August 29, 2008
Shocking Choice by John McCain
WASHINGTON-- Senator John McCain just announced his choice for running mate: Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. To follow is a statement by Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.
“Senator McCain’s choice for a running mate is beyond belief. By choosing Sarah Palin, McCain has clearly made a decision to continue the Bush legacy of destructive environmental policies.
“Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration.
“This is Senator McCain’s first significant choice in building his executive team and it’s a bad one. It has to raise serious doubts in the minds of voters about John McCain’s commitment to conservation, to addressing the impacts of global warming and to ensuring our country ends its dependency on oil.”
###
The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund (www.defendersactionfund.org) provides a powerful voice in Washington to Americans who value our conservation heritage. Through grassroots lobbying, issue advocacy and political campaigns, the Action Fund champions those laws and lawmakers that protect wildlife and wild places while working against those that do them harm.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 79
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/default.asp
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040308/kennedy
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/
Need more?
This woman is pro life even for incest and rape cases.
She has called Hillary a whiner.
What, exactly, makes you think we're "squirming"? I'm not. In fact, I'm more confident than ever that a Democrat will be elected to the White House this year. By the way, some of us consider ourselves "Moderate," and we have diverse opinions on issues, our stance ranging from "Conservative" to "Liberal."
What constitutes "squirming" in my view is people reduced to mindless, pointless rhetoric and name-calling. "Idiot Liberals"? "Repugnants"? Why? Bring it back to the issues and we can talk, but let's not insult people who've achieved more than we have - people who have the support of their parties (and the backing of the voters who agree with them - whether WE agree with them or not). Have a little respect. Disagreement is one thing; rudeness and name-calling only demonstrate that a person has run out of persuasive, logical arguments. This is one of the first things that impressed me about Obama - that he wasn't willing to stoop to the same old smear tactics. And his success, so far, shows that a lot of us are tired of it.
We have, what, 3% of the world's oil reserves? How is that going to "eliminate our dependence on foreign oil" in our lifetime, let alone our children's? I'd say "hang onto it until everyone else runs out," but they're not going to run out before we NEED to drill, for survival, at the rate we're going. No, we need to say, "Got oil? Great. Good for you. WE don't need it." And we need to say that sooner than later. We've known for years - since the '70s, at least - that oil was in limited supply and our future depended on alternative energy sources. What have we really done about that? Nada. Someone needs to light a fire under our collective butts, and if you're not already feeling the burn at the pump, I'm surprised.
But you've miscalculated. I think it's funny. I'm not the least little bit upset. You're rating this as if you're voting against my political views - not because it's badly written, frivolous, or fails to make a point. In a way, you just helped me to make my point. Did you leave a comment? I hope so. Why do so many people here say "Gave you a 10" but no one comes right out and says, "This rots - I'm giving you a 1, and here's why!"?? C'mon, don't take potshots from behind the bushes - speak your mind!
Lex has absolutely zero people skills.
What is McCain Thinking? One Alaskan’s Perspective
Anti-choice
Pushing ANWR and suing government over trying to protect polar bears (I apologize for making you suffer through Glenn Beck, who is proud to admit he doesn’t even know what animal adaptation means and didn’t bother to find out before poking fun at it, for this info) If you want to skip ahead, Sarah starts around 4:48
Champion for Big Oil
Top Ten Reasons Palin is Wrong For America Warning for the weak: Daily KOS
And my favorite comment of the day: “She should feel like a prostitute for lending herself like that.” Bearilla
And Sandy...really? I'm disappointed in the choice, too, but that blog's just mean.
This is going to backfire so badly on McCain and the Rovians that it is hysterical. I thinkthe Republicans better start looking to 2012. Hey I know, maybe they can run Palin as President then!!!
So tell me Linda in all of your wisdom, what do you know about this woman that represents "real change" thatObama doesn't? What has she done that shows you she is capable of making "real change"? Based on all that you know about her carreer is what I am talking about here? What was in that did it for you? That first traffic light ever that she got placed in her town when she was mayor of 8500 people? Please Linda treat us all s if we do have a little bit of intelligence and come up with something better than this more experince and change in Washington thing that you know that McCain just totally contradicted himself on everything that he has said for months now. I'll bet if I go back through your comment stream for the past few months and the comment stream of many who are defending this choice I will find many examples that contradicts your stance on it right now. I'll bet that the "he hasn't been in politics". "He has no foreign policy experience", "He is too young" stuff is all over the place. So if all of that is true of him, than why is it different about her? Besides that she would be VP and not President right? Unless you think McCain isn't going to be able to serve all of his years should he happen to win? This was the most PR marketing based move ever made by a presidential candidate and sit back and watch as it blows up in his face.
Or please anyone who is so truly sure that this is the right choice could you please tell me why based on this woman's credentials, experience and what you know about her?
She was elected Alaska 's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.
Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.
She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.
Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.
She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.
She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.
How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.
Sounds one heck of a lot like "more of the same" to me...... Change? PLEASE!!!!
Your response to Lex was excellent! I agree with you totally and have tried to make the same points countless times. Lex won't engage in dialog with you, he just posts a one liner or so and then disappears into the mist! I can't imagine anyone wasting their time in that manner.
From the daily Kos
TOP TEN REASONS SARAH PALIN SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED VICE PRESIDENT
#1: Palin opposes a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, opposing the right to an abortion even for rape victims.
#2: Palin believes that Creationism should be taught in public schools, which runs both counter to well-settled evolutionary science, and to the Constitutional separation of church and state.
#3: Palin is a global warming denier, who (as with her views on evolution) has expressed skepticism about the well-settled science.
#4: Palin opposes listing polar bears as an endangered species, because it means oil and gas companies might have to be just a little bit careful out there.
#5: Palin is rabidly dedicated to drilling in the Artic wildlife refuge, known as ANWR.
#6: Palin is in the midst of a growing ethics scandal, involving the alleged abuse of her gubernatorial power to punish a State Trooper who is her sister's ex-husband, firing a State Commissioner who refused to go along.
#7: Palin called Hillary Clinton a "whiner", even as she cynically tries to woo Clinton voters to the McCain ticket.
#8: Palin has very little experience for the Vice Presidential job, serving less than two years so far of her first term as Governor of a state with fewer residents than Fort Worth, Texas. (Previously, she was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, pop. 8,500.)
#9: Palin has no foreign policy experience at all, so little in fact that her supporters are reduced to citing Alaska's proximity to Russia.
#10: Palin is virtually untested, unvetted and unknown to Americans, a fact which throws into relief the hypocrisy of the many unfair criticisms leveled at Barack Obama during this campaign.
BONUS REASON, #11: Palin only recently said that she doesn't even know what the job entails, saying on the CNBC show Kudlow and Co. that:
"[A]s for that V.P. talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day?" (July 2008)
I think it is because Lex has nothing to back up his ideas other than one liners.. No wonder Superman always won out in the end over Lex Luthor. Compare the vast information that Clark posts to the "one liners" with no substance that Lex posts.
If you are that excited about Sarah as VP I suspicion you've lead a very restricted life! Mondale tried that gambit years ago and it didn't work for him either. Sarah seems to be a typical arch conservative right wing religious fanatic and will certainly draw the like minded. But what was their choice, do you think they would have voted for Obama otherwise? Sarah will drive off environmentalists and many others so I don't think it is a net gain for McCain. I have a lot of respect for McCain but this pick leads me to wonder anew as to John's ability to still lead a nation.
It would be interesting if she actually became the president soon! I can only guess the problems that she would encounter in trying to accomplish the simplest of tasks. She'd wind up making out OK because she would be forced to turn it over to career bureaucrats who know how government works. If you think Carter had a hard time with congress she would make him look like a Lyndon Johnson by comparison.
http://www.236.com/blog/w/sean_carman/sarah_palin_average_hockey_mom_1_8605.php
http://www.236.com/news/2008/08/30/were_going_with_the_rumor_sara_1_8598.php
I'm not opposed to all hunting, but I'd really like to see people do it with a bow and arrow, on foot. Level the playing field, so to speak. We had a family friend who hunted - and used every part of the animal that was usable to feed, clothe, and bring a little extra money to his family. It's a LIFE - taking it shouldn't be mere sport and frivolity.
Don't forget, everyone, that they haven't gone to convention yet. We could still get stuck with something even worse than McCain/Palin.
If something like this were true and she is running largely on a platform of religion and family values and integrity in government, you wouldn't see anything wrong with that? How badly do you think the Republicans and their form of slash and burn politics would use something like that?
It's a private family matter. But what irks me is that while I can say that on Palin's behalf, Palin would not agree that my right or my daughter's right to choose NOT to have a child under those circumstances is a private, family matter.
I don't see protecting her daughter's privacy as some kind of sin or crime or moral lapse. If she were shielding her child from a murder charge, maybe. But this just isn't any of our business.
With regard to the vetting process, I can hardly believe that this "rumor" would only now have surfaced if it were true.
And what's this "Would you want this woman as second in command of this country if she started it out by lying to the #1 in command to get the job?" I have other, better reasons not to want her as second in command. ;) Her honesty or lack thereof regarding her or her daughter's pregnancy is really the least of my concerns.
On a personal level I can speak of the pain of this. My ex-wife ws raised to believe that she was full sisters with all of her three sisters an that the man who raised her was her biological dad. She later found out (right before e were married, because of the birth certifcates needed) that her and her older sister had a different father than the two younger ones and that the man who raised her as his daughter was not her biological father. That caused her some severe psychological pain and I didn't think it was fair to her than and if it were true here it would not be air to this child.
Add me to the few (unless you count being envious but caring too much about Hillary to really wish it could have been me).
"how would yo feel if your parents cameo you today and said we raised you as our daughter but the truth is your sister is your mother?"
I'd feel confused, considering I'm an only child.
But seriously? I'd probably be glad that I grew up with loving parent-grandparents and had a big sister who was, in fact, my mom. Unless my big sis was a b**** and stole all my toys and ran off all my boyfriends... ;) Would it be better to be put up for adoption and never know your biological family at all?
A lot of that answer depends on whether it IS a loving family, but I see no reason to think Palin's is anything but.
Obama's run a clean campaign on the issues, so far. I'd be truly disappointed to see him stop now. Attack your opponents on the issues - on their professional, political records - on their experience to hold the office, but NOT on their families or personal lives (so long as their personal lives don't involve criminal activity).
I think McCain captured the spotlight with his nomination...for now.
Yes she is very pretty but like any good relationship the good looks start to mean less and less and the quality of a person is what really counts.
I asked on another thread Why this woman is viewed as such a go getter maverick...the response I got was that she was American. Hmmm.
My problem with this nomination lies within McCain.
He chose her because she is relatively young, she is pretty and she is a woman. Thats it.
You are right about Obama running a clean campaign on issues only and that is actually part of the reason why I have come to respect the man behind the candidate as I do. I really don't think that "fall-out" would come from him though, it wouldn't have to.. In fact a lot of it would come here on Gather and many other sites like ths one. I also agree with you about the "Palin loving family" thing, or at least from what they are showing us. This like in everyone's life though is so true that no one knows what goes on behind closed doors. I also think the fact that her hubby is a BP employee will come back to hurt McCain's campaign. My point I think really on all of this kind of agrees with what Lori says right above. They did this as such a PR marketing thing that I get the feeling that a lot of homework was not done before this decision w made..
Way to vilify our then-Congress for feeling that perhaps perjury is a crime.
The polar bear population is actually growing right now.
For a bunch of Darwinists, you Democrats sure do underestimate a species's ability to adapt to environmental changes.
Interesting that hunting from airplanes is an abomination, but leaving Mary Jo in a car to suffocate underwater was just a boo-boo.
As a lifelong hunter, I agree that the animal should be utilized if one shoots it. And, in the State of Idaho, it is unlawful to not utilize it! I've hunted with bow and with gun and I've known many good trophy hunters. I've no problem with any of them if they are ethical. The trophy hunters always see that the meat is used and will pass up many shots just to get the one they want. The meat hunter, like me, is a lot less selective. But it is a sport regardless of you hunting choice. And it is always unfair to the game as they don't carry even bows and arrows! That you have to get over or outlaw hunting. And that does not work because of expanding game populations.
So I'll settle for anyone who hunts to be a considerate and ethical hunter. And ethical means use the game you kill or, as a friend of mine who loved to hunt did, give it to an elderly couple who could not get out an hunt and who made very good use of the animal. Unless you have hunted and been successful it is unlikely that you will even begin to understand the sport of hunting.
Virtually all presidents have had "ethical concerns" as you put it. It has in no way adversely effected their performance of their duties. Goes back to Thomas Jefferson at least, and covers both Democrat and Republican. Until recently, the media would not report the sexual misconduct of an office holder as it did not relate to their official duties.
There is this thing about power and the fact that it builds people up to where they feel that to do as their lust indicates is their privilege and right. It has only been in the last fifty years that it has not been considered so.
My problem with Bill Clinton is not his dalliance but the fact that he stupidly caused his presidency to be compromised and adversely affected his ability to accomplish what he might well have otherwise. He cheated the people out of those accomplishments. The Republicans were just looking for the opportunity to spend over eighty million dollars trying to hang Bill and spend it they did!
Although I too favor allowing the drilling, when you start challenging Sam Carana, you are biting of f an awfully big hunk to chew as he can well give you all the logic and reasons you could ask for. On this issue I disagree with Sam and we've discussed it, but have great respect for his opinions and writing. His leaving the link was much better than putting that all into a comment!
There you go again, TJ. You cannot just say anything that comes to your fingertips. You don't know any of this to be true. Do not state it as a fact. If you want to say, "Well, I'm eighteen and I read a little and came to this unsupported opinion. . .," that's fine. You simply cannot keep running around leaving inaccurate statements as facts.
Ridiculous statements about an administration that is no longer in business is rather a waste of time, is it not? If Ken Star was unable to find the "proof" he wanted with eighty million taxpayer dollars, it probably wasn't there! The tactics he used including trying to force people to lie about the Clintons and I have no doubt that he would bribe them if that would work. The man was desperate to come up with something and a stained dress was very inadequate!
Since you are, in effect, accusing both Bill and Hillary of criminal action, I'm sure you can tell exactly what crimes were committed and demonstrate where that evidence is. Also, you should be able to show that someone held a gun on Star so he couldn't go see it!
You are bothered because we had eight years of peace and prosperity and you don't want to think that could have occurred under a Democrat. I've always fared better financially when there was a Democrat in the White House, including Carter!
No, I haven't always voted for that Democrat as sometimes there are issues other than finances that override it. But when it comes to making government work, the Democrats understand the process. Republicans don't really understand it and that is why they see government as a necessary evil and don't want much to do with it!
But the Clinton years were good years for middle class America.
You certainly don't have to read anyone's link! And I don't blame you if you don't. I sure don't read them all. I do follow some and that will often depend on just who left the link. No one has the time to read all of the articles and comments on most subjects here if they actually have a life! My whole point was the Sam, though I disagree with him on this subject, knows what he is talking about and is very versed on the details of it. He defends his choices and positions very competently. The decision to read, however, is still yours alone.
You are wrong about one thing, TJ can and will continue to leave wild and unsubstantiated comments as facts, knocking Democrats and promoting Republicans. Mostly knocking Democrats as he seems to have a problem building positive cases for even good people!
James, I'll dig up Whitewater evidence when you dig up evidence that Starr coaxed people to commit perjury.
Peace? Did you forget about all the countries Clinton attacked as president?
Prosperity? Yeah, it couldn't have had anything to do with the dot-com bubble....
I don't keep a gotcha file as I'm not that negative that I need to remind myself of someone else's gaffs. However, I did see, and you would have to if you'd watch the program, sworn testimony that a witness was coerced to the extent of destroying her business and career in an effort to make her testify to a lie about Bill Clinton.
Slinging mud may be lots more fun for some but I have a conscience so I try to stick to the positive end. I don't always succeed and I'll admit that. But to set out to distribute lies, half truths, myths and innuendos is not worthy of a thinking person with a good mind.
You have an excellent mind and can do much better than you are, and be much more influential by demonstrating your balance and open mind! However, if having fun is where it is all at for you, please carry on!
PS, you might want to remove that line after your name as McCain does not subscribe to the tactics you are espousing and might not like being linked to you!
Republicans already know and you're just singing to the choir?
As James C. already pointed out, if you're assuming your audience is only Republicans, that makes sense. But if you want to persuade any Democrats, it makes no sense at all to put them on the defensive and make them angry by implying they're stupid.
I like our two party (or multiple party) system; however, I don't like the win-lose mentality that goes with it. This isn't a high-school football game.