Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Just Wonderin'...

Who gets more thoroughly vetted - NHL draft picks or Republican Vice Presidential nominees?

15 comments:

Tyler said...

Brilliant. I'm not sure if that says more about the intensity with which professional leagues conduct their drafts, or about the decision-making of John McCain.

tg said...

If you have to ask the question, you don't want to know the answer.

And scarily, that seems like a really GWB type of decision making process.

Sombrero Guy said...

eh, maybe I'm wrong but if the biggest issues are her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy (since when were candidate's children fair game????), and her husband's DUI from 20+ years ago, I'd say she'll be fine.

Tyler said...

I think the post questions the use of research and thoroughness in various contexts, not whether a vice-presidential nominee will be "fine."

Sombrero Guy said...

Argh. I hate it when politics gets mixed in with hockey. Personally I am equally annoyed by both candidates but I'll continue with the conversation.

If it's true that there was no in depth research done into her background, then yeah, that's pretty stupid.

One would assume that a sitting governor would have had any significant skeletons displayed for all to see, but anything can happen.

And by "Fine" I meant I doubt we'll find out Palin has any long term associations with convicted terrorists, crooked slum lords or anything along those lines.

JP said...

@ SG: How about corrupt bankers or secessionist political parties?

As for the Ayers/Obama link, it's tenuous at best, and certainly isn't/wasn't "long-term," not to mention that charges against Ayers were dropped and he was never convicted of anything. The Rezko ties are similarly weak.

But no need to get into any of that here.

Brian said...

Either group gets vetted better than NHL owners

Tyler said...

LOL!

Sombrero Guy said...

LOL Brian Wins this thread.

The Peerless said...

And everyone gets vetted better than NHL coaches. Well, coaches for franchises in Florida...

Signed,
Barry

Doug said...

A tenuous link with Ayers? How can you equivocate this? Ayers has openly admitted what he did. Had the admission not been openly tendered, I would give you a point. Otherwise, you get a zero.
Sorry.

JP said...

What does an admission have to do with the strength of the link?

The facts are that Obama and Ayers served on the 8-member board of an anti-poverty group over the course of three years - a full 25 years after Ayers' activities as a Weatherman - and Ayers had contributed $200 to one of Obama's state senate campaign in 2001. To me, that link is tenuous in that it says little about Obama's judgment or character, but if that makes him a terrorist in your book, that's your point of view (and, presumably, similar to the point of view you hold for Sarah Palin, whose husband was a registered member of a political party advocating for Alaska's secession from the United States).

Point being, when you're a community activist, sometimes you take what you can get with respect to who's going to help out, and if it's someone who a quarter of a century earlier did some admittedly terrible things but has since reformed and become a respected member of the community, so be it. Not everyone has the opportunity to rub elbows with the Charles Keatings of the world.

Do I still "get a zero," Doug?

Doug said...

JP, nah, just giving you a bit of grief, actually. I read all your stuff every day, and can't help myself on some of the political silliness I read & hear each day. There seems to be a compulsion on my part to comment on the political stuff.
I accept your analysis on second read of your latest offering. You're up to about a 9.5 and I get the zero here.

shwedick said...

holy shit can we stop talking about politics...the only "hope" I want to talk about is the one that Ovechkin brings to dc hockey...people come to these sites for hockey not the online version of meet the press

JP said...

@ Doug: You da man - maybe we're both 5's.