Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[fanforever]

http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-31-voa22.cfm

Hurricane Gustav Alters Plans at Republican National Convention
By Michael Bowman
31 August 2008


Republicans have made changes to their party's national convention due to Hurricane Gustav, which is approaching the U.S. Gulf Coast. VOA's Michael Bowman reports from St. Paul, Minnesota, where convention delegates have gathered.

Monday's scheduled opening of the four-day Republican National Convention would come hours after Hurricane Gustav is expected to make landfall along the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Already, most of the night's speeches have been canceled, including addresses by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The White House says the president and vice president will skip the convention entirely, citing the need to focus their attention on the hurricane and its potential aftermath.

Mr. Bush will visit Texas to meet with emergency workers and evacuees from Louisiana, where Gustav is on track to make landfall.

Arizona Senator John McCain, who is expected to accept the Republican nomination for president later in the week, discussed the disruption to the convention on the "Fox News Sunday" television program. "It just would not be appropriate to have a festive occasion [in St. Paul] while a near-tragedy or a terrible challenge is presented in the form of a natural disaster. So we are monitoring it from day-to-day, and I am saying a few prayers, too," he said.

Sunday, McCain toured the emergency management center in Mississippi, which borders Louisiana. The area was hard-hit by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Speaking with reporters, he said convention-goers will, as he put it, "act as Americans and not as Republicans because America needs us now."

His Democratic challenger, Senator Barack Obama, has pledged to mobilize his base of supporters to assist hurricane victims.

Meanwhile, Senator McCain is defending his choice of a vice presidential candidate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who was little-known nationally before McCain announced her selection Friday.

McCain says Palin brings good judgment on domestic and foreign affairs, as well as executive experience as a state governor who has commanded Alaska's National Guard troops, some of whom have been deployed to the Middle East. "What this [choice of Palin] brings is a spirit of reform and change that is vital, now, in our nation's capital. She has the right judgment. She has been to Kuwait. She has been over there, she has been with her troops - the National Guard that she commands," he said.

Democrats have been critical of the Palin choice, while sensitive to Republican charges that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama also brings a limited resume on foreign affairs.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, says McCain's choice of a running mate speaks volumes about his decision-making ability. "He has chosen somebody who has zero, zero experience in foreign policy. I mean, I am sure [Palin] is a terrific person. I am not attacking her. I think John McCain's judgment is once again put at issue because he has chosen somebody who clearly does not meet the national security threshold, who is not ready to be president tomorrow," he said.

Kerry was speaking on ABC's "This Week" program.

Governor Palin is viewed by many political analysts as a staunch conservative who is also willing to challenge the orthodoxy of the Republican Party, thereby reinforcing McCain's image as a "maverick." In her public appearances since emerging as McCain's running mate, Palin has attempted to reach out to female voters who backed Democratic New York Senator Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary contests

[greenback44]

why did she go to PP instead of someone of authority?

According to the article:

All I knew was that if you did not have periods, you were pregnant. And if you were pregnant, you were in trouble.

I turned to my Sunday school teacher for help. When I told her that I thought I might be pregnant (at 12 years old), she didn’t even blink. She gave me a hug and said I should go to Planned Parenthood for a “rabbit test,” that I should get one of my older brothers to take me and not tell my parents. She never asked who the male partner was or why I was sexually active at my age.

[Hudler]

You mean the people who were told that there was no need to evacuate because the levees wouldn't break?

As if that negates the fact that the federal government bungled the hurricane almost as badly as the war, then our president had the motherhumping gall to commend "Brownie."

Hindsight is 20/20. The general consensus was that the WMDs were there; the debate was whether or not war was really necessary and if oil had anything to do with it.

LOL I love this response. "Well, everyone believed it was there, so it's not TECHNICALLY the Bush Adminstration's fault."

And yeah, I'm pretty sure it's OK to use hindsight being that 4,100 members of our military have been brought back in caskets for a war that our president has yet to publicly admit has been a massive failure on every level possible.

How many soldiers died in Vietnam because of a Democrats policies? I'll tell ya.

Dead: 58,159
Wounded: 303,635
Missing: 2,000

Lets throw Korea's totals out there too.

Dead: 36,516
Wounded: 103,284
Missing: 8,176

I find it very galling that the Dems keep blasting the Republicans for getting our soldiers killed when thier party has WAY to much blood on thier hands.

[GatewaySnayke]

I find it very galling that the Dems keep blasting the Republicans for getting our soldiers killed when thier party has WAY to much blood on thier hands.

I find it more galling that you're attempting to justify the very illegal and completely unjust war in Iraq on the basis of Democratic-led administrations escalating wars in Korea and Vietnam half a century ago. What the Democrats did in the 50s and 60s has absolutely no basis on what happens in the future. Are you honestly suggesting that Democrats should say: "well, our party was for foreign intervention in the middle of the 20th century, thus we should not take the Bush administration to task for their wrongdoings in the Iraq War." And keep in mind that a lot of those people who voted on those things...probably dead.

[Hudler]

I find it very galling that the Dems keep blasting the Republicans for getting our soldiers killed when thier party has WAY to much blood on thier hands.

I find it more galling that you're attempting to justify the very illegal and completely unjust war in Iraq on the basis of Democratic-led administrations escalating wars in Korea and Vietnam half a century ago. What the Democrats did in the 50s and 60s has absolutely no basis on what happens in the future. Are you honestly suggesting that Democrats should say: "well, our party was for foreign intervention in the middle of the 20th century, thus we should not take the Bush administration to task for their wrongdoings in the Iraq War." And keep in mind that a lot of those people who voted on those things...probably dead.

Everything that happened politically worldwide in 20th century has led directly to what is happening in the middle east right now. Our countries political meddling the Balkans after World War I and the Middle Wast during and after World War II by Democrat administrations is a big part of the reason why all the fighting is happening there now. Korea and Vietnam were just the most visible parts of thier policies. I wish we never sent troops to Iraq as well,but just once I'd like to see a Democrat accept a little resposibility for thier party's role in the origins of this mess instead of just screaming "Bush is bad!".

[MrSaigon]

I find it very galling that the Dems keep blasting the Republicans for getting our soldiers killed when thier party has WAY to much blood on thier hands.

I find it more galling that you're attempting to justify the very illegal and completely unjust war in Iraq on the basis of Democratic-led administrations escalating wars in Korea and Vietnam half a century ago. What the Democrats did in the 50s and 60s has absolutely no basis on what happens in the future. Are you honestly suggesting that Democrats should say: "well, our party was for foreign intervention in the middle of the 20th century, thus we should not take the Bush administration to task for their wrongdoings in the Iraq War." And keep in mind that a lot of those people who voted on those things...probably dead.

Everything that happened politically worldwide in 20th century has led directly to what is happening in the middle east right now. Our countries political meddling the Balkans after World War I and the Middle Wast during and after World War II by Democrat administrations is a big part of the reason why all the fighting is happening there now. Korea and Vietnam were just the most visible parts of thier policies. I wish we never sent troops to Iraq as well,but just once I'd like to see a Democrat accept a little resposibility for thier party's role in the origins of this mess instead of just screaming "Bush is bad!".

Here is a pretty good display of part of my problems with partisan politics. Soldiers were/are dying, and we are seeing what we can do to make it terrify Americans of the party that is not our own.

[Hudler]

Agreed MrSaigon. Thanks for making me feel like a jerk. j/k

[GatewaySnayke]

I wish we never sent troops to Iraq as well,but just once I'd like to see a Democrat accept a little resposibility for thier party's role in the origins of this mess instead of just screaming "Bush is bad!".

Well, I think the people who voted for the war and now vehemently oppose it have taken responsibility. But they shouldn't take responsibility for what happened before most of them were even born.

[ghostrunner]

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, says McCain's choice of a running mate speaks volumes about his decision-making ability. "He has chosen somebody who has zero, zero experience in foreign policy. I mean, I am sure [Palin] is a terrific person. I am not attacking her. I think John McCain's judgment is once again put at issue because he has chosen somebody who clearly does not meet the national security threshold, who is not ready to be president tomorrow," he said.

McCain better get out in front of this. I can't believe anyone gives this argument the time of day. I'm not saying Palin's "qualified," but Obama has virtually nothing on her in this area, and he'll be President from day one. Voting on some bills relating to foreign policy doesn't do a whole lot for me. I think he'll do fine, but his resume is thin.

[sighyoung]

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, says McCain's choice of a running mate speaks volumes about his decision-making ability. "He has chosen somebody who has zero, zero experience in foreign policy. I mean, I am sure [Palin] is a terrific person. I am not attacking her. I think John McCain's judgment is once again put at issue because he has chosen somebody who clearly does not meet the national security threshold, who is not ready to be president tomorrow," he said.

McCain better get out in front of this. I can't believe anyone gives this argument the time of day. I'm not saying Palin's "qualified," but Obama has virtually nothing on her in this area, and he'll be President from day one. Voting on some bills relating to foreign policy doesn't do a whole lot for me. I think he'll do fine, but his resume is thin.

In all fairness, the argument's being made because it can be--she's largely unknown to the wider public, although she evidently had been on the radar screen of Republican activists such as Ross Douthat at The Atlantic. I think Obama has acquitted himself well in public, and in overseeing his campaign--Palin will have to do the same. She'll have to get up to speed in a hurry.

One more thing: note that the Palin pick is presented as a reflection on McCain's judgment.