Update: McCain Selects Gov. Sarah Palin as Running Mate

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Worse than Mondale and Dukakis?

I voted for Bush in 2000 because well he was a bit different then, and I understand significant events happened. I voted for him in 2004 because there was nothing compelling about Kerry in my opinion, and I believed (still do) another 4 years of Bush was better than potentially 8 years of Kerry.

Now? I like McCain (liked him in 2000 when he was still a candidate) and I want to vote for him. But I don't like the direction the Republican party is going in, a direction where the extreme right and its desire to "instill its values" on America is dictating the course of the party. I don't like that McCain seemingly felt forced to select Palin as his VP because the far right insisted upon it. It's not that I disagree with their beliefs necessarily, in many cases I agree, but who am I to say that you should too? And, in my case, what does it matter? I mean, look, I don't want to belittle gay marriage. But honestly, what do I care? What do many of us care? You're running for President, great, don't tell me about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. I don't care what the party platform is on that. Tell me about things that matter to me, that matter to all of us-economy, foreign policy, health care, education. On these issues, I almost fully agree with the Republican party but increasingly it feels like those issues are afterhoughts when they are pushing their agenda. And it really disappoints me. To that end, a part of me strongly leans toward voting for Obama hoping that a significant setback for the GOP will better them down the line.

Here here.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Worse than Mondale and Dukakis?

Short answer...yes.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Worse than Mondale and Dukakis?

I voted for Bush in 2000 because well he was a bit different then, and I understand significant events happened. I voted for him in 2004 because there was nothing compelling about Kerry in my opinion, and I believed (still do) another 4 years of Bush was better than potentially 8 years of Kerry.

Now? I like McCain (liked him in 2000 when he was still a candidate) and I want to vote for him. But I don't like the direction the Republican party is going in, a direction where the extreme right and its desire to "instill its values" on America is dictating the course of the party. I don't like that McCain seemingly felt forced to select Palin as his VP because the far right insisted upon it. It's not that I disagree with their beliefs necessarily, in many cases I agree, but who am I to say that you should too? And, in my case, what does it matter? I mean, look, I don't want to belittle gay marriage. But honestly, what do I care? What do many of us care? You're running for President, great, don't tell me about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. I don't care what the party platform is on that. Tell me about things that matter to me, that matter to all of us-economy, foreign policy, health care, education. On these issues, I almost fully agree with the Republican party but increasingly it feels like those issues are afterhoughts when they are pushing their agenda. And it really disappoints me. To that end, a part of me strongly leans toward voting for Obama hoping that a significant setback for the GOP will better them down the line.

Wow, great post. It's refreshing to hear a Repub look at the party for what it's become and not stand by them blindly just for the sake of sticking to party lines.

Honestly there was a day when I could have imagined myself possibly voting for McCain. It's really a shame to see how he's basically sold his soul to get where he is right now. He had a lot of potential 8 years ago.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Worse than Mondale and Dukakis?

I voted for Bush in 2000 because well he was a bit different then, and I understand significant events happened. I voted for him in 2004 because there was nothing compelling about Kerry in my opinion, and I believed (still do) another 4 years of Bush was better than potentially 8 years of Kerry.

Now? I like McCain (liked him in 2000 when he was still a candidate) and I want to vote for him. But I don't like the direction the Republican party is going in, a direction where the extreme right and its desire to "instill its values" on America is dictating the course of the party. I don't like that McCain seemingly felt forced to select Palin as his VP because the far right insisted upon it. It's not that I disagree with their beliefs necessarily, in many cases I agree, but who am I to say that you should too? And, in my case, what does it matter? I mean, look, I don't want to belittle gay marriage. But honestly, what do I care? What do many of us care? You're running for President, great, don't tell me about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. I don't care what the party platform is on that. Tell me about things that matter to me, that matter to all of us-economy, foreign policy, health care, education. On these issues, I almost fully agree with the Republican party but increasingly it feels like those issues are afterhoughts when they are pushing their agenda. And it really disappoints me. To that end, a part of me strongly leans toward voting for Obama hoping that a significant setback for the GOP will better them down the line.

So was it at the RNC that you heard McCain and the Rep. speakers talking about gay marriage? Is it even part of their platform or just a perception that is given from the left. If I'm correct McCain has said in the past he feels its a state issue.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

To that end, a part of me strongly leans toward voting for Obama hoping that a significant setback for the GOP will better them down the line.

This is the exact 100% true reason that I can't just vote for McCain and be done with it. I'm undecided because I feel it would be in the best interest of the long-term success of the Republican Party to lose this election.

But Barack Obama is certainly not the man to lead the U.S. to greener pastures. And, come election day, I'm probably going to favor the short term success of the U.S. over the long term success of a single party.

I guess if "Country First" has any practical meaning, that's it. But I'm still not happy about it.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I honestly don't know how anyone who voted for George Bush twice can actually look at themselves in the mirror and say "I voted for a better America." What a disaster. It's not just my opinion. The man has the lowest approval rating of any President.
Ever. Well done. Go Palin.

well, he won twice, so at the time his approval rating was much higher. no one can predict the future. plus look who he was running against. the dems have not had a worthy candidate in a long time, this year included.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I honestly don't know how anyone who voted for George Bush twice can actually look at themselves in the mirror and say "I voted for a better America." What a disaster. It's not just my opinion. The man has the lowest approval rating of any President.
Ever. Well done. Go Palin.

Congressional approval rating is significantly lower. What a disaster. We do agree tho...Go Palin.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I honestly don't know how anyone who voted for George Bush twice can actually look at themselves in the mirror and say "I voted for a better America." What a disaster. It's not just my opinion. The man has the lowest approval rating of any President.
Ever. Well done. Go Palin.

It is true that Bush has the "lowest approval rating ever". However:


1. Presidential Approval Rating Polls were not taken until the mid to late 1930s, which means you're leaving out some really bad Presidents.

2. While Bush's 19% number from American Research Group is the "lowest approval rating ever, the average of his numbers in any given week are unlikely to be lower than Harry Truman's 22% number from 1952 when only one organization (Gallup) was doing the polling. George W. Bush has never been lower than 28% in the Gallup poll. Furthermore the American Research Group's numbers for Bush are consistently lower than everyone else's. If you go to their website and look at their numbers, they're all over the place month to month which should cause some concerns as to their methodology. For instance, last month Bush was at 21% in their poll and this month he is at 30%.

3. By following the "lowest approval rating ever" logic, it should be pointed out that Bush also has the "highest approval rating ever" of 92% after 9/11, and Bush's average number throughout his two terms is 50% in the Gallup poll.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

It is true that Bush has the "lowest approval rating ever". However:


1. Presidential Approval Rating Polls were not taken until the mid to late 1930s, which means you're leaving out some really bad Presidents.

2. While Bush's 19% number from American Research Group is the "lowest approval rating ever, the average of his numbers in any given week are unlikely to be lower than Harry Truman's 22% number from 1952 when only one organization (Gallup) was doing the polling. George W. Bush has never been lower than 28% in the Gallup poll. Furthermore the American Research Group's numbers for Bush are consistently lower than everyone else's. If you go to their website and look at their numbers, they're all over the place month to month which should cause some concerns as to their methodology. For instance, last month Bush was at 21% in their poll and this month he is at 30%.

3. By following the "lowest approval rating ever" logic, it should be pointed out that Bush also has the "highest approval rating ever" of 92% after 9/11, and Bush's average number throughout his two terms is 50% in the Gallup poll.

All good points

[firstdown]

If they pick Sarah to draw attention to the ticket and throw a wrench into the election I think it worked. Obama's speach thread had 44 post and this thread has 523.

[MTK]

It's hard to imagine anyone doing a shittier job than W, who is perhaps the worst President ever.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

It's hard to imagine anyone doing a shittier job than W, who is perhaps the worst President ever.

We've gone through this before...he's not all bad. (even posted 10 things that he has done well) I don't agree with everything he's done, but overall, he is certainly not a worse option than Gore / Kerry.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

We've gone through this before...he's not all bad. (even posted 10 things that he has done well) I don't agree with everything he's done, but overall, he is certainly not a worse option than Gore / Kerry.

We'll never know for sure regarding Gore or Kerry, but what we do know is what a disaster W has been.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

We'll never know for sure regarding Gore or Kerry, but what we do know is what a disaster W has been.

I disagree that it's a "disaster". I may regret asking this, but why do you think it's a "disaster"?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I disagree that it's a "disaster". I may regret asking this, but why do you think it's a "disaster"?

Too many things to even bother getting in to. The last 8 years speak for itself. Considering his approval ratings have hit record lows I'm guessing alot of people would agree he's been a disaster.

How would you sum up the last 8 years? A success?