McCAIN'S V.P. CHOICE IS CONFUSING - BUT WHAT DOES KARL ROVE THINK OF IT?
So McCain picked the 19-month Governor of Alaska, Sara Palin, as his running mate. As the media scrambles for some background on this relative unknown, I thought I'd share something that Karl Rove said recently. Rove, for all of his flaws, has proven he knows how to win elections. So here's what Rove said last week when speculation of Obama's V.P. choice was centering around Virginia Governor Tim Kaine:
Kaine has been Governor of Virginia for three years - Palin has been Alaska's Governor for 16 months.
Can people really name one accomplishment of Palin's?
Kaine was Mayor of the 105th largest city (population 200,000) Richmond, Virginia - Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska... population 6,700. It should be noted that the STATE of Alaska (population 700,000) is less populous that SEVENTEEN American CITIES, ranking just behind Austin, Texas!
So will Rove keep his claim that this was not a decision based on a person "capable of being president of the United States"? Will he agree that McCain's decision was based on getting votes, and not putting "Country First"?
"With all respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, "You know what, I'm really not first and foremost concerned with is this person capable of being president of the United States. What I'm concerned about is can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia."So let's compare Rove's criticisms of Kaine's record, to those of Palin, shall we?
Kaine has been Governor of Virginia for three years - Palin has been Alaska's Governor for 16 months.
Can people really name one accomplishment of Palin's?
Kaine was Mayor of the 105th largest city (population 200,000) Richmond, Virginia - Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska... population 6,700. It should be noted that the STATE of Alaska (population 700,000) is less populous that SEVENTEEN American CITIES, ranking just behind Austin, Texas!
So will Rove keep his claim that this was not a decision based on a person "capable of being president of the United States"? Will he agree that McCain's decision was based on getting votes, and not putting "Country First"?
posted by Russell Arch at
8/29/2008
7 Comments:
I'm pretty sure it's Wasilla. To dismiss that area as a small town..is like saying Carmel is a small town in California! We have good friends who live there, and as a result, I have been following the Govenor by default. She has achieved some good things. Her approach is common sense and hard work. A refreshing change from the slick marketing approach.
I was also surprised at McCain's choice as it seemed to be the govenor from MN was favored. I'm very pleased that women will again have a choice. Why Obama didn't put Hillary on the ticket.....which (in my opinion) could have meant a slam dunk for his election?..We may never know.
I know it is being reported that the spectacle of the Dem convention had an audience of 38m watching...the implication being it was some sort of approval rating? I was one of those and, as I watched and listened...he missed a golden opportunity to finally tell "us" what specifically, he will do, as president! I was disappointed that his speech fell short of any sort of honor for MLK's "Dream" speech or to further align himself with JFK as he has hinted. Instead, continuing to attack the present admin and McCain personally, was classless. Just more empty, but beautiful wordsmithing...and why?
McCain~Palin '08
Love to all, AL
AL,
First off, if you think that women having "a choice" means that one of the candidates has breasts and the appropriate genitalia, then I think you sorely underestimate women as a gender. Palin (and the entire RNC platform) support NO CHOICE in reproductive matters for women. That means NO CHOICE even in cases of rape, incest, and if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Should women be ashamed that they didn't "choose" Mondale/Ferraro in 1984? Or was Reagan a better choice for both men and women?
As for Obama spelling out his entire plan in a 40-minute speech? that has never been the case with acceptance speeches like these. You won't hear such specifics from McCain either by the way.
However, ALL of Obama's plans are available for those who'd like to see them. They're here:
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
The funny thing is, Obama has been MUCH more open as to the specifics of his plans. McCain STILL can't articulate how he'll cut spending to keep up with his tax cuts for the rich, and therefore is on target for more record deficits.
McCain's answer for Iraq? "Win it".
McCain's answer for the economy? "Fix it."
McCain's answer for energy independence? "Do it all!"
Rhetoric? Yes! Specifics? No.
My guess is that nothing could persuade you from voting against McCain, and that's okay. But to accuse Obama of "classless" behavior when (if you've read this blog) he's been the victim of it over and over from the other side of the aisle, is personally hard to read.
In the words of another author read today, McCain's V.P. selection has shown that he's willing to risk our security, in order to win an election. My only hope is that the American people see this as the publicity stunt that it is. There are plenty of other qualified women in the Republican Party, and they should be livid that a 19-month Governor of Alaska got the nod.
My goodness I'm wound up over this election, and this is just in the comments! Sincerely though, I respect your opinions and passion for McCain, but I can't support anyone with a "hair trigger" for War after supporting and helping Bush start a worthless one in Iraq.
Aunt Linda--
As Russ stated, on his website Obama divides his platform into 24 sections and explains each one in pain-stakingly specific fashion. Once again, you can check it out at:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Set aside a couple of hours because there is ALOT of information there. So, perhaps he didn't get as specific as you'd like in his speech but if he'd covered everything he'd have been talking late into the next morning.
Ryan
Oh, and FYI:
When he mentioned the "young preacher from Georgia,” who “45 years ago today brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington.” That was MLK.
And when he said "'We cannot walk alone,' the preacher cried. 'And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back,'" He was quoting MLK's "I Have A Dream" Speech.
By choice, I mean, the women who felt disenfranchised (sp) by the fact that Obama rejected the considerable support from HRC's democratic base. Evidently, there are millions? of women who felt strongly enough to vote for McCain, if Obama rejected the Clinton(s). I wouldn't vote for anyone based on thier gender or race, never have, never well. But according to the talking heads, there are supposed to be a lot of frustrated and outright angered women who do, and will, because of it. My obscured point, Palin (party line aside) may represent a choice to those voters.
I believe Palin's position on "Pro Life" does include abortion when the Mother's life is in jeopardy. Is that the best awnser? And best for whom? I don't know. Rape? Incest? Who amongst us should say? I'm not even convinced it should have even been the business of the legislature! Personally,given the current situation... I want stronger, more enforceable laws and a judicial system with "the backbone" to match!
Re: speech. It was a historic moment, hence the "spectacle" was deemed appropriate. To me? The classlessness (is that a word?) came with the delivery of more of the same, attack mode, just delivered in a more spectacular venue? I would have been impressed if he would have said, "Let take the money being spent on "glorification" and use it for those Americans I am pledging to help!" Now, that is a statement and a meaningful gesture. BTW That goes for the RNC also!!
Instead of change, he gave mega-more of the same! Including the brief references to MLK. Especially irksome, since the night he accepted the nomination COINCIDENTALLY, was on the anniversary?? Sorry,I call BS, which is a step up from Horsefeathers! :)
These are the things about this campaign that continue to bother and cause me to ask, who is this guy? Here's the "drama" part. And, IF he does become our commander in chief...will he be able to make the hard decisions to protect this country. Think about it...No country,... the economy is moot, the environment is likewise,... a non-issue. Our own family has "front row seats" to the terrorist question here in the NW on the I-5 corridor...and you can believe me.... it exists, it is real and we should all be very, very concerned! If the threat of terrorism is ignored or diminished, or allowed to continue to undermine the security, we are all just kidding ourselves about our collective futures.
Hysterical? Rhetoric? There are millions who are more than a little worried. Even if, Obama had spent some time in/with the military, or as a senator, more than 143 days on the floor, I would feel he had more "cred". It appears to many that he took the political expressway, being chauffeured by the press, and is now, with Biden's experience, blowing smoke up/in our collective ....?
The e-mails are pouring into my mailbox(unbidden), all feeding the "fear of the unknown" and that is, at once, sad, but also, an indication of what the Obama ticket represents to the "boomers" (children of WWII, Korea & VN) (I'm not forwarding them at all, at this point.)
I comfort myself with the knowledge that IF McCain is elected and proves the worst, we'll survive...and IF Obama is elected and proves the worst, we'll survive...it's a great country and no one person can take the credit, nor should one person shoulder the blame..Washington DC, our representatives are the ones we should hold accountable. IF either of them is elected and proves to be the BEST at what they proclaim... someone will be at a disadvantage...so we are left to vote for the one that "gores one's own oxen, the least"..and that's fair.
I am so proud of your passion and your participation in the debate, if only more cared as much!
Gonna go hug the grandbabies now.
I love you all! AL
I'd make my pitch that you should be MORE scared (regarding terrorism) with McCain in office. After all, he touted the false claim of anthrax from Iraq, and was cheerleading as we got bogged down in Iraq.
He claimed we could "muddle through" in Afghanistan even though it was the central front on the guys WHO ACTUALLY ATTACKED US.
He mocked Obama for saying he'd bomb in Pakistan if it meant getting bin Laden. This echoed Bush's claims post 9/11. McCain has since taken the same tone.
The facts are clear, McCain supported Bush's judgments on Iraq until late 2006. Obama opposed the war in Iraq prior to it's start.
By the way, I tried to comfort myself in 2000 and 2004 that if Bush were elected, we'd survive - and we have.
But to line up again for more of the same?!
Did you vote Bush BOTH times, and now are voting for McCain?!
I am taking encouragement from your comments.
I voted for W the first time because I believed him to be the better candidate, the second time, the lesser of two evils.
AL
Aunt Linda,
Here's a definition of addiction:
1. Is characterized by the repeated use of a substance or behavior despite clear evidence of negative consequences resulting from the use of the substance or behavior.
You've got a conservative monkey on your back! Break the cycle!
Post a Comment
<< Home