Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tsunami John (McCain's pick for VP)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Democrats say republicans caused the Katrina hurricane disaster. But today republican John McCain launched a political tsunami.

Liberal democrats like to say republicans are the party of racism, sexism and bigotry; only democrats help blacks, Hispanics & women.

Pundits in the liberal mainstream media from CNN to MSNBC to left-wing blogs & rags to left-wing newspapers prepared ammunition to launch at John McCain's most-certain vice presidential pick of another white male: Pawlenty, Romney, Ridge, etc.

Yet when John McCain announced his VP pick today, the liberal media was caught as off-guard as victims of the Indonesian tsunami. A tidal-wave of hysteria broke out almost immediately from the ranks of liberal democrat supporters:

"She's inexperience!"

"She's unethical!"

"She's a right-wing extremist!"

"She's pro-drilling!"

Liberal democrat media pundits infiltrating ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, NYTIMES, WASHPOST were prepared to viciously attack yet another white republican male. Only problem is John McCain didn't choose a white male for his running mate. Thus the left-wing media did not have any ammunition prepared for his VP pick of Sarah Palin.

Thus arose a storm of protest -- a political tsunami -- from the American Left. Within minutes liberal attack dogs were scrambling to conjure up attacks. The Obama campaign, having prepared attacks for Romney & Pawlenty, had at first nothing to counter McCain's pick. Eventually they cobbled together a press release saying Sarah Palin lacks experience. Pot.Kettle.Black

Now this political tsunami is having ripple effects throughout the left-wing of the Democrat Party. First, democrats in the media threw the female Hillary Clinton under the bus this past spring. Then the Obama campaign ran her over when they rejected her for VP.

Female Hillary supporters who were offended by how Hillary was treated now have more than one reason to support John McCain. And women make up the majority of American voters. Moreover, Obama's claim that McCain equals Bush disintegrates into nothingness when you consider that neither Bush nor any other republican has ever nominated a female to co-run America.

Indeed, liberal democrats in the media, Hollywood and elsewhere were preparing to rain on John McCain's parade. Instead, they got caught up in a political tsunami that will have ripple-effects lasting weeks, months or longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bill and Hillary are definitely going to vote for McCain now and possibly purchase a bumper sticker. Palin praised Hillary in her speech.

I wonder if McCain would actually help Hillary win in 2012 in order to get members of her coven to vote for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awww man it looks like McCain is trying to play the sympathy card too but what makes him think that she can be a vice president?
Well, if Obama can be President, why can't she be Veep? Listen to 10 minutes of him and 10 minutes of her and one gets a lesson in "concrete vs. abstract" "real vs. hot air".

I'm no fan of hers or McCain, but I think -- on balance -- the choice gives him a slight edge in the polls that matter. With religion making inroads into the Democratic party, will they have the guts to fight her on abortion and creationism kookiness? I think they will only do so to their base, that's going to vote for them anyway -- I can't see them giving that message to the "middle of the road" voter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all are feeling positive towards a nominee for VP that thinks creationism should be taught in schools?

Look who they are up against...

Man elections have almost become a joke, it isn't about issues or policies it is more about well "I like You and you make me feel good."

Edited by dadmonson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats say republicans caused the Katrina hurricane disaster.

Because they did.

Liberal democrats like to say republicans are the party of racism, sexism and bigotry

Because it is.

Only problem is John McCain didn't choose a white male for his running mate.

Whoa! He choose a white, attractive female who shoots guns, supports creationism and opposes abortion! That's really a maverick move right there. What a curve ball... just change the sex on what they would of picked anyways! Brilliant! What crazy plan will those sneaky Republicans pull off next? Maybe they will change McCain's tie from Red to Maroon at the speech... that oughta throw the evil Hollywood liberal media complex into a total frenzy!

Pot.Kettle.Black

And it's amazing how many people shut up about the issue after they realized they would be hypocrites.

Edited by Mammon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they did.
How, exactly, are Republicans responsible for the Katrina disaster? Was it because of the incompetent republican governor Louisiana had at the time? No, Blanco was a democrat. Was it the incompetent republican mayor who failed to adequately conduct the evacuation? No, Ray Nagin was a democrat. Was it those republican bureaucrats who devised the brilliant scheme to send people to sports arenas during the storm but failed to stock those arenas with the supplies needed to support several thousand people for what could be several days? No, democrats have controlled that city forever. Was it rich republicans that failed to heed the warnings to evacuate the city? No it was mostly poor democrats who decided to stay behind and take their chances on surviving the storm of the century.

As for your claim that republicans are "the party of racism, sexism and bigotry," you may notice that it is white democrats that Obama is having trouble with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all are feeling positive towards a nominee for VP that thinks creationism should be taught in schools?
What thread are you reading? :D

It'll be interesting to see how the Democrats will attack Palin. I think Mammon's post above gives one a taste, with the more outlying Democrats adding in a few remarks about how refreshing it will be to have the first beauty-queen, bimbo president serving moose hamburgers in the White house.

That message will work, with a certain audience; but, much of this audience is going to vote Democrat anyway. As a politician, McCain would be foolish to pick someone who will appeal to Democrats, while they go vote for their own guy anyway.

The two segments McCain seems to be aiming at are blue-collar independents (e.g. "Reagan Democrats") and the nuttier religious folk. The religious nuts won't vote for the Democrats anyway, but some of them might have stayed home sulking. The blue-collar folk will be suspicious of the beauty queen, but I think the "real Palin" stands a good chance against this "abstract Palin".

Still, the election is going to be close, and both parties have reaffirmed their pathetic stereotypes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone else not convinced of my claim that this is the first affirmative action election?

I'll disagree. Affirmative action involves state coercion of employers to determine whom they may hire and promote (or school admissions policies). No one is yet being coerced to vote in elections in the US therefore the term cannot be applied.

There must certainly be some people voting for him solely because of his race, that makes them racists and unethical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone else not convinced of my claim that this is the first affirmative action election?

It's the first identity politics election. This time around it's more important what the candidates are (race, gender) than who they are and what they have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a source for this? I haven't seen a source on the opposite side either, so I was wondering to what extent she's serious about bringing this into public policy.

Someone posted a source on it in the Peikoff argument thread.

There is also this from Little Green Footballs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How, exactly, are Republicans responsible for the Katrina disaster? Was it because of the incompetent republican governor Louisiana had at the time? No, Blanco was a democrat. Was it the incompetent republican mayor who failed to adequately conduct the evacuation? No, Ray Nagin was a democrat. Was it those republican bureaucrats who devised the brilliant scheme to send people to sports arenas during the storm but failed to stock those arenas with the supplies needed to support several thousand people for what could be several days? No, democrats have controlled that city forever. Was it rich republicans that failed to heed the warnings to evacuate the city? No it was mostly poor democrats who decided to stay behind and take their chances on surviving the storm of the century.

As for your claim that republicans are "the party of racism, sexism and bigotry," you may notice that it is white democrats that Obama is having trouble with.

Well let's see... normally the federal authorities help in this matter, but god knows where they were, and our national guard were busy circle jerking and getting shot at out in the desert. Also, we've been trying to get Washignton to help with the levees for years and they blew it off. Our local people were doing the best they could with limited resources and being the idiots they are... but the Bush Administration didn't exactly come to the rescue either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone posted a source on it in the Peikoff argument thread.

There is also this from Little Green Footballs

Thanks. She didn't say she believed in creationism or that she would ask that it be taught, only that she would not opposed it being taught. Her answer sounds like a bare-minimum pandering to the religious guys. So, she passes on that score, in my book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let's see... normally the federal authorities help in this matter, but god knows where they were, and our national guard were busy circle jerking and getting shot at out in the desert. Also, we've been trying to get Washignton to help with the levees for years and they blew it off. Our local people were doing the best they could with limited resources and being the idiots they are... but the Bush Administration didn't exactly come to the rescue either.
I have friend who is a contract driver for Eagle. He was taking a bunch of generators down to the disaster area a day or two after the storm hit. He told me that there was virtually no power south of Atlanta, which meant no way to get fuel. On top of that, many roads were impassable. If I remember right, it took 3 days for the convoys to arrive in New Orleans. Do you think these convoys of food and bottled water were just sitting around waiting for a disaster to strike? It takes time to organize these things and when an entire state is a disaster area and an entire city is submerged in several feet of water, the length of time gows that much longer. The entire situation could have been avoided if there were adequate supplies of food, water and emergency power sources at the places people were told to go in case of emergency. That fault lies at the local level, not the Oval Office. Why you would excuse the incomparable incompetence of local officials is beyond me. Funny how you dont here anything about Mississippi, which actually suffered even more from the storm but didnt spend the next three years complaining about federal response. Could that have anything to do with the fact that Mississippi had a republican governor who was up to the job?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they did.

No, Mammon. Mother nature did ;)

normally the federal authorities help in this matter, but god knows where they were

For once - WHERE THEY DIDN'T BELONG! Having ANYTHING to do with something that is NOT the role of government!!! :D

Also, we've been trying to get Washignton to help with the levees for years and they blew it off

Paid for with whose tax dollars? Your's or mine? (I live in Utah, a desert, btw. Why should I care about people who stupidly choose to live below sea level in a flood zone?)

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see how the Democrats will attack Palin.

Tomorrow's New York Times article will confirm my post from yesterday and reveal Dem's plan of attack:

The Obama campaign and the Democratic Party had prepared advertisements and lines of attacks directed at the two men who had been most prominently mentioned as vice-presidential possibilities for Mr. McCain, Mitt Romney and Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, but had not considered Ms. Palin a likely enough choice to do the same for her.

And

Mr. Obama’s campaign does not plan to go directly after Ms. Palin in the days ahead. Instead, it is planning to increase its attacks on Mr. McCain for his opposition to pay equity legislation and abortion rights — two issues of paramount concern to many women — as it tries to head off his effort to use Ms. Palin to draw Democratic and independent women who had supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/us/polit...SdT7D7UGE7SCQSw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...