js:
That assumes an Electorate that will carefully study and analyze those clear distinctions.
Good luck.
Hell…there are some awfully politically knowledgable people on this Forum; and even WE talk about the “hotness” of a Candidate or compare another one to Stalin.
It’s all sound bites and perceptions; smoke and mirrors; T and A and sex.
Cast your vote and I’ll set you FREE!!!
Mufasa
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I have to personally wonder, never heard of her before yesterday. She is beautiful, but I think that will be a hindrance. Do you remember how all the people thought Katie Couric was too hot? I wonder if McCain is thinking with his little head ?
FYI, she was talked about quite a bit on Kudlow’s program over the last several weeks whenever the VP possibles were mentioned. She has been a favorite of Kudlow.
[/quote]
I guess if every bodu watched Kudlow , he would have better ratings
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
js:
That assumes an Electorate that will carefully study and analyze those clear distinctions.
Good luck.
Hell…there are some awfully politically knowledgable people on this Forum; and even WE talk about the “hotness” of a Candidate or compare another one to Stalin.
It’s all sound bites and perceptions; smoke and mirrors; T and A and sex.
Cast your vote and I’ll set you FREE!!!
Mufasa[/quote]
True. But both parties really must respond and try to say their candidates have experience in the ways that matter. Even if they wanted to remain silent, the media will harp on the issue. And a response will be required.
Agree.
Mufasa
America has to choose. In the persons of these 4 candidates, our vote will reveal the ‘soul’ of this country.
Do we choose more government, more programs, more debt? Do we choose a nation which punishes accomplishment and forces those who produce to give rewards to those who produce nothing? Do we descend into Socialism?
Or do we choose God, family, honesty and integrity, and the idea that no one may use government as a weapon against those who harm no one?
“Blood, whips and guns…or dollars. Take your choice. There is no other. And your time is running out.”
— Guess :>
Neither party holds a monopoly on morality and integrity.
Mufasa
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Like I said,we don’t know what her level of competency is on the national level…that hasn’t been shown.
By “experience at the national level” I take it you mean Washington experience. States are, of course, part of the nation, so you cannot mean it that she has had no experience in our nation, I’m pretty sure.
I trust you’re aware that, with the exception of those Presidents who were Vice President before attaining the higher office, the vast majority of US Presidents in the last century and perhaps longer have not had “Washington experience” but rather, like Palin, were governors?
It also seems peculiar that a person subscribing to the “Change” mantra – not that I am saying that you are, but many or most Obama supporters anyway are – would simultaneously argue that only Washington insiders are acceptable, that nothing but Washington insider experience counts as sufficient, while having it that even a matter of a few hundred days of Washington experience, most of that time not even being on that job but choosing to be otherwise occupied – Obama – is satisfactory.
That sounds like being in a place where absolutely anything necessary to buying into Obama is being bought into as well just for “keeping the faith” with Obama and no other reason, certainly not a reason of sense.[/quote]
Good point…as most Presidents were governors.I’ll admit that the experience argument has its holes.
BUT as you mentioned for Obama supporters: buying into anything to “keep the faith” is ludicrous. So is it safe to assume that McCain picked Palin as a “gimmick” to “keep the faith” in 18 million Hillary supporters…or women in general? Is he patronizing women voters?..considering that Palin is(well…was)virtually unknown,has criticized Hillary, and is now counting on the groundwork Hillary has laid. Women…feminists such as my wife think so…I can’t get her to shut up about it…lol.
After all,McCain only met her twice…the second time when introducing her as VP running mate. I will admit,this a smart pick…but McCain is rolling dice…almost desperately. He put Palin on the biggest pedestal of her life…will she hold? Will her conservative views be sway by the Republican machine?
These will be the bigger arguments concerning Palin… McCain is trying to prove his worth through Palin. He’s convinced he can…I’m not. We shall see.
If only we could get some women T-Nation voters to give the SAMA a break and get over here 
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Neither party holds a monopoly on morality and integrity.
Mufasa[/quote]
So true…BUT it depends on what morality and integrity means to the individual.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Neither party holds a monopoly on morality and integrity.
Mufasa[/quote]
So true. Both are severely lacking.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Claiming that it’s OK for Obama to be as inexperienced as he is but not for Palin to be at her level of experience is just whacked.
Exactly. Thats the fucking point. So everyone who’s bashed Obama’s experience must now bash Palin as well.
[/quote]
One thing people seem to be forgetting is that Palin is not running for President.
The VICE-President’s Constitutional duty is to preside over the Senate, and perhaps whatever ad hoc tasks the President assigns (dignitary, funerals, etc).
Palin is much more qualified to do that than most Senators and House Congresscritters.
Obama is running for President. The ‘experience’ comparison does not apply.
For those who are using the Red Herring of McCain dying in office, you are using about the same reasoning capacity as a gnat.
As for experience comparison between Obama and Palin-- They’ve both held their respective offices for about the same time, however, Palin’s EXECUTIVE experience as Governor of a border state (Canada and to some extent, Russia), operator of a commercial fishery, and regulatory experience in the Energy sector (a HUGE advantage most pundits are overlooking) make her MORE qualified than Obama who has done nothing more than some Community Organizing, missing votes, and campaigning his whole career.
Don’t forget, Obama has also been a favor-getter for Tony Rezko and other slumlords, as well as of course a favor-and-money receiver, and was quite proficient at it. He probably considers this valuable experience towards being President.
He also has his years of tutelage, grooming, and mentoring by the most Reverend Jeremiah Wright to add to that resumé. Let’s not shortchange Obama’s preparation.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
For those who are using the Red Herring of McCain dying in office, you are using about the same reasoning capacity as a gnat.
[/quote]
How much reasoning capacity do I need to think that a 72 year old who had cancer 3-4 times could actually die?
To clear up an unclear thing: the attribution above could suggest that I wrote the comment in question, or at least is not clear on that point. I did not.
Orion - The age issue is irrelevant. It’s a distraction.
John Adams was in his 60’s in 1801 when he was elected. Jackson, Buchanen, and other 19th Century president were well into their 60’s. Ancient by their standards.
To debate differences in political philosophies or perceived experience is one thing. Using age and imagined looming death is farcical.
Bill Roberts- I agree that was a bad edit job in his post. The Red Herring comment was mine and I stand by it 
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Orion - The age issue is irrelevant. It’s a distraction.
John Adams was in his 60’s in 1801 when he was elected. Jackson, Buchanen, and other 19th Century president were well into their 60’s. Ancient by their standards.
To debate differences in political philosophies or perceived experience is one thing. Using age and imagined looming death is farcical.
Bill Roberts- I agree that was a bad edit job in his post. The Red Herring comment was mine and I stand by it ;)[/quote]
What are the qualities you think a vice-president should possess? And I’m not asking from an electability standpoint. Personally, I think the VP does next to nothing in most cases and the attention VP candidates get is entirely misguided. But if they shouldn’t be qualified to lead this country in the event that something happens to the president, what should they be able to do? Political philosophies and experience of the VP matters only inasmuch as the precedent gives their views credence and utilizes them.
Historically, this has been very little with some notable exceptions. McCain probably won’t die and Palin probably will not take over. But if the leadership ability of a VP is ever relevant at all because of the potential of death or impeachment of a president, it is moreso in this case. McCain is older and probably less healthy than any president in the last 150 years.
And even if Jackson and Adams and the like were ancient by the standards of the day, that’s not to say their VP candidates shouldn’t have been qualfied in their own right to take over as president. And who’s to say they weren’t? Do you even know who they were? I don’t.
I think the Vice-President should in fact be an experiencd capable executive. The VP should have somewhat similar stances and convictions as the President (at least if they want to get elected). Palin has those attributes.
I’m not going to say she is the most qualified person, that doesn’t pass the straight face test. I do feel, however, that by working closely with the President when he is de-briefed of ‘what he needs to know’, she will have the tools she needs. You don’t honestly think that any of the candidates in the past decade had much more real experience in warfare than her? She certainly has the political acumen for the job.
Please don’t say John Kerry-- he was a farce. Edwards? Gore? Obama? Bush? Hillary? How much foreign policy experience did the Liberal God Bill Clinton have as Governor of small population state Arkansas? How much foreign policy experience did Reagan, the guy who ran the USSR into the ground, have?
I have no doubt in my mind she could step right in on fiscal and social policy, in fact, I think she’d do better than McCain (I don’t particularly like McCain at all), at least her views are more in line with mine than the populist and borderline Socialist views of McCain. Palin showed in a short time that she could make tough fiscal decisions and stood up to the Feds for her state.
Yes, I can name all the Presidents and the VP’s. I know all the states and capitals, too. I know the Preamble to the Constitution and can list off the Bill of Rights.
I also know that from reading and understanding some History that Marxism/Socialism is a scary and failed social experiment.
Shouldn’t every citizen of the US know these things before they even graduate Highschool. But, I digress.
Even if McCain chose Palin for the ‘wrong’ reasons, these things have a way of coming back on the perpetrator. If you keep saying something, like ‘All men are created equal’, then someone eventually takes that seriously and acts upon it. People start acting as if the person saying such things really meant them.
One reason we had our Civil War was because people read the ‘equal’ statement above and actually took it seriously.
Hiring someone who believes in the sanctity of life, in honesty and justice, who is an honest-to-God REAL Republican, and trumpets those values loudly and with confidence…watch out, Washington DC.
There might actually be hope for this country yet. Who’d a thunk it?? :->
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I think the Vice-President should in fact be an experiencd capable executive. The VP should have somewhat similar stances and convictions as the President (at least if they want to get elected). Palin has those attributes.
I’m not going to say she is the most qualified person, that doesn’t pass the straight face test. I do feel, however, that by working closely with the President when he is de-briefed of ‘what he needs to know’, she will have the tools she needs. You don’t honestly think that any of the candidates in the past decade had much more real experience in warfare than her? She certainly has the political acumen for the job.
Please don’t say John Kerry-- he was a farce. Edwards? Gore? Obama? Bush? Hillary? How much foreign policy experience did the Liberal God Bill Clinton have as Governor of small population state Arkansas? How much foreign policy experience did Reagan, the guy who ran the USSR into the ground, have?
I have no doubt in my mind she could step right in on fiscal and social policy, in fact, I think she’d do better than McCain (I don’t particularly like McCain at all), at least her views are more in line with mine than the populist and borderline Socialist views of McCain. Palin showed in a short time that she could make tough fiscal decisions and stood up to the Feds for her state.
Yes, I can name all the Presidents and the VP’s. I know all the states and capitals, too. I know the Preamble to the Constitution and can list off the Bill of Rights.
I also know that from reading and understanding some History that Marxism/Socialism is a scary and failed social experiment.
Shouldn’t every citizen of the US know these things before they even graduate Highschool. But, I digress.[/quote]
Sure. Knowing every vice-president, their views, their spouse and childrens’ names, their favorite color, and underwear size is crucial to understanding American politics and evaluating the merits of any vice-presidential candidate today. It’s a travesty of the American education system that most Americans don’t know William King was Franklin Pierce’s VP. King was also a boxers and not briefs guy, loved puppies, and enjoyed long walks on the beach.
And control of the two party dictatorship continues…