Looking at several of the pictures on the various web sites almost caused me to think the Republicans had picked Elaine Benes.

I've seen her describe in several places as a libertarian-leaning Republican who can appeal to the social conservatives, and I have to say, I'm a little confused (unless it's just because she's anti-abortion). I thought the main differences between the Republicans & libertarians were on the social issues. Have the Republicans so lost their way that anyone who actually works for smaller government must be described as a libertarian-Republican?

jh Wrote:I've seen her describe in several places as a libertarian-leaning Republican who can appeal to the social conservatives, and I have to say, I'm a little confused (unless it's just because she's anti-abortion). I thought the main differences between the Republicans & libertarians were on the social issues. Have the Republicans so lost their way that anyone who actually works for smaller government must be described as a libertarian-Republican?

Mountain west state Republicans are typically described as "Libertarian Republicans" in truth they are just more centered on Small Govt. than Metropolitan (big state Republicans) .Socially they oppose abortion,gay marriage but its not the issue they run on. Unlike bible belt Republicans.

The real commitment to Small Govt, is what earns them the libertarian monkier.Palin has a strong record as a reformist, standing up to the party structure,, that also earned her some indpendent status.

I can't believe on a Rice board that this post has been active for 3 hours and Michael Palin hasn't been mentioned yet.

Hey, do you guys know that there is a game tonight? Just wanted to let you guys know. Also, might I suggest we let the other team wear the red and blue and we stick to wearing Blue and Gray.

Well said Chef Owl...lets go kick some Pony Butt!

Caelligh Wrote:-- standing up to oil interests is impressive --

Such as this? Although she did raise state taxes and eliminated some industry loopholes.

Maybe Palin can bring in the Eskimo (Iniut to be more polite) vote
since she is married to an Eskimo-if voting by ethnic group is what is important in the election.

waltgreenberg Wrote:

jwn Wrote:Walt, I'm not so sure that the number of women voting Hilary because she was a woman was a small %. Think back to the New Hampshire primary, when Hillary's eyes moistened (for whatever reason you think she might have done so). The NH polls over the next couple days decided swung her way, and NPR spoke to several women after the primary who were not afraid to make it known that her tears were what made them reailze "that the time was now for a woman president." Now, granted, they would probably have voted Obama otherwise, but for those who are more on the fence, this might be a head-turner.

I'd simply suggest you not take the media's perspective "hook, line and sinker". From the media's standpoint, the vast majority of Hillary's supporters-- and the only reason the primary voting was so close-- was the very large segment of female voters voting for Hillary. Yes, that was one significant voting block which went two-thirds (more or less) to Hillary. However, men still made up over 40% of those voting for Hillary. The media tends to forget about that...just as they tried to argue that Hillary's (and Bill's) actions LOST the African-American vote, when in reality-- and understandably so-- the African-American vote went 85+% to Obama for no other reason than he was also African-American. Again, perfectly understandable, and I likely would have done the same if I were African-American. However, though none of us know for sure, I would guess that no more than 5% of Hillary primary voters truly voted for her simply because she was a woman. Sure, it might have factored into the equation for the majority of women who did vote for her, but I honestly think the vast majority would have voted for her based on her positions and past experiences-- or against Obama-- had she not been a women.

Almadenmike Wrote:

Caelligh Wrote:-- standing up to oil interests is impressive --

Such as this? Although she did raise state taxes and eliminated some industry loopholes.

The latter is what I was referring to. I have zero interest in defending her otherwise.

As an independent, I was hoping that McCain would select a woman as VP. It is a strategic master stroke, and I am surprised the media was so wrong-footed and surprised by the decision. It makes so much sense.

--The selection of Palin allows the ticket to pick up many of the disgruntled Hillary supporters (not all of them, of course, but enough to be significant in the election). It also make the ticket "fresh" and representative of social progress.

--While Alaska is a small state electorally, winning the Mountain West states is critical in this election, and the governor of Alaska is more helpful in this regard than a senator from Delaware. Palin will have appeal across the West, and the Obama ticket may have just lost Montana and Colorado, two states thought to be in play.

--As someone who has actually been a mayor of a small town, Palin should also appeal to the crucial blue-collar workers, a group Obama struggles with. She seems to have a common touch, and that's important.

--Biden is going have a whale of a time with Palin in the debates. Biden has a reputation as a long-winded bully, so he would not come off well by badgering the young Palin, aka "Sarah Barracuda". Palin is also "new", while Biden is about as "inside Washington" as you can get.

--Some critics say that this selection undermines the ability of the McCain camp to attack Obama on his inexperience (actually Obama can be attacked on his lack of accomplishments while in office), but the inverse is also true. Palin can't be attacked for her lack of experience without exposing the irony of Obama's record.

--McCain-Palin becomes a real reform ticket, which is a great antidote to the corrupt stench of the Bush-Cheney years. The Democrats will obviously try to portray McCain-Palin as a Bush third term, but I don't think it will hold. These two are genuine political mavericks. I can see the foundation of a Reformed Republican party in this ticket.

One of the things that annoys me about Obama is that his actual record on reform is very poor. He's a classic party-line politician who relies on his symbolism and "change" rhetoric. I just couldn't see Obama ever turning down a wasteful pork-barrel project for Illinois, while both McCain and Palin are proven pork-fighters. McCain stood up to the powerful Corn Lobby (which has Obama in its pocket), and Palin turned down federal funds for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, which took serious political guts.

It's going to be a helluva race, but this could be the masterstroke that wins it for McCain. The timing of the announcement also diminished the newsworthiness of Obama's DNC speech. If you look at this as political skill, it sure beats the "rookie" 3am Biden announcement.

Bay Area Owl Wrote:As an independent, I was hoping that McCain would select a woman as VP. It is a strategic master stroke, and I am surprised the media was so wrong-footed and surprised by the decision. It makes so much sense.

--The selection of Palin allows the ticket to pick up many of the disgruntled Hillary supporters (not all of them, of course, but enough to be significant in the election). It also make the ticket "fresh" and representative of social progress.

--While Alaska is a small state electorally, winning the Mountain West states is critical in this election, and the governor of Alaska is more helpful in this regard than a senator from Delaware. Palin will have appeal across the West, and the Obama ticket may have just lost Montana and Colorado, two states thought to be in play.

--As someone who has actually been a mayor of a small town, Palin should also appeal to the crucial blue-collar workers, a group Obama struggles with. She seems to have a common touch, and that's important.

--Biden is going have a whale of a time with Palin in the debates. Biden has a reputation as a long-winded bully, so he would not come off well by badgering the young Palin, aka "Sarah Barracuda". Palin is also "new", while Biden is about as "inside Washington" as you can get.

--Some critics say that this selection undermines the ability of the McCain camp to attack Obama on his inexperience (actually Obama can be attacked on his lack of accomplishments while in office), but the inverse is also true. Palin can't be attacked for her lack of experience without exposing the irony of Obama's record.

--McCain-Palin becomes a real reform ticket, which is a great antidote to the corrupt stench of the Bush-Cheney years. The Democrats will obviously try to portray McCain-Palin as a Bush third term, but I don't think it will hold. These two are genuine political mavericks. I can see the foundation of a Reformed Republican party in this ticket.

One of the things that annoys me about Obama is that his actual record on reform is very poor. He's a classic party-line politician who relies on his symbolism and "change" rhetoric. I just couldn't see Obama ever turning down a wasteful pork-barrel project for Illinois, while both McCain and Palin are proven pork-fighters. McCain stood up to the powerful Corn Lobby (which has Obama in its pocket), and Palin turned down federal funds for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, which took serious political guts.

It's going to be a helluva race, but this could be the masterstroke that wins it for McCain. The timing of the announcement also diminished the newsworthiness of Obama's DNC speech. If you look at this as political skill, it sure beats the "rookie" 3am Biden announcement.

Let me just take a wild guess that you're a die-hard Republican, despite living out in the Bay Area? McCain - Palin becomes a reform ticket? Surely you jest. Possibly, if Palin was heading up the ticket or if it were the pre-2000 McCain, but not now. No way. No how. McCain hasn't done a single thing "maverick" this decade. Heck, he even cowered in to the Bush administration on his signature torcher bill. Yes, Palin can be attacked on her lack of experience, as next to Obama she has zilch (and that's saying something). At least Obama countered that perceived weakness with the selection of Biden, who has more experience-- both domestically and in foreign affairs-- than McCain, and is more qualified than McCain to be President. Biden may be a bit windy as a speaker at time, and has in the past been at risk in occassionally putting his foot in his mouth (but no moreso than McCain, who cannot even read a teleprompter), but he is an excellent public speaker who very clearly articulates in broad-based knowledge on a number of fronts. If you honestly believe Biden is going to lose to Phalin in a debate, I suggest you brace yourself...and, besides, as others have pointed out, it's the head of the ticket who people vote for (or against); not the VP. At least Obama selected as a VP someone who balances and strengths the overall ticket, and helps to counter his major perceived weakness (and his opponents primarily perceived strength).

waltgreenberg Wrote:

Bay Area Owl Wrote:As an independent, I was hoping that McCain would select a woman as VP. It is a strategic master stroke, and I am surprised the media was so wrong-footed and surprised by the decision. It makes so much sense.

--The selection of Palin allows the ticket to pick up many of the disgruntled Hillary supporters (not all of them, of course, but enough to be significant in the election). It also make the ticket "fresh" and representative of social progress.

--While Alaska is a small state electorally, winning the Mountain West states is critical in this election, and the governor of Alaska is more helpful in this regard than a senator from Delaware. Palin will have appeal across the West, and the Obama ticket may have just lost Montana and Colorado, two states thought to be in play.

--As someone who has actually been a mayor of a small town, Palin should also appeal to the crucial blue-collar workers, a group Obama struggles with. She seems to have a common touch, and that's important.

--Biden is going have a whale of a time with Palin in the debates. Biden has a reputation as a long-winded bully, so he would not come off well by badgering the young Palin, aka "Sarah Barracuda". Palin is also "new", while Biden is about as "inside Washington" as you can get.

--Some critics say that this selection undermines the ability of the McCain camp to attack Obama on his inexperience (actually Obama can be attacked on his lack of accomplishments while in office), but the inverse is also true. Palin can't be attacked for her lack of experience without exposing the irony of Obama's record.

--McCain-Palin becomes a real reform ticket, which is a great antidote to the corrupt stench of the Bush-Cheney years. The Democrats will obviously try to portray McCain-Palin as a Bush third term, but I don't think it will hold. These two are genuine political mavericks. I can see the foundation of a Reformed Republican party in this ticket.

One of the things that annoys me about Obama is that his actual record on reform is very poor. He's a classic party-line politician who relies on his symbolism and "change" rhetoric. I just couldn't see Obama ever turning down a wasteful pork-barrel project for Illinois, while both McCain and Palin are proven pork-fighters. McCain stood up to the powerful Corn Lobby (which has Obama in its pocket), and Palin turned down federal funds for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, which took serious political guts.

It's going to be a helluva race, but this could be the masterstroke that wins it for McCain. The timing of the announcement also diminished the newsworthiness of Obama's DNC speech. If you look at this as political skill, it sure beats the "rookie" 3am Biden announcement.

Let me just take a wild guess that you're a die-hard Republican, despite living out in the Bay Area? McCain - Palin becomes a reform ticket? Surely you jest. Possibly, if Palin was heading up the ticket or if it were the pre-2000 McCain, but not now. No way. No how. McCain hasn't done a single thing "maverick" this decade.

Oh yeah McCain is an extreme maverick. Border line liberal republican who selected a young ulta conservative up incoming superstar in Palin. Senator McCain has always been considered different from a republican stand point. Heck, everyone thought his "surge" idea was crazy. Now everyone is impressed with how it worked. Yeah, I would definitely consider him and Obama mavericks.

Sure hope our Owls generate this much interest in the game thread tonight!!!!!!!!

As I said, I am an independent. I actually tend to vote for Democrats, but I am no party hack. I vote the way you are supposed to vote: on the issues and with your conscience.

Take a good look at the records of McCain and Palin. McCain has been a leader in the Senate on many controversial issues. I actually strongly disagreed with him on his immigration "reform" (aka amnesty) bill, but I respect his attempts to reform campaign finance laws and cut wasteful spending (ie, pork). He recognized corn-based ethanol as a stupid energy idea, in defiance of the Corn Lobby. McCain has had to tack to the right to secure the conservative base during this campaign, but his record as a reformer is strong. Palin is very much in the reform mode, challenging the old corrupt Republican regime in Alaska. This charge about her firing the public safety commissioner (her perogative anyway) because of his supposed refusal to discipline her sister's ex-husband appears to be without merit and more likely due to sour grapes.

What has Obama done? Taken a position against the Iraq war while he was in the Illinois state senate and thus politically easy??? After Obama won his very easy US Senate race (against the crazy Alan Keyes!), he has mostly campaigned for the presidency. McCain and Palin both have records of actually implementing reforms and getting things done.

Obama is better at public speeches than McCain, but I'll wager that McCain is the better debater. NPR once compared Barack's speeches with MLK's, and when you listened to them both, the comparison was stark. MLK's speeches were far more eloquent and actually had substance. Obama's speeches are just warmed-over rhetorical rubbish. Without the teleprompter, Obama's polished rhetoric falls apart. I think the glitter will come off Obama in the debates. McCain is a feisty politician who goes all out on the campaign trail (no holidays in the Bahamas or Hawaii ala Obama), and he is very comfortable speaking ad lib. Obama hasn't ever been tested in a tough political race, unless you count the time he was schooled by Bobby Rush by a 2-to-1 margin.

I'll also wager that Palin comes off better than Biden in the debates. These debates are highly structured, so the chances for open debate are limited. The "dark horse" Palin can only look better with a decent performance, while the august Delaware senator has everything to lose with a weak performance.

jh Wrote:I thought the main differences between the Republicans & libertarians were on the social issues.

Yeah, me too (which is why I identify as Libertarian -- do whatever you want, just don't mess with other people and don't stick me with the check). Unfortunately, "Libertarian-leaning" has become shorthand like THRILL said.

Unfortunately, Oklahoma only has the 2 major parties on the ballot (it sucks... we don't get big-boy beer OR big-boy ballots). But hey, I don't trust Bob Barr as a Libertarian anyway, so I'll probably be writing in Sammy T. Owl for Prez and Shasta for Veep (lookie, she's female too).

Even if I have to bring in a Sharpie.

Even if we have computerized voting.

erice Wrote:I can't believe on a Rice board that this post has been active for 3 hours and Michael Palin hasn't been mentioned yet.

Hear, hear! I only just got on the board -- but when I first saw "Palin" in the headlines on my RSS feeds this morning, I *did* think Monty Python.

I took an Alaskan cruise a few months ago. I remember hearing and seeing Palin's name a lot. The papers and the radio are full of headlines. I remember she was very popular. But also she makes a great subject for yellow journalism. The down's syndrome child can underscore he pro-life stance.

Alaska has got their senator and rep. under a lot of pressure. If McCain lives they may loss all their state wide Republican incumbents.

THRILL Wrote:Meh,, thats only THE issue to 11% of voters,,those were gonna vote for the Dem regardless. IT will be brought up,, I agree. I just think those werent the votes up for grabs.

Since its my business i knew a little something about Palin,,I like her policially shes a new Republican, libertarianish I think it moves the party in the right direction , at the very least.


I know its gameday, and thats the greater concern today. But Im not kidding my neighbor asked me who I thought the niminee would be, I told him I thought it would be Pawlenty but I wanted Palin.

just an interesting choice,, Im sure itll be talked to death this weekend along with the Hurricane and Caylee

The headline I came up with on my own (and I'm sure it's been used by now) is "And Now For Something Completely Different".

To this Democrat, I'm impressed with how McCain is fighting Obama's populist movement. The Republican ticket is different - I still don't think it will win because the key this year like the last few elections is how will Ohio, PA, Mich. vote. I think they'll ultimately go blue and Obama will win.

To me, Obama is a black Bill Clinton. Both are good speakers, obviously intelligent and come from poor backgrounds (with some shady moments in it as well).

Here's my advice to the Democrats - get rid of the Change mantra and just concentrate on the economy and likening McCain to Bush. And then push those swing states hard. They'll win the Northeast and the young and highly educated vote. And most of the minority vote (blacks and possibly latino). The women vote is a little up in the air but Michelle Obama and Jill Biden can help (as could Hillary if she chooses to help them).

And for the Republicans, I think they need to change their attack on the experience front but just revert back to their tried and true pattern of attacking the Democratic ticket as being too liberal and scare people about their taxes being raised. The Republicans will win most of the west (at least the smaller states) and south (but not by as big margins in 2000 and 2004). And they'll win Florida. The key for them is can they win Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and PA. They'll probably need to win more than half those states to win. I'm not sure McCain-Palin can do that but we'll see in two months.

And one last thing, Romney has to be PISSED!!

For everyone who is worried about Palin's experience and being only a heart beat away, I am more worried about the experience of the who would be the heartbeat(Obama).

I was there in May and noticed the same thing. I might e-mail the DA in Nome to find out what he thinks since I know him.

bbaker Wrote:I took an Alaskan cruise a few months ago. I remember hearing and seeing Palin's name a lot. The papers and the radio are full of headlines. I remember she was very popular. But also she makes a great subject for yellow journalism. The down's syndrome child can underscore he pro-life stance.

Alaska has got their senator and rep. under a lot of pressure. If McCain lives they may loss all their state wide Republican incumbents.

THRILL Wrote:Meh,, thats only THE issue to 11% of voters,,those were gonna vote for the Dem regardless. IT will be brought up,, I agree. I just think those werent the votes up for grabs.

Since its my business i knew a little something about Palin,,I like her policially shes a new Republican, libertarianish I think it moves the party in the right direction , at the very least.


I know its gameday, and thats the greater concern today. But Im not kidding my neighbor asked me who I thought the niminee would be, I told him I thought it would be Pawlenty but I wanted Palin.

just an interesting choice,, Im sure itll be talked to death this weekend along with the Hurricane and Caylee

I think she's an excellent choice.

Her foreign policy credentials are no worse than Obama's. "Serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee" is to "conducting foreign policy" as "serving on the Senate Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences Subcommittee" is to "walking on the moon." Remember, that's why Obama had to put someone with foreign policy credentials on the ticket to cover his weaknesses.

A week ago, we were being told that energy was the number one issue, and her energy credentials are better than anybody else on either ticket.

She's got experience as a housewife, mother, and particularly as a working mother that none of the others have (the closest would depend on how much Biden can stretch his single parent experience). If she connects with that group, that's ballgame.

Having someone with her experience a heartbeat away from the presidency is not worse than having someone with Obama's experience be the heartbeat.

I'm still leaning libertarian, but I'm a lot more likely to vote for McCain with this choice than I was before. I was probably leaning 87% Barr, 12% McCain, 1% Obama before. Now it's more like 66% Barr, 33% McCain, 1% Obama.

I attended last night's game with some friends, one of whom is a gay female. She made an interesting comment. "A lot of Hillary's supporters are lesbians, and abortion is not a huge issue with us. We care more about gay rights and seeing a woman in office. As long as she's reasonable dealing with gay issues, a lot of us will probably support her."