Republican VP with strong ties to big oil

[vonkaar]

no way!

[Evermore]

he just sunk himself..

here she is.

[Gypsiyee]

I was just getting ready to post about this.

I would just like to thank McCain for feeling that women, namely Clinton supporters, are so stupid that they'll jump ship to him completely based on the fact that she's a woman. Honestly, it's an insult to her supporters across the country that he thinks that this is the pick that will help him - she's anti-choice, she's been governer a year, she's married to big oil, she's under investigation already for firing someone for not firing her ex brother in law, her degree is in journalism - seriously, this is the best you can do? She is as far right as they come, NOT something that will resonate with Clinton supporters.

Bad, bad pick for McCain, great pick for Obama.

I do appreciate the boost he's just given us!

[Haylo]

She's against just about every single thing that Hilary was for. I really hope that the dissatisfied women out there are not dumb enough to vote on boobs. Biden's going to rip her a new one in debates as well, what in the hell was McCain thinking? I thought for sure he was going to go with Romney or Liberman and I was a bit worried. Hell this is a huge gift to the democratic party.

[Martrae]

Huckabee is the one that said she was supposed to pull in the Clinton supporters. And he always was a doofus.

I thought she was chosen as a foil for Obama. They have many of the same qualities. (young, charismatic, energetic, intelligent)

She'll outshine McCain at any events they are at together, though.

[Arlos]

Especially given the likelihood of Supreme court appointments for the next President, any pro-choice person who votes for the McCain ticket is certifiably insane.

Also, what kind of signal does this send to the average person out there who is fed up with $4/gallon gas, when he openly ties the GOP ticket to the hip pockets of Big Oil? Combine that with the way this Supreme Court has looked at eminent domain, and bet you anything, if McCain gets in office, it'll be open season for oil companies to drill wherever they want, regardless of whose property is impacted. Don't want an oil derrick in your back yard? Too bad! This is Government By Big Oil, FOR Big Oil. People? Who are they?

-Arlos

[leah]

hee i just saw this on CNN, too. i was definitely surprised to read that her husband is in oil, and to me, mccain's choice seems like a desperate attempt to come across as open-minded--"see, i can have a woman VP! i am so forward-thinking!"

i'm actually pretty surprised he didn't pick lieberman, to pick up the independents on the fence. oh well.

[numatu]

It's rather frightening the level of vitriol I'm reading here over someone nobody knew much about a day ago. From what I've read, she has an 80-90% approval rating as Governor of Alaska. I'm sure people that have just read a blog about her today from a biased site know more though.

I don't particularly care for either candidate, much like four years ago, but I find everything that's wrong with politics is the tendency for people to immediately pick sides and rah-rah or bash someone because of the (D) or (R) next to their names.

[Gypsiyee]

If he was trying to be forward thinking, why Palin, with no experience who is the rookie governer of a state the with a population the size of Atlanta who already has tremendous baggage and scandals to carry along with her? Why not someone else? Why not Kay Bailey Hutchinson? Well respected, experienced, pro-choice (if we're talking about appeasing Clinton voters.)

There are several females who would've been better suited as a VP pick and certainly would've snagged a few of Hillary's voters - this was the absolute worst route he could take, and I'm highly grateful he took it.

numatu - I am a registered independent; my choices have nothing to do with an R or a D beside the name. The Wall Street Journal *just* did a spread on Palin because she was a "long shot" pick for VP for McCain. The things I'm saying are facts, not blog smear. She has a great approval rating, yes, but consider the size of the state, the time of her tenure, and her lack of experience on the federal, much less international, level.

The fact that no one knew much of her a day ago is an additional reason as to why she was such a bad idea. Already I've heard very staunch republicans saying they will now vote Obama based on McCain's VP pick - I'm talking people who told me 6 months ago that they'd never vote for someone even named Obama, much less a democrat with that name (seriously, it made me sick to hear it.)

[recks]

Why you would put an oil wife in, when everyone's bitching about the price of gas is beyond me.

I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat, because I think he's what this country needs to restore the way the world looks at America... but to me, things just don't add up at the moment.

Obama's speech last night was great, but how does he plan on doing what he's promising?

Is America not in huge debt with China? The surplus has long been used up over the last eight years. How can you give everyone heath care AND lower taxes for 95% of workers? How can you dedicate 150 billion in research for alternative energy over the next 10 years AND promise a world class education to every child? Where is the money coming from?

[numatu]

I'm not sure why any Obama supporter would bring up lack of experience as an attack against Palin. Obama is also a "rookie" in his current position as U.S. Senator. Indeed, almost all of his tenure as Senator has been on the campaign trail since early 2005. By contrast, Palin has almost two years of state-level executive experience. I'm not understanding that tactic.

I've also read that she raised taxes on oil companies in Alaska. She must have very strong ties.

If anything, the lack of experience is what makes people like Obama and now Palin much more attractive as candidates. Throughout U.S. history, Presidents have had little to no foreign or federal experience. Many of them have been considered the greatest Presidents.

[Gypsiyee]

Removing the tax breaks that were put into place for the wealthy that Bush enacted a few years back, for one - those tax cuts were intended to be temporary.

For two, the money we will save on not occupying Iraq is huge - you look at how much money we're spending over there, billions of dollars per month - that money could be allocated to schools and healthcare here.

Creating more jobs here - more US taxpayers rather than cheap labor that doesn't pay into US government. Immigration reform - fixing the problem with illegal immigration so that we have legal workers here paying taxes just like anyone else.

There are a number of ways to pay for these things, and he's so much as said it isn't free to do all the things he wants to do for the country. He's not sugar-coated anything, he's specifically said that it will cost taxpayer dollars to provide the revenue. It's a matter of properly balancing those taxpayer dollars, ensuring they're going to the right places.

[Gypsiyee]

I'm not sure why any Obama supporter would bring up lack of experience as an attack against Palin. Obama is also a "rookie" in his current position as U.S. Senator. Indeed, almost all of his tenure as Senator has been on the campaign trail since early 2005. By contrast, Palin has almost two years of state-level executive experience. I'm not understanding that tactic.

I've also read that she raised taxes on oil companies in Alaska. She must have very strong ties.

If anything, the lack of experience is what makes people like Obama and now Palin much more attractive as candidates. Throughout U.S. history, Presidents have had little to no foreign or federal experience. Many of them have been considered the greatest Presidents.

My point with her lack of experience is it completely removes McCain's "he has no experience" card from play.

Let's face it - McCain is no spring chicken. I don't think he's less capable of being president because of his age, but I do think his risk of passing away in office is higher. His backup is now someone who has even said she doesn't even know what a VP does (I will find you the video once I get home, I can't view them here.) To me, state-level doesn't count for much when you consider the population of the state.

Obama is young and has less experience, sure, but he still has 3x as much as Palin - doesn't say much, does it? He's been a state senator since 97 and a US senator since '04; huge difference in experience there over a 1 year governer of the state with one of the smallest populations. His backup is also a highly respected senior senator with infinite knowledge on foreign policy.

Less involved with Washington *is* refreshing, but not when we're talking about someone who's been around for less than 2 years and is already under investigations. What does that say about the future ability for her to do her job?

She has 5 children, one with special needs - how is she ever going to devote time to being a VP?

[numatu]

To me, state-level doesn't count for much when you consider the population of the state.

There's not much to add if this is what you believe.

Obama is young and has less experience, sure, but he still has 3x as much as Palin

I'm not sure how his 3 1/2 years of Senatorial experience leading a committee is '3x as much' as being the top state executive for 1 1/2. Especially when you consider he's been in full-time campaign mode since he was elected. I would say Palin has far more experience. But again, experience as a tactic or necessity in electing any official is a tactic used to keep entrenched powers in place and eliminate potential troublesome outsiders.

[Gypsiyee]

But again, experience as a tactic or necessity in electing any official is a tactic used to keep entrenched powers in place and eliminate potential troublesome outsiders.

I fully agree with you here - my point here is just that as far as experience goes, Obama has more in comparison (I'd be interested in hearing why you think Palin does - pure curiosity, not debating you) and it completely takes McCain's ability to use that excuse away, and it's the primary angle he's been taking.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but I'm not sure what McCain can possibly attack now that he's taken his ace in the hole away.

[recks]

Removing the tax breaks that were put into place for the wealthy that Bush enacted a few years back, for one - those tax cuts were intended to be temporary.

For two, the money we will save on not occupying Iraq is huge - you look at how much money we're spending over there, billions of dollars per month - that money could be allocated to schools and healthcare here.

Creating more jobs here - more US taxpayers rather than cheap labor that doesn't pay into US government. Immigration reform - fixing the problem with illegal immigration so that we have legal workers here paying taxes just like anyone else.

There are a number of ways to pay for these things, and he's so much as said it isn't free to do all the things he wants to do for the country. He's not sugar-coated anything, he's specifically said that it will cost taxpayer dollars to provide the revenue. It's a matter of properly balancing those taxpayer dollars, ensuring they're going to the right places.

Honestly, if he can actually pull all that shit off -- knowing that the Iraq exit strategy will take years -- then more power to him. At least it's not the same shit for another 4 years, which should make a great case for his election.

[Gypsiyee]

Of course it'll take years, all of this stuff will take years. Nothing he says is going to be immediately effective when he's sworn in in January. It's taken Bush 8 years to completely throw us into the shitter, it'll take just as long to pull us back out and set us in a positive direction.

[Haylo]

I don't care that she doesn't have experience, the same as I don't care that Obama doesn't have experience. In my opinion nothing is going to prepare you for being the President except being the President. Nothing else that any of these candidates have done is near the scope of the responsibilities they will hold as pres. I think it's foolish to base decisions on who has been in office longer or whatever.

My only issue is that now I swear I don't even want to hear a republican even mention experience, but already i've heard them touting how her 1 1/2 years as governor trumps Obama's experience and how they can still use that tactic to attack Obama.

[Martrae]

Removing the tax breaks that were put into place for the wealthy that Bush enacted a few years back, for one - those tax cuts were intended to be temporary.

Creating more jobs here - more US taxpayers rather than cheap labor that doesn't pay into US government.

You do realize the people who create jobs are the ones with the money, right? If you increase taxes on them they hire less people, buy less items so the places they shop hire less people, the shops order less items so manufacturers hire less people......seeing a pattern here?

There's no need to be jealous of what rich people have or force it from them. We just need to give them more incentive to pass it around instead of hoarding it.

[numatu]

My only issue is that now I swear I don't even want to hear a republican even mention experience, but already i've heard them touting how her 1 1/2 years as governor trumps Obama's experience and how they can still use that tactic to attack Obama.

I've been hearing and reading of only Democratic attacks on Palin's experience. It shows what should be obvious to everyone: both party's leadership are exactly the same. Whatever it takes to accumulate power.

[Evermore]

we just cannot afford 4 more years of Bush and that is about what the repub ticket amounts too. She doesn't make it any better.

[Gypsiyee]

Removing the tax breaks that were put into place for the wealthy that Bush enacted a few years back, for one - those tax cuts were intended to be temporary.

Creating more jobs here - more US taxpayers rather than cheap labor that doesn't pay into US government.

You do realize the people who create jobs are the ones with the money, right? If you increase taxes on them they hire less people, buy less items so the places they shop hire less people, the shops order less items so manufacturers hire less people......seeing a pattern here?

There's no need to be jealous of what rich people have or force it from them. We just need to give them more incentive to pass it around instead of hoarding it.

I'm not jealous of the wealthy, if that's what you're insinuating. I'm not saying increase their taxes, I'm saying put it back to how it was originally intended to be. All this does is put it back to what it was, it's not a new tax increase for them. Do you dispute that the tax breaks they currently enjoy were intended to be temporary? Prior to the tax cuts they currently have, we enjoyed fantastic employment rates, so no, I don't think your pattern is a huge danger.

The tax breaks they currently have still doesn't stop them from shipping jobs overseas and hiring illegals, does it? Greed is greed. They had incentive, they've had tax breaks for the last few years, and more jobs are being shipped overseas and given to illegals than ever because it's cheap and puts more money into their already fat pockets. How is that benefitting us? To think that giving them more incentive will stop that is a little naive, imo.

[Gypsiyee]

My only issue is that now I swear I don't even want to hear a republican even mention experience, but already i've heard them touting how her 1 1/2 years as governor trumps Obama's experience and how they can still use that tactic to attack Obama.

I've been hearing and reading of only Democratic attacks on Palin's experience. It shows what should be obvious to everyone: both party's leadership are exactly the same. Whatever it takes to accumulate power.

I think the democratic attacks are solely due to the fact that the entire platform has been to attack Obama's experience, and this is a bit of an ironic pick when you consider that fact.

This entire campaign season, McCain has gone from "taking the high road" like he said he would to relentless attacks and averaging a new commercial a day just to talk about how Obama isn't ready and all he is is a rockstar with no experience. When you consider that, it's to be expected that there will be questions raised as to why on earth you'd pick someone with minimal experience.

[numatu]

It depends what 'tax on wealthy' means. If it means very wealthy people who do not employ others, that's one thing. If it means across-the-board corporate taxes, that's another thing entirely. Currently the U.S. has, I believe, the second or third highest tax rate in the world, when you account for federal, state, and local policy. It's difficult to compete in a world market if you don't provide much financial reason to build.

U.S. total corporate tax rate hovers around 35-40% last time I checked. In comparison, China has a 25% corporate tax rate. Ireland, a country that historically has exported its population, has now become an economic leader and its corporate tax rate is 12.5%.

It's clear that it isn't 1950 anymore. Companies do not have to build in the U.S. just because it's the U.S.

Companies will build and create jobs wherever it is financially attractive. And currently, it's not very attractive to build in the United States.

[Gypsiyee]

It depends what 'tax on wealthy' means. If it means very wealthy people who do not employ others, that's one thing. If it means across-the-board corporate taxes, that's another thing entirely.

That's a very good point, too. I personally was not speaking of corporate taxes.