Originally Posted by cnredd

the question isn't the vetting...

The question is "Will the negatives of one candidate outweigh the negatives of another?"...

If he picked Huck, the "vetting process" would be questioned because many will attack the evangelical aspect...

If he picked Mitt, the "vetting process" would be questioned because many will attack the Mormon aspect...

If he picked Pawlenty, the "vetting process" would be questioned because many will attack his lack of national recognition (Much like Palin now)...

If he picked Leiberman, the "vetting process" would be questioned because...well you know all sides would have a field day with that one...

AND of course, if McCain picked ANY one of them, the Left would grab the bullhorns and cry "RICH-WHITE-GUY-ESTABLISHMENT-OLD-BOY'S-NETWORK-SAME-OLD-SAME-OLD!!!!"...

So I contend that you would "question the vetting process" NOMATTER WHO was picked...

Here's your chance to prove me wrong...name a candidate that McCain could've picked that wouldn't be attacked on any issue...thus proving the "vetting process" was successful and correct...

Originally Posted by dabateman

Jindal seemed pretty reasonable both in terms of vetting and in terms of politics... But I see your point. The question isn't liberals questioning the vetting process, it's conservatives. I honestly believe that the vetting process was questionable, but that's because she's nominated and in less than a week we're hearing about scandals...

Originally Posted by cnredd

OK...we'll ask again...

Name a candidate where SOMETHING wouldn't have come up within a week...

Originally Posted by dabateman

Like I said... I can't think of anything on Jindal. And I don't have a problem with Lieberman, Romney, or even Ridge. But there can be arguments made for any candidate. The difference is scandal. I don't see any with Jindal, Lieberman, or Ridge...

Originally Posted by cnredd

It doesn't have to be about a scandal...It has to do with NEGATIVES...Scandals are included in negatives, but not all negatives are scandals...

I pointed Jindal's out when I edited my previous post...

Leiberman is obvious...two years ago he was a Democrat...last year he was an independant...This year he's a Republican...he can pick an ideology and hold it...

Ridge?...he's the original head of Homeland Security that proposed the color-coordinated warning system that the Left loves to laugh at...

All 3...No scandals mentioned...all have negatives attached that would be exploited to the overall detriment of the ticket...

Look at Palin herself?...Are you seriously calling her daughter's child "a scandal?"...

Wow...a 17 year-old-girl got pregnant...don't think that ever happens whether or not the parents instill 3% of moral values or 99% of moral values?...

Originally Posted by dabateman

Well anyone has negatives... on both sides... You aren't making an original argument. Not all of them had scandal attached. Palin has the issues going on in Alaska about her dismissal of an official. In addition, the daughter thing is a scandal regardless of your or my personal feelings about it. Right or wrong it has become a political scandal.

Originally Posted by cnredd

But Spencer blamed the vetting process...

Which brings me back to the original question...

Would the eventual pick be BETTER had the vetting process been different?...and more importantly, how the heck would we know since we're not part of the process in the first place?...

For all we know, McCain could've found out Mitt had 3 wives, Huck's sister is a hooker at the Bunny Ranch, and Pawlenty's has a "KKK" tattoo on his ass...

In other words, Palins negatives and scandals could've been the LEAST of the candidates vetted...We'll simply never know...To question a process in which no one knows how it was done isn't very convincing...

Originally Posted by cnredd

the question isn't the vetting...

The question is "Will the negatives of one candidate outweigh the negatives of another?"...

If he picked Huck, the "vetting process" would be questioned because many will attack the evangelical aspect...

If he picked Mitt, the "vetting process" would be questioned because many will attack the Mormon aspect...

If he picked Pawlenty, the "vetting process" would be questioned because many will attack his lack of national recognition (Much like Palin now)...

If he picked Leiberman, the "vetting process" would be questioned because...well you know all sides would have a field day with that one...

AND of course, if McCain picked ANY one of them, the Left would grab the bullhorns and cry "RICH-WHITE-GUY-ESTABLISHMENT-OLD-BOY'S-NETWORK-SAME-OLD-SAME-OLD!!!!"...

So I contend that you would "question the vetting process" NOMATTER WHO was picked...

Here's your chance to prove me wrong...name a candidate that McCain could've picked that wouldn't be attacked on any issue...thus proving the "vetting process" was successful and correct...

Originally Posted by Asher

Bristol Palin, the 17-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin, is pregnant and will keep the baby and marry the father, a senior aide to Sen. John McCain confirmed to CNN, Monday. Republican presidential candidate McCain was aware of Bristol Palin's pregnancy before he chose her mother for his running mate, the aide said.