Posted By: Harold G. on Thursday, October 09, 2008
I thought McCain had the good of the country at heart. I could have picked a better vioe president nominee by sticking a pin in a list. He was not thinking of "country first".
Posted By: david7 on Thursday, October 09, 2008
Marge has a more imposing hairdo and Homer works at a nuclear power plant... clearly would have been a better choice.
Posted By: Glen Scutt on Thursday, October 09, 2008
After 8 years of being genuinely concerned for the good health of George W. Bush, it will be a real joy not to have a similar concern regarding John McCain. Except for blind partisans, Palin had to be a deal breaker.
Posted By: B. Burnett on Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Right on, unfortunately. Since the selection of Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle, it has become apparent that the Republican Party and its Presidential nominees have not taken the VP choice seriously in the public interest, but have only considered short-term partisan electioneering factors.Scary, when you consider how often VPs have somehow become President on short notice. Surely Republicans have not forgotten how narrowly Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan missed being killed in office.
Posted By: Celeste on Thursday, October 09, 2008
Romney would not have been a better choice, because he would not have helped McCain win. McCain needed someone to invigorate the party. Sarah Palin has done that. However, an even better choice would have been Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Republican senator from Texas, senior most Republican woman in the Senate. She could have done everything Sarah Palin has done plus has been in office for some 15 years or so. Only problem - she is pro-choice. Never fly with the religious wing that has hijacked the party.
Posted By: Chris H on Monday, October 13, 2008
I find it extremely amusing, all of this talk about Palin and McCain's imminent death. By the way, McCain’s mother IS STILL ALIVE. When considering the qualifications of the President, the exact same argument against Palin can be made against Obama and even more convincingly. His 2 years of experience as a Jr. Senator does not qualify him for our highest office. His few years working as a "community organizer" and as an attorney for ACORN, pushing lenders and banks to offer Community Reinvestment Act, sub prime mortgages to unqualified borrowers, (you don't hear that one in the media) doesn't make the case for an "in touch" candidate; yet as a "Harvard Man" who delivers good speeches off a teleprompter, he's more qualified than Palin…Except she's been in politics longer, from the PTA to the city council, then up to Governor; she's been bi-partisan. She's actually ousted heads of the Republican Party in her own state; she's actually run a state's economy. She's learned and worked her way up similarly in many respects to Obama, but she's NOT the candidate for President! McCain is!!!In our country’s history, ONLY 2 Senators have been President, JFK and a President so far back that none of us are old enough to know of him. ALL of the other Presidents of the United States were Governors! So, IF you take that into consideration, the only candidate actually qualified of all four IS Palin, LOL…McCain’s record, should you take the time to look it up, IS what he says it is. He does work with both sides of the “fence”; he does lead and has done so, even against his own party, for his ENTIRE CAREER. Does anyone remember 4 years ago, when his own party ignored him for GWB?For those of you without your heads stuck in the Obama / Biden sand pit, please understand this: They support and wish to author legislation that was struck down in March of this year. Biden mentioned it in the VP debate and Obama just mentioned it again: See the article from the Mortgage Banker's Association Newslink and the Boston Globe, (below) which confirms my greatest fears in regard to the economy and who really does not get the impact of their proposed decisions and or legislation! A reminder: In January of this year, mortgage rates were at their lowest in nearly 40 years, at or about 5.375% - 5.50% for a 30 year fixed rate at 0 points. The legislation once again proposed below was originally proposed just after MLK Day in the House earlier this year. Please look it up! Rates jumped up to 6.50% on just the possibility that BK judges would have the ability to "cram down" mortgages as they now do with vehicles. Mortgage rates, NEVER recovered, even after the bill was defeated in March! It is widely believed that the passing of such a law would increase mortgage rates by 2% to 3% across the board. That means rates in the 8% to 9% arena for mortgages; instantly! One thing both of these candidates agree on is that the housing sector has to get back on its feet in order for our economy to get back on track. I ask you all: How on God's green and verdant Earth can our housing sector sell the homes currently held in inventory, much less get back on track when so many people will be priced out of the market with mortgage rates reaching that high a level? Are you going to buy at 8.50% or 9%??? IF Biden and Obama, do not understand this fundamental, (mortgage rates and housing sales "For Dummies" available upon request) economic truth, how strong can their economic policies actually be? By the way, in either case, bailout or bankruptcy, McCain or Obama's plan; the lenders lose out on the difference in loan amount Vs current value... Here’s part of the article: Candidates Step Up Battle Over Mortgage Crisis, Ailing Economy Boston Globe (10/10/08); Rhee, FoonPresidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., directly criticized the mortgage plan of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for the first time while campaigning on Oct. 9, saying his opponent's proposal would punish taxpayers and not the lenders that helped create the mortgage crisis. Obama said he prefers to crack down on predatory lenders, keep the government from paying more than it needs for mortgages and allow bankruptcy judges to rework loan terms. McCain wants to spend $300 billion to buy mortgages from struggling homeowners and refinance them into more affordable loans. The plan has attracted criticism from other corners because it would not require the financial institutions holding the original mortgages to cover some of the losses.Good luck to us all should Obama and “O’Biden” actually win...
