BuffettNews.com

I usually avoid the political threads like the plague....but I will ask just one question...

Was Sarah Palin chosen because:

1) She would be a good Vice President (or President, should something happen to McCain?

or

2) She will help win an election?



If the answer is #2, that is the WRONG reason to choose her. Nothing against the woman, but that's just politics for you. Don't choose the best person, choose the most electable. Then manipulate them.

CaptainP wrote:I usually avoid the political threads like the plague....but I will ask just one question...

Was Sarah Palin chosen because:

1) She would be a good Vice President (or President, should something happen to McCain?

or

2) She will help win an election?



If the answer is #2, that is the WRONG reason to choose her. Nothing against the woman, but that's just politics for you. Don't choose the best person, choose the most electable. Then manipulate them.

Did JFK choose Lyndon Johnson for any reason other than to help him get the southern vote? It's not as if choosing a VP nominee for their electability is anything new.

CaptainP wrote:I usually avoid the political threads like the plague....but I will ask just one question...

Was Sarah Palin chosen because:

1) She would be a good Vice President (or President, should something happen to McCain?

or

2) She will help win an election?



If the answer is #2, that is the WRONG reason to choose her. Nothing against the woman, but that's just politics for you. Don't choose the best person, choose the most electable. Then manipulate them.

I would bet that the true answer lies somewhere inbetween, but closer to 2 than 1. That's just how I see it.

But honestly, I see Obama's choice as the same thing. A little of both, but more of #2 than #1.

LIPH wrote:

CaptainP wrote:I usually avoid the political threads like the plague....but I will ask just one question...

Was Sarah Palin chosen because:

1) She would be a good Vice President (or President, should something happen to McCain?

or

2) She will help win an election?



If the answer is #2, that is the WRONG reason to choose her. Nothing against the woman, but that's just politics for you. Don't choose the best person, choose the most electable. Then manipulate them.

Did JFK choose Lyndon Johnson for any reason other than to help him get the southern vote? It's not as if choosing a VP nominee for their electability is anything new.

LBJ was a well-known, respected, experienced senator from a strong electoral state = Presidential credibility
Biden = a well-known, respected, experienced senator near a strong electoral state (PA) = Presidential credibility
Palin = Credibility? ya' got to be kidding me. She brings in the Roe v. Wade haters. After that, she brings nothing.

Lipstick was her high point.

Palin is McCains lipstick. I don't like McCain and Palin doesn't change my opinion. He isn't a pig, but just an idiot with lipstick.

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:

CaptainP wrote:I usually avoid the political threads like the plague....but I will ask just one question...

Was Sarah Palin chosen because:

1) She would be a good Vice President (or President, should something happen to McCain?

or

2) She will help win an election?



If the answer is #2, that is the WRONG reason to choose her. Nothing against the woman, but that's just politics for you. Don't choose the best person, choose the most electable. Then manipulate them.

Did JFK choose Lyndon Johnson for any reason other than to help him get the southern vote? It's not as if choosing a VP nominee for their electability is anything new.

LBJ was a well-known, respected, experienced senator from a strong electoral state = Presidential credibility
Biden = a well-known, respected, experienced senator near a strong electoral state (PA) = Presidential credibility
Palin = Credibility? ya' got to be kidding me. She brings in the Roe v. Wade haters. After that, she brings nothing.

Lipstick was her high point.

Did LBJ have anything in common with JFK other than party affiliation?

Was Biden chosen for any reason other than to counter Obama's woeful lack of experience? The same Biden who ran for President and was so far back in the pack he was nearly invisible. How is that Presidential credibility?

CaptainP wrote:I usually avoid the political threads like the plague....but I will ask just one question...

Was Sarah Palin chosen because:

1) She would be a good Vice President (or President, should something happen to McCain?

or

2) She will help win an election?



If the answer is #2, that is the WRONG reason to choose her. Nothing against the woman, but that's just politics for you. Don't choose the best person, choose the most electable. Then manipulate them.

Good question...my feeling was it was a desperation move by the McCain people. Come on, he only met her once...they just look uncomfortable together...

CaptainP wrote:I usually avoid the political threads like the plague....but I will ask just one question...

Was Sarah Palin chosen because:

1) She would be a good Vice President (or President, should something happen to McCain?

or

2) She will help win an election?



If the answer is #2, that is the WRONG reason to choose her. Nothing against the woman, but that's just politics for you. Don't choose the best person, choose the most electable. Then manipulate them.

I think you can have the first without the second, but the second without the first is a scary thought

LIPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:

CaptainP wrote:I usually avoid the political threads like the plague....but I will ask just one question...

Was Sarah Palin chosen because:

1) She would be a good Vice President (or President, should something happen to McCain?

or

2) She will help win an election?



If the answer is #2, that is the WRONG reason to choose her. Nothing against the woman, but that's just politics for you. Don't choose the best person, choose the most electable. Then manipulate them.

Did JFK choose Lyndon Johnson for any reason other than to help him get the southern vote? It's not as if choosing a VP nominee for their electability is anything new.

LBJ was a well-known, respected, experienced senator from a strong electoral state = Presidential credibility
Biden = a well-known, respected, experienced senator near a strong electoral state (PA) = Presidential credibility
Palin = Credibility? ya' got to be kidding me. She brings in the Roe v. Wade haters. After that, she brings nothing.

Lipstick was her high point.

Did LBJ have anything in common with JFK other than party affiliation?

Was Biden chosen for any reason other than to counter Obama's woeful lack of experience? The same Biden who ran for President and was so far back in the pack he was nearly invisible. How is that Presidential credibility?

I am agreeing with your first assertion that running mates are chosen for who they can deliver on election day.

My point is that Palin is, by far, the weakest choice of the three based on who she delivers, and if she had thrown her hat in the ring last year,
are you going to tell me you believe she would have garnered more votes than Biden?? ...that hockey mom is more presidential??

sidebar... who's that in your avatar? ...Tatum O'Neal?

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:

CaptainP wrote:I usually avoid the political threads like the plague....but I will ask just one question...

Was Sarah Palin chosen because:

1) She would be a good Vice President (or President, should something happen to McCain?

or

2) She will help win an election?



If the answer is #2, that is the WRONG reason to choose her. Nothing against the woman, but that's just politics for you. Don't choose the best person, choose the most electable. Then manipulate them.

Did JFK choose Lyndon Johnson for any reason other than to help him get the southern vote? It's not as if choosing a VP nominee for their electability is anything new.

LBJ was a well-known, respected, experienced senator from a strong electoral state = Presidential credibility
Biden = a well-known, respected, experienced senator near a strong electoral state (PA) = Presidential credibility
Palin = Credibility? ya' got to be kidding me. She brings in the Roe v. Wade haters. After that, she brings nothing.

Lipstick was her high point.

Senate Majority Leader prior to Mansfield I believe. Both of them worked well together after LBJ got to the White House to move legislation thru Congress.

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:

CaptainP wrote:I usually avoid the political threads like the plague....but I will ask just one question...

Was Sarah Palin chosen because:

1) She would be a good Vice President (or President, should something happen to McCain?

or

2) She will help win an election?



If the answer is #2, that is the WRONG reason to choose her. Nothing against the woman, but that's just politics for you. Don't choose the best person, choose the most electable. Then manipulate them.

Did JFK choose Lyndon Johnson for any reason other than to help him get the southern vote? It's not as if choosing a VP nominee for their electability is anything new.

LBJ was a well-known, respected, experienced senator from a strong electoral state = Presidential credibility
Biden = a well-known, respected, experienced senator near a strong electoral state (PA) = Presidential credibility
Palin = Credibility? ya' got to be kidding me. She brings in the Roe v. Wade haters. After that, she brings nothing.

Lipstick was her high point.

Did LBJ have anything in common with JFK other than party affiliation?

Was Biden chosen for any reason other than to counter Obama's woeful lack of experience? The same Biden who ran for President and was so far back in the pack he was nearly invisible. How is that Presidential credibility?

I am agreeing with your first assertion that running mates are chosen for who they can deliver on election day.

My point is that Palin is, by far, the weakest choice of the three based on who she delivers, and if she had thrown her hat in the ring last year,
are you going to tell me you believe she would have garnered more votes than Biden?? ...that hockey mom is more presidential??

sidebar... who's that in your avatar? ...Tatum O'Neal?

What did Biden get before he dropped out of the race, 1% of the vote? A guy with 36 years expereince who everybody knows and that's all he gets. I'd call that a liability, not an asset. I'd be willing to bet Palin could get at least 1% of the vote.

answer to sidebar: It's one of the Svedka Vodka girls who was at the Hawaiian Tropic Zone last week.

LIPH wrote:answer to sidebar: It's one of the Svedka Vodka girls who was at the Hawaiian Tropic Zone last week.

The HOG gets all the chicks.

LIPH wrote: I'd be willing to bet Palin could get at least 1% of the vote.

No doubt about that... lots of people love her because she's "one of them", and there are a lot of people who vote like that.

LIPH wrote:[I'd be willing to bet Palin could get at least 1% of the vote.

Heck, if their campaign was bikini pictures of her and nothing else, she'd get at least 5%.

SharkOnLand wrote:

LIPH wrote:[I'd be willing to bet Palin could get at least 1% of the vote.

Heck, if their campaign was bikini pictures of her and nothing else, she'd get at least 5%.

Well if she was at the top of the ticket, I'd vote for here since her positions are similar to mine on the issues that are important to me. She is nothing more than a smokescreen to pander to a lot of different groups that wouldn't normally support McCain. He is pandering to women, the hard core bible thumpers and the social conservatives - two of the groups he should have had locked up before the convention.

I'm still voting for Keyes, even though that is a vote that won't counter an Obama vote. I'll just have to risk my vote being the one that enables Barack to win and give the Dems a chance to work towards creating the United Socialist States of America.

Martonian wrote:

LIPH wrote: I'd be willing to bet Palin could get at least 1% of the vote.

No doubt about that... lots of people love her because she's "one of them", and there are a lot of people who vote like that.

Like the well over 90% of the black vote going to Obama? Without that, Hillary probably would have gotten the nomination so I guess that's one thing to be grateful for.

I'm still waiting for Sarah's speech to change - it is the same one she has spouted off since day one - but they finally got smart and took outthe "Thanks but no thanks" line in that most annoying squawky voice of hers. I'm sorry but she is a tool. I can't wait for the first debate.

Thank God for Jon Stewawrt - he saves me when it gets too crazy!!!

LIPH wrote:

Martonian wrote:

LIPH wrote: I'd be willing to bet Palin could get at least 1% of the vote.

No doubt about that... lots of people love her because she's "one of them", and there are a lot of people who vote like that.

Like the well over 90% of the black vote going to Obama? Without that, Hillary probably would have gotten the nomination so I guess that's one thing to be grateful for.

I believe that if Obama wasn't running Edwards would have beat Hillary. She is such a polarizing person, it is either love or hate her and I think still 1/2 of the Dems hate her, plus add in the underground sexist men (labor unions) that would never vote for a woman and Edwards is the winner. Hillary would have to kill her opponents to ever have a chance at winning a national election.

Martonian wrote: ... lots of people love her because she's "one of them", and there are a lot of people who vote like that.

yeah, we've been made to look pretty stupid for that ...
and now we've learned that hiring a good ol' boy that you can drink a beer with...
can cost you a whole f***in'economy....

But you've got to keep it in context of each party.
Biden ran against 3 much more appealing, younger candidates in Hillary, John Edwards, and Barack Obama.
Dems were gonna choose the "change" candidate, so it was clear at the outset (Iowa) this wasn't his race to win.

Palin, in contrast to Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul, isn't so radical.
She's on the far right, with Huckabee, not as far out as Paul was, but far too unknown for Republican circles.
She would've been eaten alive in her own party's debates, not able to hide from press like she does right now.
She might've taken the Alaska primary, but along with feminist conservatives (?), that still ain't 1% of Republicans.

Skibo wrote:I believe that if Obama wasn't running Edwards would have beat Hillary. She is such a polarizing person, it is either love or hate her and I think still 1/2 of the Dems hate her, plus add in the underground sexist men (labor unions) that would never vote for a woman and Edwards is the winner. Hillary would have to kill her opponents to ever have a chance at winning a national election.

Agreed. I was leaning towards John Edwards, but...
Can you imagine how bizarre this election would be today, in light of Edwards' own "Monica-gate"?
The convention would have been a free-for-all... and election would get handed back to the Cons, something like '68

Lightning Bolt wrote:Biden ran against 3 much more appealing, younger candidates in Hillary, John Edwards, and Barack Obama.

I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've ever seen "appealing" and "Hillary" in the same sentence. But more appealing? Hillary is the love me or hate me candidate, no middle ground. John "Two Americas" Edwards, who claims his goal is to eliminate poverty, is a multimillionaire trial lawyer. Which one of the "Two Americas" do you think he's a part of? Obama speaks well and looks good in a suit but has no record to run on, which I guess in a way is appealing if you don't care what happens next. Biden even finished behind Bill Richardson in Iowa this year. Bill Richardson!!!