McCain picked the Gov of Alaska to be his running mate, WTF?!?!?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veepstakes

So we've got:

Democrats:
President: Obama no experience
Vice Pres: Biden lots of experience

Republicans:
President: McCain lots of exp
Vice Pres: Palin less exp than Obama

Since McCain is old and since old people have tendancy to die, Palin could be president. I don't know what I think about this development....

Edit: I had the state wrong and I said lieutenant gov, not Gov.

A cynical play for the lost Clinton votes? Has there been a female vice-president before, or can we now be absolutely certain that at least one skin colour or gender glass ceiling will be broken on November 4?

Nope, there's never been a female vice president. Geraldine Farro was the Democrat vice pres candidate back in 1984 I think, Mondale and her lost to Reagan/Bush.

I was hoping McCain would pick Lieberman...

I was really hoping Obama would pick Hillary. I could care less who McCain picks.

How much less? Are we to take it that you care quite a bit about that?

No, Americans just say it the wrong way round. And have turned it into an idiom.

The Sore Loserman?

"Could care less" > "Couldn't care less", so yes, Mark cares.

Michael Palin as vice president? I approve!

Only the ignorant ones. Oh wait, that's probably all of us. Ouch.

I haven't figured out the split between could care / couldn't care. It doesn't seem to be regional, but it is said both ways depending on the person.

You bet. That's what this is all about. It could be a great pick. In fact, he could have picked his 150 year old mother and gotten the same results. The feminist subset of Clinton supports are that ridiculous.

But that said, the hillbilly right might have problems with his pick because they don't want to see a woman in office. However, I doubt that will be a problem.

I thought he might try a south-western VP to keep Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico or a mid-western one to help with Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana. Both of those blocks of states will be critical to Obama if he cannot win Florida or Ohio.

But I guess this locks up Alaska's 3 electoral votes.

{"name":"caring.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/7\/6783e60f76c8dcfca8a5d5232df09b45.png","w":371,"h":395,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/7\/6783e60f76c8dcfca8a5d5232df09b45"}

Obama has't been a Senator? Whats this crap I keep hearing about "Experience"?

Oh, I wonder if this Gov of Alaska has the criminal history of Ted Stevens (current Alaska senator iirc)? When they first said the "Gov of Alaska" I immediately thought he must have picked Ted, it would be so fitting for a Conservative to pick someone known to be in the pocket of big <insert favorite whipping boy here> and corrupt!

X-G: though at a certain point, to care any less you'd have to make effort, so "Could care less" could easily mean: "I could care less, but I don't want to bother"

I forgot to comment on this. I thought you'd think, "I'd hit that."

McCain has said he would like to pick someone he feels comfortable with. This female VP pick has a reputation of a maverick also by bucking party lines. I think that was his main push for her. Running a close second would be the upset Hillary voters he is going to pick up. Many pundits have predicted that if McCain picked a woman, this show was basically over for BO. BO was basically on a sinking ship before and now a cannon ball just ripped into his ship as well.

"Obama hasn't been a Senator? Whats this crap I keep hearing about "Experience"?"

The big deal about the experience issue is that she is on the bottom of the ticket, not the top. Even with less experience Palin has experience that is more appropriate for the top job. She has had executive experience being a mayor and governor of a state. I assume she has not made deals with the likes of ayers or other various hate groups.

"I was really hoping Obama would pick Hillary. I could care less who McCain picks."

If Obama had picked her I think enough idiots would have swept them into office no matter how bad the consequences. This would be bad for america and republicans in the short run but would have been a great boon for the long term. It would remind another generation that Dems need to be kept far away from the main levers of power. The soccer mom mentality is good for raising a family but bad for running a country.

"Has there been a female vice-president before, or can we now be absolutely certain that at least one skin colour or gender glass ceiling will be broken on November 4?"

This is such a non issue. What is important is the continuing success of america. These elections are not about being the most PC, or atleast they should not be. Why not focus on who is best to lead the country perhaps and leave the skin color and sex thing at home.

Lets all hope a few old judges retire in the next four years so we can get rid of the liberal goof balls that are merely playing judge.

This is a good way to start off the day.

Wait, wtf are you replying to? Did I mention Palin?

And for the love of fsck, USE forum mockup.

OMFG, bush himself replaced several of them with Conservatives, please try and think about what you say, before you say it

For the sake of rhetoric, I'll say that "I could care less" means there is no minimum limit to the amount of which I could care. My 'caring' efforts are less than whatever national, unsigned number you can think of.

Him: "I couldn't care less."
Me: "I could."

infinity minus one!

Oh, I thoroughly agree with you and I think it is right that this isn't an issue. I was just asking from the point of view of having a general interest in political history but not knowing that much about American history. Please forgive me if you thought I was implying that I thought that any significantly sized portion of the American people will be picking who they vote for based on skin tone.

Obama does seem to be coming off as a bit of a Kerry-style flip flopper, but my understanding of the polls is that the race is pretty much neck and neck. The Democrat conference has gone better than anyone could have hoped, and I heard one Republican say on the radio this morning that anything less than a 15 point bounce for Obama should be considered a failure. So I guess it'll be interesting to see whether what week-long bounce Obama gets given McCain's brilliantly executed pre-conference spoiler.

EDIT:

It's definitely not a smart plan to wait for them to die, I expect McCain is older than most of them... if he were to die in office (which, of course, would be a disgusting thing to wish on anyone) then Palin would surely have had the fastest political progression in history? Though obviously Gerald Ford would still win the progression to the top by extreme luck award having made it to president without winning a single national election.

Ha Ha! Dangly Bits.

heh, I just saw the boss from Harvey Birdman (voiced by Stephen colbert) saying that!

Maybe a little. But McCain has totally reversed track on many of his own beliefs, infact, he's now against Bills of his own creation only because they werent exactly along party lines. He's turned into the GOP's puppet.

Ferraro actually. I remember the joke about "Fritz and Tits" as the campaign slogan. Palin's husband is a union steelworker, they are trying to appeal to the common man there. However, her being the governor of a state where big oil is the largest employer, we know where this is headed. I really thought my roommate was going to get the nomination. He went to Dayton yesterday.

Obama has legislative experience, but no executive, which is what they complain about. One thing is to legislate and another to execute.

In this case, Bush has had tons of experience executing people. Not sure thats what is needed though.

I don't honestly see the difference between the two. They are both politicians with experience dealing with people, and politics itself. The only WAY to get experience being the president (the only important kind) is to BE the president.

Well I've had time to let it sink in, and yep, I'd hit it... oh errr....

It was a masterful stroke by McCain though. He took the wind right out of the Democrats post convention sails. Palin appeals to the Republican base, her persona is tough as nails. All she has to do is not say anything too wrong between now and November. Biden has a reputation for placing his foot in his mouth so she shouldn't fare worse than that guy.

I have to say that my opinions are changing about Obama though. My main reservation against him was the Iraq occupation. Since it's looking like the thing is almost won, how much harm could he cause?

On the energy front I think Obama is much more likely to support some major legislation to push through building a power transmission corridor into the midwest (to get the wind energy to the coast) as Pickens Plan dictates.

Harm what? A totally unnecessary war thats killed hundreds of Americans and Iraqis alike?

Might want to get PG&E and their pals to upgrade the actual transmission lines connecting a bunch of the wind farms to the grid. Several are sitting at 20% generation capacity because the lines can't handle the total peak of the small number of installed generators.

Well, if I was considering voting for McCain before, I'm not anymore. The problem is that McCain is old, and old people tend to die at inopportune times. I really don't want a one-year governor from Alaska as president.

Dude. You're like a broken record player. You need to move on. They're negotiating the withdrawal now. Besides, it was thousands, not hundreds.

Do I sense irony?

I still want to know how you think an intelligent senator will harm the war.

Well, technically Palin has been an elected politician longer than Obama has.

McCain made a good choice on this one:

Palin is (as was said before) a maverick who voted against her own party lines to scrap the bridge-to-nowhere that was going to cost the state around $300 million to complete.

Palin is a member of 'Feminists for Life' which essentially means she should appeal to both feminists and mothers.

She has 5 children, 1 serving in Iraq and 1 with down syndrome which will once again put her in a position to do well with mothers.

Plus, she's lived a rather down to earth life. Her farther was a school teacher whom she often accompanied on hunting trips. This should help quell the 'McCain is out of touch with reality' sentiments.

How does it help McCain being out of touch if Palin isn't out of touch?

Ehh, well, he is old. If he croaks then his successor would not be out of touch with reality?

I'm not really sure to what level the President talks to his Vice President about important policy decisions, but I'm assuming that they must at least discuss important issues. In this regard, maybe the VP would have some influence?

No more questions. I want answers: how DOES it help McCain? Hmmmm?

Might want to ask a different question. Obviously I don't know, or I wouldn't have asked it

McCain just admitted he didn't know he was picking a Vice President... he thought he was picking the next First Lady.

More likely he thought he was hiring a maid.

Probably for one of the many houses he forgot he owned.

"I still want to know how you think an intelligent senator will harm the war. "

You assume the word intelligent concerning Obama.

"Maybe a little. But McCain has totally reversed track on many of his own beliefs, infact, he's now against Bills of his own creation only because they werent exactly along party lines. He's turned into the GOP's puppet."

What not post which items you are talking about. While you are at it lets see how non-partisan you are by posting Bo's flippity floppities as well.

"Wait, wtf are you replying to? Did I mention Palin?"

I was helping fill in the hole, in your mind.

"OMFG, bush himself replaced several of them with Conservatives, please try and think about what you say, before you say it "

Bush replace a solids conservative and an on the fence individual (OConnor). So no liberal goof balls have been replaced yet.

"Harm what? A totally unnecessary war thats killed hundreds of Americans and Iraqis alike?"

Unnecessary to you maybe but I have some haliburton stock, so speak for yourself hehe. By saying that you show that you have not learned from history is all.

"Well, if I was considering voting for McCain before, I'm not anymore. The problem is that McCain is old, and old people tend to die at inopportune times. I really don't want a one-year governor from Alaska as president."

I dont want a 143 day Senator that associates with known terrorists leading my nation. This November will be one of the easiest decisions ever.

"Might want to ask a different question. Obviously I don't know, or I wouldn't have asked it "

The question you need to ask is how many times did BO met with Ayer in his apartment to raise money from the Chicago political machine. This is how BO kicked off his state senate race. This will help McCain.

Why should I do any work for you? Are you that lazy? If you wanted to know, you'd have already looked it up, instead of wasting time writing that post. since you wrote it, I know you didn't look any of it up, and thus haven't likely bothered to look anything up anyone has postured.

Yes, Obama is a politician, he tried to agree with other politicians, and his base didn't like that, so he went back to his original state. Yay. Its not like he actually started talking out against his own bills, and pulling a one eighty on many of his own beliefs.

Is it possible for you to stop being so childish at all?

I think that's childish. Wikipedia's links to sources, but you can't? This community has devolved to a level barely above that of a typical gamer forum because too many of you simply say whatever damn thing pops into your head with no justification other than 'because I said so, so naner-naner-naner'.

And one of them is a 17 year old who is pregnant. Palin's daughter pregnant Google-link-for-the-lazy.

Palin's daughter is teen pregnant?! WAAHAHAHAHAHA!

[edit reads more]

unmarried?!?!?! BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Not for Frank no.

edit:nm

Why is it funny or even unexpected? She's an absentee mother who proudly promotes "Country First." I'm sure she'll have even less family time as she travels around the country with McCain.

I'm more interested in her relationship with Big Oil and the Alaskan scandals than her daughter's life.

I'm more interested in her daughter.

Obviously somebody besides nonnus29 and you thought, "I'd hit it" in regard to the daughter.

Yea, his name is Levi; a good American willing to sacrifice being single for the greater good of his party.

"Why is it funny or even unexpected? She's an absentee mother who proudly promotes "Country First." I'm sure she'll have even less family time as she travels around the country with McCain."

With comments like this I can see why most of you are single. You could say the same thing for everyman that has run for office that has had children. I though Liberals were supposed to be tolerant and accepting of non-traditional families. The lame stream media is acting just a intolerant, so why should I expect anything different from you guys.

"I'm more interested in her relationship with Big Oil and the Alaskan scandals than her daughter's life."

You should be more interested in the next VP's accomplishments, since she will be in office at the start of next year.

"Why should I do any work for you? Are you that lazy?"

I asked you to provide a source since I thought you were full of crap. I knew that you were being lazy and would probably continue to be lazy, so I called you on it, no biggie.

"Blah Blah Blah"

Hehe thats what Palin's new born baby said too. It looks like you guys have lots in common, including the hairdo and IQ. Im just joking but your such an easy target I could not resist.

"Frank Griffin - liberal fascist."

Hahahaha.

Frank, don't stoop to their level and act like them.

I dislike Obama because according to the TV, Jesus Christ has returned, and His name is Barack Obama. It's rather annoying, and the more I hear his name the less I like him. Yes, this is irrelevant I know, but it's psychological.

(Matthew, fix your forum, if you start a paragraph with a tag it doesn't begin a new paragraph.) According to CNN (so it may not be true), Palin is being investigated for abusing her power in Alaska. Of course, it's by a Democrat, so who knows....

Politicians are like children. They all demonstrate the level of maturity of a fifth grader, and none of them are appealing. Every time I hear about Congress passing symbolic resolutions, I want a piece of that pie. You get paid money to fly off to D.C., take a nap while some people babble about the importance of condemning some advertisement in a newspaper which is irrelevant to anything, and then vote on it. Where do I sign up?

By the way, you guys are all acting like children, too. Act your respective ages, please.

Maybe I could become governor of Wyoming.

Seems like Palin is getting/needing a lot of defending.

Obama FTW !!

/Support

Well, Palin layed the wood to Obama tonight. She definitely earned her position on the Republican ticket.

I did not see Palin's speech. However, Mitt Romney's was [prepare for biased utterance] deeply, utterly stupid. Many times, I heard him say something, such as "time to back to the party of big <something good> and away from the party of big brother", and think "OK, but which is which?" He consistently criticized things that W Bush has done, but cast them as problems with some hypothetical-cast-as-real "liberal government".

Takes one to know one right?

Know whats funny? I started doing it because he was. I think its funny to Mock Frank. Normally I'd be 100% against it, even if a person doesn't hold my views, but Frank is just a character, like Colbert is. Might as well play along I say

I just heard snippets on the radio; I'm not a fan. Sadly they only played snippets, so I can't do more than comment on a few quotes. So:

She impliedly believes in the presumption of guilt for anyone who the authorities believe to be a terrorist?

I'd be interested to know, what does Sarah Palin believe the link is between the invasion of Iraq and September the 11th? I'd think it's one of these:

P.s. I found this while Googling to make sure I had those correct:

Is that a real quote or a deliberate slur?

And thats exactly what the Republicans want everyone else to believe as well. Makes it easier to keep consolidating power, and attacking who ever they want.

Knowing republicans, its most likely a real quote.

edit:

One of what?

Sorry - I deleted the list that follows since it included all the alleged reasons why she might claim there was a link, some of which are sufficiently controversial that the thread would have degenerated instantly into a tedious flamewar irrespective of the rest of the post or the fact that the list was just meant to be inclusive of all possibilities irrespective of their probability of truth.

I guess in my "was woken up early, don't need to leave for work for another 30 mins, what to do?" frame of mind I missed the lead-in sentence before the deleted list.

It hasn't already?

Any thread Frank decides to post in usually is purely flame fodder to begin with.

Well, I was sort of hoping for a temporary reprieve. I think the problem with threads in which Frank becomes involved is that at least one person (myself, once) goes much too far with the opposing rhetoric and Frank responds in kind, making everyone look like they're being wholly unreasonable.

Having had time to think further about Palin's speech, I think it could be trouble for the Republicans. McCain's appeal seems to have been that he is a pragmatist who is broadly in-line with Republican beliefs but who does what he thinks is right. After 8 years of Bush, currently the most unpopular president in history (though, of course, these things always get exaggerated towards the end of term), I think a lot of people are turned off the Republican Party machine who were otherwise planning on voting for McCain because although he's connected with it, he's not a slave to it. Conversely, Palin has given easily the most partisan, opposition baiting speech of the election so far, and risks turning people off by being the person most closely interested in politics for politicians while most loudly proclaiming that she's not like the existing Washington elite, and simultaneously trying to get people to vote Republican, not to vote McCain.

EDIT: I think she does well on the traditional "people pick the president they can imagine themselves sitting down for a beer with" scale though, so that'll be a boost.

EDIT2: can anyone beat Palin's dinosaur statement (assuming it's genuine, though I'd like to see an original source before I do) for the amount of impliedly rejected mainstream science per word?

If only that were the case. Before the election started, sure that was the case, but ever since both parties started campaigning McCain is wholy in the Republican's pocket.

hopefully people have learned from that mistake. The last time they voted for the person they could most see themselves sitting down for a beer with got them (and the rest of the world) 8 hellish years. And a president with less than 30% or even less than 20% approval rating.

I read that she is a creationist. That's bit troubling. A creationist a heart beat away from the presidency?

I wonder what Chris Barry thinks about that....

One thing that gets lost in the noise is the fact that congress has had a similarly, and sometimes lower approval rating than Bush for the past few years. And who controls congress? The Democrats. Does that make McCain success so far a little easier to understand? To me it does.

The congress has a low rating mainly because they are being stalled at every end. Anything they try to pass will either get bucked down by the senate or the president. Its hard to get anything done when theres no one at the other end with a similar view point.

The Bush regime has essentially revoked the rest of the govt's power for as long as he and his team are in power. Any time someone tries to take the administration to task about something, they claim executive privilege, or some stupid ACT they passed saying they have ultimate power when ever they mention terrorists, whether or not its true (you can't know if its actually true, ANY information is immediately classified )

If Bush had a better rating, they may have tried to undo the 2 term limit like any good dictator would.

As opposed to George Bush, or many other previous Presidents... ? It's a non-issue. It has nothing to do with choices a President will be making.

Palin represents the conservative, right wing base extremely well. I think McCain's choice of her is excellent (for his purposes), if you ignore all of the Alaskan political scandals. She's basically the female version of Huckabee with much less governing experience.

So why did McCain choose her instead of Huckabee? First, she's a woman. Because of that, her conservative ideas aren't the first thing that people talk about. Yet, those who are very conservative will find comfort with her being on the ticket. And he's been known to like younger women. Second, he doesn't have to deal with any of the attacks Huckabee made against McCain during the primaries. Third, instead of calling her "inexperienced" like he would Obama, he just says that she is a "maverick" like he is. But there's a big difference between having a record as an independent and simply never having to make any executive decisions.

When you look into her limited record, you see not much difference from any other Alaskan Republican: kill the polar bears, drill for more oil, and to hell with the rest of the USA.

But I think the pick fails on one important principle: the Vice President is not really elected by the people and thus he or she should be somebody popular with a lot of experience in government. Palin represents a few thousand people and is virtually unknown to the rest of the country.

She has no business being President should something happen to the 90 year old McCain. If she were to have run in the primaries for President and done well, then I would think otherwise. But to just be President because one old man thought you were cute... that's not good.

The opposite view is equally valid, that is that the Dems, having a majority have not made the effort to work with the opposition to get legislation passed. This fact is not lost on the American people; hence congress approval rating.

If the Democratic voters liked it then wouldn't the congress approval rating be at least 50% since they voted the current congress in? Clearly people aren't happy, and it's not just the president.

It would take a lot more than a better approval rating, it would take repealing an amendment to the constitution.

This sort of villifying only serves to obscure the real issues. We're looking for change here people, change you can believe in!

I'd say McCain has at least 500 heart beats left in him yet. Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha.

I guess the real question will be what it always is: which party has chosen candidates that appear to be close enough to the edge of their party's demographic that they pull in voters from the middle? Maybe the Palin/McCain ticket hopes that Palin will hush any attacks from yellow dog Republicans while McCain hits the middle ground?

The ONLY thing the Reps will let through are things they have gotten their grubby little hands into and messed up beyond all recognition.

Of course they don't like NO PROGRESS being done. Unfortunately thats all that gets done when the president vetoes everything he doesn't like. Only sometimes do they get a vetoe proof majority for some bills that have been mashed to bits till they are essentially toothless, between the grinder that is the current congress and senate.

Bush has already ignored a couple amendments. Whats one more?

I thought you were for McCain?

Incidentally, do either party have an official line on what happens if their candidate dies or steps down in the period between nomination and election day? And what happens if the president-elect doesn't make it to swearing in day?

EDIT: what the hell, throw in the equivalent question about the period between election day and the meeting of the electoral college.

A new candidate would be nominated if the voting hadn't taken place yet. This year for the Democrats, it would surely be Clinton. The Republicans might pick Romney or Huckabee.

If the voting had already taken place, the electoral college would have to (in theory) vote for the President / VP they pledged for. So the VP would be sworn in on day one.

This happened recently I think in House / Senate race where a dead person won the election because his death happened too close to the end of the race. He was then replaced by whatever standard procedures applied to that position.

And you hate Frank Griffin for stating opinion as fact ALL. the. f*cking. time.

Nice.

Hence forth thou shalt be known as Thomas F. Griffin.

Oh I'm sure the dems are equally evil with getting their hands on good bills and ruining them, but hey, right now the dems have a majority, the Reps aught to say, realize that at some point? I just hate the current Dems less than I hate the Reps.

Heh. If he can do it, so can I

edit: I'm dumb! I think Frank must be at the RNC I just saw someone say this:

<Frank> I was real excited till we decided to cancel the convention. To placate the liberal media.
<Interviewer> Does that anger you?
<Frank> Well yeah, I don't understand why it is that uh, all of a sudden you can't  tell the truth about Barack Obama because some people are getin rained on.

in case you're not sure, "people getin rained on" is a reference to Hurricane Gustav

You can be Queen here on those grounds. Queen of Australia too

Queen of Canada as well, but the Queen doesn't hold any real power anymore.

http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2008/09/most_accidentally_inappropriat.php

Pooooor McCain....

I hear that Charles is quite unpopular. If/when he becomes the next monarch, Australia might consider becoming a republic.

Canada doesn't care. About the only time we will bother succeeding is if the crown tries to force something down our necks.

Its better to be on better terms with the Empire than its is to be on worse terms

Um, he doesn't?

It was only 1982 that the UK and Canada formalised the reality that the UK no longer has the power to legislate for Canada. So there's definitely a precedent for the practical limits on power being substantially different to the technical legal limits...

(of course, that's pretty much how the entire UK system works; we don't have a written constitution)

EDIT: any opinions on the bias of USA Election Polls.com, whose state-by-state breakdown currently predicts 327 electoral college votes for Obama, 206 for McCain?

I prefer: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Note that the current polls are biased toward Obama as they contain his post convention bump. McCain is likely to cancel that with a similar bump in the next polls.

Interestingly enough, it looks like Obama can win without Ohio or Florida. If Obama can just hold the smaller states of Iowa, Colorado, Nevado, and New Mexico (which Bush won in 2004), he will likely win. But McCain will definitely have to take both Ohio and Florida to win.

While the national polls are tight, and probably will remain so, I still think Obama could run away with the electoral votes. He's competitive in major Republican states like Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Those are as rural and white as you can get. That alone should be enough to scare McCain.

I think it's possible that Obama could sweep from Minnesota and Iowa all the way through the North East, including Indiana and Ohio. If that happened, it would be a humiliating loss for the Republicans. And if Obama took Florida... ouch.

But I wouldn't count McCain out. If he can win Ohio, Colorado, and New Mexico, he'll be very close.

Explain this to me:

Being PRO - LIFE, is an oppinion.. you can agree with it or not..

Being PRO-GUN, is also an oppinion you can agree with of not..

BUT HOW can someone be PRO- life AND PRO-GUN

That is illogical captain

Your mistake is summing up the two different (and complex) topics with a single word. For instance, you could say that Democrats are both pro-death (abortion) and pro-life (healthcare). Illogical!

Whether or not a person's opinions are contradicting depends on what he is basing them.

Yep, although I gather that McCain's speech was received poorly on the convention floor? Of course I don't think that people who attend the Republican party conference are representative of the nation as a whole, but I haven't heard that speech so that's pretty much everything I (think I) know about it at the minute.

The press here are saying quite a lot of things about this being Obama's election to lose, but that it wouldn't be impossible to lose it. I take it you would generally agree with that point of view?

I would say it's the Democrats election to lose given Bush's unpopularity, but the long Democratic primaries made it clear how McCain should attack Obama or Clinton. Then it took the Clintons until the convention to properly endorse Obama. Had Obama or Clinton not run in the primaries, then the other would probably have a greater lead over McCain.

But any Presidential race without the President running has the potential to be close. That's just because you have perhaps 45% right and 45% left that are always going to vote the same way regardless of the candidates. And given the way the electoral college works, it always comes down to winning a few swing states.

I think the biggest key is voter turnout in the swing states... It's less about convincing people to vote for you than it is to convince people who would vote for you to actually vote.

Well, technically the Lt. governor still has say over what goes down, and he/she's the queen's stand in. But he/she's normally selected by the prime minister, and should the Lt. Gov try to push something through for the queen, and we don't like it, I'm pretty sure it'll just be ignored, or we'll just remove the Lt. Gov's power completely.

South Dakota is split down the line, it is not a major Republican state.

Wasn't it previously? I hear that several prior long time republican states are now showing a lead for Obama.

I was watching Larry King still alive during the convention and what some of the liberal said on his show were amazing retarded. Every major election speech I have even seen, has the family of the candidate come up on stage if they are around for both Dems and Repubs. One female liberal said she was repulsed by how Palin trotted her family around on stage. One of the other guests suggested the job may be too big for a woman with young children. Talk like this only shows just how biased the main stream media really is. The main stream meida is blind in addition to being biased because they swear up and down they are being fair just like Dan Rather still insists that his documents against Bush are still real.

Most of you guys probably assume I am a republican but I am not. I use common sense and the data that is available to make my choice. If anyone cares to look at Obamas policies and has just the vaguest idea of how the world really works could not possibly support BO. The best way to help the poor is to have the economy do as great as possible. As the election gets closer and closer, more and more people begin to learn about both candidates. This is why the Dems are always ahead at the start since they sound great on the surface by buying votes with all kinds of giveaways. Once people realize that these free things are not free Dem support begins to fall away. This is just now beginning to happen for BO. The mega loss for BO is just beginning to form.

During the last 2 elections most of the poles said Gore was gonna win and yet he lost, all the poles said Kerry was gonna win and yet he lost. This time some of the poles say Obama is gonna win and it is still 2 months out. Put a fork in him because he is done.

"BUT HOW can someone be PRO- life AND PRO-GUN"

I look the more than scratches the surface will provide the answers for republicans. The Dems on the other hand truly demand conflicting positions on a regular basis.

"If Bush had a better rating, they may have tried to undo the 2 term limit like any good dictator would."

Foolish as usual.

"A creationist a heart beat away from the presidency?"

Palin has a good stance on this. She wants the local government to determine which one or if both creationism and Darwinism will be taught.

"Well, I was sort of hoping for a temporary reprieve. I think the problem with threads in which Frank becomes involved is that at least one person (myself, once) goes much too far with the opposing rhetoric and Frank responds in kind, making everyone look like they're being wholly unreasonable."

You are 100% correct. The only problem is that if someone slights me I am ten times better at it, so it is like poor Thomas Fjellstrom is bringing a paper clip to a gun fight. Thomas loves to light the flame and then complain about the very environment he created.

"Know whats funny? I started doing it because he was. I think its funny to Mock Frank. Normally I'd be 100% against it, even if a person doesn't hold my views, but Frank is just a character, like Colbert is. Might as well play along I say "

So you started it and you forgot, this is the Thomas I have come to know. I havent been on this site for almost a week and you have still been babbling because of your last verbal thrashing. My pimp hand is getting tired here.

We've already annointed him [Thomas F. Griffin] as your protege.

Now Obama is changing his position AGAIN: he's saying IF (wtf? if?) we're in a recession he won't repeal Bush's tax cuts. I haven't heard anything about the retro-active Energy tax/credit/vote purchase plan lately either.

He's changed his stance on Iran too (see the Oreilly interview clip from last week).

If Obama changes his postions much more he'll have to call himself a Republican.

Really? I could swear I was working on renovations and allegro durring that time. I hope you don't claim to be psychic.

No, You started it, you just can't admit you were trolling

Heh.

Inconceivable!

Let's see, what will McCain do for us?
- Waste more time drilling for oil that won't change the price of gasoline.
- Continue to deny funding to innovations in alternative energy.
- Corporate tax breaks. Because he thinks trickle down economics actually work.
- Help lift environmental protections.

What about Obama?
- Invest in cleaner alternative energy infrastructure in the United States.
- Create more American jobs by investing in alternative energy sources.
- Work to make higher education and health care affordable for all Americans.

I don't see how anyone can call a decision like that a choice. Only one is remotely sane.

In regards to raising taxes in general, the Republicans always play the 'hero' of the middle class by lowering taxes and driving the country deeper into debt while they spend even more frivolously. This leaves the Democrats to be the ones to shoulder the responsibility of the debts they incur, along with making the Democrats the scape goats when they are forced to raise taxes to pay off the Republican's debts.

I think one of the main problems with the legislative branch of our government is the allowance of rider bills. These alone probably account for most of the wasteful spending in the government. When a spending bill is 1000 pages long, what's another couple pages that wastes a few million dollars here and there? And they get passed because if you want the majority of the good in the bill to pass, then you're stuck with accepting the collection of minor evils.

I don't think that private companies doing things is really hurting the government at all.

What does that have to do with American jobs?

Your bias is obvious. Think for yourself, don't let a guy with a pretty smile think for you.

That's interesting because these are all policy initiatives McCain has cited as well.

1) So are you expecting Obama to replace all cars with electric/hybrid wonder machines that don't exist yet? And put in a Hydrogen infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles that also don't exist yet?

2) All these jobs will come from... building electric cars and hydrogen gas stations? Or solar and wind in the midwest and southwest respectively?

3) What drives the cost of Health care and higher education? Aren't you really saying you think Obama will get the government to pay for it all? Where do you suppose the money will come from?

These are sincere questions...

1. "Cleaner energy infrastructure" means, along with less-polluting cars, less-polluting electricity. If we get large portions of our grid power from solar/wind, the technology for both of which is getting much better and more efficient every day, then it's much more useful to start using plug-in cars, which DO exist, as transportation because the electricity they use will be clean, not from coal. It is more than feasible to start phasing out coal-based electricity; the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because the particular wing of the Republican party that has held the legislative branch for most of the last eight years and the executive branch for all of it is so beholden to the fossil-fuel industry that they will shoot down by any means anything that threatens their (the fossil-fuel industry's) status quo.

2. Well, it'll create R&D jobs for figuring out how to scale alternative energy efficiently. And there will be work to do in the changeover. It might not be a permanent source of jobs, but it can't hurt.

3. I am leery of using tax money for subsidizing everything, but certainly existing programs could be made to operate more efficiently for no more money.

Dole beat Clinton in South Dakota. No Democrat has taken the state since 1964. That's the definition of a Republican state.

According to my radio this morning, the latest polls show McCain ahead of Obama by five points nationally. Bets please: to what extent is this a temporary post-convention leap, and to what extent a sign that Palin is a popular choice?

Palin has become very popular with conservatives. We'll see how it goes when she starts getting more face time in interviews and debates.

McCain is becoming quiet successful at co-opting Obama's 'Change' message. Say what you will, but he does have a legitimate history of pissing off Republican party leaders.

The national polls have been within the margin of error for a long time. Nothing really has changed. One poll now shows McCain up by 4. Others still have Obama up by a similar margin. The reality is that it's a statistical tie.

But national polls are not very relevant. There's fewer than ten significant states in the "toss up" category. Those are the only ones that matter.

No, but when the government invests in dead-end energy sources like oil it hurts the country.

The investment will be in American businesses that produce alternative energy along with the equipment to produce it. When you can create more jobs in alternative energy equipment production and sales, along with investing in technical training for American workers to produce and maintain that equipment that's a good thing.

Drilling for more oil won't do squat to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but investing in alternative energy infrastructure will, along with creating more jobs.

Excuse you? McCain is the only one with the smile of a con man running for president. You should know by now I don't let anyone think for me. I don't trust McCain to have what's best in mind for all of the United States for even a second. He'll cater to big business at the expense of the environment and our country. He'll stifle innovation in favor of the status quo for the rich, and if he wins the seat of presidency our country will stagnate and fall behind even farther for another four years.

I trust that he'll put money into research, low interest startup loans to build infrastructure and retool car manufacturing plants, along with putting in the necessary infrastructure to support new energy sources.

A train won't do you any good if there's no track for it.

Demand for cleaner energy sources and means of travel is increasing around the world. If we can be the ones to provide it effectively, the jobs will be ours.

I suppose bureaucracy is a large part of it, but I don't know especially. Where will the money come from? I think some of it will be from repealing tax breaks for the wealthy, along with putting the burden of governing Iraq back into their own hands, relieving the costs due of major deployment.

With the wealth of information becoming available on the internet I would hope that the free information would help drive down the costs of education. I look at online schools from time to time but they're often as much as and sometimes more than comparable state universities. I think if disciplines were separated more between online schools rather than many disciplines together it could streamline things and provide higher quality training and less expensive certification.

You don't have electric and/or hybrid cars in the US yet?

It sounds a bit like "you can't make more efficient engines" while the rest of the world already has them to me.

Yes, I mispoke, shouldn't have included hybrids. So here is what I was getting at:

1) By simply stating that one candidate will invest in research and creating new cleaner infrastructure and that's a solution is naive. When you're talking about replacing $trillions$ in infrastructure, market forces have to do it. That means alternatives have to be cheap compared to oil. Yes, investment is needed, yes innovation is needed, but that's just the beginning. According to T Boone Pickens, it's a process.

2) About alternative energy creating jobs, again, market forces have to drive it

3) Making higher education affordable and then saying online learning will make education cheaper; um, what planet are you living on? There are a lot of people with a vested interest in keeping education sequestered and expensive (teachers unions, universities, administrators, text book publishers). Anyone can be a self directed learner but at the end of the day you still must have that peice of paper.

Sadly, from what I hear, I don't think either candidate has a better handle on the issues than those commonly presented here.

True, the market will need to drive it in the end. However, you need to get things going first, get over the threshold. It's a bit of a chicken and the egg problem: if a product has no use there is no market for it. If there is no market for it there is no reason to make an infrastructure for it. If there is no infrastructure there is no use. Deadlock.
You need to break the deadlock and I don't see free market alone doing that, or at least not doing it quickly.

Now, that's not a statement in favour of either Obama or McCain. I would like to see a left-wing government in the US one day though (and I mean proper left-wing, not so-called democrat left-wing, which is still right-wing). Not for a while...

It's a shame that true conservatism seems to have died off in the US. It used to be that conservatives were all for smaller governments & lower taxes but somewhere along the way the GOP got all messed up and lost focus. The Bush administration is responsible for one of the biggest increases in government size, and in my opinion McCain doesn't seem to be talking alot of how he plans to change that.

I'm not saying Canada is any better. It looks like Mr. Harper has called another federal election. Thats like what, the second election in like 2 years? Those things are expensive! The cost of an election was shown to me not too long ago, I forget the figures exactly but man it was alot. Thats pure waste IMO. Canada should enact a system like the States, 4 year terms. That would give the people enough time to see if the government was doing it's job, and give the government enough time to enact some of things it promised. We also need to stop this 'voting for the party crap.' Voting for the leader is much better (once again, MO).

1) Yes, it's a process, but Pickens isn't running for President so I can't vote for him and expect him to win. Of McCain and Obama to choose from, I believe Obama will do far more good for the country than McCain ever could.

2)Demand for cleaner energy is rising, that's a market force. Should we stand by and let the opportunity to be the best providers of it slip by? No, and I don't think you believe that either. Again, I believe Obama will be far more effective at moving us toward that reality.

It was somewhat unrelated, but I did say it was my hope that the free information of the world can undercut and leverage the price of schooling in the country. There just needs to be a certification system setup to allow those who invested the time and energy in learning material on their own to gain credentials for it through testing.

We do have terms. But if there isn't a majority, the ruling party can't stay in power forever, eventually the other parties will disolve the gov't.

Basically, it gets rid of the problem the States has had for the past few years. We get to have a new gov't a lot quicker in the case of the Gov't stalling and/or doing really stupid things.

Eh? You want a system like the USA? I'd rather people vote for the party (issues) than the individual (personality).

Except that most people vote along party lines in the US.

The reason I'd like to vote for the Prime Minister rather than the party (which decides who will lead) is simple. Regard the following scenarios:

1.
I may agree with Party A %70 of the time and Party B maybe %20-%40 of the time. It's most likely that the person the Party picks to lead is the person who most closely follows the Party's ideals. I don't really have a decision in who the party elects to be their leader. Chances are, the person I'll wind up being at odds with the person I'm voting for more so than necessary.

2.
As in scenario 1 I may agree with Party A %70 of the time and Party B %20-%40. However, rather than the party picking who will lead it, the voters do. So we could have multiple candidates for each party. A certain candidate may well run under Party A with mostly the same ideals from said party, but there's a good chance that he may incorporate some ideals from Party B I happen to like which would make him a much better leader in my eyes.

To make a long story short, I think that voting for the person rather than the party would give the voter better options and would seem more democratic.

Well, scoff we might, but since picking Palin, McCain seems to have become the front-runner in predicted electoral votes:

{"name":"ec_graph-2008-all.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/7\/979482377fbd492c3358e3fe10d37855.png","w":720,"h":300,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/7\/979482377fbd492c3358e3fe10d37855"}

(it's not obvious from that, but the pridiction is Obama 268, McCain 270)

How big an impact do the presidential debates usually have? What about the vice presidential debates?

Debates can have a big impact if somebody comes out with a negative label. e.g., Kerry was successfully branded as a flip-flopper, which was something he could never beat. The Republicans are generally better at that kind of politics, so Obama and Biden will have to be careful.

Calling either Obama or McCain the front-runner at this point is a bit premature. Ohio and Indiana are 31 votes, and both are polling within 2%. So those states, and many others, are a statistical tie. If the same candidate wins all of those close states, he'll end up with a rather commanding 300+ electoral votes.

Also, polls can be misleading when close if the sample size does not represent the party distribution. Supposedly, the Democrats have more registered voters, so accurate polls should include more Democrats in the audience. Also, many of these polls fail to take into account third parties. That alone could be the difference in the election for either candidate.

Basically, if Obama can hold every Kerry state and pick up only one medium state or three small ones, he will win. It's unlikely that McCain will win any states that Bush lost in 2004.

If the whole thing ties 269-269, McCain could be elected President by a 25-25 split in the House, and Biden could be elected VP by the Senate. That's what I'm hoping for.

Absolutely, I've cleverly seen a possibly relevant statistically trend (i.e. McCain is apparently enjoying a much larger bounce than Obama from their respective conventions) and idioticaly commented on a questionable consequence of it rather than the trend itself. This is why I should think more thoroughly before speaking.

You're new to a.cc aren't you?

Wait, no you're not....

Here's the Palin/Gibson interview:

.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbGw3A9Dg-Q

That's the JG Wentworth Opera... I appreciate it as a severely left-field comment on the economy though.

And I found this "Sarah Palin Holds Forth on Bush Doctrine, Pakistan" video which is also quite amusing. Palin seems not to know what the Bush Doctrine is, or to be able to answer any question. Weirdly staged though — they seem to have rented a hotel room from the 80s and then decided to sit facing each other, so close that their feet are maybe a centimetre apart?

McCain and Palin are the only true bi-partisans around to vote for. They also represent actual change against the status quo. Obama talks change and being against the status quo but his record shows a liberal democrat that votes 99.9% of the time with the liberal Dems. The neatest thing about the poles is that Palin is not only helping McCain win she is raising all boats on the republican tickets across the nation. This woman has energized the republican party. Unless there is some big slip up in the next 7 weeks, she will be our next VP.

Europe has been big on all this alternative energy crap and they are still using oil it seems.

Does anyone know which country in the world has the most wind energy?
The USA baby.

With increased drilling we will not become enegry independent but we will significantly lower the price of oil. Liberals love to use the always or never arguments.

Uh, McCain votes 99% of the time with Bush. Do you like ignoring inconvenient facts there Frankie?

FWIR, the Netherlands's power is mostly wind/water generated. And Greenland's is mostly geothermal.

Actually, it won't. It might help a little, once that oil starts making its way to market, in 10 years or so. But then the oil companies only expand based on current relative market conditions. IF expanding would increase profits for the next few years, relative to the past few, they might expand. Generally though you want to have a limited supply, they get to charge more that way and claim "supply and demand" even though they are very closely watching the balance and keeping it in their favor.

But why do I bother trying to talk sanely with you? I know its pointless.

Frank, where did you manage to get that kind of brain washing ?

You are a politician Nazi.

Quote your sources. Most of our energy come from nuclear.

The wind energy only represent a 0.4% of your total produced energy.

Yeah, and for reaching that aim USA is forced to invade country like Irak.

"Balayes devant ta porte avant de dénoncer la saleté du voisin".

Just what the US needs, an NRA member that supports forcing women to submit to bearing the children of rape and incest.

And do you honestly think McCain would help develop wind energy when he would rather put up more oil rigs that won't actually change the price of oil substantially?

Seems Frank has a post limit now, so he won't beable to reply for a bit He sent me a nice steamy private message. He thinks my last message was a troll I didn't intend (most of) it to be.

I still buy McCain as a bipartisan, even if he's increasingly trying to make sure that the core Republican demographic are on board. I've no reason to believe that he isn't making the pragmatic decisions you need to make in order to win elections. There is a serious risk in this sort of thing though — here in the UK, New Labour put so much effort in trying to push the Conservatives to the right that they pursued them far out of the middle ground. McCain needs to be careful that trying not to let whatever he fears in the far right out manoeuvre him doesn't pull him too far from the centre.

I think Palin's direct attacks on Obama (and, yes, I know, it's an election) make her sound completely partisan. Though I am aware that, long before she got the nomination, she was saying things like:

I believe she has only given one interview; I think it would be smart to reserve judgment for now.

I think I agree with this assessment. McCain/Palin are doing very well in polls, and Palin seems to have been a major factor in that.

Yeah, politicians like to talk about it, few of them do much. I think the problem is — dare I say it — that nuclear is one of the better environmental options but nobody has the guts to seriously push that idea.

Depends on your measure, inevitably. As I understand it, the USA has capacity either already installed or under construction to generate 12,232 MW through wind energy. For example, that's more than all of Asia put together. But it's just 40 MW per person (ish). The EU average is 102 MW per person, though 40 matches the UK and France, and beats Belgium and Finland.

I guess the best measure would be wind power as a proportion of the national total. But I can't find any stats on that.

You are right though, it would be completely inaccurate to try to classify the USA as a nation that has so far just completely ignored alternative energy resources or has made no more than a token effort.

Indeed, they have plenty of hydro plants, and more solar and wind farms are being created every year. Its unfortunate though that the big power companies are actively blocking wind and solar installations in many areas.

You mean oil hasn't been replaced entirely, that's quite right. Working on it. Note though, it's not being used to generate electricity anywhere as far as I know (but gas is).

Er... Germany, actually. That is to say, if you trust Wikipedia on this.
Even then, the USA is ranked second in terms of total power and the EU as a whole produces 65% of the world's total wind power. It would probably more useful to compare the figure per capita or as a fraction of the total power consumption. USA doing considerably worse then (one table down, same wikipedia page). Still better than France though.
Interesting thing is, I was going to take your word for it that the US has the largest capacity for wind energy on account of being such a big country, I was checking for some other statistics. I should have known better, shouldn't I?

Really? Do you have a source for that? I thought most of our power was generated by nuclear reactors in France. There's a lot of projects going to increase the contribution of renewable energy sources (nuclear power isn't a renewable energy source by the way, despite France claiming otherwise) but as far as I know we're not quite there yet.

Shame, but can't say I'm really surprised. Does that mean he's not going to read it when we quote sources contradicting some of his notions (such as the US being number 1 when it comes to wind power)?
Oh wait, he never really paid attention to any of that before. Never mind.

Just something I remember hearing. FWIR, they/you installed a boat ton of wind turbines out in the sea, and if they/you aren't using a lot of hydro power I'd be very surprised.

We have a lot of water but lack the other ingredient for classical hydro power: relief (in the terrain sense). In fact we have negative relief in half of the country ;-) We could use the power of waves, I guess but I don't know if that is actually used yet.

Just place a hydro plant at every place water comes into the country

We did, but I think both the English and the Spanish have more. I also don't think it generates a large fraction of the national power consumption at the moment. Working on it though.

I'd be very surprised if we were. The country is almost completely flat. The highest drop in water level is apparently four metres (source, in Dutch though). There is of course some.

I think that'd be about three places (rivers Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt) and the surrounding countryside is still flat.
Working on extracting energy from the tides in the North Sea though, but as I recall the North Sea isn't the best location to do that efficiently (I think both the English Channel and the Straight of Gibraltar would be more suitable locations due to stronger tides, but I could be mistaken).

Oh I know, retrofit all of the old windmills to generate electricity should beable to generate enough power to feed the entire planets demands!!@#@$onoeneoneone

FWIW, does anyone know what the Bush doctrine is? The question as stated was unfair and has been roundly condemned by most observers (both sides).

Obama's ad states 90% so you're not entirely accurate either are you?

McCains claim to bipartisanship comes from actually sponsoring and passing legislation with a Democratic senator. He has also broken with the Rep party on key issues, such as immigration.

What has Obama sponsored? Nothing. Obama supports things like sex education for kindergartners.

edit:

And you don't? That doesn't seem fair. You do as much or more of the same stupid posting as Frank does, you feed the troll by trolling yourself. Where's the justice?

If you disagree with me, you are a terrorist.

Except that there are more new windmills (which take up less space and are taller) than old windmills already.
They're also a fair sight uglier though.

You mean Obama supports child sex abuse prevention education when it is with the full consent of the children's parents?
Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy
John McCain's Disgraceful Ad on Sex Education

Edited

Regarding the use of sea water power for producing electricty:

I know that "Electricité De France (EDF)" is going to use such technique with some new things (for those who can read that in French)

Wikipedia have a good article about that.

That was a horrible interview. Was she reading her response from a teleprompter? Her generic, ridiculously word answers were the classic "Charlie, I don't know what I am talking about, Charlie" cover up.

That video scares me... to think she could be the President. I'd be wishing we had Bush back.

Hmm, according to the records, it looks like he has sponsored 136 bills and co-sponsored 659 bills.

You mean the classic "Don't ask me, I'm just a girl" response?

This is great. McCain, "I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time." Ouch, Palin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzhFDQIgGSg

But at least he knows he cannot put lipstick on a pig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8IhMMhe8w

Charles Gibson asked some screwy questions. More like the kind of questions you would ask the presidential canidate, not VP. The idea is that she could very well be president, since McCain is so old.

If McCain served for two terms he would be at the end of the US's life expectancy. He's already over the world average.

{"name":"2008-09-14.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/1\/e1c3a1cd272200cdf4c3b3483d1cb64c.gif","w":740,"h":1361,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/1\/e1c3a1cd272200cdf4c3b3483d1cb64c"}