Thought for the morning

Filed in National by on August 31, 2008

I have been watching the talking heads this morning and it seems that a VP pick “historically” has made little difference.  They seem (Britt Hume and a few others) said that we should not get too excited.  In the end it is only a VP.

The past 8 years have raised the bar when it comes to scrutiny of the VP pick has it not?  So how can we speak historically? 

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (83)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jason330 says:

    What the VP pick demostrates is the nominee’s thought process and judgement. So, no wonder Hume and the rest are downplaying McCain’s misstep.

    No matter how you slice it and dice it, Obama trounced MCain in this round.

  2. pandora says:

    This pick begs the question… Did McCain put country first?

  3. FSP says:

    “No matter how you slice it and dice it, Obama trounced MCain in this round.”

    Only here in The Bubble.

    Zogby says that America sees it another way.

  4. Von Cracker says:

    That’s a Zogby Interactive poll….completely statistically insignificant.

    Obama’s ahead in the other (scientific) polls…

  5. mike says:

    Dave, please give that “bubble” shit a rest. We all know what the political bias is of this site and of your’s. We take that bias into consideration when we read.

    Your repetitive use of “in the bubble” is starting look like trolling.

  6. FSP says:

    I do it because it pisses Jason and DV off.

    It’s an addiction. I can’t stop. Plus, it’s fun. And true. These guys never disagree with each other on anything of substance.

  7. Joe M says:

    I know I’ve heard the phrase “the VP pick is a nominee’s first presidential decision” or variations of it, before this year.

    Maybe it makes no long-term difference in scientific polls, but it is still an important item.

  8. the talking heads said that McCain wanted Tom Ridge or Lieberman, but Karl Rove and some others told him they weren’t an option and that it had to be Palin to shore up the Evangelicals.

    it is going to rally the base apparently

  9. it doesn’t really piss me off. I love it b/c it has come to define who you are. You think you are someone you are not and each time you comment over here you prove that.

    me, I know who I am…

  10. Andy says:

    Face it when the “BUBBLE bursts on Election Day Dave and those like him will drown

  11. Joe M says:

    Let’s just overuse the word ‘bubble’ until it loses all meaning, like ‘anon’ has.

    While we’re at it, since ‘anon’ has lost all meaning, let’s start calling all anonymous users ‘protacks’.

  12. Kate says:

    John Edwards only had 4 years Senate experience in 2004. No prior public service prior to that. No one made a big deal of it then. The brouhaha only started with VP picks in 2008 because Obama needed an experienced VP to shore up his inexperience and McCain needed an agent of change.

  13. FSP says:

    “You think you are someone you are not and each time you comment over here you prove that.”

    I really DO get under your skin. Fantastic!

  14. John Tobin says:

    Vice Presidents who became President:
    Fourteen U. S. Vice Presidents became President. Five were elected in their own right; four inherited the office through the natural death of the incumbent, four by assassination, and one by resignation.

    http://www.usatrivia.com/Vpstats.html

    There have only been 42 presidents .
    42 divided by 14=3 which means 1 out of 3 presidents have been vice-presidents. While the office itself is mostly ceremonial unless there is a tie vote in the US Senate, I am not too sure the choice of vice-president should be seen as “only a VP” when it could have such long range impact.

  15. Von Cracker says:

    And as a caveat to the comment above….this is how Palin operates…

    I’ll be surprised if she makes it to November….

  16. FSP says:

    VC — The guy tasered his own child. It’s a testament to the power of government unions that the guy only got suspended for 10 days.

  17. Von Cracker says:

    Lame – it doesn’t excuse her actions regardless of how much of a jerk he is.

    Not that it matters, but the kid asked him to do it….they’re both idiots.

    Did you even read it? It’s properly sourced….and nice attempt at switching the blame…

    Oh Unions!!! Unions are Liberals….Liberals make Sarah do it!!!!

    You Are A World Class Water Carrier, Dave – Shocking!

  18. Call It says:

    “No matter how you slice it and dice it, Obama trounced MCain in this round.”

    I agree. And you’re right, it is the first real display of their decision making process and judgment, and Mr. Obama came out vastly ahead.

    Pandora-
    I don’t know if you caught my comment the other day, but what’s the possibility of getting another “Real Issues” thread?

  19. FSP says:

    “Not that it matters, but the kid asked him to do it….they’re both idiots.”

    So if the kid asked him to play with his gun, and he shot himself, that’d be okay, too? Cause, you know, the kid asked.

    And I’m carrying water?

  20. Von Cracker says:

    What? You’re a defecting fool.

    Are you telling me that there’s no difference between a firearm and a taser?

    The point is, you moron (based on your writing – it’s a legit critique), she fired a government official for not doing her bidding!!!!

    DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

  21. Von Cracker says:

    It’s Monica Goodling-esque.

    Fredo Gonzo hit job.

  22. pandora says:

    Call It, I saw your request, and will comply. Just letting everything slow down a bit. I’ll probably post it tomorrow.

  23. pandora says:

    Also, what does the Palin pick do to the Jewish vote? Can’t imagine it went over too well.

  24. FSP says:

    “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?”

    Yes. I do. In Delaware, we call that “Tuesday.”

    By the way, cabinet secretaries serve at the pleasure of the Governor.

    Can we review the other things the nice trooper did to the family, according to affadavits and police interviews?

    1. Threatened to have Palin’s dad “eat a lead bullet” if he intervened.
    2. Whipped out his badge in a bar to intimidate the bartender into throwing out a patron whose girlfriend Wooten was interested in.
    3. Drove away from said bar drunk. Got pulled over by a subordinate and was let off.
    4. Drove drunk and drank while driving on other instances with his kids in the car.
    5. Underwent anger management on multiple occasions.
    6. Pushed his wife down while she was holding their one-year-old son.

    Still feel all warm and fuzzy defending this guy?

  25. pandora says:

    I don’t think anyone is defending this guy, and that’s the point. It isn’t about the ex-husband.

  26. FSP says:

    And, by the way, he was suspended for 10 days for the following:

    Tasering his 10-year-old;
    Violating hunting statute; and
    Operating a State Police vehicle both under the influence and while drinking.

    Ten days. I’ll let that sink in.

  27. Call It says:

    Great thanks. Look forward to it!

  28. pandora says:

    We are a nation of laws. There are procedures to be followed. Being in a position of power does not entitle you act as judge and jury. Palin should have stayed far away from this issue.

    Again, this is NOT about the ex-husband.

  29. Von Cracker says:

    I’m not defending the Ex, he has nothing to do with it. I’m defending the former Commissioner and condemning Palin’s methods – we’ve had this secretive, vendetta bullshit in the Executive for too long.

    “Cabinet” members can be fired for almost any reason, but the ethics, or lack there of, is the issue. If the firing is proven to be done so to circumvent the law, then that’s a whole different matter.

    There was an investigation that resulting in a suspension for the Ex. Palin didn’t like the outcome and tried to have it her own way.

    The Ex’s punishment might not be sufficient to you….but what about the Rule of Law and proper procedure? Do these things mean nothing to you?

    In a nut shell:

    “We rely on elected officials not to use the power of their office to pursue personal agendas or vendettas. It’s called an abuse of power. There is ample evidence that Palin used her power as governor to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. When his boss refused to fire him, she fired him. She first denied Monegan’s claims of pressure to fire Wooten and then had to amend her story when evidence proved otherwise. The available evidence now suggests that she 1) tried to have an ex-relative fired from his job for personal reasons, something that was clearly inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, though possibly understandable in human terms, 2) fired a state official for not himself acting inappropriately by firing the relative, 3) lied to the public about what happened and 4) continues to lie about what happened. “

    Obviously, Dave, you do not understand, or even worse, refuse to.

    Why do you continue to shift the argument to the Ex?

  30. pandora says:

    For the same reason they shifted WMDs to Saddam Hussein is a bad man.

  31. FSP says:

    “Obviously, Dave, you do not understand, or even worse, refuse to.”

    I understand completely.

    How do you not do everything in your power to take a badge and the gun from that guy?

  32. Von Cracker says:

    Stop appealing to emotion.

    Did Nixon and Atwater teach you that?

    You know how it goes…the coverup is what’ll get ya….

    The GOP ticket is just more of the same….

  33. cassandra_m says:

    The usual thing is for the police Internal Affairs unit to investigate charges — which they did in the case and found that nothing was substantiated except for those charges that he was suspended for. Apparently, some of the findings of this IAs were changed by the agency chief. And apparently because she thought she was doing the Govs bidding.

    Pushing to get Wooten fired as part of family vendetta because the sister was in a messy divorce and custody battle (and those charges stem from that) isn’t too far from firing US Attorneys because they happen to be prosecuting too many repubs. Completely unethical.

    Which, if it were Ruth Ann Minner pushing for the hiring or firing of a relative, you would understand quite utterly.

  34. jason330 says:

    I think they would also more fully understand the scope of this screw up if Obama had picked RAM as a running mate.

    Alaska has a population of around 670k and Delaware is about 800k. Also, according to wingnut, logic (as espoused by John Feroce) RAM has military experience.

  35. FSP says:

    “Which, if it were Ruth Ann Minner pushing for the hiring or firing of a relative, you would understand quite utterly.”

    Like I said. In Alaska, hiring or firing a relative is a scandal. In Delaware, it’s a Tuesday.

  36. FSP says:

    By the way, I’m shocked that Palin has knocked Obama clear from the media’s sight. It’s like he’s not even “present.”

  37. pandora says:

    He’s there, but all eyes are on Palin… which should worry you.

  38. cassandra_m says:

    Huh. I don’t even have TV and Obama and Biden are still present in the media.

    Some of them are even talking about Palin’s support of windfall profits taxes for oil companies.

    Interesting, yes?

    ps. Alaska and DE politics aren’t much dissimilar. DE doesn’t have a cash cow like the oil companies to squeeze funds from. Nor do we have a congressional delegation nearly as productive in bringing home the bacon.

  39. DPN says:

    By the way, I’m shocked that Palin has knocked Obama clear from the media’s sight. It’s like he’s not even “present.”

    For all the right reasons if you support Obama.

    For all the wrong reasons if you support McCain.

  40. FSP says:

    “DE doesn’t have a cash cow like the oil companies to squeeze funds from.”

    What?! You’re kidding, right?

  41. cassandra_m says:

    Who is DE leveling windfall taxes on?

  42. DPN says:

    Or, who are DE citizens getting a $1200 check in the mail next week from?

  43. FSP says:

    “Who is DE leveling windfall taxes on?”

    You do realize that we get hundreds of millions of dollars every year from out-0f-state interests, right?

  44. cassandra_m says:

    Now you aren’t even trying, Dave. Windfall taxes, buddy — that ain’t so hard.

    Go outside and enjoy the day.

  45. FSP says:

    “For all the right reasons if you support Obama.

    For all the wrong reasons if you support McCain.”
    From today’s Rasmussen poll:

    Today’s numbers show a one-point improvement for McCain, but Obama still leads 47% to 44%. When “leaners” are included, it’s Obama 49%, McCain 46%. Obama is now viewed favorably by 57% of the nation’s voters, McCain by 56%.

    There have been significant changes in perception of John McCain in the two days of polling since he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Since then, 49% of Republicans voice a Very Favorable opinion of McCain. That’s up six percentage points from 43% just before the announcement. Also, 64% of unaffiliated voters now give positive reviews to McCain, up ten points since naming his running mate.

  46. FSP says:

    “Now you aren’t even trying, Dave. Windfall taxes, buddy — that ain’t so hard.”

    They have windfall taxes, we have free money. They’re comparable. Just because we waste so much money that it looks like we’re poor doesn’t mean they’re not comparable from a revenue perspective.

  47. cassandra_m says:

    That’s GWB gibberish right there, and likely best received on your own blog, you know?

  48. FSP says:

    Are you saying that because you have no retort? Are you tossing me from The Bubble for offering dissent?

    We could put “windfall taxes” on America’s corporations by increasing their Delaware franchise taxes by 2,000%. It’s a terrible idea, but it could be done.

  49. cassandra_m says:

    The windfall profit taxes Palin’s government imposes is (at its highest from barrels in Prudhoe Bay) 25% of the net profit from that barrel. The % (set by field) escalates upwards as the price per barrel increases.

    And here is the current net:
    $6 billion collected in new taxes this year
    $10 billion in all oil taxes this year
    $1200 check to each Alaskan resident from the new windfall profits tax
    $2000 check to each Alaskan resident from the oil wealth accounts.

    So — what industry in DE is taxed in excess of the usual corporate taxes based upon their production of their product? And are you getting yearly checks from the taxes generated by that windfall tax?

    Windfall profits taxes ( not unlike that which Obama is proposing) is on top of the usual corporate taxes. And, like what Obama wants to do, Palin’s taxes are specifically returned to taxpayers.

    There is NOTHING operating like that on on the Alaska scale here. And franchise taxes are based upon multiple methods of valuing the worth of the company — it is not a tax on net profits.

  50. Joe M says:

    “By the way, I’m shocked that Palin has knocked Obama clear from the media’s sight. It’s like he’s not even “present.””

    hehehe

    That was a good one!

  51. jason330 says:

    Bottom Line: Dave knows full well that the Palin thing is a winfall for Dems.

    McCain will knock Obama from the front pages again when he falls off a stage like Dole, or passes out like Roth. One or the other is inevitable, but falling off a stage and passing out at the same time would be awesome.

  52. Joe M says:

    How about this one: McCain chokes on a pretzel because he forgot how to swallow due to Alzheimer’s. He passes out, falls off the stage, and bumps his head, giving himself a brain tumor.

    Does that cover all the bases?

    Oh wait, when he lands, he has his face buried in some other guy’s crotch. Now, that’s all the stereotypes.

  53. jason330 says:

    What if, while he is falling he snags the hem of Palin’s dress and rips it off disclosing really sexy lingerie and a g-string?

    There. All bases covered.

  54. david says:

    How a about a quote from Rasmussen which is the most accurate polling firm of the 21st century. McCain is getting a Palin bounce. (31Aug08 daily tracking poll.)

    “There have been significant changes in perception of John McCain in the two days of polling since he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Since then, 49% of Republicans voice a Very Favorable opinion of McCain. That’s up six percentage points from 43% just before the announcement. Also, 64% of unaffiliated voters now give positive reviews to McCain, up ten points since naming his running mate. “

  55. it is called the evangelicals david. hardly a surprise…

  56. pandora says:

    Agreed. He’s FINALLY got the far right (Psst… most republicans have this group at hello). The real question is who will he lose when the rest of America learns who Sarah Palin is and what she believes.

  57. Von Cracker says:

    More on TrooperScandal.

    Take notice of McCampaign trying to blame Obama for this coming into the limelight. Absolutely a desperate and scared response since the investigation began weeks before the VP announcement.

  58. pandora says:

    Too true, VC. When McCain named Sarah Palin all I knew about her was this investigation. It’s been covered for quite some time.

    McCampaign can spin all he wants about the timing. We already know he’s not good with time lines.

  59. Von Cracker says:

    heh – and facts too.

  60. cassandra_m says:

    That same Rasmussen also says that those polled — by a 29/44 margin — do not believe that she is ready to be President. Also: men have a favorable impression of Palin by a 35-point margin, where women have a favorable impression of her by an 18-point margin. Conversely, women do not think Palin is ready to be President by a 23-point margin; Palin lost this question among men by a much smaller 6-point margin.

    The net? Men like this pick way better than women, who are (predictably) more skeptical. Meaning? That business of making a play for disaffected Hillary voters isn’t going anywhere for a whole lot of predictable reasons. People my like her (she was Miss Congeniality, yes?) but they certainly don’t think she is ready to lead on day one.

  61. JohnnyX says:

    snark: The reason men like the Palin pick more than women do? The men are hoping all this media exposure will inevitably lead to the release of a sex tape starring a VP candidate. /snark

  62. Von Cracker says:

    Are you saying Men think with their hoo-haas, Cass?

    😉

    Seriously though, I agree with your assessment.

  63. cassandra_m says:

    Well, yes they do!

    Seriously, men are more conservative than women across the board and women are liberal, but apparently most men and women don’t think she’s ready for prime time.

  64. david says:

    Pandora, most Americans are pretty close to Palin in beliefs. That is why Democrats only win Presidential elections when they run a southerner who pretends to be like us. In the last 40 years , no Democrat has won without trying to appeal to the evangelical vote.

    Republicans have controlled 28 of those 40 years and only one Democrat has won a majority of the vote.

    Keep dreaming.

    Did you over look in the Rasmussen quote that McCain’s numbers jumped 10 points with independents?

    Happy Holiday.

  65. david says:

    On the oil tax, she is building a new pipeline which costs 40B. It will make us all better off by making natural gas available. T. Boone and Pelosi should love her. I thought you guys wanted us to be fiscally prudent. The oil and gas companies will make all that back and more. It is an investment not a tax. The checks existed back 30 years ago and aren’t new, you are getting your facts mixed up.

  66. cassandra_m says:

    I note that David quite utterly ignores how only 29% of the polled think she is ready to lead on day one.

    So, let me get this straight on the windfall oil taxes: this is OK because it helps to subsidize another oil company project (why is it that people making so much money hand over fist can’t capitalize their own projects?).

    And you aren’t even reading the links we gave you — the $2000 checks have been around for awhile, but the new windfall profits tax provides an additional $1200. So you are the one confused, largely because you can’t quite figure out how to support a portion of the Obama energy plan already put into place in Alaska by Palin. But, I gather you are ready for Obama to bring this to the rest of the 49 states now, huh?

  67. pandora says:

    David, if republicans want to make this election about abortion I say “Bring it on”.

    Doubt me? Then ask yourself how you’d feel if the Dems made gun control the cornerstone of their platform. Giddy, right?

  68. FSP says:

    “David, if republicans want to make this election about abortion I say “Bring it on”. ”

    That’d be a colossal mistake. It’s safe to say that more Americans are closer to the beliefs held by McCain & Palin than those held by Obama.

    Plus, you’d fire up the extremes of my party, and you just don’t want to do that. You won’t like them when they’re angry.

  69. pandora says:

    Most people don’t like abortion, but do not want it outlawed. Continue down this path and all you’ll have left are the extremists. There’s a reason candidates run towards the middle in the general.

  70. Dorian Gray says:

    Pandora is right dude. Maybe most Americans are closer to McCain – but nowhere near Palin.

    I can’t figure out what exactly McCain’s position is though. He said he wouldn’t work to overturn Roe v. Wade but then, in a pander to “the base”, he has a more radical running mate.

    Every poll I have ever seen indicates the majority believes abortion should be legal, safe and rare. That’s not Palin’s position.

    Not liking abortion personally or not chosing abortion yourself doesn’t mean you think it should be illegal. This is the opinion of the majority.

  71. FSP says:

    If the discussion becomes about abortion, it will not be about Palin being 100% pro-life. It will be about Obama refusing to support protections for live-birth babies. Or any restrictions on abortion at all.

  72. FSP says:

    “Every poll I have ever seen indicates the majority believes abortion should be legal, safe and rare.”

    By the way, “safe, legal and rare” was just removed from the Democratic platform. Now, the official position is abortion anytime, for any reason, paid for by the taxpayer.

  73. jason330 says:

    You see this is just sad. Burriss knows that he is not one of these crazy social conservative Republicans – but he is so willing to sell his political views down the river for what he thinks is some marginal gain for his party that he just can’t help himself.

    What next Dave creationism?

  74. FSP says:

    I’m just stating the facts, J. Those are the facts.

    If you want to see crazy social conservatives, make the election about abortion.

  75. Dorian Gray says:

    What’s on the Democrstic platform “officially” and what the majority of people think are two separate things, yes? But hey you said it so it’s “fact” I guess.

  76. cassandra m says:

    The entirety of the official Dem platform is this:

    The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

    So we can all see how Dave cherry-picked what he wanted from that.

    The key to this rewrite is that it is accompanied with a call for sex-education designed to help kids to make more responsible choices (resulting in the need for abortions) and a very strong call to make sure that pregnant women and their children are cared for (removing the excuse of not being able to care for children).

    This rewrite was contributed to by Pastor Joel Hunter, Jim Wallis, Douglas Kmiec ( a very conservative Catholic legal scholar), and Pastor Tony Campolo.

    Folks on the right may not like what is here, but if we’re talking about this part of the platform, we might as well talk about the whole thing.

  77. mike w. says:

    “So if the kid asked him to play with his gun, and he shot himself, that’d be okay, too? Cause, you know, the kid asked.”

    Excellent point FSP

    And Von. It’s about this little thing called personal responsibility. A responsible adult doesn’t tazer a kid, even if the kid asks him to. I expect an ADULT to have more sense than that. In the same way I would expect him not to hand the kid a loaded gun either.

  78. Von Cracker says:

    Where in the comments did I ever defended the ex-bro-in-law’s actions?

    If you think I defended him by saying that the kid asked him to do it, then either you’re making an assumption because nothing written reads as much. Or, most likely, you got sucked into Dave’s attempt to change the subject from Palin’s actions to the ex.

    If you’re making an assumption, then go fuck yourself, Mike, Micheal Hutchence-style. Otherwise, I suggest picking up a Weekly Reader and work on those reading comprehension skilz.

    And one more thing, don’t lecture me on personal responsibility; you have know credibility to do so.

    If anyone was wondering, the ex used a test setting. Still stupid? Yes, but he’s not as stupid as some of these trolls on this site.

  79. mike w. says:

    “And one more thing, don’t lecture me on personal responsibility; you have know credibility to do so.”

    Von – With comments like #78 above you have very little credibility, but you are fun to laugh at.

    As far as my “lecturing you on personal responsibility” I was discussing the actions of the father. Glad to know being “lectured” bothers you so much.

  80. Von Cracker says:

    weak

  81. pandora says:

    VC, this is the republican spin – the ex is a very, very bad guy so Palin was justified in allegedly abusing her power.

    They chose not to discuss Palin’s actions, only those of the very, very, bad ex. Just think of the support she’d have if she’d shot him. 🙂

  82. Von Cracker says:

    Strawman, P.

    “Hey! Don’t mind that! Just look at this nice shiney light over here….”

    Again, weak…

  83. mike w. says:

    You guys seem to be missing an important point in this story. The guy who’s suing her over this is Andrew Halcro, who it just so happens is the republican who lost to her in the 06′ governors race.

    At 1st glance this whole thing reeks of political retaliation by Halcro. They are going to have a hell of a time proving Palin wasn’t within her rights as Governor to fire Monegan.