JPF Home Page Forums Sarah Palin / I'm Hot for Teacher

1)yes.....and no
2)no but the road leading up to it supposedly was.
3) To provide a way for the people who lived on the island to go to and from the island. (but there was only about 50 people living on the island and they were not worthy of a bridge that cost that much money) So the money was used for something else. Maybe it was part of the money used to study the DNA of bears in Colorado. Or the Lynx in Michigan. Or to pay for some of the free health care we provide illegal immigrants.

It's also my understanding the money was used to build the road leading to the bridge. The rest of it was rolled back into other road projects in Alaska.

I think most people feel that she was dishonest about the so-called "bridge to nowhere" because she has made it seem that Alaska did not get the money, or that the money was returned to the Federal Government.

I wish Palin had addressed this stuff in her speech.

From the stories I've heard, this is how Alaskan goverment functions. All of the politicians in Alaska aggressively pursue earmarks. The citizens in Alaska get more Federal dollars per person than most other states. I'm not sure of the exact figure, but I know it's an impressive amount of money per citizen compared to most of the other states.

Palin hired a lobbyist when she was mayor of Wasilla and was able to procure an impressive amount of earmark funding. From what I understand, the town of Wasilla received more money than Boise, Idaho, which is a much larger city. But she used the money to pave the roads and install a sewage system. The city also got a really nice sports complex.

I think if she had simply said this in her speech, it would have helped her case. She could have easily spun this in her favor by saying she was a good mayor and accomplished these things for her town. She was serving her constituants. They elected her and paid her salary. Now she's hoping to work for the American people as an executive in Federal Office and therefore the job requirements have changed.

But now people will be calling her a liar and doubting her because she didn't address these issues quickly. I think the same kind of situation arose for Obama with the Reverend Wright. He didn't do anything initially to distance himself. The more he put it off, the more the media attacked him. In the end, he had to renounce Reverend White and I'm sure Palin will be explaining herself all over the news too.

I was watching the Muppets tonight. One of the Muppet band members said "just play the gig, never get involved in the politics, man." That's probably good advice for all of us would-be songwriters...

Moker - I don't know which one of them babes' in Hot for Teacher looks like Palin. I couldn't sit through the whole video to see. Too many kids peering over my shoulder at the computer monitor.

I suppose if someone were going to misappropriate funds and build roads, sewers, and a sports complex, I can't find too much fault with that.

I sense a whole lot of fire alarm and very little smoke. Politics at its most shameful.

I find this a silly sack of bullsh*it.

How old are you? [/quote]

The fact that you refuse to answer the question tells me everything I need to know about you.

I'd rather be a silly sack of bull than a blind fool who thinks he is better than everyone else. Go get yourself a life, dude!

Think about this:

Obama/Bi(nLa)den

Don't we just love what politics do to some people?

What happened to we're all in this together?

Lighten up folks, it's POLITICS. Bound to have bull all through it, with BIG jobs on the line.

What's weird is how we sometimes link their job hunting to us directly, as if they are one of our family members.

WE DON'T KNOW any of them really.

We don't even know that all or part of what they say or have done will have anything to do with reality after they are in office. Or, whatever they are for, will have any real affect on how congress votes.

There's a big hidden machine behind the suits and dresses that run things. Elections are most likely diversions to those really in power, just to please us in thinking we have power, which we give to the voted in leaders. May not be the case, in which makes all bickering and taking sides a moot point.

Just saying, isn't that a possibility?

What do we really know about ALL politics?

Now lets gets back to the real issue here: When to add a "bridge" that actually helps a listener cross to the other side of a song to enjoy the ride more. That's the kind of bridge we could be talking about more. The other? Too many details of which some may not ever be known anyway. It's POLITICS! That should the first hint there will be BS and lies and things done we won't get to know about.

Let them think they are important and let's get on with our musical life, while we still have a life.

John

Now that's just plain mean.....hmmmm but it is interesting

Our country sure is split...No matter who wins the election...a very large group of people will not be happy.

It takes great skill, grace, patience, knowledge of the complex issues and intelligence to bring opposing sides together to work in Congress. It takes a lack of arrogance and a true desire to solve problems. Both sides blame each other for blocking that important process; it's time for
a gifted leader to rise above the hostility.

Emily

I agree Em
It will take someone with vision. Someone with enough clarity and truth that both Republican and Democrat would embrace him/her.
Someone without an agenda and without a Rolex on their wrist.

Someone who will say what needs to be said about the tough issues and not be worried about whether they will offend a group of folks.

Problem is....No one will vote for that person because he/she will piss everyone off.

The only people that would vote for the person would be middle of the road average get up every morning go to work mind your own business voters. And they ain't enough of them.

Old non-Chinese proverb: "Man in middle of road one most likely to get hit by truck."

Joe

As long as it is the religious right who is unhappy, I am OK with it. If that sounds cold, I don't care.

I don't want to be forced to go to church on Sundays or not allowed to drink beer on the sabbath (a day I couldn't care less about).

You are entitled to think that I am going to Hell, which doesn't exist, if you like. I don't care about the delusions in the minds of the insane!

NOTE - I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE BELIEF IN A HIGHER POWER IS INSANE, so please keep that in mind if you are inclined to be offended by my OPINION. I will never tell you how to live your life or try to force you to fall in line by manipulating the legal system.

BTW, my remarks are not aimed at you, Emily.

Exactly
And we are getting run over by the big political machine every day

The problem is that our system is designed to exclude those people. You need money, and a hell of a lot of it, to seriously run a campaign for the presidency.

Providing federal campaign funds to candidates is a good start, but the system will not give an equal amount of funds to some John Doe who has zero chance of winning.

Limiting the amount any one person or origination can donate will help because it will endure that special interest groups cannot manipulate the vote, but these group will always find loopholes, like giving bonuses to workers who are most likely to use them to independently donate to preferred candidates.

The only way to make the system work for the little guy candidate is to rid the voting block of the horrendous apathy that currently plagues it. Most 20-something people in this country, and certainly a far less % that their 60-something counterparts, don't bother to vote.

If 50% of voters won't even bother to take an hour out of their day once every two years to go to the polls, it doesn't matter how PURE your candidate is, he/she won't get elected, no matter how much whining and complaining you do.

The reason we have the leaders we have today is simple -- because bible thumpers vote, while progressive young people don't.

New English-American line:
But, man on one side of road is one most likely to do the hitting.

Wendell,

Unfortunately you're not standing up for anything. What you're actually doing is saying you don't know the truth and you don't want to know the truth and you're going to believe whatever unsubstantiated opinions you want and insist everyone else ALSO believe them or they are somehow bullies. I find it interesting how many people here on both sides of the issues are willing to engage and either supply facts (not opinions) or at least acknowledge that it's only their opinion in the first place. What you seem to be calling a lie appears to be a change of mind/opinion. Feel free to call it a "flip flop" as seems to be popular among people who make attacks. But a flip flop is not a lie, even when described by a hater.

Now let's talk in a simpler way. Is there anyone on the planet who has never told a lie? I think the answer is no. Is there anyone on the planet who has never changed their mind on something and done the opposite? I also think the answer is no. Since you're unwilling to discuss the candidate you support and answer whether he is perfect or has ever made a mistake, that would lead rational people to come to the conclusion that you think he has, but don't want to admit it. That's fine. But you can get off your holier than thou platform when weasling out of taking the heat for the candidate that you're shoving into everyone's face and you can lay off the ad hominem attacks on the opposing candidate unless you want to supply some actual facts to back up your attacks. If you don't, then you come off as a raving lunatic who knows what they are saying is false. People with truth on their side have no discomfort enlightening others. People spewing lies and misleading information never want to be pinned down. Hopefully that's not you. But your attacks on me, who has never treated you badly at any point in time suggests otherwise.

Refusing to talk to people you disagree with, ironically, is one thing I agree with Obama on. It's a bad idea. If he thinks he should even speak openly with terrorists, isn't it ironic that you, as his faithful supporter, won't talk openly with your friends here? Or are you only friends with people who share your political opinions? If so, that means that roughly 52% of the people in the world are your enemies since 48% are republicans and 4% are independent. That seems like a bad policy to pursue. And since when is asking you a question bullying you? We ask each other questions on this site constantly. Are they also cases of bullying?

The saddest part of all of this is that I can see good and bad in both candidates. I've learned a few things in these discussions and you have a perfect opportunity to add information to the discussion. We accept you give your unwavering support to Obama and we still want to engage with you. We accept that others have unwavering support for McCain and we still want to engage with them. I hardly think it is bullying to ask either side for information or to supply info when a topic is discussed. If you didn't want to engage with the others here, why participate in this post in the first place?

Brian

I rarely engage in political or religious discussions, but this one has certainly peaked my interest. I would like to add something......food for thought, if I might. The path of least resistance for some is to attack other people's opinions than to legitimately defend their own. It's also easier to be led blindly by ideals and promises than it is to actively seek out factual information about the candidates. I have a feeling that this will be one of the most important elections we've ever had in light of the war in Iraq and because of our energy concerns. We need to be forward thinking and proactive, people. So do those we elect. Our lives depend on it.

I totally agree with you on this point. Refusing to talk to someone unless they do things your way is childish and accomplishes nothing. We should be talking with the leaders of Iran, and even more so with the leaders of North Korea. These people are uber paranoid of America and the CIA, which is why they are developing nukes. They don't understand us and they think we are plotting against them in secret. Not talking to them only reinforces that feeling.

If I were president, the FIRST thing I would do is schedule face to face talks with Kim Jong Il, probably in China at first, but later in the USA and in North Korea. I would go out of my way to ensure him that we are not planning to nuke his country into oblivion and that we are interested in peace, but at the same time I would flat out state that we do not support the way his government treats his people and that in order to be a player in the world economy, things need to change.

We will not nuke or invade them, but we will not support them until they resolve these issues in their own country. I would also remind him that governments are not above the law, and that if there is evidence of mass abuse of humanity or genocide, it is the right and responsibility, not just of the USA, but the entire world, to intervene in the name of human rights and forcefully depose such a government.

So then why is every one so upset we invaded Iraq?

And as far as I know we have talked with North Korea, had peace talks with Palestine, and Iran, and Russia and everyone else.

Bush has a face to face with the President of Palestine scheduled this month in the White House

The ones OBAMA are talking about are Osama Bin Laden and his type. We did talk with him, we gave him guns, and money, when he was fighting Russia. Then he turned on us.
We have offered to help Cuba and they turn us down.

I usually don't discuss politics or religion, but my daughter lives in Alaska. I think when a person does what is best for the people, they deserve to be recognized for it. In Alaska, the people love Sarah because she has put them first. Alaskans do get benefits from living in Alaska. Each year they get dividends (amount varies) for each family member. This year, Sarah saw to it they also received an added "fuel" based dividend. It wasn't suppose to come out until later in the year, but she saw that the weather was getting cold and that the people were going to need it for heat, etc. so she saw to it they got it in September instead. I think this is refreshing. What a unique concept. Look at the people. I don't give a diddly squat if a representative is Republican or Democrat. It is time they look at the people (not at the lobbyists) and act accordingly. Just MHO.

Susie, I sat next to my friend's mother last night at dinner. She used to live in Alaska and confirmed the very thing you just said. Nice to know that I actually know someone who benefited from Sarah Palin being in office. They do love her in Alaska.

I don't mean to be disrepectful to rblight, but I need to bring up a point about talking to other nations. Talk is great, when it brings about change. However, in Communist and Socialist countries children are educated that party (which is their religion, incidentally) comes first before family and that Americans are evil. It is ingrained in them long before they are adults. In other words, they don't hold any stock in a man's word-especially an American man's word. The only thing they understand is brute force and flexed muscle because they associate that with power because that is the world in which they live. They have no rights as individuals and no freedom to make choices because their government tells them what to think. Rational thinking and reasoning about right or wrong as WE know it does not apply to them.

But calling them evil and ignoring them does nothing. If you talk to people, sometimes the people to whom you are talking start to like you. How will they ever come to like us if we ignore them?

rblight: I think that America talks to anybody that wants to talk. Bin Laden doesn't want to talk to us. Governments that we are opposed to (North Korea, Iran and Cuba come to mind) still have conversations with the U.S. , if not directly , then through intermediaries.

Kevin

I wasn't calling them evil. I was pointing out the things they are taught at a young age-to mistrust Americans and that we are the devil incarnate. It's hard to reason with people like that. And, like Kevin pointed out, we do talk to others.....or we try to.

Emily speaks the truth here, and I'll venture to guess no one here will find much to pick on with her post.

As far as personalities go, I think both McCain and Obama could be that person. They both have charisma, and they have both reached across the aisle. Once in position, either one just might surprise the world by pushing hard for unity. We never really know until they do what they do.

But the most obvious truth in Emily's post is this: "Our country sure is split...No matter who wins the election...a very large group of people will not be happy."

We sure ARE split. In 2000, the vote was a photo finish. Never mind the Supreme Court, etc...the fact remains it was a 50/50 vote, and all the millions of votes came down to a difference of a few hundred votes.

Since 2000, look at all that's happened. Look at the popularity of the Bush administration. Despite such seemingly disastrous opinions of President Bush, it hasn't given the Democrats the mandate one might expect. Today the news shows McCain leading in the polls.

We are still split down the middle, and on less civilized websites I've been watching individuals from the left and right tear each other apart like wild animals. Sometimes it looks like pure hatred.

Whoever wins would do well to address this festering division like a true leader. Either one could do so, I think. Here's hoping we actually seek to unite...rather than to ignite.

And here's hoping we as individuals can do the same with each other.

Amen Brother Mark...The new national motto should be...."We're all in this together ! " WHoops...that one's already taken isn't it? ;-) ... I would like to congratulate the vast majority of members in this post for attempting to listen to the other side and keeping this discussion civil and factual (as much as possible). When the argument is PRINCIPAL based, then people judge by the things that they have EXPERIENCED in their lives. We are all creatures of our own upbringing, and our eyes and ears. The older we get, the more stuck we get in our thinking. As this thread progressed though, I found that people decidedly right or left...actually stopped and lightened up...their responses and posts became more REASONABLE. (Somewhat due to Brian steering the ship in that direction). As that happened, both sides started to listen to each other. Is it possible to create a government position that makes the same thing happen in government? Can we get Brian hired as a political mediator? Listening to each other is the greatest way possible to get something done, as evidenced right here.

Dissenting voice here. (Hey, y'all needed something to yell about. It was getting way too nice.)

I think whichever dude gets elected, Obama or McCain, he'll pitch unity. The big question, I think, is how many people are going to believe him.

If you look at the Pres/Veep tickets, both parties are playing to very sectional strengths. Both Obama and Biden are from the industrial Northeast. Stronghold of the Democratic Party, true, but also an area with its own problems. The Republicans did the same thing--both McCain and Palin are from lightly-populated Far Western states that have for different reasons historically been Republican territory.

No attempt was made this time around to try to create an appearance of reaching out to other areas of the country. (John F. Kennedy, liberal from Massachusetts; Lyndon Johnson, conservative from Texas--that sort of thing. Remember that in past elections?) It is very possible there was felt no need to. The Democrats are sure to win, right? And the Republicans are sure to lose? So why bother? Whoever wins is going to have some pieces to pick up, and (my opinion--all this is my opinion) may not find it easy.

Joe

Mark.

I have to disagree with you on Obama reaching across the aisle. If you're referring to the Lugar situation, that's not an indicator. That happened in the lead up to the election and appears to be positioning in my opinion. But even if it wasn't, it's hardly an issue that there should be any partisanship on in the first place right? Where has he reached across the aisle when it ran directly contrary to his own party dogma? That I haven't seen, albeit he has very little Senate experience to demonstrate it. In the Illinois house I am not aware of him going against the local Illinois Democratic party on anything. Are you? Perhaps Wendall can site some examples.

Brian

Brian

rblight...

I don't remember calling you out of your name. I think the point made was ridiculous, but I never called you a fool.





Brian...

I cited facts that prove Palin not just a liar, but a bald faced liar.

You keep trying to make this about me. That's why I ignore your long winded posts.

I shall continue to do so.

It may be your ball and your court, but I know when I'm being homered.

Brian, yes there is the Lugar thing, but there is also the Coburn (R-Oklahoma)-Obama bill in which they co-sponsored legislation requiring the federal government to set up a searchable online database tracing federal budget spending. Coburn said: "He has admirable qualities. He does reach out. And he has a good staff, and we've worked together on a couple of things, and it's been a pleasure to work with him."

Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) also mentions Obama in his campaign commercial:

"Who says Gordon Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a cleaner environment? Barack Obama. He joined with Gordon and broke through a 20-year deadlock to pass new laws, which increased gas mileage for automobiles. Gov. Ted Kologoski praised their bipartisan partnership."

But Brian, I also agree that there isn't a lot of career to pick over in Obama's case. There's plenty of McCain's career to pick over. According to one article:

"Obama has only been in the Senate for three years, and he voted with his party 97 percent of the time.

McCain — who has been in the Senate since 1987 — voted with his party just 83 percent of the time."

Here's a great assessment from Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute:

If Obama is elected, Ornstein says that the left wing of the Democratic Party will be "sky high."

"If Democrats sweep — and believing that they don't need anybody else and that this is a new New Deal — the question for Obama is going to be much more whether he has the backbone to stand up to his own base, not whether he has the willingness to work the other side of the aisle," he said.

And a McCain presidency would have the opposite problem, Ornstein says. Instead of an overeager, resurgent Democratic majority, a diminished, demoralized Republican minority may not be in the mood for any compromise at all.

"This time, Republicans are not going to start with any level of trust that John McCain will hold out for their interests," he said. "Frankly, you cannot make a tango with two working for a president, unless he can keep his own party, along with people on the other side."

So really Brian, there's a part of me that disagrees with myself as well: both candidates have taken the gloves off, and now we can expect the usual nasty campaign tactics. They're fighting in earnest now and I don't expect either of them to REALLY take the high road.

Still, the one that gets elected will at least know the public expects change, since they've both been trumpeting it.

At this point, I'd settle for some spare change.

Mark, you've done some great homework and I commend you on the very intelligent post. Seriously.

I just have 1 question. Who ARE those people chasing your cat???

I think they're toast monsters...

Oh. They scared me. Mark, you want one of those new Sarah Palin Barbie dolls, doncha?

Oh, now that would be fun! Sarah Palin as Barbie, Barack Obama as Ken, John McCain as G.I. Joe. Collect the whole set. Who would Biden be? Skipper?

Joe

I'm really not into the doll so much...but I love her accessories!

Great info Mark. Thanks for looking it up and posting it in a neutral sort of way. That's quite useful.

As for Wendell, you've done the opposite. You've provided no actual facts (sorry.. Democratic hit pieces don't really count any more than Republic hit pieces, perhaps you're happy to go with extremist dogma, but most thankfully aren't). The left wing media is on a frenzy to find any possible fault with Palin and so far have supplied any credible information to suggest let alone prove she has lied about anything. And what exactly is a "bald faced lie?" Isn't a lie a lie? Obama has a long record of things he's said that were not only untrue but impossible. (Look up his debacle on Selma as a starting point). But I don't really consider him a liar per se. I am sure you don't either, as you made it clear you feel he's never done anything wrong or made any mistakes.

By the way, I do have an issue with Palin, beyond her right wing views. She's not saying anything new. I want to see her get off her own talking points, just as I liked to see Biden do the same. I've given up on either of the Pres. candidates doing that.

Brian

The difference is obvious.

A face:


A bald face:

Seriously though, I do NOT expect this to happen. Now is the time for tightly scripted speeches and fawning subordination from the dutiful VP picks.

Anything off topic and out of the script is exactly what is easiest to rip apart by the opposition. Also, VP Picks are there to enhance their #1...speaking too much of their own mind tends to distract from the star of the show.

I'll expect smaller sound bytes. Whenever someone mentions ProTools, someone invariably mentions that it's "the industry standard". Politicians want the same simplified connections to be made. John McCain, maverick, hero. Barack Obama, change, hope. Sarah Palin, hockey mom, barracuda. Joe Biden...um...er...*cough*...Joe Biden...

Ha! (Yeah.. Biden is definitely the odd man out this year).

I've been watching some financial channels today and saw a teaser for some big announcement involving Ron Paul, Bob Barr and possibly Jesse Ventura and others who may band together for one big "third party" initiative. I'd be ALL for that, even though a third party at this stage would certainly put the screws to McCain. I remember in the last couple elections having people scream that a voted for Nader was a vote for Bush. I always thought that was BS. The same argument could have been made that a vote for Gore or Kerry was a vote for Bush because had all the Gore voters voted for Nader, he would have been elected president. But the 2 party dogma-ites (hey.. a new word.. I said it here first.. perhaps dogmites.. or dogmanites would work even better) can't usually see beyond the 2 candidates and their death match like grudge to try and beat each other. I think a strong 3rd party, which may well swing an election in a big way, is a crucial need in our system and over the long haul would keep all the parties more honest and accurate. (Actually I think 5 healthy parties across the left/middle/right spectrum would be best, but that won't likely happen). As I said in my newsletter quote, the only people who are against ideas being presented are those who profit from ignorance. Both major parties have profited personally (to their string pullers and power players) from our collective ignorance. We all think most of the time we must tolerate our own party of choice to avoid the other party we like even less. How about the ability to get excited about someone who represents what we really believe on most issues, rather than a few? Right now we have the Green Party, Libertarian Party and the possibility of Nader running as an Independent (though I haven't heard a peep from him this year and it seems like his heart isn't into it so much anymore). Ron Paul says he won't run for President (though I didn't hear him say he wouldn't run for Vice President) and the name of Jesse Ventura was dropped today. Should be interesting and I hope a really strong third party rises up. I'd most prefer a moderate one which would bring both parties towards the middle, but even if it is a right leaning party, which is likely with those folks, it's better than none.

Brian

Brian,
You should realise that the issues that Third Parties run on, although good in many instances have no better chance of getting passed/put into law than the two Major Parties have of getting those things passed. We have Primarys, remember? And there are always differences between the Canididates that people vote on the selection they like.

The choice this time is pretty clear. Obama, more taxes if he gets elected and can swing it. For sure you won't see any lowering of taxes from him.

McCain, wants to make the Bush tax cuts premanent if he gets elected and can swing it.

To be sure there is a lot of S*it in the game and you have to filter out the truth.

Ray,

Even with those two things being true, that's hardly the entire picture. Unless you're in the top 5% of earners and it won't be an issue either way. I am not for raising taxes because the government doesn't do a good job spending them. But there's a lot more going on than just taxes to consider.

Brian

Man, I wish I could keep up with this thread more. I love a political discussion but I'm working on a video game soundtrack and a production music CD (both of which are in crunch time) so it's like every time I check back there are another 5 pages...



I broke down Palin's speech in one of my earlier posts showing all the ways in which she was untruthful.. in just that one speech. Factcheck.org also covered it carefully.

I wouldn't trust a politician who didn't lie.

Liar!

Myself, I wouldn't trust a politician with feet. (No offense, Mike. You have nice feet, and you use them expressively.) Since all them politicians seem to have feet, I don't think I can trust 'em. Sorry.

joe

Obama is going to lose this Election
Why?
Not because he in't a good politician or a smart man. Not because he doesn't have good intentions or good ideas.
But
Because he and his people and a lot of his supporters are coming out so strong against Palin.
Anyone can see how simple it is to take a speech, pick it apart and find ways to discredit statements.

Look at the state of the economy of Alaska. Look at Alaska before she took office and after. Ask the people of Alaska what they think. She has an 85% approval rating.

Obama himself has now been exposed on the "Earmark" issue. He makes Palin look like a novice when it comes to getting Earmarks and Pork.

This latest blunder "Lipstick on a Pig" will be his undoing. Innocent or not. This kind of thing will pull a lot of independents and women to McCain's side.

I have been hearing talk of the first female President. She could run in 2012 as the incumbent VP. That is an incentive to vote her in now.

Some of us have minimized the importance of a VP pick, saying it's unlikely that a VP would become President, that all they really do is attend funerals, etc.

But consider this:

14 of our 44 Vice Presidents became President. That's roughly 32%. 9 of those 14 became President without being elected (Chester Arthur, Calvin Coolidge, Millard Fillmore, Gerald Ford, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Tyler).

And considering McCain is old enough to die of natural causes...

(the plot sickens)

hmmm Intersting


Hey Mark

Exactly!!! people aren't picking up all the facts here... Whether she's the Presidential or Vice Presidential cantidate (which as you mentioned McCain's pretty old) and whether she is Republican or Democrat... the women of this country will likely vote her in... Now truth be told her leanings are difinitly far right, but some forget that once upon a time so were Hillary's (pre-Clinton) and regardless of where her loyalties lie... Electing a woman into the second highest office in the USA will by all means pave the way for future Female cantidates... So why wouldn't even the most left wing female voter vote for her? Remember that just this last century Women had to fight for the right to vote... Most of them were considered outsiders by american culture... Now there are Women Senators Congress-people.. Mayors and Governers and so forth.... But this the second highest of offices? This just might make the difference... and I would not be at all surprised if those die hard Hillary Supporters voted for Palin just for spite (McCain who?)...All only my opinion...
Derek

So are you for that matter, as is anyone that takes breath.

My wife works in a nursing home... she has patients that are over 100 and they have not died of "natural causes"
What does that really mean anyway?

It may not be the best idea to decide on what "might" happen.

I'm not trying to bust you out or anything.... just making an observation.

Hey Ed Thomas

No offense, but it is my understanding that anyone under the age of 50 will recieve a autopsy to confirm the cause of death... it might be even older... what I do know is that technically there is a cutoff of when it is considered natural causes.. and I believe that is what Mark is refering to... I know that's what I was refering to... So yes it's true that people can live to be well into their 90s and even 100 or older, but the likelyhood is rather slim... Especially for someone who was in a major war and then held as a prisoner of war and then has spent so many years in politics... these stresses can take their toll and I think Chaney and McCain are about the same age..Chaney should have been the incumbent except for health problems... So there ya go..
Derek