McCain "Wouldn't Know" About Vetting of Sarah Palin...

@anniepa (26607)
United States
January 13, 2010 1:33pm CST
First of all, this discussion is completely legitimate because there have been many precedents set, meaning there have already been multiple threads started on the book, "Game Change" by New York magazine's John Heilemann and Time Magazine's Mark Halperin. The following is part of the interview by John McCain with Today's Matt Lauer: After asking McCain about the controversy surrounding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the state of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Lauer pressed McCain about the accuracy of the claims made about his failed presidential campaign in the new book ''Game Change'' by New York magazine's John Heilemann and Time Magazine's Mark Halperin. Was it true, Lauer asked, that the vetting of Sarah Palin was so woefully inadequate that no one from the campaign traveled to Alaska to interview her husband or any of her political opponents? "I wouldn't know," McCain said. "The fact is that I'm proud of Sarah Palin, I'm proud of the campaign we waged, she energized our party, she will be a major factor in American politics in the future, and I'm proud of our campaign." Somewhat taken aback, Lauer told McCain that he found it "somewhat surprising" that he didn't know anything about the vetting process, adding "You were the presidential candidate." McCain testily shot back by saying that he had no intention of "looking back over what happened over a year ago," adding, "I'm sorry, you'll have to get others to comment on it." Read more and see the interview here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1054 Along with notable claims about Harry Reid, Bill and Hillary Clinton, President Obama and Vice President Biden, John and Cindy McCain and John and Elizabeth Edwards is "- that Sarah Palin believed Saddam Hussein to be behind the attacks on 9/11, didn't understand why North and South Korea were separate (the Korean War) and that she could not properly pronounce Joe Biden's name. The book contends that Palin was a mentally unstable person prone to wild mood swings, describing her being hopelessly lost in a "catatonic stupor" at one point during the campaign" The book claims that Palin was barely vetted at all and that the campaign had just taken for granted that she'd, as governor of a large state, would have some knowledge of history and foreign affairs. My main question here is this - no matter how you feel about Palin or whether or not you believe the things written about her in "Game Change", don't you think McCain's answer was a bit strange, to say the least? HE was the candidate, shouldn't HE have known about the V.P. vetting process? Annie
2 people like this
7 responses
@laglen (19783)
• United States
13 Jan 10
First let me (annoyingly) answer your question with a question. Do you honestly think that Obama personally vetted Biden? If you think so, congratulations on such a winning imagination. I think McCain showed very good form by refusing to bad talk Palin. I think it is safe to say that she is the only life that was in that campaign. With out her, Obama would have mopped the floor with McCain. Regarding your disclaimer for using the book as reference, I already started a discussion regarding Game Change and I look forward to reading it. It appears to be an equal opp slam.
• United States
13 Jan 10
With out her, Obama would have mopped the floor with McCain. Um what election were watching? It was not even close. Obama did mop up the floor with McCain. As for your comment about Palin. I agree. McCain did not excite most conservatives. He was a luke warm candidate for them. Palin did bring in a sense of excitement to an otherwise horribly dull ticket. Which was exactly what she was suppost to do. Obama excited the base....Biden...horribly dull. McCain horribly dull....Palin excited the base. Definately looks like a ticket does better if the First person on the ticket is exciting and the second dull. (Note for the Republican party for the next election). Don't pick a RINO the base does not like.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
13 Jan 10
"With out her, Obama would have mopped the floor with McCain. Um what election were watching? It was not even close. Obama did mop up the floor with McCain. " I think he's referring to the fact that Obama won by about 52% to 46% whereas if he'd picked someone like Lieberman it may have been a landslide like Reagan against Mondale or Bush against Dukakis.
@Rollo1 (16681)
• Boston, Massachusetts
13 Jan 10
"I don't think Obama personally vetted Biden, but I'll bet he knew if he'd been thoroughly vetted or not." Seriously? You mean like they thoroughly vetted Van Jones, Erroll Southers and Kevin Jennings?
@Rollo1 (16681)
• Boston, Massachusetts
13 Jan 10
My opinion of the entire book "Game Change" is pretty low. I can't doubt what it reported Reid said since he admits to it but (and don't faint) I don't necessarily believe what he wrote about Clinton's conversation with Kennedy. Even if Bill said what he is reported to say (in a private conversation that the author was not privy to), I don't think he meant what is implied. That said, I think McCain was just trying to do the honorable, gentlemanly and civil thing. I am sure he is tired of people trying to get him to bad-mouth Palin and to his credit, he refuses to do so. The fact that others from his campaign are willing to gossip for money shows how suspicious their credibility is. If you seriously believe that Palin is given to catatonic stupors and doesn't know about the Korean War (she never watched M*A*S*H* ?) then I have to conclude that you simply want to believe it, because it's just not a reasonable claim. It's a juicy but false bit of gossip.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (26607)
• United States
14 Jan 10
Believe it or not we're not that far apart in our respective opinions about this book. I've seen the two authors interviewed three or four times now, both together and separately, and they won't say where they got any of their gossip. I think it's probably an interesting read but if and when I read it I certainly intend to take it all with a grain of salt. Thank you (and don't YOU faint...lol!) for being fair about the things written about Clinton! I guess it's easy for anyone to say anything about Ted Kennedy being angry about something when he's no longer here to confirm or deny it, right? Anyway, I don't necessarily think it was an unreasonable question to be asked of McCain. I mean, he wasn't asked if it's true "that Palin is given to catatonic stupors" but if she'd been properly vetted. Annie
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16681)
• Boston, Massachusetts
14 Jan 10
To be fair, unless you believe the gossipy and unverifiable things said in the book, there's no reason to believe that she wasn't properly vetted. She hasn't got any criminal record, everything that's been laid at her feet has proved untrue and she hadn't any hidden past that would prove to be embarrassing. Levi Johnston is embarrassing, but he's hardly her fault - his parents are to blame for him. I think the authors of this book join Levi, Andrew Sullivan and a whole slew of media personalities and bloggers who have said untrue things about Palin. Bill Clinton is a lot of things, and I won't treat you to my opinion on what those things are, except to say that I have never had reason to believe he is a racist and I don't think that he is one.
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Jan 10
That sooo does not surprise me. He probly left it up to aids to do it and that was it. He delegated the job and then made his decision based on what they said but never asked how they came to their recommendations. Poor follow up skills on McCain's part. But to tell you the truth I always felt his campaign even BEFORE Palin was in disarray. They never really got their act together. McCain and his camp DID NOT run a good campaign. The whole thing was handled poorly in my opinion. His campaign manager should never get to handle another campaign again.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (26607)
• United States
14 Jan 10
Reportedly, his decision had been to choose Joe Lieberman but the powers that be in his campaign and the party talked him out of it. Annie
• United States
14 Jan 10
Two dull guys on a ticket.....ya I can see how that would have been worse than Palin. Plus add to that the republican base was not really happy about McCain they would have been even less happy with Liberman. McCain would have had his head handed to him in the general even worse. That ticket NEVER stood a chance.
1 person likes this
• United States
14 Jan 10
Leave it to a politician to talk and talk and never say anything. Political correctness and the fear to be judged id just sad. The answer is YES the man should have known, and probably did know. Palin was chosen by his party to "Spruce Up" his chances to win. Unfortunately for them they chose WRONG. He should have known it. And SHE should have known the countries involved in NAFTA. But SHE Didn't! I am SO glad that Obama won. Beauty Queens aren't generally known for their historical and political expertise.
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
14 Jan 10
Wow, you actually believed those stupid lies that she didn't know who was in NAFTA? I guess you missed where the morons in the media had to admit they were lied to by some guy pretending to be part of the McCain campaign. Now THAT is bad vetting. : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?_r=1
• United States
14 Jan 10
She was not qualified to be Vice President. Plain and simple. She did not have the knowledge to be a good History tutor let alone the Vice President. Here's a link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc When Fox News (The Republican Agenda Machine) talks about Palin not being qualified you have to think that there is something to it. You telling me that they were lies doesn't make them lies. I have seen enough of her interviews to know that she IS NOT Presidential material. Have a Nice Day.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
14 Jan 10
How about when the man who TOLD THE LIES says they are lies? I'm amazed that even when the New York Times, the mouthpiece of the Obama Administration, states that they were lies you still insist on believing them. If you don't think she's qualified, that's fine. Just try supporting it with facts instead of lies that have long since been debunked. I don't need to use lies and hoaxes to support my claims that Obama is grossly unqualified to be president. The facts there speak for themselves.
@irishidid (8119)
• United States
13 Jan 10
Oh I have so been waiting for this moment! Just be thankful this was my 2nd choice. LOL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIlHt_syoSE&feature=related
• United States
13 Jan 10
What was your first choice?
@irishidid (8119)
• United States
13 Jan 10
This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SszHoW5ogNs
• United States
13 Jan 10
LOL. You are soooo bad.
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
13 Jan 10
Campaign managers deal with such things, not the candidates themselves. As many have pointed out in the past, the skills necessary to become president are completely different than the skills needed to BE president. As you yourself have said, you don't believe Obama did it either. Nobody would ask Obama a question like Lauer did with McCain because Obama won. As for McCain's less than cordial attitude at being reminded that he was the candidate, I can fully understand. I think he's tired of being pestered about Sarah Palin and what he thinks about everything she says and does. This is probably made even more frustrating for him based on the fact that he's dealing with all the BS the democrats are pulling in the Senate right now. I'm not going to trust the bizarre accusations made in the book as it uses "unnamed aides". I'm sure you remember the last time obnoxious things were said about Palin by an "unnamed aide" who later turned out to be some pud who was completely full of crap and had absolutely no involvement with the campaign whatsoever. : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html
@anniepa (26607)
• United States
14 Jan 10
In my opinion nobody would ask Obama that question because it's never been alleged that his running mate had NOT been vetted. ABOUT "the bizarre accusations made in the book", since the authors have refused to give up any of their sources I trust you aren't going to trust ANYTHING they wrote, right? RIGHT...? Annie
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
14 Jan 10
Not unless the people involved admit it as Harry Reid did.
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
14 Jan 10
Oh, and nobody alleged Biden had not been vetted because he was nothing special. He was a "do no harm" pick that didn't affect Obama's campaign at all. Also, the media wasn't on a quest to make Biden look bad. They didn't send teams of reporters to Delaware or Pennsylvania to dig up dirt from his past. Unlike Sarah Palin they never attacked or told stories about his daughter and her legal issues. With every bit of dirt, real or imagined, that they dug up on Sarah they called it evidence that she had not been vetted.
@artistry (4154)
• United States
18 Jan 10
...Hi annie, No, I don't think anything that John McCain says is strange. After he went or sent his people to Alaska to unleash this woman of little knowledge on the political world. He does not want to admit any mistakes and since he, in my opinion is suffering from dementia, when he said "my fellow prisoners" in front of a town hall meeting, you have to know that he has a problem, and really should not have been running for president. He probably does not even remember what happened during the campaign. So when he says "I wouldn't know" he's telling the truth. He doesn't remember. It's not age, it's the stage, and to top it off, he never had therapy for the time he was a prisoner of war I don't believe. He needs help, and I do think the deterioration will be swift, I'm sorry to say in the coming years. I want to get a copy of Game Change. I think it's an amazing look at the back rooms of the campaigns, if even half of it is true. What surprised me was how Elizabeth Edwards was supposed to have acted. Take good care.