most of Convention Activities Monday

    With Hurricane Gustav heading toward the Gulf Coast, Senator
    John McCain announced that Republican Party activities on
    Monday in St. Paul would be suspended except for necessary
    business. He called on his party members to "take off our
    Republican hats and put on out American hats."

    Crimsondude on
  • GlaealGlaeal Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    So who here is shocked that the Republicans are using a catastrophe for political gain?

    Anyone?

    Republicans Suspend Most of Convention Activities Monday

    With Hurricane Gustav heading toward the Gulf Coast, Senator
    John McCain announced that Republican Party activities on
    Monday in St. Paul would be suspended except for necessary
    business. He called on his party members to "take off our
    Republican hats and put on out American hats."

    The Democrats would do the same thing.

    Glaeal on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    So who here is shocked that the Republicans are using a (potential) catastrophe for political gain?

    Anyone?

    Republicans Suspend Most of Convention Activities Monday

    With Hurricane Gustav heading toward the Gulf Coast, Senator
    John McCain announced that Republican Party activities on
    Monday in St. Paul would be suspended except for necessary
    business. He called on his party members to "take off our
    Republican hats and put on out American hats."

    He's betting on the POW card deflecting criticism.

    MKR on
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Every article The Economist has published over the past few months about this election/primary cycle has, without fail, made me more disenchanted with them than the last.

    I know. Seriously, what the fuck happened to the Economist?

    Professor Phobos on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    "American hats" is a pathetic metaphor, but I don't see why we shouldn't take the Republican Party at their word when they make the promise to do whatever they can to help those affected by Gustav and assume the best of their motives. They're not monsters.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • BitstreamBitstream Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    So who here is shocked that the Republicans are using a (potential) catastrophe for political gain?

    Anyone?

    Republicans Suspend Most of Convention Activities Monday

    With Hurricane Gustav heading toward the Gulf Coast, Senator
    John McCain announced that Republican Party activities on
    Monday in St. Paul would be suspended except for necessary
    business. He called on his party members to "take off our
    Republican hats and put on out American hats."

    BREAKING NEWS - McCain Reveals Republicans Are Not Americans

    Bitstream on
  • The Raging PlatypusThe Raging Platypus Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Every article The Economist has published over the past few months about this election/primary cycle has, without fail, made me more disenchanted with them than the last.

    I know. Seriously, what the fuck happened to the Economist?

    I don't know, man. I make it a point to avoid any of their political commentary and read everything else.

    The Raging Platypus on
    Quid wrote: »
    YOU'RE A GOD DAMN PLATYPUS.
    PSN Name: MusingPlatypus
  • SpoonySpoony Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    What else could the Republicans do? Demand the governors of those states attend the convention and have four days of dancing to country music while the South gets washed away? They'll get a few points for not blowing the handling of Gustav and making with the serious but they'll also lose their ability to really hammer on Obama and noun, verb, POW, experience, maverick, my friends.

    Spoony on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    I put not ready and bad. I think most picks would have been a wash, because people generally don't care about the VP (only slightly more so given his age). But this was such a terrible pick in terms of readiness that it reflects badly on McCain. I haven't heard a single person say a good thing about Palin, which is unusual given the number of people I've talked to or heard discuss it even in true blue Massachusetts and/or Rhode Island.
    So who here is shocked that the Republicans are using a (potential) catastrophe for political gain?

    Anyone?

    Republicans Suspend Most of Convention Activities Monday

    With Hurricane Gustav heading toward the Gulf Coast, Senator
    John McCain announced that Republican Party activities on
    Monday in St. Paul would be suspended except for necessary
    business. He called on his party members to "take off our
    Republican hats and put on out American hats."

    They are psyched that Bush & Cheney won't speak at their convention now. They basically want Wednsday (maybe) and Thursday after the NFL opener. Basically it seems they are not gong to have a convention this year now, just a single speech.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Bitstream wrote: »
    BREAKING NEWS - McCain Reveals Republicans Are Not Americans
    That's what I was trying to figure out. Is he saying he has no problem otherwise screwing over Democrats if it's not a national disaster?

    Quid on
  • LionLion Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    I went with "not ready and a wash". I think it was honestly the only move McCain could make to get attention but we've had less than 2 days to dig into her past and it's not been very flattering to her. The cronyism stuff, allegations of abuse of power, and that she just doesn't seem to know much about the issues or just doesn't care makes me think she'll end hurting in the long run.

    Lion on
    PSN: WingedLion | XBL: Winged Lion
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Every article The Economist has published over the past few months about this election/primary cycle has, without fail, made me more disenchanted with them than the last.

    I know. Seriously, what the fuck happened to the Economist?

    I don't know, man. I make it a point to avoid any of their political commentary and read everything else.

    Yeah, but I used to be able to get good commentary out of them, even when- and sometimes especially if- I disagreed. Nowadays they seem to be blindly parroting the talking points of American media. Identifying McCain as a maverick? Seriously?

    Professor Phobos on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Spoony wrote: »
    What else could the Republicans do? Demand the governors of those states attend the convention and have four days of dancing to country music while the South gets washed away? They'll get a few points for not blowing the handling of Gustav and making with the serious but they'll also lose their ability to really hammer on Obama and noun, verb, POW, experience, maverick, my friends.

    If this wasn't an election year? I'm thinking they'd eat cake.

    Gustav won't help much because while Bush won't appear, they lose some convention bump and it'll remind people of Katrina.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Every article The Economist has published over the past few months about this election/primary cycle has, without fail, made me more disenchanted with them than the last.

    I know. Seriously, what the fuck happened to the Economist?

    I third this. It's like the have no idea what the hell is going on.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Gaaaaaaaah
    11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

    Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    enc0re wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    The Economist.

    If I were simply getting my information from The Economist, I'd actually feel better about the election, but their attempts at being 'objective' as-of-late often have them planting a flag too firmly within the right-wing spin than I'm comfortable with.

    The Economist has always had a strong (European) liberal slant. They don't pretend otherwise.

    Yeah, I actually like their bias since they come right out and admit to it.

    In regards to their coverage, I think it's mostly a concern over Obama's economic policy -which has been both populist and doctrinaire Democrat at times- and a desire to consider McCain from the 2000 vantage point rather than the 2008.

    moniker on
  • seabassseabass Doctor MassachusettsRegistered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Gaaaaaaaah
    11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

    Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

    There is no way she doesn't realize it's a recent thing, right? Funnily enough, McCain is old enough to remember the introduction of the phrase, but Palin is young enough that it happened before she was born.

    seabass on
    Run you pigeons, it's Robert Frost!
  • Rufus_ShinraRufus_Shinra Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Gaaaaaaaah
    11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

    Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
    Am I the only one that finds stuff like this hilarious?

    This is almost as good as the time that the Republican Whip in congress got into an argument with Chris Matthews stating that "It's the commander in chief's role to decide when to go to war, congress has no place in national security."

    Rufus_Shinra on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Gaaaaaaaah
    11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

    Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

    Blank-Picard_Facepalm.jpg

    moniker on
  • LionLion Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Gaaaaaaaah
    11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

    Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
    Am I the only one that finds stuff like this hilarious?

    This is almost as good as the time that the Republican Whip in congress got into an argument with Chris Matthews stating that "It's the commander in chief's role to decide when to go to war, congress has no place in national security."

    I do but then I remember that these people are in positions of power. Then I just get sad.

    Lion on
    PSN: WingedLion | XBL: Winged Lion
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    seabass wrote: »
    Gaaaaaaaah
    11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

    Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

    There is no way she doesn't realize it's a recent thing, right? Funnily enough, McCain is old enough to remember the introduction of the phrase, but Palin is young enough that it happened before she was born.

    And beyond the actual phrase, the Pledge of Allegiance wasn't even invented until 1892.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Lion wrote: »
    I went with "not ready and a wash". I think it was honestly the only move McCain could make to get attention but we've had less than 2 days to dig into her past and it's not been very flattering to her. The cronyism stuff, allegations of abuse of power, and that she just doesn't seem to know much about the issues or just doesn't care makes me think she'll end hurting in the long run.

    That's why I put she'll hurt him. It's obvious nobody vetted her, and with that being the case something is almost certainly going to come up that shines poorly on her/McCain.

    moniker on
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Gaaaaaaaah
    11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

    Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
    Am I the only one that finds stuff like this hilarious?

    This is almost as good as the time that the Republican Whip in congress got into an argument with Chris Matthews stating that "It's the commander in chief's role to decide when to go to war, congress has no place in national security."

    "If English was good enough for the Bible..."

    Professor Phobos on
  • Rufus_ShinraRufus_Shinra Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Lion wrote: »
    Gaaaaaaaah
    11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

    Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
    Am I the only one that finds stuff like this hilarious?

    This is almost as good as the time that the Republican Whip in congress got into an argument with Chris Matthews stating that "It's the commander in chief's role to decide when to go to war, congress has no place in national security."

    I do but then I remember that these people are in positions of power. Then I just get sad.
    Oh, I stopped worrying about McCain winning the election this Friday. Did you see Obama's speech? Have you seen McCain's running mate?

    Now I get to just enjoy the show as McCain's core message implodes and women turn on his pandering ass.

    Rufus_Shinra on
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Elki wrote: »
    "Don't bully her"

    MANY are saying, on the talk shows this morning, "Joe Biden has to be careful not to appear to be bullying Sarah Palin in their debate." I wrote it myself the other day. But I'd like to walk it back and explain it. This is actually bad news for John McCain. In many cases it's conservatives saying this. They are unconsciously reinforcing an idea—regardless of whether it is true—that she is is so weak or inexperienced that she can be pushed around by an American senator. Many will wonder whether she's ready to handle Vladimir Putin if she can't handle Joe Biden.

    To be fair, Putin just shot a tiger, I'm not sure anyone is quite ready to handle him.

    Rook on
This discussion has been closed.