Sarah Makes Katie Nervous

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sarah Makes Katie Nervous
215
Thu, 09-25-2008 - 12:31am

In all the excitement of today's news I wonder how many saw the interview with Katie Couric today. Sarah did great. Katie had the nervous blinking syndrome. It was so interesting to watch Katie's reactions to Sarah - between all the blinks - I could sense some real hatred. I enjoyed watching it.

Here it is :

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 5:21am
Katie is a card-carrying McCain supporter. Remember how she edited her interview with him to make it look as if he knew what he was talking about? lol. Well, all of that blinking was Katie in shock and awe that McCain picked such a know nothing at all. lol. This week alone, I saw at least 3 GOP women that, although they did not say what I wanted to hear (lol), were lucid, coherent, and articulate. Why didn't he pick one of them?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 9:18am
ROTFLMAO!!

 

 

Guild Member since 2009

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 9:21am

"Since McCain supported stricter regulations in the 109th Congress, why did he not co-sponsor the identical bill when it was reintroduced in this Congress in April of 2007? What was different about his thoughts on this issue from 2005 to 2007?"


Thanks for that Sandy.

 

 

Guild Member since 2009

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 9:41am
Jumping in before I read the whole thread, I've heard this assertion that McCain proposed legislation in 2005 about the Freddie/Fannie problem. I can find evidence online that he did. What I can't find is what about the legislation was problematic to it's passing. Does anyone else know the specifics of why it didn't pass?

Photobucket
siggybarbie
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 9:53am
The session ran out, and it never even made it to the floor.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 9:57am
So then, I'll reiterate the question other posters have posed. Why didn't McCain support the legislation in the next year?

Photobucket
siggybarbie
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-19-2004
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 10:01am

I don't think many other VP candidates have been asked to give the record of their running mate nor did they.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 10:02am

And OT: has Obama ever been asked how he will/does combine his parentship with his possibly being voted into the WH?


He and his wife have actually been quite candid about this, as have Palin and her husband.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 10:56am

Sorry, but that dog just. won't. hunt.

Conservatives have been trying DESPERATELY to push the "sexism" line ever since McCain threw his desperate Hail Palin pass, but it's looking increasingly threadbare, as not just liberals criticize the awfulness which are the few available public records of her interviews. When it's women - and successful, conservative women, at that - who are telling Palin it's time to hang up her boots, the claims of sexism sound quite thin indeed. Parker is not telling Palin - and especially not women in general - to "stay at home with the family" or "in the kitchen" or anything else. She is tellin one woman, Sarah Palin, that she is woefully unqualified to be Vice-President, let alone President. That's all.


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 11:04am
I don't really get this Sandy...

Is Palin supposed to answer for McCain then?

Is Biden supposed to answer for Obama?


Yes. In fact, that is often the way things are done with respect to vice-presidential candidates during the campaign. It varies from candidate to candidate, of course, but in general - in American elections - the VP candidate is understood to be supporting the goals and positions of the person at the top of the ticket. They are obviously allowed to be their own person, as well, but they would not have been selected had they been in fundamental disagreement with the Presidential candidate on too many issues. They are there to help articulate and strengthen the message the Presidential candidate has already used to secure the nomination. As such, they are required to be conversant with the Prez. candidate's positions and his/her history on various issues. There's no "test," and if the questions really get too deep into the weeds about what the other half of the ticket may have done twelve or fifteen years ago, "I'll have to get back to you" is a reasonable reply. But in general, a good VP candidate will have been prepared to face questions on both pressing issues of the day and perennially important ones (defense, economy, etc.) from the perspective of what the TOP of the ticket has done and will do, if elected.

Pages