J_Gocht on September 16, 2008 at 7:13 PM

Again, the numbers are correct…roughly 15%….in a certain context. Her use of the term “energy supply” can be viewed as misleading….BUT, as your source admits….

“energy supply,” a term that is generally defined as energy consumed.

As I said, Palin played the same game the slimy baby murderer Obama does, but she is a moral person.

I wonder why you would be so dishonest in your complaint when you claim to be only interested in the truth?

Carly, you maybe right of course but I would hazard
you can’t do the job either:

* You have run off of 3 corporations so far all whom were in worse shape then when you took office.
* You instituted a ’strawberry incident’ on the board that was as good as the Caine Mutiny.
* You were hauled before a Congressional committee and the best you could do was ‘not my recollection’. Such incompetence would have never permitted you to run HP or being on the board.

Another words you are a flop and a loser. So quit moaning baby and shut the hell up.

Why do liberals think someone “runs” the economy?

csdeven on September 16, 2008 at 6:53 PM

I was energetically wrong also; it’s only 2.4%…!

It would appear Johnny Mc has been out in the woods on this too!

J_Gocht on September 16, 2008 at 6:34 PM

20% is an average and it includes oil and natural gas. It is old data (1980-2000). Currently Alaska provides nearly 15%.

It is the same tactic the slimy baby murderer Obama uses. So spare us the outrage. Given the two, Palin respects life. That gives her a major edge in moral fortitude.

Except that…
6.1% unemployment, highest in six years
600,000 and counting; jobs lost this year
6000 homes being foreclosed on daily
The automobile companies begging for bailouts
The financial and banking system in total shambles

I can’t find the exact quote right now, but I believe McCain was talking about American work ethic and productivity. American productivity is rising, despite weakness in other areas. This can explain why the GDP continues to grow despite payroll cuts. In other words, what McCain said was correct. It’s not the whole story, but it’s correct.

“…with McCain talking about tax cuts and Government reform, and Palin talking about energy–that’s HER strong point!
Steve Z on September 16, 2008 at 5:22 PM

Steveo, that makes good sense to me.

Have Johnny Mc keep telling us [I think it’s up to 22 times now since mid June] that our “economy is fundamentally strong”.

OK.

Except that…
6.1% unemployment, highest in six years
600,000 and counting; jobs lost this year
6000 homes being foreclosed on daily
The automobile companies begging for bailouts
The financial and banking system in total shambles

Then have Sarah the GOP’s energy guru keep telling us how “20% of our energy comes from the State of Alaska”.
OK

Except… that only 3.4% comes from Alaska

Or righty then…!

Neither could Fiorina, who cut the value of HP in half and incurred massive layoffs before she was fired.

The main thing I loook for is either an executive vision or foreign policy experience. Condi has the FP cred we need and is a student of the cold war. We will be in another cold war within the next 8 years.

Yes, she is great in those areas — probably better than McCain.

My concern is that since McCain is not the strongest conservative on domestic issues, he needs a real conservative as his VP.

Do you think Condi is conservative on domestic issues? She seems to be more of a real conservative than Powell (I think he was mostly an opportunist in terms of his political allegiances), but I just don’t know what she brings on domestic issues.

In answer to your question, yes, Romney was actually my pick for the top post. But after McCain won the nomination (and after some admitted grumbling), I reluctantly backed McCain. I admire a good number of things about Palin. I just want to ensure that we’re picking a VP candidate for all of the right reasons and not just to set up a competing lemonade stand with the Dems. :)

Dagnar on September 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM

the reality is she is a VP candidate and if there is a touch of lemonade but it gets us power who gives a damn.

I’d rather win than lose nobly.

20 seconds of each response; even voters (heh) will get that this is highly selective, “unfair” editing.

I also never heard any network speculating that she was in the Top 5 (they did have Liebermann, however). Again, I think most people (yourself excluded) didn’t really see this choice coming.

Dagnar on September 16, 2008 at 5:44 PM

She was NOT “dissing the job” she was expressing her desire, like Bobby Jindal to not give up her own office to be mere window dressing. For her to even seriously be mentioned meant she was taken seriously. I put it at 1)Huck 2) Fred 3)Lieberman 4)Pawlenty 5) Palin/Jindal….

YMMV

Y-not on September 16, 2008 at 5:42 PM

In answer to your question, yes, Romney was actually my pick for the top post. But after McCain won the nomination (and after some admitted grumbling), I reluctantly backed McCain. I admire a good number of things about Palin. I just want to ensure that we’re picking a VP candidate for all of the right reasons and not just to set up a competing lemonade stand with the Dems. :)

She was being asked about the job back in Feb. if you are a c-span junkie or an amatuer wonk you knew who she was and that she was in the top 5.

sven10077 on September 16, 2008 at 5:28 PM

While, apparently the talk with her back in Feb. couldn’t have been too serious and she didn’t even know she was in the Top 5 if she was “dissing” the job just last month:

Reference

I also never heard any network speculating that she was in the Top 5 (they did have Liebermann, however). Again, I think most people (yourself excluded) didn’t really see this choice coming.

Dagnar on September 16, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Was Romney your pick for the top spot?

I’ve been reading HA for a couple of months now and I’m not sure I can remember anyone for whom McCain was their top choice. It’s not revealing any secrets to say that he got the nomination by being the last man standing.

Rudy and Fred made strategic errors in how they ran their campaigns, so they dropped out much earlier than I thought they would have. Huckabee ran with a lot of fire in his belly, although I think he had neither the accomplishments nor the broad appeal to win. I’m not sure what happened to Romney (aside from the Huckabee factor), but having lived in Massachusetts at one point, I can see how a governor of such a liberal state would have a hard time firing up hard-core conservatives. There’s no way he could govern as a hard-line conservative and get things accomplished with the state legisture he had.

So we wound up with a guy who many of us accept for what he is — a guy who has served his country all his life and who does put Country First, even if he is often misguided in how he tries to do that. The VP selection is an attempt to overcome negatives — his health, his age, his misguided trust of democrats, and his long tenure in the Senate.

I think Palin helps on a lot of those fronts. The fact that she’s a woman who has accomplished so much while maintaining a lot of core conservative values is just a plus.

Not even Carly could do Carly’s job at HP

Exactly. Or put another way, I’m thinking Carly couldn’t do Palin’s job (or shoot a moose).