Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
IamsSon

Was there a vetting problem?

14 posts in this topic

We've heard the accusation surface already: McCain and his people did not vet Gov. Palin well enough since it turns out that this family values candidate has a pregnant 17 year old daughter *GASP*

However, I have a feeling this accusation is going to die soon (just like the "she lacks experience" one is dying now that Obama's obvious and glaring lack of experience is being highlighted) because there is a real, huge and more embarrassing vetting error on the Democratic ticket:

the Democrat Party didn’t properly vet their PRESIDENTIAL candidate, and the sympathizers in the media failed to do so as well. Another claim: Barack Obama couldn’t even make it on a Presidential ticket as VP due to the vetting process.

Consider that vetting process for Barack Obama. How would he survive it? Imagine the conversation with an interviewer.

“So, you want to be Vice-President.”

“Uh. Uh. Uh. Yeah. Uh. I want to bring change… and hope… to America.”

“Right. So we did some checking, and I have some questions.”

“Go ahead.”

“So you launched your first campaign—your whole political career—with a speech in William Ayers’s living room. Is that correct?”

“Yeah.”

“And that’s the William Ayers who led the Weather Underground in the 70s, right? The one who bombed police headquarters in New York City, bombed the Pentagon, bombed federal buildings? That William Ayers?

“Yeah.”

“Great. And you went to church at Trinity in Chicago, right? Where Jeremiah Wright is the pastor?”

“Yeah.”

“And that’s the same Jeremiah Wright that said “G*d D**n America” from the pulpit? The one that said white people created AIDS to kill black people? The one that said 9/11 was an inside job? The one who honored black supremacist Louis Farrakhan?”

“Yeah.”

“Wonderful. Just a few more questions. You took large donations and had most of your house financed by a guy named Tony Rezko. Correct?

“Yeah.”

“The same Tony Rezko now in federal prison on a litany of corruption and bribery charges?

“Yeah.”

“Great. And in your book, you admit to experimenting with hard drugs in college, is that that right?”

“Yeah.”

“Finally, what is it that you’ve done that you feel you’re ready to be president if the unthinkable happens to the president?”

“Well, uh… I was a community organizer…”

“What’s that?”

“Uh. Uh. Uh. Uh. It’s complicated… and I was in the Illinois State Senate for four years where I voted “present” over 300 times. I also served in the U.S. Senate where I never sponsored a bill, held a hearing, and was there for less than a year before starting my campaign for president… and I want to bring hope… and change… to America. Yes you can!”

article by Cory Truax @ September 3, 2008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL great article thanks for posting it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even sure what this "vetting" is all about. Is that supposed to mean he didn't check into her background well enough?

I assure you that that no body, especially a Repubican/Conservative, would be able to stand up to the unrealistic "standards" (I use that word loosely) the Dems and media will hold them to.

And if you did find someone sooooooo squeeky clean they would have to have been living in a cave or a bubble all their life and wouldn't have any possible experience.

Face it: The reality is as you go through life you will accumulate detractors. Sometimes there may be a kernal of truth to the allegations but who hasn't done something they later regret? Or simply wish they hadn't done or said. Being a leader means you're going to PO someone sometime. You can't please everyone all the time.

That's why I think it's soooooooo hard to get good candidates for either party. I'm sure there are many people who would be good Presidents, VPs, even Senators, Congressmen, Govs etc but choose not to run because they don't want to subject themselves and their families to the microscopic examination by the media or blaitantly falsified pics and claims being reported as fact.

What a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lapse in vetting doesn't refer to some arbitrary standard Palin fails to meet; nobody cares that she smoked pot. The problem is that her history doesn't jibe with the campaign line. Her extensive history with earmarks and federal lobbying for her town contradicts McCain's anti-pork crusade. She's a reformer against corruption (with executive experience!) who is under investigation for abuse of power and has a history of firing qualified officials who disagree with her. That, my friends, is not change we can believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lapse in vetting doesn't refer to some arbitrary standard Palin fails to meet; nobody cares that she smoked pot. The problem is that her history doesn't jibe with the campaign line. Her extensive history with earmarks and federal lobbying for her town contradicts McCain's anti-pork crusade.

Hehehe, that's what a politician does! :D

She's a reformer against corruption (with executive experience!) who is under investigation for abuse of power and has a history of firing qualified officials who disagree with her. That, my friends, is not change we can believe in.

If you really look into the Trooper situation for example you will see the man has a list of charges that even the AK State Trooper internal investigation agreed with! But the trooper commissioner wouldn't fire him for it. Just imagine if an employee at a business had a proven list of offenses against the image and best interests of the business but his boss wouldn't fire him for it. It's the responsibility of the CEO (or at least someone hire up) to get that person out of there.

ps- Obama ran as an agent of "change", to "change" the way the old guard of Washington runs things. Then he selects Biden as his VP, one of the quint-essential old guards of Washington himself!!

Edited by MasterPo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lapse in vetting doesn't refer to some arbitrary standard Palin fails to meet; nobody cares that she smoked pot. The problem is that her history doesn't jibe with the campaign line. Her extensive history with earmarks and federal lobbying for her town contradicts McCain's anti-pork crusade. She's a reformer against corruption (with executive experience!) who is under investigation for abuse of power and has a history of firing qualified officials who disagree with her. That, my friends, is not change we can believe in.

How many times has Obama actually pointed out curruption in his own party? Obama voted like 97% liberals, with a congress that has a aproval ratting worst then George Bush. what kind of change does Obama mean when making Bidden VP or getting deals from that slum lord? is the change he wants us to believe in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many times has Obama actually pointed out curruption in his own party?

Obama doesn't fight corruption?

Ethics reforms championed by Obama 'revolutionized' the Illinois system: "The disclosure requirement 'revolutionized Illinois's system,' said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she said, 'put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his crown.'" [New York Times, 7/30/2007]

Obama faced tremendous resistance in his reform efforts; the Senate leader said he caught 'pure hell': "'He caught pure hell,' Mr. Jones said of Mr. Obama. 'I actually felt sorry for him at times.' ... The job required negotiating across party lines to come up with reform proposals, then presenting them to the Democratic caucus. Senator Kirk Dillard, the Republican Senate president's appointee, said, 'Barack was literally hooted and catcalled in his caucus.' On the Senate floor, Mr. Dillard said, 'They would bark their displeasure at me, and then they'd unload on Obama.' [New York Times, 7/30/2007]

Obama fought for ethics reforms in the U.S. Senate that weren't always popular: "The Senate adopted a measure that, for the first time, would require registered lobbyists to disclose not only the limited money they can donate to candidates personally but also the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they raise from clients and friends and deliver as sheaves of checks -- a tradition known as bundling...the disclosure idea's lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama... 'has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,' said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill." [New York Times, January 20, 2007]

Obama voted like 97% liberals, with a congress that has a aproval ratting worst then George Bush.

What is it that people don't like about Congress?

: "The big issues of the day just don't seem to be being addressed," said Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University who studies Congress. "The issues that matter most to people -- the economy, health care, the environment and the larger war in Iraq -- it is so difficult for Congress to move on those issues that I believe the public looks and says, 'Why aren't they doing anything?' "

On all of these issues the Democrats are more trusted and, indeed, the majority of Americans agree with their positions. Why isn't it they haven't been able to accomplish more of their agenda, thus dropping Congressional approval ratings? Why, oh, why?

what kind of change does Obama mean when making Bidden VP

I do believe Biden and Obama are in agreement on the policy changes that need to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama doesn't fight corruption?

Ethics reforms championed by Obama 'revolutionized' the Illinois system: "The disclosure requirement 'revolutionized Illinois's system,' said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she said, 'put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his crown.'" [New York Times, 7/30/2007]

Obama faced tremendous resistance in his reform efforts; the Senate leader said he caught 'pure hell': "'He caught pure hell,' Mr. Jones said of Mr. Obama. 'I actually felt sorry for him at times.' ... The job required negotiating across party lines to come up with reform proposals, then presenting them to the Democratic caucus. Senator Kirk Dillard, the Republican Senate president's appointee, said, 'Barack was literally hooted and catcalled in his caucus.' On the Senate floor, Mr. Dillard said, 'They would bark their displeasure at me, and then they'd unload on Obama.' [New York Times, 7/30/2007]

Obama fought for ethics reforms in the U.S. Senate that weren't always popular: "The Senate adopted a measure that, for the first time, would require registered lobbyists to disclose not only the limited money they can donate to candidates personally but also the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they raise from clients and friends and deliver as sheaves of checks -- a tradition known as bundling...the disclosure idea's lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama... 'has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,' said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill." [New York Times, January 20, 2007]

How many times has Obama actually pointed out curruption in his own party and did something rather then ethic reforms like a person? great source the New York times and CNN

What is it that people don't like about Congress?

: "The big issues of the day just don't seem to be being addressed," said Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University who studies Congress. "The issues that matter most to people -- the economy, health care, the environment and the larger war in Iraq -- it is so difficult for Congress to move on those issues that I believe the public looks and says, 'Why aren't they doing anything?' "

On all of these issues the Democrats are more trusted and, indeed, the majority of Americans agree with their positions. Why isn't it they haven't been able to accomplish more of their agenda, thus dropping Congressional approval ratings? Why, oh, why?

You can put all the spin you want on this but they just aren't getting anything done, they won't even let the vote for oil drilling. that article is over a year old here is a list of all polls taken pollingreport.com people are not happy with Bush or the Democratic led congress

I do believe Biden and Obama are in agreement on the policy changes that need to be made.

Mybe they are, its to bad most Americans don't know these changes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can put all the spin you want on this but they just aren't getting anything done, they won't even let the vote for oil drilling. that article is over a year old here is a list of all polls taken pollingreport.com people are not happy with Bush or the Democratic led congress

Maybe because it is wrong to open up Anwar and other coastal areas to drilling? The Democratic led congress, as you well know, does not have a majority enough to override the obstructionist Republicans and Republican president who have blocked nearly everything. Don't act all surpised and innocent. The Repubs controlled everything for a number of years, what did that get you? Oh I know, ding ding, the Trillion dollar useless Iraq war and an economy that is in the crapper and reduced standing in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe because it is wrong to open up Anwar and other coastal areas to drilling? The Democratic led congress, as you well know, does not have a majority enough to override the obstructionist Republicans and Republican president who have blocked nearly everything. Don't act all surpised and innocent. The Repubs controlled everything for a number of years, what did that get you? Oh I know, ding ding, the Trillion dollar useless Iraq war and an economy that is in the crapper and reduced standing in the world.

Why don't the the Democrats let the offshore drilling have a vote on the floor? they control congress and they are the ones that control over what bills can be voted on. Bush has already said he would sign such a bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't the the Democrats let the offshore drilling have a vote on the floor? they control congress and they are the ones that control over what bills can be voted on. Bush has already said he would sign such a bill.

You're just not getting it. WE DON"T WANT TO DRILL IN ANWAR AND OFFSHORE. Ever.

If you don't like that way of doing things, why didn't the repubs allow votes on bills the democrats wanted over the those six years? same reason.

And while were at it, why wouldn't they bring a vote of impeachment of GWB and Cheney? Republicans have enough votes to block it.

And even still, REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED IT ALL for those SIX YEARS. Why DIDN"T THEY OPEN UP DRILLING WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE? Duh! because they didn't care about high oil prices. That's good for repubs. And they can use it now as a fake wedge issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're just not getting it. WE DON"T WANT TO DRILL IN ANWAR AND OFFSHORE. Ever.

That's like saying you're dying of thirst but don't want to drill to an aquafer you know is down there - ever!

Tell me this: If Obama wins will be convert the Presidential limo to hydrogen? Or at least hybrid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're just not getting it. WE DON"T WANT TO DRILL IN ANWAR AND OFFSHORE. Ever.

If you don't like that way of doing things, why didn't the repubs allow votes on bills the democrats wanted over the those six years? same reason.

Because most of the legistation from the left is nothing more then more spending

And even still, REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED IT ALL for those SIX YEARS. Why DIDN"T THEY OPEN UP DRILLING WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE? Duh! because they didn't care about high oil prices. That's good for repubs. And they can use it now as a fake wedge issue.

Beause you still need more votes then thier were republicans, another words just because your the mojoriry doesn't mean you can pass all legislation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're just not getting it. WE DON"T WANT TO DRILL IN ANWAR AND OFFSHORE. Ever.

If you don't like that way of doing things, why didn't the repubs allow votes on bills the democrats wanted over the those six years? same reason.

And while were at it, why wouldn't they bring a vote of impeachment of GWB and Cheney? Republicans have enough votes to block it.

And even still, REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED IT ALL for those SIX YEARS. Why DIDN"T THEY OPEN UP DRILLING WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE? Duh! because they didn't care about high oil prices. That's good for repubs. And they can use it now as a fake wedge issue.

And even though the VAST majority of the American people DO want drilling as long as the Libs control Congress they will block a vote on the floor because they don't want it to be so obvious that they are blocking the will of the people!

The Dem leadership KNOWS that if the allow the issue to go to the floor for a vote, MOST representatives, Repub or Dem will HAVE to vote to allow drilling because THAT is what their constituents want.

The Dem leadership is NOT representing the people, they are OBSTRUCTING the people.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.