Posted on 08/29/2008 5:56:41 PM PDT by Checkers
McCain has thrown the election. It is clear now with his choice for Vice President that he has no desire to win in November. Why else would he chose an inexperienced woman, whose only apparent qualification is that she won a beauty pageant in the 1980s? Why else would he refuse to say Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name? Why else would he run an ad praising Obama and congratulating him for winning the nomination?
If McCain had chosen Mitt Romney, a man with real leadership ability, real charisma, and real experience, he might have stood a chance. He could have made up for his lack of energy in confronting his opponent, his useless pandering to liberals, and his refusal to expose Obama’s leftism and inexperience. Instead he trumped inexperience with more inexperience. Obama, for all his far-left socialism, picked a running mate who is perceived as giving the ticket more experience. McCain, in defiance of all logic, undermined his strong suit by selecting a political neophyte who waters down his key advantage over Obama.
Of course, I can hear the calls already. Mike, you should give her a chance, she’s a real conservative. Mike, he’s just doing this because he knows he has to pander to win. Mike, isn’t it great that he picked a woman. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Picking someone because of their sex instead of their ability is the same kind of affirmative action insanity that the Democrats have shoved down our throats. We don’t want a panderer, we want a president. If he had chosen a woman who was a real nationalist with a real resume, I would have said, “Right on, John.” But McCain has dropped the ball, thrown in the towel, and raised the white flag. And a generation of Americans will pay for his
(Excerpt) Read more at michaelsavage.com ...
Savage demonstrating the reasoning behind his namesake.
I donated to McCain today for the first time. Palin is an outstanding choice. Savage is just wrong.
Savage demonstrating the reasoning behind his namesake.
I could say the same thing about you since you couldn't even be bothered to spell check your screed before posting it for all to see.
so sue me
“With people like this on the air, it’s little wonder that we get painted as neanderthals.”
Enough people listen to keep his rants on the air. He has a following, however one believes they should be characterized.
Clearly he isn’t a “conservative” by my definitions.
He is an opportunistic entertainer, playing to some kind of audience. FR seems to have room for his daily thread; hence he has quite a following here?
I’m a Savage fan, but ever since he lost that case against CAIR, it seems half his shows are reruns. That and his obvious inability to be seen agreeing with Rush or Hannity on anything, make him less and less an effective figure.
He used to be a daily dose of anti islamic, anti illegal firepower.
Today he could have been on the bandwagon but.......time to ease out of it maybe.
Foolish talk from a generally foolish man. What else could we expect?
Savage is an idiot. He's always slamming people for not getting personally involved and changing things, and here this lady in Alaska gets fed up with corrupt, incompetent, self-serving government. She fights it, defeats it, and eventually rises to the GOVERNORSHIP of one of our states.
And all Savage can see is a beauty pageant on her resume.
She's everything he should be celebrating, but he's too into his radio shtick negativism to see it.
Savage is to conservatism as the Westboro klan is to Christianity.
Savage is a joke ........
Bottom line...unfortunately a lot of people...and if they don't vote then Barrack Hussein Obama wins. Mike's best interest lies in an Obama victory because then they'll be greater listener-ship to his broadcast as the country spins down the toilet. So while Rush is partially enthusiastic..Mikey is not at all and this spells about a 2% decline in Republican leaning voter turnout and in the end this may mean an Obama victory. But then there is Hillary and Bill (aka Pain and Panic from the Disney animated movie Hercules), and they have absolutely no desire for an Obama victory.
Palin has been thoroughly researched and vetted by McCain's team. Her public policies and actions are a matter of record and have been scrutinized.
How much time must one spend with a prospective hire before giving them the job?
Should he have lived in her house for a few weeks as part of a reality show?
Should he have met her fifty times? Forty? Ten?
He did what most competent managers do with a job candidate: check out the resume, do a thorough background check, have people whose judgement he trusts interview the prospect and then interview the prospect himself.
If a manager needs to meet with someone ten times before he has a sense of whether the person is right for the position or not, he's either an incompetent and indecisive manager with no ability to read people or situations - or the prospect is just not the right material.
"Reckless and arrogant"? You sound like Olbermann reading from a teleprompter.
No I tried to vote twice and you can’t..only once..
I guess we’ve entered a spin zone.
Ummmm, this woman might be leading the free world in a time of war - and you think an hour interview is enough? Maybe to hire a 7-11 manager...
Michael Savage is a total fraud.
DNC talking point, MSM talking head dramatics.
A commander-in-chief's job is to examine the situation, evaluate options and make a timely executive decision about what to do.
Palin, with regard to the oilfield situation in Alaska, examined the situation. She evaluated her options. She made an executive decision, called a special legislative session, and addressed the issue directly in a matter of days. An issue, by the way, which is the most important issue in Alaska.
She does her homework and she is decisive.
Those are the basic requirements of a CIC.
Can Obama, Biden or even McCain say that they have made such an high-level executive decision?
No.
All three work in a talk shop.
Sarah Palin is one of the few governors in the US I would trust to make good decisions in time of war.
Why don't you tell us how a VP should be chosen? Only after a certain number of dinners at the club? A certain number of golf games? After a certain number of shared televised committee hearings?
What are your guidelines and standards, oh cautious and humble one?
He’s the Wally George of the 21st century. Never believed his schtick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.