McCain-Palin ‘08? - CONFIRMED
The last minute rumors have suddenly taken a sharp turn towards Alaska governor Sarah Palin. NBC and Fox are reporting that Romney is not the pick, and apparently Pawlenty said this morning in a radio interview that he was also out of the running. Meanwhile, though her staff has said that Palin was headed to Anchorage today, there has been a direct flight from Anchorage to Middleton, a town near Dayton, where McCain is expected to unveil his pick. A woman at the airport reported that the plane unloaded a woman and two children (Palin has two teenage boys) into white vans that drove away.
I must say, from everything I’ve heard about Palin, this is a great choice for McCain, and might even help him with women, despite his anti-choice positions and votes against equal pay initiatives. Palin is hugely popular, and though she’s not from a swing state, she’d bring a lot of freshness into the McCain campaign.
[UPDATE]: Several news agencies are reporting that Sarah Palin will be the VP nominee. Very impressive bait and switch routine by the McCain campaign.
Agreed, I think she would be a dynamic choice.
Sure she would be a very entertaining choice:
"Palin is in the middle of a scandal right now. Her sister was married to state trooper Mike Wooten and is now involved in a bitter child custody battle with him. Palin tried to help out by asking the state Commissioner of Public Safety, Walt Monegan, to fire Wooten. Monegan refused so Palin fired him. Even the Republican controlled state legislature had a problem with this so they appointed retired prosecutor Steve Branchflower to investigate."
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Aug02.html
I think it would help with many disenchanted Hillary supporters, especially the one issue voters hell bent on having a woman in the White House.
Palin as VP would show a total lack of integrity and character by McCain and seal his fate to lose this election. It would show he panders to political expediency and is held captive by the radical right, instead of relying on his own instincts and judgment (in which case he would pick Ridge or Lieberman).
An excellent choice by McCain. It seems that things are now going to get very very interesting. She is definitely a more interesting and dynamic choice than Biden.
I think it would help with many disenchanted Hillary supporters, especially the one issue voters hell bent on having a woman in the White House.
I was just going to say that. I also like her stance on opening ANWR.
Democrats need to heap on her for her history, and prevent the media from making narratives like:
"ZOMG this will just make Hilary-voters swarm!"
"ZOMG the GOP has a woman veep and not the DNC!! Obama doesn’t care about change after all!!"
"ZOMG McCain makes a more daring choice because he doesn’t have to prove he is a foreign policy ace (actually, he does)!!!"
"Obama is too non-unusual! This is bad for him!!!!"
Otherwise, I think it is nice of McCain to get a woman into the race, especially on her merits. Shame that is wholly negated by his pro-life position, but I still think this makes the race more interesting. A good choice. I hope it bites his ass of somehow.
Partisanship uber alles!!!
Obama was right about Iraq and Georgia, his energy plan is non-ideological -a smorgasbord of diverse approaches- and when he selects a veep that satisfies the misguided and unfounded worries about his experiences people say he is unsure of himself, that he confirms their fears. So even when Obama accepts criticism and seeks to allay worries, he does something wrong.
But the media will say that McCain’s choice shows that he is experienced enough to get a wild card into the game, that he cares about women while Obama only cares about looking good and down-to-earth for the John Qs.
By predicting the laziest, most memetic and anti-Obama narratives, I hope to not be disappointed by the MSM’s stupidity. But I fear it will seek a new low.
By consistently displaying the laziest, most memetic and anti-Republican narratives, you deserve little better than what you dish out.
Try getting past the partisanship for more than five seconds and you might have some things more interesting to say. You clearly have education and a capacity for critical thinking instead of slavish ideology adherence. You should try it some time.
It is interesting to me that while you have complained endlessly about McCain’s allegedly intolerable campaign tactics, last night he ran a commercial that did nothing but offer congratulations to Obama. Obama responded by making respectful disagreement and criticism of opponents a centerpiece of his acceptance speech. And then the first comments from you the next morning is to just regurgitate your regular blind opposition to all things non-left. Who’s the real hater, utsu?
So let me see…
McCain says Obama is not experienced enough to be president, which is why we should choose McCain. Experience is apparently very important for the Oval Office.
So McCain goes out and picks a vice-presidential candidate who:
1. Has been governor for less than 2 years
2. Was a state rep. for only a year before that
3. Was a mayor of a town of 8,000 before that
Umm, didn’t McCain just say that experience was important?
“Obama was right about Georgia”
Huh!? That “all parties should talk”. or later on when he realized “Uh-oh this could be bad” sounded a bit tougher. Frankly, he sounded flat-footed on the situation. Now one could argue that McCain’s initial response was too strong but that in no way would make “Obama right on Georgia” (unless the Georgia in the US?)
Tom,
I am sure that the response is going to be that inexperience is ok in the second spot (which is just a backup/trainee) but is unacceptable in the first spot.
Anyway, going after Palin’s inexperience would likely only highlight the issue of experience and thus would likely backfire on Obama’s campaign. It is a bad strategy. Same with criticizing state senate experience (which was Obama’s last job too) and sneering at small town government (which would conflict with a major romanticism theme in American political culture about small towns).
"McCain’s allegedly intolerable campaign tactics"
To say that Obama would jettison the Iraq war effort in order to gain political traction… To have an attack ready to lie about Obama whether he visits troops at Landstuhl or not. It is impossible to allege that sort of stuff is intolerable. No subjectivity comes into play; it is intolerable, full stop
" last night he ran a commercial that did nothing but offer congratulations to Obama"
Yeah, and I’ve added that into the McCain equation. McCain is still a bad person and would be a worse president in my eyes after the ad. But if I were to comment on that McCain ad I would have said it was to his favor.
Personally I think that there will be some remarking about how her lack of experience, but most of it will be indirect. She’s never been on the national stage. If she shows herself to be unready for it, they will try to highlight that, without actually using the "E-word" directly.
Mostly though, I think they’ll utterly ignore her except if she makes some gaffe worth exploiting.
Any assessment of a political campaign or ideology is intrinsically subjective, utsu. If you have deluded yourself into believing that you have transcended subjectivity and found access to some objective Truth, then it is not Obama or McCain that should be criticized for out-of-control arrogance. Will you be laying on hands to heal the sick for us today, also?
And there is a thread about McCain’s ad. You didn’t comment on it. Clearly, you had more important things to do, such as express the blanket hope that his VP choice "bites him in the ass" because GOD FORBID anything positive be said about a Republican, especially a pro-life Republican WOMAN!!! Yours seems to be partisan hackery in its purest, most unreflective form.
P.S. I am pro-choice as a matter of law, though pro-life as a matter of morality. So my defense of Palin is not motivated by any agreement with her position. I have just reached the limits of my tolerance for partisan hacks who seem to do nothing more than spew the same old scripts over and over and over and over and over.
Palin has two years solid experience as the chief executive running the government of a state and has an 80% approval rating.
Meanwhile, Obama’s been a Senator for what? Four years, two of which he spent campaigning for President. A Senator is not the chief executive of anything. A Senator is a legislator, a totally different job function than a Senator. Hence, Palin’s experience is more directly relevant to the position she is now campaigning for than Obama’s.
McCain has completely and totally outmanuevered Obama.
"And there is a thread about McCain’s ad. You didn’t comment on it."
Just came home today, didn’t have time to scroll down to see it before Palin’s nomination was already the matter at hand. You don’t have to believe me. I am aware of the ad and it speaks in favor of McCain in contrast to his intolerable implication that Obama is capable of treasonous wishes.
"GOD FORBID anything positive be said about a Republican, especially a pro-life Republican WOMAN!!!"
I am capable of a meritocratic assessment of her (unlike the MSM), and I don’t hold her responsible for all the many many failures of her party. I have no problem with a politican that improves the image of a party I dislike in they eyes of women, and runs slightly against my view of the GOP as more anti-women than the DNC. I just think the MSM is very lazy and will play Palin’s nomination to death because of the "novelty" of her gender.
What is interesting is that Obama can say "What about Palin?" if McCain overplays the experience card but Obama can’t hold Palin against McCain, so we have a deadlock that hopefully will bring more substantial debate, and less focus on perceived qualities.
She is wrong on ANWR and same-sex marriage, but she is right in focusing law enforcement on non-marijuana drugs and giving same-sex couples civil perks. She has some experience and she doesn’t seem to have any personality flaws. She won’t appease the south but they’ll obediently vote for McCain anyway, OTOH she is pro-guns and popular in the western regions McCain must not lose. Five kids, son abroad, one with Down’s Syndrome and a former beauty queen that has worked and been entrepreneurial. Plus, since she is a woman John Q will throw a hissy-fit if Obama or Biden attack her too much. She’s a decent person and republican from anyone’s standards (ignoring the recent scandal, we’ll see how serious that turns out to be) and it’s a good choice. I hope it harms McCain’s campaign anyway.
I’m not sure I like her demanding creationism should be taught in schools in that video though, that’s plain nuts.
It all depends on if McCain can portray the presidential seat as so much more important than the veep seat that the latter doesn’t come into play when considering the rest of the world. But seeing as the foreign scene is coming into play, and one always has to consider the CiC dying, won’t people balk at a veep with so little foreign policy credo in comparison to Biden? A mayor of a town of 8000 with no history of making judgements or assessments of the foreign scene won’t do as a veep if people think the next president will have more to do abroad.
Obama’s message of change (that is starting to take more form now) wasn’t harmed by the choice of Biden, so McCain’s fabricated superiority on foreign policy shouldn’t clash too much with this choice. In the short term I think everyone will shake their heads, but I think people will warm to her solid but humble right-wing positions.
And it is precisely this sentiment from you that exposes your priorities as corrupted by partisanship and calls into question whether any comments from you are worth wasting time replying to. The fact that you place partisanship above all else says everything that needs to be said.
With regards to Palin, I will say that her selection moves me off of “leaning Obama” to “neutral” and maybe even “leaning McCain” by the time the convention is over (if McCain does well). I guess it is not true after all that VP picks have no impact on voters.
P.S. Her son is not just “abroad”, but he enlisted in the Army and is being deployed to Iraq. Nice try blowing right past that inconvenient little bit. And so much for Democrats’ “chickenhawk” meme…. In fact, whatever damage this appointment does to the “experience” argument, I think it does far more damage to Democrats’ ability to play the “our sons are dying in Iraq” card. Any such attempt will be thrown back in their face now, and rightly so. The Cindy Sheehan wing of the Democratic Party is finally check-mated.
"Palin has two years solid experience as the chief executive running the government of a state and has an 80% approval rating."
A power she is currently under investigations regarding potential abuse of, mind. She comes with a free scandal, right out of the box. She is a strange choice, and it is difficult to tell what the net effect of her pros and cons are.
Scandals are irrelevant. Some are manufactured, most are exaggerated. By and large, scandals only convert the already converted — they are only believed by the people who weren’t voting for that candidate anyway and this tendency is reinforced by the way that partisan hacks grossly exaggerate the scope and importance of every scandal. After a while, most people outside of the partisan echo chambers just shrug and figure that both the politicians and their critics are equally liars.
I notice, for example, that you, utsu, have shown zero interest in scandals about Rezko or plagiarism, but now suddenly you are very interested about Palin’s. That is a nice demonstration of the partisan bias and selective interest in the truth that makes your assessments so non-credible.
P.S. As scandals go, Palin’s not-yet-a-scandal is beyond trivial anyway. Her 80% approval rating shows that it doesn’t have much traction with voters.
One additional comment. I’ve already heard two pundits mention as an aside that she’s won a beauty contest.
“DANGER WILL ROBINSON!”
The Dems will need to careful to not sound condescending.
Jason,
Well, there are small scandals and there are big scandals. Big scandals usually run people out of office, and wouldn’t be in a pick’s background. Small scandals can be explained away, even if they’re bad
Correction–
A Senator is a legislator, a totally different job function than a **President’s.**
I might point out that Alaska is not exactly a populous state, like California, Texas, or New York. Nor is its population exactly representative of the rest of the US. So I have to question how half a term as Alaska governor is going to help with executive experience.
Going after Palin’s exerience doesn’t work. She is the only one out of Obama AND McCain that has actually run something "a state" with a 90% approval rating I might add, for a measurable amount of time.
Funny…I was just reading that shortly after CNN announced her selection some CNN commentators were discussing if she’d have time to be VP, given that she has a child with Down’s syndrome to take care of.
I wonder, if Hillary had been the Democratic choice, would these same people have wondered where she’d find the time to be president and bake pies for Bill?
A problem any woman candidate faces, I guess…
Many people, including myself, are sick and tired of the stuck-up coastal notion that there are two tiers of states, one which count and others (i.e. "flyover states") which can and should be ignored.
There is nothing about being a small state that makes people from that state or people with governing experience in that state less capable than the self-anointed big shots from New York, California, or Texas.
P.S. How big is Delaware, Tom? And how was Bill Clinton’s executive experience in Arkansas sufficient for the presidency but Palin’s in Alaska is not sufficient for the VICE presidency? Are you saying the line for sufficiency is somewhere exactly in between 3 and 6 electoral votes?
If the Obama campaign targets Palin’s experience, the McCain campaign could just say: Obama would have been great as a VP pick.
Tom you ask "So I have to question how half a term as Alaska governor is going to help with executive experience."
Out of the four (McCain, Palin, Obama & Biden), she is the only one with any amount of experience in the executive branch, which is what all of them are campaigning for.
"CNN commentators were discussing if she’d have time to be VP, given that she has a child with Down’s syndrome to take care of."
This only confirms that the complaints lodged by Hilary’s supporters have been legit.
I suppose Palin will find time the same way Obama will find time to be President while remaining the father to two very young girls.
Such sexist remarks are rather primitive and hopefully will be attacked in away that the dems didn’t allow Hilary to after them.
Good call Jason, I hate the flyover state mentality in this regard as well. She just signed an agreement (apparently to help with the energy crisis, for the construction of a natural gas pipeline across Alaska) we’ll see how this pans out to see if it actually does help, but actions like this effect more than just Alaska, and are important on the inter-state level. My point being that Alaska is very important in the overall scheme of things as far as energy is concerned.
"I don’t think Palin would have been chosen if she was a man, but I like the fact that she is not a man."
I think I have to elaborate here - doesn’t McCain have the pick of more experienced women he has more history with, like Hutchison and Snowe? It just seems a choice based on appearances, co-opting democrats and shock value rather than bringing cred and gravitas to the ticket, and that seems a bit weird.
utsu Hutchinson is pro-choice, I know that harmed her chances.
1) Palin is a governor. Hutchinson and Snowe are senators. Executive experience is different from legislative experience, both on the campaign trail and in office.
2) Palin has unique experience in policymaking in the critical energy policy issue area. Neither Hutchinson nor Snowe has such experience.
3) Co-optation and shock value are valid political tactics that you never seem to complain about except when people you disagree with use them. Once again, your objections seem determined by your ideology and your comments seem to me mere recitations of partisan scripts.
" Executive experience is different from legislative experience, both on the campaign trail and in office."
But we are talking very little experience. Okay, I’ll take that point for now.
"Palin has unique experience in policymaking in the critical energy policy issue area."
But her natural gas line proposals aren’t popular at home in Alaska and ANWR is just ideology. Her experience in this case is experience of pushing the wrong solutions.
"Co-optation and shock value are valid political tactics that you never seem to complain about except when people you disagree with use them"
Give specific examples please. I am being accused of so much I am having difficulties probably defending myself. Are you taking tips out of the Rovian playbook?
Ah, the infamous "Rovian playbook". Yet another desperate appeal to ideological demons to cover up a rhetorical retreat. Whenever anyone disagrees with you or criticizes you, it is safe to assume that the names “Bush”, “Cheney” or “Rove” will come up eventually.
Lame, but hilariously predictable.
I renew my standing criticism about ideological scripts.
P.S. If Palin only has experience pushing unpopular and/or ineffective solutions, it sure doesn’t show in the ONLY measurement available — popularity rating. (At least I think that is the only measure available, since you as usual fail to provide any evidence to support your sweeping assertions that “just happen” to exactly mirror your own ideological commitments.) Your phrase “ANWR is just ideology” must have been written while you were looking in a mirror.
But her natural gas line proposals aren’t popular at home in Alaska.There is always the NIMBY crowd utsu, for any of these types of proposals. If the pipeline went through Maine, those in Alaska that are against it, would be all for it I’m sure.
ANWR is just ideology? What does that even mean?
Her experience in this case is experience of pushing the wrong solutions. That is your partisan opinion. What other relatively short term energy suggestions do you suggest so that we can get to energy independence that gets us off Fossil fuels? (Besides inflating our tires, and driving 55, and taking public transportation) Putting up a bunch of solar panels in Arizona isn’t going to cut it for us quite yet. (Though I am whole heartedly for these solutions as a whole)
Going back over the comments, the thing that stands out to me is the totally insubstantial and vague character of utsu’s criticisms of the pick. If that continues to be the pattern that persists from the left, then this will be seen by history as one of the most brilliant VP picks in American political history. It really seems to have thrown the lefties back on their heels, as they hastily shuffle through their scripts trying to find one they can still use.
admin: User banned for repeated personal attacks, even after warnings.
It’s a strange choice, theres no doubt about that, and about 7,926 (the diameter of the earth) miles away from who I thought it was going to be (Lindsey Graham). This is a true Mrs. Smith Goes To Washington moment, or as close as you can get in real life.
The biggest problem with it is that McCain can no longer be considered the safe pick. At a time when Americans feel that America is on the wrong track in terms of policies, McCain delivered sort of a moderate, safe, "change we can believe in" that inspired people in a quieter way, may well prove to be his death knell.
And you know me Jason, I’m the staunch Ron Paul guy here, and I can see this is a good thing for McCain. It makes him a little more appealing to me (not that much mind you) but I can only see this as hlping him.
Great choice. Happiest news of the week
Brilliant! McCain is truly back in the game now. Every Republican I know is energized about this.
The energy angle is going to be a big plus, and she seems to handle herself quite well and think on her feet- I can see her being a formidable challenge in a debate with Biden.
And with McCain being the adoptive father of a child and Palin being the mother of 5, one with Down’s syndrome, the prolife statement is made in deeds instead of words.
I noticed that the word "reform" was used quite a bit in the speeches today- they need to keep that up. It’s the best counter to the ‘hopey-changey" hype, because it doesn’t deny that change is needed but it clarifies what is needed. And even better, both candidates on the ticket have some credibility as reformers.
The more I think about McCain’s choice, the less I like it. I hate to consider his age, but it is at least a factor. If McCain were to die (I’m not wishing this), I think Palin would be over her head. Ridge would have made more sense, or Romney, but I think Palin is a weak candidate. However, I do appreciate the fact that the VP office will be restored to what it is was intended, and not be a 4th branch of government.
“Rovian playbook”
Is that out in paperback yet?
And even you are less annoying than some people.
I keeed. I keeed.
Yes, but the price tag says, “your soul”.
I am thrilled that a lot of women see this as really positive. Conservatives are also thrilled, but that’s no surprise. As a McCainiac I was hoping for Pawlenty or Romney and doing electoral math. Now we’re all over the place in terms of where we are on the map.
For sure, his pick of Palin is a good CAMPAIGN strategy, but I’m not so sure this will work once in the White House, or down closer to November. There is a lot of chatter from Republicans out there already saying that they don’t want a "hockey / soccer" mom in charge if McCain Should have health issues due to his age. That’s just ther perception I’m hearing, not necessarily my view.
Jay_C, Remember the movie Weekend at Bernies? if McCain gets elected, you will be sure he has weekly checkups and is encouraged to take the elevator.
Funny Bob, Funny stuff…
Perhaps they will take him water skiing… Ding!….Ding! Who’s that? Its just McCain.. (need to see the movie to get the quote) sorry, couldn’t resist..
Anybody seen the pix of Palin’s husband? Yummy!
We could use some real eye candy in the next administration. He’ll look good at official receptions and stuff.
Sorry, just being a female- you know we can only think about One Thing…
She looks like she can keep him barefoot and mowing the lawn, where he belongs…wouldn’t want him thinking he could, like, *govern,* or something.
Although I’m sure he’s quite bright- you know. :) So many men are, and they don’t get nearly enough credit for it.
Before everyone piles on- I’m kidding, ok? Just couldn’t resist.
Wow, what a blunder. I can’t believe McCain chose a VP just for the sole reason she is a lady. She has no experience at all, and i’m not talking about her few years in politics, but look at her history - a sports writer, mediocre education, .. etc. Come on, do the Republican’s take us as idiots? This is offensive, we know why McCain chose her, just because she’s a female. What a disgraceful candidate we have in McCain. He’s playing politics with no substance. McCain is old, what happens if he goes to the hospital for a week…she takes over? I mean seriously guys. Wake up America.
Here’s a quote from Palin a month ago:
“As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.”
And we thought McCain’s comment on the economy was bad. Yikes.
Got to love that part of it, both Democrat front runners had next to no experience and they embrace it.
Interesting pick, nice balancing of the ticket for sure. I’ll have to see if I can find any debate videos of her. Biden knows his stuff, that’ll be an interesting debate. I’m sure it won’t be the blowout of Cheney over Edwards - at least one hopes not
I’m comming in to this late. But I’ll start off with inexperience. I think that your right Jason, that if Obama went out and attacked Palin on experience it would be a looser. However, if they maintain that she IS experienced enough for the VP, and of course the McCain camp will also maintian that she is expereinced enough. Then that weakens McCain’s ability to bring up experience considerably.
However, I suspect that the McCain folks saw what happened in the Democratic primary, and also in 2000 with Bush’s election strategy. When ‘experience’ meets ‘change’ or ‘out of DC politician’, the new guy has been winning recently. Therefore Palin might be there specificially because of her inexperience. I think they are hoping that she rounds out the ticket with some experience and some ‘reform’ or ‘change’. Seems very similar to the logic behind the Biden pick imho.
CS, "Change" and "Reform" are synonyms. if you think one is more substantial than another you are kidding yourself.
For example, one of McCain’s main adds in CA says he is going to "reform" wall street. What he really means is he wants to deregulate wall street. That might be good or that might be bad, but it doesn’t play well with moderates, so he uses the ambiguous ‘reform’ instead.
As to my personal thoughts on the pick. I think it’s way too early to tell. I had maybe heard about Palin once or twice before today, and I’m sure I’m not alone. Intense national pressure can do crazy things to a person, so we’ll see how she handles that, and the debates etc.
On winning women, it’s a bit of a double edged sword. There is really nothing a group hates more than someone they see as a traitor. If liberal women see her as a traitor on ‘women’s issues’ then that could backfire a bit, but if she plays it smart she can certainly pick language that is non-offensive enough to win over some people who think it’s ‘time’ for a women to be VP, but who aren’t as concerned about it being ‘time’ for a black Pres.
No, sorry but I don’t agree with you on the semantics. Reform (particularly in politics) has a distinct connotation of improving a thing or situation by ridding it of abuses. In a general sense yes, change and reform are synonyms but if synonyms meant exactly the same thing then there’d be no point in having so many words in our language.
Plus, reform is always indicative of change for the better, whereas the more general term ‘change’ can also end up being a change in the wrong direction.
C Stanley, more precisely, reform means fixing problems or corruption that hold something back.
Yes, well put, redfish, thanks. And that’s something that resonates with those who are more conservative, IMO, because that’s precisely the kind of change that we believe is needed.
oh really, it has a different connotation? connotations are soooo specific.
They are both equally as vague, and can be used for ‘feel’ rather than substance.
Redfish, basically that’s all Obama talks about. Fixing the system to for the the little guy instead of the big guy. It’s not a statement of judgment on if that’s the right course, it’s just fact.
You comment proves my point very well for me. You can read whatever you want to in the words ‘change’ and ‘reform’, and you reaction has very little to do with any substantial or specific policy. The words are place holders that the listener fills with preconceived notions of who is right and wrong.
"Plus, reform is always indicative of change for the better, whereas the more general term ‘change’ can also end up being a change in the wrong direction."
No. Reform just means a change made to a situation with the intent to improve it. A reform can fail to make any improvement, and occasionally be disasterous (e.g. Mugabe’s land reforms in Zimbabwe). It has a positive connotation in America, but in more conservative (used here in the original sense) countries it is viewed as a bad thing.
CS, you last sentence in 58 is really starting to disturb me. It seems like your saying that you are choosing McCain over Obama on this because the word change ’sounds’ scary to you and has negative connotations rather than any meaningful difference. I’m sure that’s not the case, so I think you’ve erred from your original point a bit.
Go back you original statement. You said that you think the word reform is better "because it doesn’t deny that change is needed but it clarifies what is needed". Do you really think connotations clarify? If anything they seem to make things murkier because different people can have different connotations with the same words, which have been proven here in these comments. The connotations you associate with reform are the exact same connotations Obama supports associate with change.
So, I go back to my origional statement, If you think ‘reform’ is more substantial than ‘change’ your kidding yourself.
man, I’m having a heck of a time managing my: you/your/you’re today. sorry, I hope it doesn’t distract too much.
Kevin, I can only assume that the differences in connotation here are affecting us differently because we hold different views on what the role of government ought to be. You can phrase my viewpoint as being ’scared’, which of course from my perspective sounds like you are trying to put a negative spin on it. The way I’d probably describe my own feelings in that regard is cynical, not fearful. I simply don’t believe that the government’s function can be changed in order to intervene in individuals’ lives in the way that many Democratic voters tend to believe that it can. Reforming the government in order to get it out of the way of individuals, so that they can better solve their own problems, is a much better goal IMO.
About your/you’re- no worries, I have my own issue with its/it’s and a few others quite frequently (I know the correct usage but if I don’t proofread myself I often type it incorrectly.)
McCain has shown he’s more interested in winning an election than he is about the future security of the country. Palin has been governor for 18 months of a State will less residents than most large US cities. She has NO foreign policy experience but we are to trust that she is ready to step into the President’s shoes in a moment’s notice. Maybe no one is truly ready to assume the presidency but I’ll take Obama with his Magna Cum Laude degree from Harvard before I’d risk a "Palin Presidency"!!