Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Sarah Palin betrays McCain

Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 3:52:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
McCain took the previously unknown Sarah Palin, last year, and catapulted her to stardom. After their defeat, Palin is now blaming McCain for the botched interview with Katie Couric (they didn't inform her and "control it" apparently) and she is saying the McCain campaign held her back. To me this is just a pathetic and unethical attempt at betraying McCain in order to push her career, and her book. Her notoriety was made possibly by opportunities, created by McCain, that she botched. This further makes the GOP look like a party that will stab each other in the back if it means a chance for success. Any thoughts?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 3:59:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 3:52:34 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
McCain took the previously unknown Sarah Palin, last year, and catapulted her to stardom. After their defeat, Palin is now blaming McCain for the botched interview with Katie Couric (they didn't inform her and "control it" apparently) and she is saying the McCain campaign held her back. To me this is just a pathetic and unethical attempt at betraying McCain in order to push her career, and her book. Her notoriety was made possibly by opportunities, created by McCain, that she botched. This further makes the GOP look like a party that will stab each other in the back if it means a chance for success. Any thoughts?

I couldn't agree with you more, Rob. The GOP screwed up in the first place by forcing McCain to choose Sarah as a running mate despite her blaring incompetence. The McCain camp didn't "hold her back" lol they were trying to prevent her from looking like even more of an idiot. Further, how good does it look for the GOP party if they were trying to stifle the person they wanted to be VP?! If John had died, we'd be SOL.

She should be kissing McCain's toe. Nobody had heard of her before as you said, and moreover, it was her own lack of intelligence that stood in her way. What do you mean they didn't "control" her interview? She couldn't list the name of one newspaper and/or magazine that she read! What a ridiculous and pathetic politician. Also note that she quit her job as governor... Again, what if she were VP or Prez? Her candidacy absolutely speaks volumes for the GOP. A LOT of people voted for a McCain/PALIN ticket.
President of DDO
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 4:01:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I know of a lot of people down here that would not have voted for the Republican ticket if a fundamentalist had not been picked.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 5:22:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 4:01:15 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I know of a lot of people down here that would not have voted for the Republican ticket if a fundamentalist had not been picked.

Yeah, Mccain has always been unpopular with conservatives. I think that the campaign was worried about the "base" showing up to vote, and in picking Palin they got'em to, but they lost a lot of moderates/independants.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 6:41:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What do you mean they didn't "control" her interview?

Yeah I just caught a snippet of a FOX-sponsored ad for her (they are plugging her book like you wouldn't believe) where she actually blames the McCain camp for that debacle. Can you think of anything more pathetic?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 6:45:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 4:01:15 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I know of a lot of people down here that would not have voted for the Republican ticket if a fundamentalist had not been picked.

Yes, and I know a lot of people who WOULD have voted for McCain if a fundamentalist hadn't been picked. Those morons who vote based on faith and not policy are exactly what ruins America. She's an imbecile and those who in their right mind would vote her in as #2 are stupid. I don't care how nasty that comes off either; I feel that strongly about it.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 6:46:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 6:41:29 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
What do you mean they didn't "control" her interview?

Yeah I just caught a snippet of a FOX-sponsored ad for her (they are plugging her book like you wouldn't believe) where she actually blames the McCain camp for that debacle. Can you think of anything more pathetic?

Yea, the people that voted for her or because of her.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 6:46:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 5:22:49 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/13/2009 4:01:15 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I know of a lot of people down here that would not have voted for the Republican ticket if a fundamentalist had not been picked.

Yeah, Mccain has always been unpopular with conservatives. I think that the campaign was worried about the "base" showing up to vote, and in picking Palin they got'em to, but they lost a lot of moderates/independants.

He's unpopular because he's bipartisan and a reasonable man. I am a huge fan of John McCain. Him being bullied into having Sarah as a running mate was a damn shame.
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 6:51:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 6:46:56 PM, theLwerd wrote:
He's unpopular because he's bipartisan and a reasonable man. I am a huge fan of John McCain. Him being bullied into having Sarah as a running mate was a damn shame.

Ehh, bipartisan? He is pretty dumb in my opinion. George Bush lite. I don't see how you could like McCain either. I hate McCain. He's a typical neocon who doesn't know hot to manage the economy and is a war hawk. That's why he's unpopular - I don't see how you could rationalize him being unpopular because he is bipartisan and reasonable.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:01:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 6:51:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/13/2009 6:46:56 PM, theLwerd wrote:
He's unpopular because he's bipartisan and a reasonable man. I am a huge fan of John McCain. Him being bullied into having Sarah as a running mate was a damn shame.

Ehh, bipartisan? He is pretty dumb in my opinion. George Bush lite. I don't see how you could like McCain either. I hate McCain. He's a typical neocon who doesn't know hot to manage the economy and is a war hawk. That's why he's unpopular - I don't see how you could rationalize him being unpopular because he is bipartisan and reasonable.

He's more bipartisan than a lot of others. I was using that as a reason that Conservatives don't like him -- he's not Conservative enough. That's why they needed a fundamentalist like Palin. I have no idea how you can possibly say that McCain is a neocon aside from his take on foreign policy and the military. Yes, he's incredibly hawkish. That's his thing. But are you really suggesting that his other policies are neocon? Wow. Interesting. I don't see how he's George Bush lite at all. Granted I don't think his plan for the economy was stellar; it was typical Conservative.
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:08:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:01:21 PM, theLwerd wrote:
He's more bipartisan than a lot of others. I was using that as a reason that Conservatives don't like him -- he's not Conservative enough. That's why they needed a fundamentalist like Palin.

He is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). This is why conservatives and the GOP base do not like him. I don't know where you're getting the idea "they" (who is they?) need Palin. She hurt McCain in the polls, she didn't help...

I have no idea how you can possibly say that McCain is a neocon aside from his take on foreign policy and the military. Yes, he's incredibly hawkish. That's his thing. But are you really suggesting that his other policies are neocon? Wow. Interesting. I don't see how he's George Bush lite at all. Granted I don't think his plan for the economy was stellar; it was typical Conservative.

. . .

Yes, his policies are very neocon. He is practically identical to Bush. His economic plans weren't conservative at all, he would've spent more than Bush, but less than Obama.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:11:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I dunno, Bush spent a lot...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:16:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:08:28 PM, Nags wrote:

He is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). This is why conservatives and the GOP base do not like him. I don't know where you're getting the idea "they" (who is they?) need Palin. She hurt McCain in the polls, she didn't help...

Nags, I'm starting to think that you really don't know very much about politics. How the hell are you going to call him a RINO in the post directly after you called him a neocon? That's contradictory. I also never said that Republicans needed Palin. I said that she hurt them (see my post to wjmelements). However, I said the reason Palin was picked -- and everyone knows this -- is because McCain is seen as too moderate by a lot of conservatives. Palin was a hot young contrast who helped eliminate some of the old white man image. Her fundamental views did help the McCain party; if she weren't such an idiot, she would have helped a lot more.

Yes, his policies are very neocon. He is practically identical to Bush. His economic plans weren't conservative at all, he would've spent more than Bush, but less than Obama.

Bush was not fiscally conservative at ALL. McCain might have increased military spending, but cut back in other areas. Also, again how are you going to call McCain a neocon on one hand and a big spender on the other? Similarly, to say that McCain would have spent more than Obama would have to mean that Obama spends more than Bush. We'll see about that in 8 years :)
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:30:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:16:51 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Nags, I'm starting to think that you really don't know very much about politics. How the hell are you going to call him a RINO in the post directly after you called him a neocon? That's contradictory.

No, it's really not. Neoconservatives are big spending, war-hawks who are in no way similar to actual conservatives. McCain is pro-lots of taxes, pro-lots of spending, pro-amnesty, pro-every war ever. <<<Neoconservative. <<<RINO. Republicans are generally con-taxes, con-spending, con-amnesty, neutral-war. McCain is quite liberal. Neoconservatives are liberal.

I also never said that Republicans needed Palin. I said that she hurt them (see my post to wjmelements). However, I said the reason Palin was picked -- and everyone knows this -- is because McCain is seen as too moderate by a lot of conservatives. Palin was a hot young contrast who helped eliminate some of the old white man image. Her fundamental views did help the McCain party; if she weren't such an idiot, she would have helped a lot more.

First you say she did hurt McCain. Then later in the paragraph you said she did help McCain. You're going to have to clear your views up.

Bush was not fiscally conservative at ALL. McCain might have increased military spending, but cut back in other areas. Also, again how are you going to call McCain a neocon on one hand and a big spender on the other? Similarly, to say that McCain would have spent more than Obama would have to mean that Obama spends more than Bush. We'll see about that in 8 years :)

Yeah, that's what I said. Bush was not fiscally conservative, but McCain is even less fiscally conservative. Also, neoconservatives are big spenders. This is a basic fact, I'm starting to think that you really don't know very much about politics. :P Also, I never said McCain would spend more than Obama. And if you think that Obama will come even come close to spending near Bush, you are crazy, Obama is destroying the debt and deficit record, he's crushing Bush in spending.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 9:53:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
WIKI says -
"Neoconservatism... supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes."

Seems to fit Bush and McCain to me...

I think that McCain is really cool in certain ways... He is obviously an absolute legend for his heroics in Vietnam, and I have seen a very cooperative side to him ever since he lost the election. While other Republicans have become bitter and intentionally uncooperative (for the sole purpose of being able to say that Obama can't get anything done), McCain actually wants to get some work done. I wasn't too fond of his comments about America being "a Christian nation", or his comments about marijuana being a "gateway drug" (thus necessitating prohibition), but that's just about any Republican for you.

"con-taxes, con-spending, con-amnesty, neutral-war..."

Republicans seem to change like the chameleon, depending on what time of day it is and what kind of Republican is necessary. There hasn't been too many war-neutral Republicans that I've met in the last decade, with the sole exception of Ron Paul. Ever since Reagan, Republicans have pretty much been zealous-war. They are con-spending, but wasted so much money on the war it is not funny. Although I guess that's where you draw the line for neo-cons. This seems a little too... Convenient though. Ron Paul didn't exactly have Republican company in condemning the war. Republicans are responsible for massive spending since 2000, because of the war. Saying "hey, those are the Neocons" just doesn't cut it for me. Will the true Republican please stand up? Instead of letting the Republicans point fingers at each other and blame their violations of ethics and spending on "the other Republicans", I feel better not electing them at all.

This whole grass-roots conservative thing is nothing more than a hoax. Con-spending my a55, they are just nuts! The reason we have neocons in the first place is because conservatives needed a facelift! The free market doesn't work without regulations - LOTS of them. The free market produces monopolies, collusion, price-gouging, environmental damage, class separation, wastes of resources... And Conservative's ethics are just terrible! The Bible doesn't provide a blueprint for 21st century ethics, I'm sorry. In your personal life, I'm sure the Bible can do wonders, but from a policy perspective, unless you leave the Bible at the door, you are going to end up with simple atrocity (religion and gov't don't mix). The Soldiers of Allah are never going to give up fighting the Soldiers of Jesus... If they had the money and power then the Christians would be the suicide bombers and the Islamists would be sitting comfortably in their middle-class homes going to friendly churches and condemning Christians for being barbarians. Of course I can rant forever about this and it doesn't really matter...
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 10:32:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Wow, Rob. You're taking the words right out of my mouth tonight!!!

To go along with what he said, Republicans, including McCain, adapt to fit the needs of their party. McCain was once seen as a lot more liberal. For instance, in 1999 he was pro-choice; now he's pro-life. At first he opposed a federal gay marriage ban; then he was okay with it. McCain has been pretty liberal with his views on things like campaign finance reform, and we all know that he practically favors amnesty for illegal immigrants. So, McCain is one of the most bipartisan conservatrives IMO. Regardless of his reasoning for some flip-flops, he's still known to "reach across the aisle" like he echoed many times throughout the 08 campaign.

As far as him being a neo-con, I disagree that he is one just because he "supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries." Many Americans feel that way depending on the situation. I also disagree that McCain is okay with a welfare state. Regardless, my point was that it still seems contradictory to consider someone a neo-con and a RINO in the same breath. While it's true that the Republicans USED to be the party of small and limited government, it hasn't been that way in awhile. I'm not only talking about the war issue, but social ones as well. GWB and the most recent Repubs spent a lot more than most Republicans usually do.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 10:39:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And Nags, as far as Sarah Palin goes, I don't really see what's so difficult to understand... McCain had a reputation for not connecting with people number one, being among the typical white man politician stereotype number two, and number three being seen as too socially liberal and not super religious. Sarah Palin was a good contrast to that in every way. Unlike McCain, she was a "fresh face" and promised to not allow Washington to remain the same "good ol boys" club. She was a hot, young female. She connected with the people on "Main Street" and hockey moms. She was a fundamentalist Christian, etc.

On paper, Palin was the perfect running mate for McCain (albeit the lack of experience); however, she turned out to have devastating effects because people realized she was a MORON and didn't dare want to elect her into office at the prestigious #2 spot (which could potentially be the #1 spot). I am totally correct in saying that Palin both helped and hindered McCain, and it's difficult to say what she did more of (I'd bet she hurt him more). To some people, the whole "hockey mom" image really worked, and perhaps it helped her sway some voters to McCain's side. In that case, she helped him. However, to some people, the whole "I'm a typical mom" thing was really unappealing as it made her seem dumb. In that way, she hurt McCain.
President of DDO
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 11:07:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
couldnt the hockey-mom thing have been pulled off without her being so damned stupid? she should put down the pen, take up acting with bush, and continue the dumb and dumberer series!
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 11:22:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Really, who in the republican party is not neocon anymore. And I do mean "who" that can be taken as a pres. Nom.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2009 5:17:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Why on Earth would you want someone qualified as a 'typical mum' to run the country. >.> I think the GOP had the right idea in what they were trying to find for McCain, unfortunately what fit the bill was Crazy White Non-informed Religious Cult Lady from Backwater. Scary as the potential big red button of doom owner.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2009 11:59:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 11:07:06 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
couldnt the hockey-mom thing have been pulled off without her being so damned stupid?

If only.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2009 11:59:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 11:22:37 PM, comoncents wrote:
Really, who in the republican party is not neocon anymore. And I do mean "who" that can be taken as a pres. Nom.

Bingo.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2009 12:01:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/14/2009 5:17:13 AM, Puck wrote:
Why on Earth would you want someone qualified as a 'typical mum' to run the country. >.> I think the GOP had the right idea in what they were trying to find for McCain, unfortunately what fit the bill was Crazy White Non-informed Religious Cult Lady from Backwater. Scary as the potential big red button of doom owner.

Precisely. But, as I said, they needed the American public to connect, they needed someone slightly more socially conservative (like a fundamentalist) and one who broke the old white man image like Obama and Hillary were doing. Sarah Palin would have been the PERFECT candidate had she had slightly more experience, and wasn't such an airhead. Oh, and maybe if she weren't from Alaska.
President of DDO
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2009 1:03:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/14/2009 11:59:41 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/13/2009 11:22:37 PM, comoncents wrote:
Really, who in the republican party is not neocon anymore. And I do mean "who" that can be taken as a pres. Nom.

Bingo.

Ron paul... thats all... anyone think of anyone else?

Who is under the republican banner but really a libertarian... anyone?