Friday, August 29, 2008

NY Times: It's not Romney. Then who?

The NYT reporting just minutes ago:

…Also this morning, The Times’s Michael Luo reports that Mitt Romney, who had long been perceived as on one of the final candidates for the slot, has been ruled out. A source close to him said he is not going to be in Dayton today.

So who does that leave?

The Times’s Elisabeth Bumiller sends the following:

Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska? As reports circulated on television and cable networks on Friday morning that Senator John McCain might have selected Ms. Palin as his running mate, McCain advisers expressed bewilderment.

One adviser said that while Mr. McCain thinks highly of Ms. Palin, who is opposed to abortion rights and would be welcomed by Christian conservatives, her less than two years in office would undercut one of the McCain campaign’s central criticisms of Senator Barack Obama — that he is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief.

“While it’s a dramatic and interesting choice, it would make the argument he’s making difficult to make,” said one McCain adviser.


Much of the campaign apparatus remained in the dark about Mr. McCain’s choice as of 9 a.m. Friday. Briefing calls that had been scheduled to go out to a top group of outsider advisers were delayed Thursday night, and then delayed again Friday morning.
There are reports Gov. Palin will not be in Dayton this morning.

And neither will I.

So who will it be?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

If McCain is using his head, he will have persuaded Condoleeza Rice.

Danvers said...

Sarah Palin

zonga said...

John McCain sends a message to "pro-choice" Americans, and I approve that message!

Anonymous said...

John -

It was Sarah Palin after all, as you know by now. I think it is a very smart move given that St. Barack did not choose Hillary Clinton.

Jack in Silver Spring

Anonymous said...

Well, it seems that McCain has selected the "relatively" inexperienced Palin as his running-mate.

At least she adds a degree of physical attractiveness to his ticket. As a friend of mine pointed out, "she's probably the hottest politician in this race."

This election seems to be devolving more and more into a popularity contest between candidates. Was the choice of Palin a move by the Republican party to attempt to woo female voters? It seems in poor taste, as having a woman play the proverbial "second fiddle" to a man will not win over the die-hard feminists (trust me, I know from experience).

Further, I think Biden could eat her alive in a debate. As McCain has pointed out, she does not have relatively as much experience as many of the other big names out there right now; she is soft. But perhaps that was the point. Maybe the intent was to try to make Biden look "bad" if he were to "beat upon" Palin. Of course, that is not how things definitely will be, but it is a possibility.

I think Palin's rigid stances on drilling in Anwar, Christianity, and abortion rights are also going to alienate a lot of voters. In this day and age, we need leaders who are willing to listen to, and act on behalf of, the people that constitute our community. We need moderation. I do not think Obama is necessarily that leader. In fact, I doubt he is. Most politicians are simply self-interested agents. I really hope someone out there will prove me wrong. So far, I have seen no such person.

Everyone harps on Obama for his lack of experience, hypocrisy, and "self-interested elitism". Frankly, I have to ask: how is that any different than McCain? Obama, in many ways, sold-out. So did McCain.

I wish my country the best, but I do not think we will ever get what we need/want until we can find some leaders whose interests actually coincide with what is best for this country; what is best for the community.

To zonga: if you approve of "pro-life" for yourself, that is fine. Understand, however, that there is a sizable contingent in this nation that believe that a woman has a constitutional right to make life-impacting choices about her body. Would you attempt to impose an anti-abortion agenda on these people? I would advise against that, and I hope you understand why I say this.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous at 2:53 PM via JnC -

That's rich calling Sarah Palin inexperienced - and what would you call St. Barack? Remember how in the Saddlerock debate he was going to call Justice Thomas inexperienced, and bit his tongue just in the nick of time becuause it would draw attention to his own lack of experience? The louder the Obama campaign complains that she's inexperienced (which they have begun to do) the more they draw attention to the inexperience at the top of the ticket.

The more I think about, the more I like McCain's choice. It was nothing short of brilliant.

Jack in Silver Spring

zonga said...

Anonymous at 2:53 PM said:
"To zonga: if you approve of "pro-life" for yourself, that is fine. Understand, however, that there is a sizable contingent in this nation that believe that a woman has a constitutional right to make life-impacting choices about her body. Would you attempt to impose an anti-abortion agenda on these people? I would advise against that, and I hope you understand why I say this."

Where does our government get the power to:
Legalize abortion on demand?
Impose "reasonable gun restrictions"?
Search us without probable cause?
Conduct "No Knock Raids," examine our personal papers, listen to our private communication, or search our homes without probable cause and a judicial warrant?
Wage aggressive undeclared war?
Conduct asset forfeiture without due process?

It comes from a fantasy that legislates and imposes immorality and injustice for expediency.

There are two consequences in [government]: one immediate and instantaneously recognized; the other distant and unperceived at first. These consequences often contradict each other; the former come from our short-run wisdom, the latter from long-run wisdom. The providential event appears after the human event. Behind men rises God. Deny as much as you wish the Supreme Wisdom, do not believe in its action, dispute over words, call what the common man calls Providence "the force of circumstances" or "reason"; but look at the end of an accomplished fact, and you will see that it has always produced the opposite of what was expected when it has not been founded from the first on morality and justice.
Chateaubriand, Memoirs from beyond the Tomb

Anonymous said...

To Jack - Are you assuming that, by pointing out Obama's relative inexperience, you are making my point weaker?

I come here not to praise "St. Barack", as you so affectionately call him, but to criticize McCain and the US politicians in general. The current issue at hand was Palin's VP nomination, so that is what I brought up. Do you mean to suggest Palin is not relatively inexperienced? The one fact you bring up here does not change the other, and you are simply playing the same game you complain the fractured Democrat party are playing.

To zonga - are you citing "divine authority" as your resource for argument? Again, that is all well and good on a personal level, but it will not hold up if someone simply partakes of a different viewpoint from your own.

The government has a responsibility to its people; to the entire community. To cater only to the interests of one coalition may, sometimes, result in nigh-total betrayal of the other. My point is that to prohibit women from being allowed to make the choice of whether or not to have an abortion goes against this principle of government. We may respect the Christian perspective, but it cannot be the only view we allow for. At least, not in the USA.

Do you see what I am trying to say here? I absolutely agree with you that, in favor of personal interests, the government often goes too far. But do you see, now, how you have fallen into this same trap? Simply because you believe your viewpoint is the "right" one does not mean it is immune to the same criticisms as the others.

I think we can all agree here (Republicans, Democrats, and the unaffiliated like myself) that what this nation needs is a government that actually is "of the people, by the people, and for the people". We may never achieve this status, but we can keep working toward it. Remember: we may have limited choice in the politicians we select from, but we can always keep them in check.

Let us use that ability.

Anonymous said...

Off topic, but good.

Edwards will appear solo- lolololololol!

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/edwards_to_speak_solo_at_hofstra

Anonymous said...

2:53,
To be fair, Biden's wife is an attractive woman. Not hefty sized like many women in politics.

Anonymous said...

I don't like this VP choice.

zonga said...

Anonymous at 6:54 said:
"To zonga - are you citing "divine authority" as your resource for argument? Again, that is all well and good on a personal level, but it will not hold up if someone simply partakes of a different viewpoint from your own."

I am citing the inalienable rights of all humans. Support for the existence of inalienable rights exists not only in divine authority but also the philosophy of natural law and even in so atheistic a philosophy as Objectivism.

What this country needs is not the fantasy of Saint Abraham (peace be upon him). The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States nowhere suggest such a thing as a government of, by, and for the people. Rather they suggest and define a constitutional republic. By the way, a longer Lincoln (peace be upon him) quotation is "...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Does that not suggest divine authority?

You question God's authority in matters of justice and morality as an argument in favor of abortion on demand and cite "different viewpoints." But the government does not define, much less grant, our rights. We tell government which of our rights we wish it to secure. Please re-read the second paragraph of the Declaration, and the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (especially the 5th, 9th and 10th).

And, I seriously believe we are really past the point where we can keep our government "in check" as you say. I believe that without our inalienable rights we are subjects of a government made up of thugs who do not understand, much less recognize, inalienable rights. True, we have to hold them accountable but the methods with which to do that are getting fewer all the time.