" BACKGROUND CHECKS:
ONE: I still don’t see that it is relevant to insist that someone has a background check PRIOR to being NOMINATED for a position they may never hold. A character check/background check is a process – and this one has more investigators than the FBI could possibly muster – it’s the election process itself. She will be scrutinized by thousands of journalists and finally by the American public. If McCain made an error in his VP choice – he simply won’t win.
TWO: If this background check is “routine for even low level federal employees” then Biden has indeed has had several (the man has been in the Senate longer than McCain). If he hasn’t had an FBI background check in all that time in the Senate, then it must not be relevant for elected officials because of the election process and media background checking. If that is the case, then I would contend that it is also not necessary (for the same reason – but with a much greater level of public scrutiny) for a VP nominee.
This truly doesn’t show me one ounce of anything about McCain. He did his own check of what he considers important in his VP candidate – and then it is up to us, the American people, to decide if his choice is good enough for us.

HILLARY:
I’m glad we agree on the DNC obvious choice of Obama and thwarting of the nomination process in his favor.

McCAIN:

ONE: I haven’t decided to vote for McCain/Palin – but have decided not to vote for Obama/Biden.
TWO: For all intents and purposes – McCain isn’t a typical Republican. He doesn’t reflect the Republican Party very well actually (which is why he needed Palin to shore up his base). Likewise, “W” Bush wasn’t a typical Republican (for different reasons).
THREE: The economy has been worse than this since the Depression – many times. In fact - this isn’t even a recession by standard measures. Look at Unemployment numbers and GDP numbers from earlier recessions (for example – the early 1970’s, early 1980’s, and early 1990’s) and tell me that this is worse.

U Rates (normal is between 4-6% unemployment, so - just to highlight the years over 6% since 1970): 1976 = 7.7%, 1978 6.1%, 1980 = 7.1%, 1981 = 7.6%, 1982 = 9.7%, 1983 = 9.6%, 1984 = 7.5%, 1985 = 7.2%, 1986 = 7.0%, 1987 = 6.2%, 1992 = 7.5%, 1993 = 6.9%, 1994 = 6.1%, 2003 = 6.0%
Bush in last 4 years: one month (not a year – just one month) above 6% (Aug 2008) at 6.1%

GDP (has to be decreasing to be a recession): The last time GDP fell between one year and the next was 1990-1991. It has NOT fallen since “W” Bush has been president (on an annual basis – it does however usually fall in the first quarter because the fourth quarter of the year before includes the Christmas shopping season).

No objective standard could come to the conclusion that this anywhere close to the worst economy since the Depression.

FOUR: I don’t believe that voting for third party candidates is a waste of time or a vote for the status quo. Besides, there is no status quo candidate. Assuming McCain is the continuation of Bush/Cheney is as short sighted as assuming “W” Bush was the continuation of H.W. Bush. Also, third party votes favor whoever you wouldn’t have voted for (in my case Obama/Biden) if you had voted for one of the big 2. It also sends a signal to the two parties about what changes they have to make to get your vote in the future. Since I have already decided not to vote for Obama/Biden; voting for a third party candidate (if I do) would cost McCain/Palin a potential vote – not Obama/Biden.

THE ECONOMY:
ONE: “The fact remains” that neither party has great economic credentials. Republicans pour money into a variety of tax cuts that do very little – while Democrats pour money into a variety of social programs that also do very little.
TWO: Trickle down isn’t a 19th century theory.
THREE: Most Presidents inherit the economy they serve under because fiscal policy is decidedly slow and the changes are nudges either in a direction the economy is already going or against the direction the economy is already going. No one actually runs for re-election based on the results of “their own” economic policies. At the four year mark – their policies (if they got them passed right away - which is rare) would just be beginning to have an effect on the economy. And that ignores other relevant factors – like 9/11, monetary policies, the actions of other countries, OPEC etc.
FOUR: Social Security and Medicare have not been cut. Spending on these programs has gone up in every administration in my lifetime. It has also risen in terms of its percentage of the federal budget in almost every year – and as a percentage of GDP. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

REPUBLICAN VOTERS:
I really expect better of you on this type of stuff. To believe that the opposing party is 100% greedy, short-sighted etc is way off the mark. The same types of claims are launched at the Democratic Party faithful. Some will claim that they do nothing but raise taxes and give one person’s hard-earned money away to those too lazy to work, and then they spend their weekends killing babies. Neither is an accurate portrayal of the party faithful. You can not tell me that you honestly believe that “all Republicans are…”…well, anything in particular. There are lousy people in both parties and good, honest, well-meaning people in both parties.

SINGLE ISSUE VOTERS:
I do not begrudge anyone the use of their vote for the single topic that they feel is most important – it is, after all, their vote. I don’t happen to have this single-hearted voting pattern (or I would be a member of one party or the other – depending on my issue), but they are using their vote the way they think is the MOST useful way. My wife is a single issue voter – and while it often cancels my vote – THAT is the democratic way. "

" There are several issues you raised which deserve a response: First, my comment about FBI background checks being routine for federal employees was meant as a contrasting statement. How can it be that low level federal employees are routinely given such background checks when a potential Vice President is not? Unless one believes that being Vice President (and potentially President) is less of a position than someone working as a low level federal employee, John McCains judgement was deeply flawed in not having Sarah Palin undergoe this process.
Second, you make the assumption that Joe Biden was or has been repeatedly given such an FBI background check, when I am not aware of such numerous checks having been made upon him. The fact that he WAS given such a check by Obama is simply the prudent thing to do.
Elevating an unknown person such as Palin to the Vice Presidency without an FBI background check is clearly an example of irresponsible behavior. There is no other way to look at it.
Third, I happen to agree with you that Hillary Clinton was not given fair treatment, either in the liberal media /CNN types in particular (Jack Cafferty are you listening?) or the DNC. There was this rush to judgement in favor of Obama.
However since you claim to be independant, how could you in essence support a John McCain and the party he represents? Unless you are a single issue voter (abortion or gay marriage), you would have to agree that our nations economy is the worst its been since the Great Depression.
Voting for an independant is tantamount to voting for John McCain. John McCain represents that status quo for this nation. The same economic and foreign policy that George W Bush has inflicted upon us.
The fact that the democrats are in control of Congress the past year and a half, doesnt obscure the fact that it was the Republicans who had control for 75% of the Presidential tenure of Bush.
But I digress. The focus should be on Sarah Palin and HOW she was chosen.
It can be argued that both Obama and Palin are the quintessential "affirmative action" candidates, not truly qualified for the offices in which they seek.
But here we are. We are faced with this choice and voting third party never solves anything in our political system. Its still a two party system (as much as good people might want to change this).
The fact remains that the Republicans have had 8 years, more or less, to implement their "trickle down" nineteenth century economic views upon this nation and it simply hasnt worked.
Giving across the board tax cuts, cuts which arent targeted for investment tax credits, but which simply represent a windfall for the rich, does nothing but increase the federal deficit and then you know what happens? The Republicans demand that we reduce spending in order to PAY for those tax cuts for the rich. Where do they look first? Why social security and medicare of course. Its ALWAYS the middle class which pays under Republican economics.
There are in my opinion two types of Republicans, those who believe in "supply side" economics (and the facts dont matter) and those who are "social issue conservatives" who vote only on the basis of Abortion or gay rights.
The latter group would expose themselves and this nation to a generation of poverty simply to get rid of these perceived evils (their view not mine).
Returning to the original theme of this message thread and changing the question just a bit, the issue becomes this: Is the way in which Sarah Palin chosen an example of leadership by John McCain? Was the absense of a routine FBI background check on someone who potentially could become our next President someday an example of leadership? Does it not indicate that her selection was based exclusively upon narrow political considerations with no regard to any potentially embarrassing conduct by her or her family? Not to say that there is and it appears that John got "lucky" in this instance.
Sarah Palin appears to be a very nice woman and a lot more intelligent than her critics give her credit for. But getting "lucky" isnt the measure of character in a potential President.
Getting lucky doesnt mean that John McCain, for all his service to this nation as a POW and later in public life, has the judgement necessary to be a good leader. "

" As a committed independent (I have very little respect for either party's faithful drones), I have a bit to add here...

1) Yes, as a 70+ year old candidate, we MUST consider his choice of VP more seriously than in previous elections. It is also true that as the first major party African-American Presidential nominee, we must do the same with Obama's choice. While Obama is not bucking up against his natural mortality (though McCain's mother is still alive - so he may have more years than any of us left), it only takes one racist with an axe to grind to get us to his VP candidate. However you measure it - we have never had TWO candidates with such low probabilities of living out their term of office.

2) If we are to question McCain's choice for her lack of experience - then we must question the Democratic Party's choice (notice, I do not call him the Democrat's choice - more on that later) of Obama on the same (if not greater) scale. If McCain's choice of Palin is indeed a "cynical ploy to get ... Republican/conservative women to support his ticket" then what is the choice of the equally light-weighted Obama by the Democratic Party? BOTH were chosen for a "need to appear more inclusive" to part of their base and not on their personal resume or experience.

3) Calling Republican and/or conservative women "generally uneducated and naive" is tantamount to the "shut up" comment. Both are rude and meant to intimidate the opposition into silence. Cutty: Having read your eloquent posts regarding Christianity - I expected better.

4) Cutty: I have no idea why you think this is important - but Palin wouldn't have had a "routine FBI check" because she isn't a federal employee. Even as a VP nominee, she is still not a federal employee. She only becomes one if McCain and Palin win. Obama didn't have to do anything to follow such a protocol (so he deserves no credit for following it) because Biden would have already been checked by the FBI - probably routinely since Obama was in the 2nd grade.

This entire election gets more disgusting by the day - and this set of posts is following that trend.

Now (for something else entirely): Why do I not consider Obama the choice of Democrats - but simply the choice of Democratic Party?

1) First the DNP declares Florida's and our state's actual votes null and void - both big wins for Clinton over a second place Obama or second place Obama/Edwards combination.

2) After it becomes obvious (even to party faithful) that they can't scream "count every vote" over the last two elections - and then ignore two states in their own primary, they give back half the representatives. A calculated gesture? Why only half? Because this keeps Obama slightly ahead of Clinton at the time.

3) Then after Obama gets enough super-delegate votes to get him the nomination (because he was the numerical front-runner at the time according to the DNP’s count), then suddenly all of our votes are returned to those of us in Florida and Michigan. If you think that Obama was chosen by the voting public - then you are not paying attention. He was chosen by the Democratic Party hierarchy - and super-delegates (a disgusting break from one of the most sacred of democratic ideals - "one person - one vote").

As an independent that was leaning toward the Democrats this election (before we chose candidates), they turned me off right there. For me, the race is now between McCain/Palin and third parties. "

" I almost forgot. Were you aware that Sarah Palin was not given an FBI background check? Such background investigations by the FBI are routine for most federal employees and that have been up until now, routine for the vetting of Vice Presidential candidates.
What does THAT say about the judgement of John McCain? In his first major decision of the campaign, he acts in an impulsive and reckless manner. He might have more experience that Obama, but at least Obama followed the protocols regarding such decisions.
Not having an FBI background check is a serious thing. Theres probably nothing really lurking in her background that would disqualify her, but the fact that her vetting process apparently was done without an FBI investigation is the height of irresponsibility. "

" Good rhetorical comeback there but my comments are not quite a double standard simply because they dont address the relative experiences of either Obama or McCain.
One may make the point that McCain, based upon experience alone, is the preferred candidate. However John McCain is in his mid 70s. If he were elected incapacitation or even death is much more probable than with a younger man such as Obama.
Given this statistical reality, the pick of Vice Presidents in this race is of greater importance than in previous campaigns. Therefore my comments are valid and the question remains. Who would a "reasonable person of ordinary prudence" feel more comfortable with as President (assuming that either Obama or McCain were no longer President)? Anyone other than the most partisan of Republicans would have to admit that Senator Joe Biden is clearly the winner here.
You simply cant compare a person with two years as Governor of Alaska with a United States Senator with 35 years worth of experience.
The touted "executive experience" that Governors bring to the table in this regard doesnt always translate to the type of leadership skills necessary at the federal level. "

" Cutty, that's very funny, you feel Biden is obviously more qualified because he has a great deal more experience that Palin has, so I guess you will be voting for McCain for the same reason. His distinguished career as a U.S. Senator gives him far greater experience than Obama has in the Senate. How anyone could campare Obama's THREE years as a U.S. Senator to the 26 years that McCain has in the U.S. House and Senate is beyond me. You do not want an inexperienced Vice President, but you are willing to settle for an inexperienced Presidential Candidate. If you look up "Double Standard" in the dictionary I think you will find your last letter as an example. "

" Dearest Jump Raven: I believe your use of the word "shut up" was clearly inappropriate. No need to get personal here. If Sarah Palin is reading this blog then she is plenty capable of defending herself. Words like "shut up", besides being quite rude, arent likely to be followed anyway.
Its just like the right wing (The Bill Orielly types) to tell others to "shut up", but this again is inappropriate.
Conservatives usually are the worst offenders at the "shut up" type of comments. Unfortunately for you and the Republicans, us "obamacans" arent going to shut up.
Anyone with any intelligence, when making the comparison between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden can see the difference. Joe Biden has 35 years of experience in the United States Senate with two major areas of expertise, foreign policy and judicial nominations.
Sarah Palin herself admitted that she was in the second grade when Joe Biden first became a member of the United States Senate.
Sarah Palin IS a highly intelligent and articulate woman. She is a skillful politician. But is she actually ready to be President of the United States if something were to happen?
Any reasonable person would say she isnt, most certainly not in comparison to a distinguished Senator such as Joseph Biden.
While the Saturday Night Live skit was meant to be humorous, humour usually has an element of truth to it. How anyone could compare Sarah Palins two year term as Governor of Alaska with Joe Bidens 35 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is beyond me.
John McCains choice of Palin was a cynical ploy to get generally uneducated and naive Republican/conservative women to support his ticket. Unfortunately he has succeeded with many.
No its not time to "shut up". Its time to speak up about this tragic choice and what it says about the judgement of John McCain. "

" How does SNL define a persons service by a skit? Those are paid actors trying to be funny. I applaude Mrs. Palins service to her community and to the State of Alaska. If you have ever served in the public, it at times can be a thankless job, unless you have stuck your neck out, than shut up! Whining about someone that you don't personally know or thinking that it's popular to bash a woman because she stands up for what she believes is foolish and a slippery slope. Tell that to your mother who raised you or better to your wife who takes care of your children, home and works a full time job. I think Mrs. Palin is just what our Country needs in a time of uncertainty and economic downfall. We need people in Washington, D.C. that will stand up for the people and stand up for Michigan. "

" In reply to you Sir, all I can say is that I hope you seen the most recent episode of Saturday Night Live. Miss Palin is the most lightweight of lightweights.
Yes she can see Russia from her house, but thats about the extent of her foreign policy experience!!
This particular choice was the most cynical of all choices but a contemporary American politician.
By doing so, John McCain has clearly showed that his judgement is not only lacking, but truly a danger to the electorate which he wishes to represent. "

" Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air. If you want the same old same old, vote for Barack Hussein Obama (who has Chicago politics down to an art). "

" If she did so much ethics reform in Alaska, why was she not friendly with the press? Reformers are always fan of government transparency. And that's very weird for a mayor from a small town. I'm just not sure about her when you look a little deeper. "

" I would characterize these comments as neutral rather than positive. Vicki is presenting facts or observations rather than her personal opinion... as a true journalist would! "

" Glad to read the positive comments about Palin. She is the Change for Good we need in America. She has more to offer than a thousand Joe"I give a whopping $369 a year to charity" Biden. Michigan should hire Palin to give its Governor a seminar on how to be a real leader. Lets hope America wakes up in November and votes for real change. Not the meaningless hot air being belched by Obama. "