McCain's Running Mate

[Maeven]

Alaska's first female Governor.  Sarah Palin

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/palin.republican.vp.candidate/index.html

He's going after the Hillary supporters.  Shrewd. And there's your executive office experience. 

[HairyHeretic]

McCains playing up Obamas lack of experience may backfire on his with that choice though. It seems his pick doesn't exactly have much in the way of experience either.

[National Acrobat]

There is a huge disparity in experience as a senator vs. being the executive of a state. My mother, who is a current Alaska, thinks very highly of Mrs. Palin. She has a middle class upbringing, is married and has five children, and is pro environment and fiscally conservative, and has not been afraid to root out corruption, even when it's in her own party (Ted Stevens? Representative Young?). I think it's a good choice. She's a no-nonsense, common sense sort of person, which should help McCain.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I don't McCain to get any type of help. . .I don't want McCain anywhere near being the president. . .everytime I think about it I cringe and plan moving to another country which I know I can never afford. . .

[National Acrobat]

I don't McCain to get any type of help. . .I don't want McCain anywhere near being the president. . .everytime I think about it I cringe and plan moving to another country which I know I can never afford. . .

Personally, I could care less about either of the two major candidates. We're in for a rough ride regardless.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Personally, I could care less about either of the two major candidates. We're in for a rough ride regardless.

Eh, I'm starting to warm to Obama. . .but I do agree .

[CassandraNova]

John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin to be his VP running mate I as misogyny -- using a female face to undermine feminist gains. McCain saw how the gender gap was widening and witnessed the Hillary phenomenon and declared: "Oh, you people want a woman on the ticket? Well, here's Sarah Palin for ya!" Palin is an unqualified, inexperienced, right-wing hack who stands against everything for which the women's movement in this country has fought for over the past 40 years. She is a Christian fundamentalist who is anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-evolution, anti-environment, and wants a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

With Palin's choice as his running mate, John McCain is telling America's women that he'll sacrifice their reproductive rights with a smile and a nod and the assistance of a "professional" woman who is a fur-wearing former beauty bageant runner-up.

[Vekseid]

There is a huge disparity in experience as a senator vs. being the executive of a state. My mother, who is a current Alaska, thinks very highly of Mrs. Palin. She has a middle class upbringing, is married and has five children, and is pro environment and fiscally conservative, and has not been afraid to root out corruption, even when it's in her own party (Ted Stevens? Representative Young?). I think it's a good choice. She's a no-nonsense, common sense sort of person, which should help McCain.

Fiscally conservative... apparently she left the town she was mayor of in financial tatters.  She's also a Creationist. I'm sure she means well, but she's not that bright from what I can see, she has a huge chance of being a new Dan Quayle...

[RubySlippers]

John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin to be his VP running mate I as misogyny -- using a female face to undermine feminist gains. McCain saw how the gender gap was widening and witnessed the Hillary phenomenon and declared: "Oh, you people want a woman on the ticket? Well, here's Sarah Palin for ya!" Palin is an unqualified, inexperienced, right-wing hack who stands against everything for which the women's movement in this country has fought for over the past 40 years. She is a Christian fundamentalist who is anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-evolution, anti-environment, and wants a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

With Palin's choice as his running mate, John McCain is telling America's women that he'll sacrifice their reproductive rights with a smile and a nod and the assistance of a "professional" woman who is a fur-wearing former beauty bageant runner-up.

Isn't this statement also disrespecting the many conservative women of faith out there who have every right to voice their opinions and vote?

I want to point out she is a very appealing choice a mother, devoted wife, had a downs syndrome child her last because she felt her child had a right to live, she fought corruption, is not anti-environmentalist more pro-wise use, she is a Christian who seems to stick by her beliefs and seems very honest. Compared to Hillary she is a damned good choice. As for her lack of experience she is the VP and seems quite capable of selectiong people who can do the job regardless of political party if you bothered to check.

I may not agree with her but attacking her for her beliefs is just as bad as the Christians attacking candidates who are pro-choice and disrespects her fundamental rights as a citizen and woman to her beliefs which she can bring into office if elected. Its really up to the voters.

[Vekseid]

Amusingly, it seems women - and democratic women especially - see Palin far, far less favorably than men or republicans.  Which is to be expected I suppose, but still, it seems a lot of women are seeing this as a cheap vote grab.

[Cherri Tart]

i find it rather insulting that it seems a lot of people seem to think. "Well, she's a woman - women will vote for her."  Yeah, right, we're just stupid mindless creatures who see XX chromosomes and just automatically fall in behind.  I don't like her stand on pretty much anything. Sure, she's probably nice, but then, something else to remember - McCain is what, 73?  If he dies, you have a president with TWO years of experience as govenor in Alaska in the white house who's claim to fame before being govenor was being mayor of a town of 7,000 and all the while McCain tells us Obama's lack of experience is an issue. 

This isn't to say i don't have respect for her beliefs.  I have never based my vote on someone's belief.  I've based it on if i think they'll take the country in a way that is good for the country.  Frankly, i don't think McCain will, whether his vp is male or female.

[Maeven]

I can’t tell you who I’m going to cast my ballot for in November. Honestly.

I can tell you that I feel blessed to be alive in the midst of such an historical election. I truly stand in awe of the greatness we are witnessing.  I was moved by Michelle Obama, and brought to chills by Senator Obama—as I was in 2006 when he was first elected to the Senate.

I was completely surprised by John McCain’s choice in a running mate.  I truly expected a McCain/Romney ticket. So I took some time to research Governor Palin and I am a little disturbed by what’s being asserted about her and I’d like to offer some resources just to clarify some of the opinions I’ve read.

She’s not anti-environment:

Gov. Sarah Palin plans to explore ways Alaska can reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions as part of a global-warming strategy to be developed by a new subcabinet of top administration officials.

State officials said this week that Palin's new subcabinet will develop policies to help the state adapt to climate changes that have been more pronounced in Alaska than elsewhere.
For the first time, the state will also begin looking for ways to curb Alaska's own contribution to the global atmospheric problem, officials said.

April 2007: http://dwb.adn.com/news/environment/story/8786824p-8688242c.html

She’s not anti-gay. She’s a strict constructionist.

Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples.

In the first veto of an administration that isn't yet a month old, Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

December, 2006: http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/8525563p-8419318c.html



She stands for her principles and isn’t afraid to do so:

The wipeout in the 2006 election left Republicans in such a state of dejection that they've overlooked the one shining victory in which a Republican star was born. The triumph came in Alaska where Sarah Palin, a politician of eye-popping integrity, was elected governor. She is now the most popular governor in America, with an approval rating in the 90s, and probably the most popular public official in any state.

Her rise is a great (and rare) story of how adherence to principle--especially to transparency and accountability in government--can produce political success. And by the way, Palin is a conservative who only last month vetoed 13 percent of the state's proposed budget for capital projects. The cuts, the Anchorage Daily News said, "may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history."

As recently as last year, Palin (pronounced pale-in) was a political outcast. She resigned in January 2004 as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission after complaining to the office of Governor Frank Murkowski and to state Attorney General Gregg Renkes about ethical violations by another commissioner, Randy Ruedrich, who was also Republican state chairman.

State law barred Palin from speaking out publicly about ethical violations and corruption. But she was vindicated later in 2004 when Ruedrich, who'd been reconfirmed as state chairman, agreed to pay a $12,000 fine for breaking state ethics laws. She became a hero in the eyes of the public and the press, and the bane of Republican leaders.

In 2005, she continued to take on the Republican establishment by joining Eric Croft, a Democrat, in lodging an ethics complaint against Renkes, who was not only attorney general but also a long-time adviser and campaign manager for Murkowski. The governor reprimanded Renkes and said the case was closed. It wasn't. Renkes resigned a few weeks later, and Palin was again hailed as a hero.

Palin, 43, the mother of four, passed up a chance to challenge Republican senator Lisa Murkowski, the then-governor's daughter, in 2004. She endorsed another candidate in the primary, but Murkowski won and was reelected. Palin said then that her 14-year-old son talked her out of running, though it's doubtful that was the sole reason.

In 2006, she didn't hesitate. She ran against Gov. Murkowski, who was seeking a second term despite sagging poll ratings, in the Republican primary. In a three-way race, Palin captured 51 percent and won in a landslide. She defeated former Democratic governor Tony Knowles in the general election, 49 percent to 41 percent. She was one of the few Republicans anywhere in the country to perform above expectations in 2006, an overwhelmingly Democratic year. Palin is unabashedly pro life.

With her emphasis on ethics and openness in government, "it turned out Palin caught the temper of the times perfectly," wrote Tom Kizzia of the Anchorage Daily News. She was also lucky. News broke of an FBI investigation of corruption by legislators between the primary and general elections. So far, three legislators have been indicted.

In the roughly three years since she quit as the state's chief regulator of the oil industry, Palin has crushed the Republican hierarchy (virtually all male) and nearly every other foe or critic. Political analysts in Alaska refer to the "body count" of Palin's rivals. "The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah," says pollster Dave Dittman, who worked for her gubernatorial campaign. It includes Ruedrich, Renkes, Murkowski, gubernatorial contenders John Binkley and Andrew Halcro, the three big oil companies in Alaska, and a section of the Daily News called "Voice of the Times," which was highly critical of Palin and is now defunct.

July,2007
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp?pg=1

Furthermore, her experience in dealing with oil and big oil companies—as a working class family-- is certainly something to be desired. Like Obama purports to do, she actually DID sign a bill in Alaska to raise taxes on Big Oil profits. 

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a former beauty pageant winner, is succeeding where Venezuela President Hugo Chavez, a former paratrooper and military coup leader, so far has failed.
Palin threatened to evict Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest oil company, and partners BP Plc, Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips from a state-owned gas field, winning their promise to increase Alaska's natural-gas output 17 percent. She raised taxes on oil profits by $1.5 billion a year and rejected industry ownership of a $25 billion pipeline.

March, 2008: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a13e84JyS2B8&refer=home

In this economy, with all eyes on the pump, that’s certainly something to pay attention to. 


Vekseid: I was unable to find any resources which indicated she left Wasilla in “financial tatters” and I’d be interested in reading what you have seen in that regard.

I am a bit baffled by your assertion that “she doesn’t seem all that bright.”

At 28 this woman was elected to her city council; by 32 was elected Mayor (1996) and finally, in 2006 (at 42) became the first woman and  youngest Governor in Alaska history. 

It takes a little bit more than run-of-the-mill smarts and “fur-wearing beauty queen” looks to do what she’s done; and, surprisingly, it’s the women in this thread that have taken the time to point out that particular facet of her background, rather than the political moves she’s made, as if it should be some handicap to her career.

Funny, I thought the feminist movement was all about taking us beyond that.

I’m not saying that I’m sold.

I am saying that I’m impressed. 

I’ll hold further judgment until I see the debates.

[Trieste]

Just as an aside, I'm not planning to vote for McCain. It would take a miracle to make me do so. But if it had been a McCain/Romney ticket, not only would I not be voting for that team, I would have been rioting against it until they had to lock me in a jail cell to shut me up.

And even then, I'd be banging my cup on the bars and shouting.

Romney was an awful, awful governor. I was thrilled to see him leave office, and it makes me cringe, honestly, to think of him anywhere near Washington. Eugh. Eugh!

I sweartogod that was on topic, too. >.>

[Storiwyr]

I tend to agree with Cherri. It seems to me that the motivations for the selection are blatantly obvious, and frankly offensive.

Besides, I cannot and never will be able to bring myself to respect someone who will tell me that if I get raped and end up pregnant, I am not allowed to make the choice not to carry that pregnancy to term.

And I don't buy her being 'pro-environmentalist' since she favors drilling the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. And before anyone defends her and says she had to say that to get elected ... wouldn't that be DIRECTLY contradictory to the assertion that she stands up for her beliefs? She also tried to block the decision to put Polar Bears on the threatened list--ITSELF a blatant attempt to resist putting them where they belong, on the ENDANGERED species list where the status might force us to actually DO something about Global Warming.

If THAT is considered being an environmentalist, then humanity's continuation on this earth is screwed.

EDIT: I have avoided even addressing her views on stem-cell research or creationism in schools OR health benefits for homosexuals, as any attempt to express my absolute contempt for her ignorance would likely cause a brain aneurism that I can't afford right now.

[Vekseid]

For her not being that bright, I'm referring to her general fiscal policy (see below), and her stance as a creationist.

Meaven, I was referring to this debacle. There's over a thousand dollars of debt left unpaid for every resident, a decade later. Though this is also skewed by my extremely negative perception of sales taxes. Actually looking at her performance in Alaska she doesn't seem that conservative fiscal-wise at all.

She may well be mostly honest, but I think that has a lot more to do with the rising anti-corruption tide in America - we're probably going to see more like her.

[Vekseid]

Just amusing >_>

[OldSchoolGamer]

American politics is getting to be more and more of a made-for-TV circus every year.  Just when I think the lowest common denominator has been attained, it sinks a little lower.

It's almost like everyone knows this country's going down, and no one even gives a shit anymore.  Everyone's creeping toward the exits without trying to look like they're going for the door.  America is looking more and more like a party where the bar is just about dry and the hors d'oeuvres table is looking pretty picked-over.

[CassandraNova]

She’s not anti-environment.

Yes, she is.

She would like to open ANWAR to oil drilling.

She opposes placing polar bears on the Endangered Species List.

She doubts that global warming is caused by human activities.

She’s not anti-gay. She’s a strict constructionist.

On the first part, yes she is.  On the second part, not only is it false, it's a non-sequitur.

Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment on banning same-sex marriage.

In addition, she told the Daily News that she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to the domestic partners of public employees, which were ordered by an October 2005 decision of the Alaska Supreme Court, because, she said “honoring the family structure is that important."

She also supported legislation passed by the state legislature in 2006 that would have prohibited providing domestic partner benefits to state workers.   She did this after the Supreme Court had already ruled and the Republican Attorney General advised her that the legislation was unconstitutional.

[RubySlippers]

I would call her a wise-use environmentalist she is for as far as I can tell proper economic development of her state and that includes hunting, tourism and exploitation of natural resources to benefit her people. But she does seem to want to use the latest and best technologies to access these natural resources. And a decent number of people question Global Warming I'm one of them that at least am critical of the science and the outlook since humans are the dominant species on the planet our activities are therefore part of nature. So human pollution is just a natural byproduct of human economic needs perfectly natural. As for the Polar Bears they need to adapt or die since we determine their environment its natural if they go extinct and all zoos have a few as far as I can tell so its not like they will cease to exist as a species.

As for being anti-gay hate to break this to you but we are not a protected class like being disabled, black or a woman they can so called "discriminate" anyway they wish if its in the State Constitution which makes her concept legal if it passed. I don't see why gay marriage is such an issue frankly there are legal ways to get all the key benefits and if a person your wish doesn't do those things for you they aren't commited to you now are they.

She does one thing though that is needed by McCain is she bolsters the religious conservatives, gun lobby, wise-use environmentalists, pro-lifers and the evangelicals most are not offended by her beliefs and how she thinks. And unlike the 18-35 year olds Obama has these people usually vote in force.

I don't like her any more than Biden or the two major parties I think they are to blame as a group and the presidency doesn't matter since we are screwed in this nation either way. But for McCain she wasn't a horrid choice its at this point a popularity contest and who can get voters into the booths on the big day.

[Trieste]

Yes, she is.

She would like to open ANWAR to oil drilling.

But she's pairing up with a potential boss who is solidly opposed to that. From your own article, McCain would just as soon drill there as he would in other national treasures/parks. So perhaps it really isn't that important to her - and she is simply looking for solutions like everyone else. Does not make her anti-environment.

She opposes placing polar bears on the Endangered Species List.

According to your link (again), she opposes it because she does not feel they are endangered, not because she does not support the endangered animals program. Following that through, it really doesn't seem like a bad quality to have in a governmental representative; she thinks for herself and if she does not agree with what conservationists are telling her - or if there are conflicting stories - she checks it out. This does not make her anti-environment.

She doubts that global warming is caused by human activities.

So does half of the developed world. She, like the rest of those who feel this way, would simply like to see something a bit more definitive than the doomsday predictions that have swayed opinion toward humanity's responsibility for global warming. For all we know scientifically, any recent warming is due to a shift in sunspots*, and not only can we not do a thing about it, it'll resolve itself in a few more years or decades. This does not make her - you guessed it - anti-environment.

* NOTE: This argument is facetious, and is a random example, just so everyone's aware. Sarcasm: look it up.

On the first part, yes she is.  On the second part, not only is it false, it's a non-sequitur.

Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment on banning same-sex marriage.

In addition, she told the Daily News that she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to the domestic partners of public employees, which were ordered by an October 2005 decision of the Alaska Supreme Court, because, she said "honoring the family structure is that important."

She also supported legislation passed by the state legislature in 2006 that would have prohibited providing domestic partner benefits to state workers.   She did this after the Supreme Court had already ruled and the Republican Attorney General advised her that the legislation was unconstitutional.

You may want to look up political constructionism. Not only is it not a non-sequitur, but it means that her personal views factor very little into how she will vote on things. She may campaign for her personal belief, and that is her right as an American citizen, but when it comes down to governmental decisions, everything that's been put forth suggests that she will be more inclined to cast a vote in favour of what her constituency wants, as opposed to what she herself wants.

[Storiwyr]

Being an environmentalist means being WILLING to make certain sacrifices to our own lifestyles in order to protect the natural world. Being an environmentalist "As long as I don't have to change!" is NOT being an environmentalist. And Polar Bears are >NOT< in a natural environment anymore, due to our own actions. The thing that these people who "WANT MORE PROOF" need to realize is that there may not be a good way to prove it to their satisfaction ... before it's way, way too late for us to do anything about it. The changes that need to be made will kill no one. They likely won't even significantly impact our lifestyles ... they'll only cause some large corporations to lose money (ZONOEZ) as they develop environmentally sound alternatives to their products.

Homosexuals not being a protected class does not mean that that they shouldn't be. Women, blacks and those disabled were not created 'protected' either. The rights that they have now, and their protected status, were fought for, bled for and died for. In the words of a brilliant man "These are not gifts from a benevolent management." Maintaining the status quo can very easily STILL be wrong. It was wrong when slavery was still in effect. It was wrong when women couldn't vote. If people had taken that attitude throughout history, we'd still have slavery, women disallowed from voting, and forced sterilization of the disabled/mentally ill. And the whole point is that Palin does >NOT< want their to be legal ways to get all those key benefits. She wants to bar domestic partnerships--period--because apparently HER way is the ONLY way. That's called 'arrogance'.

[CassandraNova]

So does half of the developed world.

The argument from popularity is a logical fallacy.  Regardless of what people think, scientific consensus has clearly indicated that not only is climate change a real effect, but it is almost indisputably caused by human action.  This is the finding of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the basis of peer-reviewed scientific study.

Climate change denial cannot be rooted in the uncertainty of science, because in this area, there is virtually none.  It stems from instead an anti-environmental[/i] ideology that would oppose the regulation of carbon emissions.

You may want to look up political constructionism.

Perhaps you and I are using the term to mean something different, but my law dictionary defines it as: 

Strict constructionism refers to a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. In the United States the phrase is also commonly used more loosely as a generic term for conservativism among the judiciary.

I say that she is not a strict constructionist because her response to court decisions is based solely on whether or not she ideologically agrees with the ruling.  With regard to DP benefits, she was content to ignore or disregard the findings of the court, whereas she was quite pleased with the Supreme Court decision in regard to the DC handgun ban.

Her willingness to let a court adjudicate a matter is not constructionist, except when the decision of the court favors a conservative issue.

[Trieste]

The argument from popularity is a logical fallacy.  Regardless of what people think, scientific consensus has clearly indicated that not only is climate change a real effect, but it is almost indisputably caused by human action. This is the finding of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the basis of peer-reviewed scientific study.

Climate change denial cannot be rooted in the uncertainty of science, because in this area, there is virtually none.  It stems from instead an anti-environmental[/i] ideology that would oppose the regulation of carbon emissions.

Yes, it's indisputable, except whe it's disputed. A lot. And then there's that whole science-not-being-infallible thing. Like when we were told that sickness is caused by unbalanced humours, or that the sun revolves around the Earth. Science has gotten more precise, but not necessarily more accurate all of the time. And for a layperson who does not have the time or the education to wade through this article or that dissertation or attend a bunch of conferences on the matter, that sort of makes a serious difference. Running a state doesn't always leave one with a lot of free time to do just that, and she certainly is not a scientist. She hires experts and consultants on the matter, and there is nothing wrong with that. If she's smart, she'll listen to several different viewpoints and try to make a call based on that. It can be confusing. It certainly is not simple.

Disagreeing with current theory on greenhouse gases does not make one anti-environment. It simply makes one anti-bandwagon.

Perhaps you and I are using the term to mean something different, but my law dictionary defines it as: 

Strict constructionism refers to a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. In the United States the phrase is also commonly used more loosely as a generic term for conservativism among the judiciary.

I say that she is not a strict constructionist because her response to court decisions is based solely on whether or not she ideologically agrees with the ruling.  With regard to DP benefits, she was content to ignore or disregard the findings of the court, whereas she was quite pleased with the Supreme Court decision in regard to the DC handgun ban.

Her willingness to let a court adjudicate a matter is not constructionist, except when the decision of the court favors a conservative issue.

Actually, I thought about quoting the Wikipedia definition myself, since they usually put things in handy, succinct little packages... but in this case, I found their page on constructionism sparse, and biased toward a pro-activism point of view. I also didn't see it attributed over there to a law dictionary - which one was it? A comment on the talk page would be in order.

Anyway. So it's possible we're not using the same definitions. The point I was trying to make at that time, however, was that it was not a non-sequitur, and was a relevant addition to the conversation.

[Schwarzepard]

Being an environmentalist means being WILLING to make certain sacrifices to our own lifestyles in order to protect the natural world.

Many environmentalists are also willing to force others to make those certain sacrifices, except if those others are 'developing countries' like China http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7347638.stm. 

The ideological slant of evironmentalist politicians and activist groups has a massive effect on the changes they're forcing on the rest of us, like doing everything they can to block the development of nuclear energy despite examples like France, which uses it to power 80% of it's national energy grid.

A multitude of dissenting voices on global warming:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/categories/C19

I wanted to pick some out but they're all good.

And a very good booklet on global warming.  It puts things in perspective.

http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

[kongming]

McCain is old - it's a coinflip if he'd live out his first term. Yes, even "Every backwater redneck wants to assassinate him" Obama has better chances. And the Democrats could have done really well for popularity by staging an assassination attempt, complete with "excellent planning-ahead and diligent security save the day." Yeah, they'd be lying to us by doing that. I put it to you that you should not be surprised when a politician lies.

Anyway, if McCain died in power, then that insane cultist Palin becomes president and then, the US will be renamed "The Holy States of Jesusland". And the citizens will suffer even more than they do now with Bush in charge. Consider that possibility. See, there are regular Christians who bring good to the world and remain devout, adhering to their beliefs and helping others. Yes, they sometimes make mistakes due to being human, but they try.

Then there are insane Christian cults that give the others a bad name. Links, although the few "Fox news didn't say it and Bush didn't tell me so it's a LIE!" people may as well just not bother: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/be_afraid_1.php and http://www.alternet.org/story/96945/theocratic_sect_prays_for_real_armageddon/?page=entire

Yes, the sources might be of the kind of atheist that wants to paint all Christians as like that, but the fact is that voting McCain is playing Russian Roulette with a grenade launcher. She would be the equivalent of the royal vizier even if he did survive, and you know that the vizier is never to be trusted.

That and the fact that McCain seriously said "Why not keep sending our troops into the Middle East for another hundred years?"

That's all I'll say here, because it's not my country, I can't vote for your president, and I don't enjoy political arguments debates. But Bush has been giving you guys a bad name for a while, I'd like to see a president that can remind people that America is still a country with many wonderful people, and can do great things. Listen to a Keith Olberman rant for a dose of "Damnit, the US has many things to be proud of! Why does Bush have to walk all over that and make people hate us?"

I say that bit for Ty - it's sad when someone can't be proud of their country and those around them.

And Potential Cherri, yeah, unfortunately people seriously do think most people will automatically vote for their niche minority person - "All non-white people will vote for Obama!" and the like. It's idiotic, but I shudder to think how many will do just that. And yes, it's best to vote for who you think will run the country the best, even though this often just turns into "voting against the person who will do the worst job" or "voting for the person who will be least likely to inject their personal preference/beliefs into the laws of the country". Which is why I never vote for my dog - much as I love him, he'd be terrible on foreign affairs and only be interested in walks, cuddles and biscuits.