BINGO, it's all about survival

[Michael Tee]

<<Can a hired person or persons take as good care of Sarah Palin's mongoloid child as she would herself?>>

The right caregiving specialist is better than the mother, since most mothers work, but it's a unique personal chemistry thing between caregiver and child, which the parent has to monitor AND the caregiver is not there 24-7, the parent has to be there for the DS kid AND for the other siblings who also have relational problems arising from this.  Add to that a high burnout rate among caregivers, there are always turnovers and selection of the replacements, assessment of how well THEY are doing, how the child is dealing with the change, which can be traumatic in itself.

BTW, "mongoloid" is now considered highly offensive, both to the child and to Asians generally.  It's kind of a no-no, especially around DS families.

<< I don't think anyone can say this one way or the other. That is a different issue. I would bet that the probability that they would hire a woman to do this is around 98%.>>

Nope, lots of males in the field, at least here in Ontario.  As the child matures, they develop physical capacities that often call for forms of physical restraint.  Our friend is short, stocky and powerfully built, but he was once knocked down with one punch by his son, in a period of extreme (and  uncharacteristic) agitation.

[Michael Tee]

<<Maybe Mr Palin would be the ideal person.>>

As I understand the current practice, they train both parents.  There's really no reason I can see why the dad is less capable than the mum, although in practice it usually is the mother when the kids are small.  For obvious reasons of physical capability, it can often become the father when dealing with male adolescents.

[Xavier_Onassis]

BTW, "mongoloid" is now considered highly offensive, both to the child and to Asians generally.

I shall avoid using the term around "Down's syndrome" children as well as Mongolians.

Offended parties may refer to me as a 'Caucasoid' twice in retribution.

[Xavier_Onassis]

<<So, who were the first two?>>

Romney and Lieberman, but I don't know in what order.
===========================================
I heard Ridge (gov of PA) and Lieberman.

Ridge is pro choice.

The Republicans spent millions on Gore/Loserman bumper stickers, so despite the money that Lieberman's connections with extremely rich Jews (like that Macao Casino magnate), he was too much damaged goods to the Oligarchy. Besides, to a lot of Americans, Lieberman is the Senator from Jerusalem. I think he would make an excellent PM of Israel. Not everyone has two flags to salute, and I'd prefer a candidate who only had one.

Romney is, of course, a Mormon, and that would also bring in lotsa money from Mormons and might gain them Nevada, but he was probably seen as too weird to win. I would not vote against any Mormon, but Romney strikes me as a glib snake-oil merchant and I would not vote for him on those grounds. I do not think a businessman makes a good president. The last 'good businessman' we elected was Herbert Hoover. I prefer to let businessmen tend to business. That way, we can boycott their sorry asses if we don't like their goods.

I agree that Palin is a better choice from a marketing angle than Romney and Lieberman. I don't know enough about Ridge to comment.

[sirs]

My own view is that when the public realizes that Miss Almost Alaska is one heartbeat away from the Presidency and that heart is 72 years old, they will really have to start wondering. 

And given her executive experience trumps even her own top of the ticket, and makes mincemeat of the Left's ticket, the Public will truely get an eye opening at what their choices are, since the Dem Front runner isn't a heartbeat, but is actually trying for it.  

Hmmm, let' see, someone with a boatload of maturity and life experiences, that prescious few could even come close too, combined with a young energized and proven reformer, who could easily take the wings afterwards, vs someone who's biggest accomplishment was running a comminuty service, and picked as his VP of "change" the epitome of the status quo in Washington.  hmmmmmmmm, that's a toughie

What was that line again?.......Some people use change to advance their career.  Others use their career to advance change.  Naaa, that wasn't so tough, actually

[Amianthus]

Story I heard was that the hierarchy turned them down because of conflicts with the base, and McCain, to lash back at the hierarchy, went and picked Palin.

Well, if the "hierarchy" couldn't "turn down" Palin, I don't see how they could have "turned down" the other two. Or do they only get 2 peremptory challenges?

More likely, what you "heard" was made up.

[Xavier_Onassis]

This "executive experience" crap is far too highly overrated. James Buchanan was the best qualified man in terms of experience. Hoover had scads of business leadership roles, and both were pretty close to total flops.

Lincoln (who suffered from chronic depression) and Grant (who mostly worked for his father as a last resort) were certainly no winners prior to their elections and neither was Truman. a failed haberdasher.


I am thinking Palin would be a successful president only if she knew whom to listen to. Juniorbush had Powell, but he ignored him and listened instead to Rumsfeld and Cheney, Feith and Pipes and clowns like that, and disaster ensued.

The oligarchy is clever and forceful and certainly not in favor of the success of most Americans, who it sees as stupid lackies. Would she be able to deal with them? I'd take Obama or Biden over Palin any day. She's a gimmick. A cleverly chosen gimmick, but a gimmick nevertheless. If this were Northern Exposure and not the USA, she'd be ideal. But this is not a teevee series, folks.

[Michael Tee]

<<I heard Ridge (gov of PA) and Lieberman.>>

I stand corrected.  It WAS Ridge and Lieberman.

[hnumpah]

...how could John Insane put their whole future at risk like this, all for a petty campaign advantage in appealing to special-interest groups (disappointed Hillary fans, NRA members, oil-industry people)...

Hey, we're not all fans.

[Michael Tee]

<<Well, if the "hierarchy" couldn't "turn down" Palin, I don't see how they could have "turned down" the other two. Or do they only get 2 peremptory challenges?

<<More likely, what you "heard" was made up.>>

I thought I made it pretty clear in my first post, but it could be clearer.  The hierarchy was pressing McCain not to use either Ridge or Lieberman, who were anathema to the so-called base.  McCain "lashed out" at the hierarchy by picking Palin.  It was an impulsive choice, made under pressure.  Not a good indication of what to expect from the man in office.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Story I heard was that the hierarchy turned them down because of conflicts with the base, and McCain, to lash back at the hierarchy, went and picked Palin.

Well, if the "hierarchy" couldn't "turn down" Palin, I don't see how they could have "turned down" the other two. Or do they only get 2 peremptory challenges?

More likely, what you "heard" was made up.
===============================================================
They didn't turn down Palin because she agrees with the base. As a rule, these types of inside rumors tend to be at least partially true. Eventually, someone will divulge the truth, as they always do. Lieberman was Loserman and a pro-choice Democrat. Ridge was pro-choice. Romney was mistrusted and seen as weird: if he were nominated, the debate would end up being about holy underwear and the redemption of the deceased.

I imagine the base was happy with Palin. So far, she seems to appeal immensely to the fanatics along this forum. Sirs and Kramer are strewing palm leaves in her path. McCain must demonstrate (or fool) people that he is not Juniorbush redux, because people dislike Juniorbush and loathe Cheney and he will go down in smoke and flames.

[sirs]

This "executive experience" crap is far too highly overrated.

Yea, making informed decisions, where those decisiosn are to be carried out thruout a large organization, like a state, with the immediate repercussions of those desicions squarely layed at their feet, is soooo over rated. 

Compared to....oh sitting in committee meetings berrating political opponents across a table, and being counted as 1 out of 100 votes that do.......nothing but send potential legislation to the.....EXECUTIVE for their signature, if they deem it appropriate, or to veto it if they find it excessive.

Yea, that's so....overrated         

[Amianthus]

They didn't turn down Palin because she agrees with the base.

Well, if they agreed with the choice, it wasn't much of a "lash back" at the hierarchy, was it?

[Michael Tee]

<<Well, if they agreed with the choice, it wasn't much of a "lash back" at the hierarchy, was it?>>

Are you kidding?  Once he's picked her, what else CAN they do?

[Amianthus]

Are you kidding?  Once he's picked her, what else CAN they do?

Then how come "once he picked (Ridge or Lieberman) what else CAN they do" wasn't true?