McCain's veep announcement rally on Friday.....

[Beet]

It's a double edged blade once again.

Democrats wouldn't be able after the experience issue-- at all. Nor would they want to-- at all. In fact, if she were picked Democrats should praise the choice. They are running on a outside-D.C. change (albeit tempered, pragmatic change, as the Biden pick emphasized) message, and Palin is an outside-D.C. change pick.

They could however run any clips of John McCain talking about Obama's lack of experience and charge hypocrisy in McCain's message.

some of you need to review American presidential elections, for though the issue of experience at the VP spot gets a lot of talk, no one votes on it.  While the issue of experience at the top of the ticket is always crucial.

And trust me, a governor, even a 2 year governor, can list more accomplishments than someone who has spent 4, 20, or 36 years in the Senate. 

What's been Biden's accomplishments in the Senate?  2 chairmanships?  I'd hope so after 36 years.

What's been McCain's accomplishments in the Senate?  campaign finance reform?  that's been neither popular or successful.

What's been Obama's  accomplishments in the Senate?  I can't even think of any.

Wake up people: That is why the US last elected a Senator as president 48 years ago!

Senate is a collaborative institution, thus you're more likely to work on part of a whole than have "an accomplishment" which you yourself can claim all by your lonesome.

There's also a double standard. If a Senator works with another Senator on something, it's right out there "I co-sponsored a bill.." Obama co-sponsored an important Lobbying and Ethics reform bill. And he co-sponsored a bill to increase veterans' medical benefits, a national fingerprint registry, and about 35 other bills. That is a heck of a lot for 4 years. Because they are co-sponsors he can't claim sole credit for it. And because it takes the bill making it past 3 potential roadblocks before getting signed into law, a lot of what Senators do don't become law.

A governor on the other hand, gets credit for everything even if they weren't single handedly responsible "Here in [insert my state], we..." "Here in my state, we increased per-pupil spending from 48th in the nation to 18th under my governorship, and I created 50,000 jobs in four years." No you didn't doofus. The state economy did. Or "my administration implemented a plan that saved over $2 million". It was actually an unnamed team of bureaucrats that came up with the idea and Mr. or Ms. Governor just signed off on it. But Mr. or Ms. Governor gets credit.

As for the rest- if you're going to argue solely based off results- In the past 2 elections in which there was no incumbent, the less experienced defeated the more experienced. In 1988 the non-governor defeated the governor. In 1980 the governor defeated the governor-President. So I don't see the experience issue historically being the iron law you claim it is.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's a double edged blade once again.

Democrats wouldn't be able after the experience issue-- at all. Nor would they want to-- at all. In fact, if she were picked Democrats should praise the choice. They are running on a outside-D.C. change (albeit tempered, pragmatic change, as the Biden pick emphasized) message, and Palin is an outside-D.C. change pick.

They could however run any clips of John McCain talking about Obama's lack of experience and charge hypocrisy in McCain's message.

some of you need to review American presidential elections, for though the issue of experience at the VP spot gets a lot of talk, no one votes on it.  While the issue of experience at the top of the ticket is always crucial.

And trust me, a governor, even a 2 year governor, can list more accomplishments than someone who has spent 4, 20, or 36 years in the Senate. 

What's been Biden's accomplishments in the Senate?  2 chairmanships?  I'd hope so after 36 years.

What's been McCain's accomplishments in the Senate?  campaign finance reform?  that's been neither popular or successful.

What's been Obama's  accomplishments in the Senate?  I can't even think of any.

Wake up people: That is why the US last elected a Senator as president 48 years ago!

Senate is a collaborative institution, thus you're more likely to work on part of a whole than have "an accomplishment" which you yourself can claim all by your lonesome.

There's also a double standard. If a Senator works with another Senator on something, it's right out there "I co-sponsored a bill.." Obama co-sponsored an important Lobbying and Ethics reform bill. And he co-sponsored a bill to increase veterans' medical benefits, a national fingerprint registry, and about 35 other bills. That is a heck of a lot for 4 years. Because they are co-sponsors he can't claim sole credit for it. And because it takes the bill making it past 3 potential roadblocks before getting signed into law, a lot of what Senators do don't become law.

A governor on the other hand, gets credit for everything even if they weren't single handedly responsible "Here in [insert my state], we..." "Here in my state, we increased per-pupil spending from 48th in the nation to 18th under my governorship, and I created 50,000 jobs in four years." No you didn't doofus. The state economy did. Or "my administration implemented a plan that saved over $2 million". It was actually an unnamed team of bureaucrats that came up with the idea and Mr. or Ms. Governor just signed off on it. But Mr. or Ms. Governor gets credit.

As for the rest- if you're going to argue solely based off results- In the past 2 elections in which there was no incumbent, the less experienced defeated the more experienced. In 1988 the non-governor defeated the governor. In 1980 the governor defeated the governor-President. So I don't see the experience issue historically being the iron law you claim it is.

not sure what you're trying to say.  Looks like you're making my argument for me.

Let's review based upon highest office attained prior to election day:

Winning sitting VPs over last 44 elections: Bush41
Winning sitting Senators over last 30 elections: JFK, Harding
Winning governors over last 16 elections:  FDR (4 terms), Carter (1 term), Reagan (2 terms), Clinton (2 terms), Bush43 (2 terms)

or, to put it another way:

Losing governors over last 10 elections:  Dukakis
Losing senators over last 3 elections: Kerry, Dole

[Lincoln Republican]

McCain has said repeatedly his number one criteria in his running mate is to select someone who could be President.

It is absolutely asinine to believe that Palin comes within light years of that qualification.

McCain would be laughed off the Presidential stage with that pick, and his career would be in tatters.

McCain cannot afford to make a mistake with his Vice Presidential pick, he has to get it right the first time.  He has one chance and one chance only. 

 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Palin's execute experience: 8.0 years (6 years as Mayor, 2 years of Governor)

Mayor of a small town of 5000.

and yet she beat the incumbent GOP governor in the primaries and goes on to defeat the former DEM governor in the general.

so underestimating her plays right into her hands.

She defeated a guy with an 18% approval rating? Wow! Incredible!

Knowles was a bit more impressive, but at the end of the day a non-corrupt Republican winning a statewide election in Alaska isn't that much of an accomplishment.

[J. J.]

Today, Rendell had this to say:

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only problem with that: As far as I can tell, McCain is planning on making a campaign stop in Washington, PA on Saturday, while Friday is when he'll be in Dayton.

I'm also at a loss to explain how exactly Rendell would have inside knowledge re: McCain's VP rollout plans.

Considering what he's been saying, who knows who he's working for...    Or maybe he's just friends with Ridge and Ridge has told him.

I doubt if they are close.  Ridge left for Homeland Security about 15 months before his term ended.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

McCain has said repeatedly his number one criteria in his running mate is to select someone who could be President.

It is absolutely asinine to believe that Palin comes within light years of that qualification.

McCain would be laughed off the Presidential stage with that pick, and his career would be in tatters.

McCain cannot afford to make a mistake with his Vice Presidential pick, he has to get it right the first time.  He has one chance and one chance only. 

yeah, yeah, yeah

If that were the case, Bush41 would have been slaughtered in 1988 for picking 41 year old Quayle, who obviously wasn't, and never would be, ready to be president.   After all, Quayle's challenger in 1988 was none other than Lloyd Bentsen who by 1988 served 6 years in the House and 16 years in the Senate.

And Ike would have never had served 2 terms for picking 39 year old Nixon who had served 2 years in the House and less than 2 years in the Senate, and who's counterpart, John Sparkman, had already served 9 years in the House and 6 years in the Senate.


Sarah Palin is no Dan Quayle, and the American public would welcome her personality and character.


She is more articulate than McCain, Biden, or Obama.  She is in complete command of her subjects and she connects well with her audience.  Here's just a little example.  Also note that she gives this speech 2 weeks removed from giving birth to her 5th child:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6879502891007095526&ei=2XSzSO3UIJCKrwK-qLjaDA&q=sarah+palin&vt=lf

here's her reaction to the recent SCOTUS ruling on the Exxon Valdez spill:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6879502891007095526&ei=2XSzSO3UIJCKrwK-qLjaDA&q=sarah+palin&vt=lf

[Nym90]

While the issue of experience at the top of the ticket is always crucial.

Name one example in US history of a candidate who lost a Presidential election because they weren't experienced enough.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

While the issue of experience at the top of the ticket is always crucial.

Name one example in US history of a candidate who lost a Presidential election because they weren't experienced enough.

2008

[Sensei]

While the issue of experience at the top of the ticket is always crucial.

Name one example in US history of a candidate who lost a Presidential election because they weren't experienced enough.

2008

Congratulations. You gave the most asinine possible answer. Your prize is in the mail.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Holy Logical Fallacy Batman!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

While the issue of experience at the top of the ticket is always crucial.

Name one example in US history of a candidate who lost a Presidential election because they weren't experienced enough.

2008

Is your time machine for sale?

[12th Doctor]

While the issue of experience at the top of the ticket is always crucial.

Name one example in US history of a candidate who lost a Presidential election because they weren't experienced enough.

Usually its not because someone lacks experience, so much as it is that the other guy has so much more.  As John Ford says though, the issue usually isn't experience per se, so much as readiness.  And one could say that both Carter and Bush would have lost had it not been for rather extreme luck, and the major stone hanging around both their necks at the time was a perceived lack of readiness.  Had 1976 been a normal year, Carter never woudl of got the nomination, but if he had, Ford would have kicked his ass.  Ford's amazing 30 point near comeback should be the stuff of legend even if he did fall short (kinda like the 300 Spartans).

[Mr. Morden]

Fox News is saying that "sources close to McCain's campaign" are saying that McCain may make the announcement earlier than Friday:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/25/sources-mccain-may-announce-vp-choice-before-friday

[WalterMitty]

Fox News is saying that "sources close to McCain's campaign" are saying that McCain may make the announcement earlier than Friday:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/25/sources-mccain-may-announce-vp-choice-before-friday

that would be jerky thing to do.

of course i like the idea!

[Eraserhead]

While the issue of experience at the top of the ticket is always crucial.

Name one example in US history of a candidate who lost a Presidential election because they weren't experienced enough.

2008

Did your Lord Christ tell you this?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If he had any balls he'd do this Thursday......

[Wakie]

Today, Rendell had this to say:

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only problem with that: As far as I can tell, McCain is planning on making a campaign stop in Washington, PA on Saturday, while Friday is when he'll be in Dayton.

I'm also at a loss to explain how exactly Rendell would have inside knowledge re: McCain's VP rollout plans.

So I tend to think that Rendell must be full of crap about this one because, honestly, why would he know?  And then when I thought about it a little ... I threw up a little in my mouth.  If this is true ... then there is really only 1 guy who McCain would be naming.  I mean traditionally your "coming out" party for the VP is either in your home state or in his.  There are only 3 guys in PA politics who could be a VP.  Ridge ... but according to this he is doing the intro and isn't the guy.  Specter ... but honestly with his health issues and his maverick attitude it would be insanity to put him on the ticket.  That only leaves ... Santorum.  He would bring youth and (much as I hate to say it) experience.  He is a darling of the conservatives.  Good God I hope it isn't him ... I was sure we in PA had knocked him out of politics.

[HappyWarrior]

Today, Rendell had this to say:

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only problem with that: As far as I can tell, McCain is planning on making a campaign stop in Washington, PA on Saturday, while Friday is when he'll be in Dayton.

I'm also at a loss to explain how exactly Rendell would have inside knowledge re: McCain's VP rollout plans.

So I tend to think that Rendell must be full of crap about this one because, honestly, why would he know?  And then when I thought about it a little ... I threw up a little in my mouth.  If this is true ... then there is really only 1 guy who McCain would be naming.  I mean traditionally your "coming out" party for the VP is either in your home state or in his.  There are only 3 guys in PA politics who could be a VP.  Ridge ... but according to this he is doing the intro and isn't the guy.  Specter ... but honestly with his health issues and his maverick attitude it would be insanity to put him on the ticket.  That only leaves ... Santorum.  He would bring youth and (much as I hate to say it) experience.  He is a darling of the conservatives.  Good God I hope it isn't him ... I was sure we in PA had knocked him out of politics.

It would guarentee the Democrats the election

[Mr. Morden]

I mean traditionally your "coming out" party for the VP is either in your home state or in his.

Kerry announced his choice of Edwards in PA, with no other rationale behind it other than it was a swing state.  He didn't do it in NC, because if he scheduled an event in NC, that would spoil the surprise well in advance.

Anyway, Rendell is probably full of it, and the announcement is likely to actually be in Ohio.....which, even following your home state logic, would point to Portman (or *maybe* Kasich).

[Wakie]

I mean traditionally your "coming out" party for the VP is either in your home state or in his.

Kerry announced his choice of Edwards in PA, with no other rationale behind it other than it was a swing state.  He didn't do it in NC, because if he scheduled an event in NC, that would spoil the surprise well in advance.

Anyway, Rendell is probably full of it, and the announcement is likely to actually be in Ohio.....which, even following your home state logic, would point to Portman (or *maybe* Kasich).

I was at the Edwards announcement.  The rationale for the choice of PA was (A) it was a swing state and (B) with the Heinz Estate being located there it was Kerry's "home away from home".

[Beet]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was not Ridge, but I doubt Rendell knows. In any case I don't see what "traditionally" happens are necessarily being binding in any given year.

[Keystone Phil]

Specter ... but honestly with his health issues and his maverick attitude it would be insanity to put him on the ticket.  That only leaves ... Santorum.  He would bring youth and (much as I hate to say it) experience.  He is a darling of the conservatives.  Good God I hope it isn't him ... I was sure we in PA had knocked him out of politics.

All of my hoping aside, it's not Santorum and it would never, ever, ever, ever be Specter. Never.

[Mr. Morden]

The rumor mill re: McCain's running mate selection seems extraordinarily quiet when compared to the Obama VP rumor mill at this time last week.  Maybe it'll pick up as the week goes on.

[Keystone Phil]

The rumor mill re: McCain's running mate selection seems extraordinarily quiet when compared to the Obama VP rumor mill at this time last week.  Maybe it'll pick up as the week goes on.

I hear there's a convention going on right now or something...

[Mr. Morden]

The rumor mill re: McCain's running mate selection seems extraordinarily quiet when compared to the Obama VP rumor mill at this time last week.  Maybe it'll pick up as the week goes on.

I hear there's a convention going on right now or something...

Oh sure, but if the McCain campaign wanted to, they could be feeding a bunch of leaks to the press (just to deflect a little of the attention away from Denver) that the press would print.  But there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of that going on....at least, not yet.