Jump to content

Disco72

Members
  • Content count

    1,215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Disco72


  1. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 10:09 PM)
    For those of you b****ing that you wanted more 'substance' and wondering why all she did was knock Obama, I just reread the transcript of Biden's speech, and they sure didn't seem very different. After his introduction, he mentioned his family, and a cute story about his train rides, then proceeded to criticize McCain. His 'specifics' on what they would do? here is the sum total of what he said:

    .

    I don't see anything specific there. THEN, he goes back into McCain attack mode, trying to link him to Bush. Hearing the two speeches, I see nothing different, except that some of you don't like that this time it was your guys getting zinged.

     

    I don't like it either way. As someone that has not made up his mind on her, I wanted to see more than silly attacks. As Pratt said, I don't mind the "he wants, we want" kind of stuff, just the dumb attacks that seemed silly and petty.


  2. QUOTE (Gregory Pratt @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 10:09 PM)
    That line about Obama having written two memoirs but no significant bits of legislation is one that ought to be used and re-used in every speech. What a great job Palin did.

     

    There were some great lines. I also liked the one about change for career or a career of change (good soundbite), but there were way too many bad jokes / dumb shots at Obama.


  3. QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Sep 3, 2008 -> 10:01 PM)
    So does this about sum up her speach....fear...war.....shot at Obama...fear....war....shot at Obama?

     

     

    Shots at Obama, yes... not so much on the "fear" and "war" stuff. Complete agree on wanting more issues.


  4. QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 12:16 PM)
    You're right, they say not much. Except for the guy in charge of it all, who said he did a great job. Oh, and my favorite, the aides that said they had an FBI check on her, very official. Of course then the FBI says what are you talking about we don't do that.

     

    I have no interest in defending the guy in charge of the vetting who is looking like an idiot right now. My point is that I do not really see the "holy crap!...I can't believe she did that!" attitude in the things that have been "found out" about her. I guess I'm just cynical, but if this is the worst that can be said about her, how bad could the vetting have been?

     

    I appear to be in an obvious minority in that these things do not seem like a big deal to me. Unless something more serious arises, I will vote for McCain/Palin or not based on issues, not anything "found out" about her in the last week.


  5. QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 12:14 PM)
    In other words, she was a completely political pick with no thoughts as to whether she could run the country.

     

    "Least scandalous scandal" ever...maybe if you didn't pay attention to the BUsh administration. Maybe if you think you should be allowed to use your political power to take care of family differences. Maybe If you would like another presidential administration that again acts like it was just their aides. But I remember the U.S. attorney scandal and the politicization of most every department during the Bush administration, and I don't want it repeated.

     

    Your earlier post indicated "no thought" was given to her, now you clarify it with "no thoughts as to wheter she could run the country." My view is that she was a very carefully considered political pick. If people think she is unable to run the country if the necessity arises, then they won't vote for her. Frankly, I'm still debating that myself. I also do not like a number of her political views.

     

    As for the scandal comments, I have been paying attention, and I am against the politicization of departments. However, don't kid yourself into thinking it was purely as Bush phenomenon (note: this is NOT a defense of Bush). I would agree with you that I do not want it repeated. All of the facts may not be in on "troopergate," but I have not seen anything to indicate a systematic politicization during her time as Governor. If it turns out that this was a purely personal vendetta against the trooper that cost Monegan his job, it would be pretty disappointing on a number of levels. However, you also cannot ignore that there were legitimate reasons for his dismissal (poor job performance regarding budgets) and that he was offered another position. It's hard for me to blindly assume "vendetta" when the guy is offered another job in the same administration.


  6. QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 11:48 AM)
    I'm just wondering how much they weighed the risk at all. I mean McCain won this thing back in late march. He's had 5 months to pick a VP, did he really not know how mad conservatives would be with Ridge or Lieberman for FIVE mo.? NY Times said he had one interview with Palin and gave it to her soon thereafter. In my mind, all they saw was pro-choice, woman, you can get Clinton, alright go with it.

     

    In the modern presidency the pick of VP means a lot, and if this is the amount of consideration that went into it, it's certainly telling.

     

     

    I find it increasingly frustrating that people assume that no thought or vetting went into this VP pick. Clearly, there are numerous news articles about "how much" vetting was done and how it was conducted. However, there seems to be this impression out there that Palin was picked on some whim in order to attract Clinton supporters. Palin was brought in to energize the Republican base (which I believe she has), solidify the social conservative vote (her issue positions certainly match here), to reinforce McCain's "maverick" nature (which she does to some degree, though maybe not as much as picking Lieberman), and to represent change (both from the current administration and in general from business as usual).

     

    As for the lack of vetting, so far the "dirt" on her is that she has conservative social views (e.g. creationism, pro-life), has been affiliated with a party that might support Alaskan seccession, has a pregnant teenage daughter, that her issue positions do not 100% match McCain's, and that she is potentially involved in the least scandalous political "scandal" that I've heard about in some time.

     

    If this is the worst that can be found on her, I'd say she (and the McCain/Palin) ticket are in pretty good shape. For someone that was virtually unknown in the general public (though she'd been discussed as VP candidate for months), it is not unusual at all for these things to appear surprising to the general public (who didn't know her anyway).


  7. QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Sep 1, 2008 -> 08:26 PM)
    I can't imagine anyone of them being put in high leverage situations, unless one of them just starts pitching out of their minds.

     

    The one guy I am interested in is MacDougal. Not so much for this year, but for next. Mac has spent alot of time in AAA, and hopefully that was a bit of a wakeup call for him. I am a huge Mac fan, and could be a huge contributor for next season if he gets his head on straight.

     

    I agree... on MacDougal - I haven't seen too many Sox games on TV this year (and its been awhile since Mac has pitched with the big club)...so the question is, did his motion look as good as Hawk made it seem?

×