A former Republican Secretary of State and one of John McCain's most
prominent supporters offered a stunningly frank and remarkably bleak
assessment of Sarah Palin's capacity to handle the presidency should
such a scenario arise.

Lawrence Eagleburger, who served as Secretary of State under George H.W.
Bush and whose endorsement is often trumpeted by McCain, said on
Thursday that the Alaska governor is not only unprepared to take over
the job on a moment's notice but, even after some time in office, would
only amount to an "adequate" commander in chief.

"And I devoutly hope that [she] would never be tested," he added for
good measure -- referring both to Palin's policy dexterity and the idea
of McCain not making it through his time in office. (Listen to audio below.)

The remarks took place during an interview on National Public Radio that
was, ironically, billed as "making the case" for a McCain presidency.
Asked by the host whether Palin could step in during a time of crisis,
Eagleburger reverted to sarcasm before leveling the harsh blow.

"It is a very good question," he said, pausing a few seconds, then
adding with a chuckle: "I'm being facetious here. Look, of course not."

Eagleburger explained: "I don't think at the moment she is prepared to
take over the reigns of the presidency. I can name for you any number of
other vice presidents who were not particularly up to it either. So the
question, I think, is can she learn and would she be tough enough under
the circumstances if she were asked to become president, heaven forbid
that that ever takes place?

"Give her some time in the office and I think the answer would be, she
will be [pause] adequate."

wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:22:02 -0400, Boater
wrote:

A former Republican Secretary of State and one of John McCain's most
prominent supporters offered a stunningly frank and remarkably bleak
assessment of Sarah Palin's capacity to handle the presidency should
such a scenario arise.


I don't think the RNC thought they had a chance of winning this year,
no matter who they ran. They offered un McCain as a sacrificial lamb
and put Palin up there, simply to season her for the future. Nobody
will be able to say she wasn't vetted next time. A term in the senate
in Stevens; seat will make her as qualified as the guy we are going
to elect next week.


I don't think Palin has the intellectual capacity or curiosity or
judgment for high federal office.

Obama has all of that in spades. Palin does nicely with a teleprompter
and she obviously is "The Personality Kid," but, hopefully, most voting
Americans will want a bit more in their president than winks and
shout-outs.

There's a pretty good chance Ted Stevens is going to lose his
re-election battle next week, and a Democrat will take over that Senate
seat. Even some of the rational GOP-leaning sites are predicting that.

If Mark Begich is elected to the seat, Ms. Palin won't be able to
appoint herself to the U.S. Senate on the resignation of Stevens.

"Boater" wrote in message
...

I don't think Palin has the intellectual capacity or curiosity or judgment
for high federal office.

Obama has all of that in spades. Palin does nicely with a teleprompter and
she obviously is "The Personality Kid," but, hopefully, most voting
Americans will want a bit more in their president than winks and
shout-outs.



Spent most of the morning half watching, half listening to Obama giving his
stump speech again this morning while I worked on some other stuff.

He's a gifted speaker, that's for sure, capable of whipping up the emotions
of an audience to a fever pitch.
But again, as before, I miss the logic (if there is any) of his statements
and long list of promises.

How do you reduce taxes for 95 percent of the so called "working class" when
40 percent don't pay any to begin with? How do you justify calling a
yearly government check of approximately $3k to people who didn't pay any
taxes as "tax rebates" and not welfare checks?

How do end the war in Iraq by telling the Iraqi government that they have to
assume responsibility for themselves? Bush has been trying that for over
four years without success.

He is a scary guy to listen to sometimes. He's going to "transform America
and it's government" as he often states. I don't want America to be
transformed. I want solid, honest representation and leadership.

My concern is that Obama says whatever he needs to say to get the votes and
does so in a dishonest way, appealing to the emotional sensitivities of a
frustrated citizenship. There is one thing for sure. He will go down in
history as a failed president (if elected) because there is no way he can
deliver on all he has promised.

Eisboch

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:28:20 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


How do you reduce taxes for 95 percent of the so called "working class"
when 40 percent don't pay any to begin with?


I keep hearing this myth. *All* working Americans pay taxes. While the
lowest quintile is only 4.3%, and the second quintile is only 9.9%, they
still pay taxes.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:51:12 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:28:20 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


How do you reduce taxes for 95 percent of the so called "working class"
when 40 percent don't pay any to begin with?


I keep hearing this myth. *All* working Americans pay taxes. While the
lowest quintile is only 4.3%, and the second quintile is only 9.9%, they
still pay taxes.

I should have posted the link.

http://mediamatters.org/static/image...s-20081016.gif

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:58:16 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:51:12 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:28:20 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


How do you reduce taxes for 95 percent of the so called "working class"
when 40 percent don't pay any to begin with?


I keep hearing this myth. *All* working Americans pay taxes. While the
lowest quintile is only 4.3%, and the second quintile is only 9.9%, they
still pay taxes.

I should have posted the link.

http://mediamatters.org/static/image...s-20081016.gif

It doesn't address sales tax that hits the poorest the hardest. Good link
just the same.

On Oct 31, 12:51*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:28:20 -0400, Eisboch wrote:
How do you reduce taxes for 95 percent of the so called "working class"
when 40 percent don't pay any to begin with?

I keep hearing this myth. **All* working Americans pay taxes. *While the
lowest quintile is only 4.3%, and the second quintile is only 9.9%, they
still pay taxes.

Most people, when talking about paying taxes, are talking only about
federal income taxes. In that case it's not a myth, it's true.

You're quoting effective rates including FICA, and that's why the rate
turns into a positive number for the lower quintiles. However, you're
leaving out the fact that EIC effectively rebates the FICA payments
(and is tied to it), so including that we're back to people getting
more money back than they actually pay in.

Hence the truism that many people pay no taxes.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:51:12 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:28:20 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


How do you reduce taxes for 95 percent of the so called "working class"
when 40 percent don't pay any to begin with?

I keep hearing this myth. *All* working Americans pay taxes. While the
lowest quintile is only 4.3%, and the second quintile is only 9.9%, they
still pay taxes.

We need to correct something here - we're talking about income taxes.

Not FICA or any of the other taxes which everybody pays - income
taxes.

Besides - it doesn't matter anyway. The Obamabots (meaning his
surrogates) can't seem to get their messages straight. Obama said
$250,000 then amended to $200,000 which Biden amended to $150,000
which Bill Richardson amended to $120,000 and pretty soon I expect
Barney and Nancy to amend that to $100,000 and Reid to put it at
$80,000.

And let's not forget Barney's "increase by 25%" comment.

Know what - I may join Harry in Costa Rica.

Um...on second thought... :)

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:51:12 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:28:20 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


How do you reduce taxes for 95 percent of the so called "working class"
when 40 percent don't pay any to begin with?
I keep hearing this myth. *All* working Americans pay taxes. While the
lowest quintile is only 4.3%, and the second quintile is only 9.9%, they
still pay taxes.

We need to correct something here - we're talking about income taxes.

Not FICA or any of the other taxes which everybody pays - income
taxes.

Besides - it doesn't matter anyway. The Obamabots (meaning his
surrogates) can't seem to get their messages straight. Obama said
$250,000 then amended to $200,000 which Biden amended to $150,000
which Bill Richardson amended to $120,000 and pretty soon I expect
Barney and Nancy to amend that to $100,000 and Reid to put it at
$80,000.

And let's not forget Barney's "increase by 25%" comment.

Know what - I may join Harry in Costa Rica.

Um...on second thought... :)


It's a small country, but...you can take the east coast...I'll take the
west.

On Oct 31, 12:28*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:

He is a scary guy to listen to sometimes. *He's going to "transform America
and it's government" *as he often states. *I don't want America to be
transformed. *I want solid, honest representation and leadership.

If you want solid honest representation and leadership, it will NEED
to be transformed. We surely don't have it now.

My concern is that Obama says whatever he needs to say to get the votes and
does so in a dishonest way, appealing to the emotional sensitivities of a
frustrated citizenship. *There is one thing for sure. *He will go down in
history as a failed president (if elected) because there is no way he can
deliver on all he has promised.

They all give lip service.

Check this out:
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-...e=sr-108-1-421