Oh My God...McCain could win if he picks Palin!!!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, you dismiss the executive experience of the only woman in the race, while glossing over the lack of said experience for the three male candidates.:hmm:

Youse Dems aren't very consistent, are you?

Have you not read my previous posts? I'm not just talking about national governing experience. I'm talking about national policy-making experience which to me counts for far more. Obama, Biden, and McCain all have experience making policy decisions on a national level. They've all studied, debated, and voted on issues that affect the entire nation. A governor only focuses on issues that affect his/her state. I'm not saying a governor is inherently unqualified to be president, but until they've proven themselves on a national level through primary and general election campaigns they are at a disadvantage. Bill Clinton, for example, proved through the long campaign process in 1992 that he understood the issues that faced the entire nation and that he was capable of being president. He debated, he created his policies and laid out his plan for the nation. He also is far more highly educated than Palin. I'm not saying she's not intelligent, but a person with a Bachelor's degree in Journalism, who has never studied government or the political system in higher learning, has no business being Commander in Chief.
 
Have you not read my previous posts? I'm not just talking about national governing experience. I'm talking about national policy-making experience which to me counts for far more. Obama, Biden, and McCain all have experience making policy decisions on a national level. They've all studied, debated, and voted on issues that affect the entire nation. A governor only focuses on issues that affect his/her state. I'm not saying a governor is inherently unqualified to be president, but until they've proven themselves on a national level through primary and general election campaigns they are at a disadvantage. Bill Clinton, for example, proved through the long campaign process in 1992 that he understood the issues that faced the entire nation and that he was capable of being president. He debated, he created his policies and laid out his plan for the nation. He also is far more highly educated than Palin. I'm not saying she's not intelligent, but a person with a Bachelor's degree in Journalism, who has never studied government or the political system in higher learning, has no business being Commander in Chief.

I respectfully diaagree. I see absolutely no reason why someone who has studied government or the political system in higher learning should be ANY more qualified to be President, as opposed to someone who has studied, say, engineering, science or economics. Or even someone who has studied nothing (in the formal sense). In fact, most of the people I know with masters degrees in politics and the like would be pretty useless in a real political job. They wouldn't be prepared to get their hands dirty, frankly.

The UK had a Prime Minister as recently as 1990-1997 who had NO DEGREE WHATEVER - not even a Bachelor's degree.

Frankly, one of the things that's wrong with politics, and not just in the US - is too many policy wonks, lobbyists and over-qualified political theorists.

Having said that, I accept that Clinton, though a true borne policy wonk, was a pretty good President. And one of the things that helped him become a good President was that, like Palin, he had the very, very valuable experience of running a state.
 
I respectfully diaagree. I see absolutely no reason why someone who has never studied government or the political system in higher learning should be ANY more qualified to be President, as opposed to someone who has studied, say, engineering, science or economics. Or even someone who has studied nothing (in the formal sense). In fact, most of the people I know with masters degrees in politics and the like would be pretty useless in a real political job. They wouldn't be prepared to get their hands dirty, frankly.

The UK had a Prime Minister as recently as 1990-1997 who had NO DEGREE WHATEVER - not even a Bachelor's degree.

Frankly, one of the things that's wrong with politics, and not just in the US - is too many policy wonks, lobbyists and over-qualified political theorists.

Having said that, I accept that Clinton, though a true borne policy wonk, was a pretty good President. And one of the things that helped him become a good President was that, like Palin, he had the very, very valuable experience of running a state.

I see your point as well, and like you said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
I believe your post included references to opposing BIG OIL. And Alaska doesn't collect income tax, so what tax payers was she protecting? And how about some examples of the "wasteful spending" she cut?


For starters:

She stopped Ted Stevens "Bridge To No Where" a Republican.
She stopped taking a limo to work to save the tax payers money.

She cut other wasteful spending of the tax payers money.

With the money she saved the tax payers she put it into a savings account for the state of Alaska.

The same way Bobby Jindal cleaned uo La., she has cleaned up Alaska.
And when the next hurricane hits La, at least those citizens under a Rep Gov,-Jindal will be able to take care of themselves.

<>
 
Executive experience is defined as having run a state or a business, right?

A presidential campaign is a business, you know. A business of which the candidate, namely Obama or McCain, is the CEO. They're big businesses with departments for communications/speechwriting, advertising, policy, scheduling, fundraising, etc etc. Each of the departments has a director, usually chosen and appointed by the candidate him/herself. Decisions are made every day, and the biggest/most important ones are no doubt made by the head honcho - the candidate. It's a business and the candidate - Obama or McCain - is running the whole show, has the final say on everything and bears the ultimate responsibility and/or blame for everything.

Considering that this business of Obama's has raised anywhere from 265 to 340 million dollars so far this election cycle(aka since its foundation) and has in the neighborhood of 60 to 70 million dollars on hand right now, and considering it managed to fill a stadium with 84,000 people the other night to support it, and since it has the support of probably 55-60 million people nationwide, and since he has been complimented by many for how well he's run his campaign, I'd say he's doing a hell of a job running this business of his, and since this business will be nearly two years old when all is said and done, I'd say that's some valuable executive experience.

And I don't know the exact numbers for McCain, but if he's still here, I guess he's doing an ok job(though not as good as Obama) running his business too.
 
I believe your post included references to opposing BIG OIL. And Alaska doesn't collect income tax, so what tax payers was she protecting? And how about some examples of the "wasteful spending" she cut?


see limo example.

and if time permits i will find those items for you or perhaps a fair and balanced news network will point out the truth of her record.

<>
 
Well, anyway, one thing that does seem to lend some degree of credence to the posts of the Obama supporters here is the reaction of former Bush speechwriter David Frum:-

David Frum, President George W Bush’s former speech-writer, warned: “The McCain campaign’s slogan is ‘country first’. If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat from the presidency?”

John McCain met running mate Sarah Palin just once - Times Online
 
I am not sure the campaign process makes one ready for the presidency. One could argue that a principal of a building could become president due to leadership experience.

You cannot discount that executive leadership, which she posesses is more than the other candidates.

However, I would also weigh this with the fact that there are international concerns that Biden and McCain are probably better prepared for than she would be.

Legislative experience can also be considered helpful in that whomever the President is is going to need to understand the ins and outs of congress.

She is not qualified in these areas, so what does it boil down to? Is her executive experience strong enough to make me want to ignore the experience of Obama/Biden.

Realistically, McCain's pick is somewhat brialliant because if she is attacked on this, it ioens the door to attack Obama. Something the Dems do not want.

Ideally, this race may boil down to the issues.
 
Well, anyway, one thing that does seem to lend some degree of credence to the posts of the Obama supporters here is the reaction of former Bush speechwriter David Frum:-


John McCain met running mate Sarah Palin just once - Times Online

i know a die-hard conservative who is not thrilled with the strength of either candidate to begin with, but has been completely turned off by mccain's vp selection, describing it as "purely political." and even though this person "hates" joe biden, said individual would rather have biden directing two wars than a relatively green governor from alaska. this person thought it irresponsible for someone of mccain's age and health (two time skin cancer survivor) to put someone like palin a proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency.

certainly not everyone's opinion, but i doubt that it is completely isolated.
 
Realistically, McCain's pick is somewhat brialliant because if she is attacked on this, it ioens the door to attack Obama.

Because this door has been so far closed and we have not heard a single attack on Obama's experience?
 
Martha,

I do believe she did something to tax the oil industry to give money back to the people of Alaska, or something....I am not sure....but she did mention something along those lines.
 
Have you not read my previous posts? I'm not just talking about national governing experience. I'm talking about national policy-making experience which to me counts for far more. Obama, Biden, and McCain all have experience making policy decisions on a national level. They've all studied, debated, and voted on issues that affect the entire nation. A governor only focuses on issues that affect his/her state. I'm not saying a governor is inherently unqualified to be president, but until they've proven themselves on a national level through primary and general election campaigns they are at a disadvantage. Bill Clinton, for example, proved through the long campaign process in 1992 that he understood the issues that faced the entire nation and that he was capable of being president. He debated, he created his policies and laid out his plan for the nation. He also is far more highly educated than Palin. I'm not saying she's not intelligent, but a person with a Bachelor's degree in Journalism, who has never studied government or the political system in higher learning, has no business being Commander in Chief.

Just out of curiousity, do you think Abraham Lincoln was qualified to run for President in 1860? His elected office experience at the time was 8 years of being a state representive from sangamon county Illinois with a population of around 10,000 people. He did have some national experience serving in the US House of Representitives from the 7th district in Illinois for just one term of 2 years. 7th district in Illinois at that time had about 25,000 people. He held those positions in the 1830s and 1840s, and held no elected office in government for over 10 years prior to the election of 1860.
 
Sweet heaven...hear the haters are pushing me back to the right. I f'ing hate this place sometimes...

I would say that they have not attacked him on this issue very hard at all.\

God forbid anyone acknowledges the stregnths and weaknesses or something positive about the opposition now....
 
Sweet heaven...hear the haters are pushing me back to the right. I f'ing hate this place sometimes...

I would say that they have not attacked him on this issue very hard at all.

if referencing my post - i was clearly kidding.

edit: moreover, if anonymous posters on a u2 forum impact your political positions that easily, you may want to consider a new hobby.
 
Obama's experience, or lack thereof, is a bigger issue than Palin's.

The voters in the primary had a choice to reject him, they ended up choosing him over a candidate with 35 (fuzzy math?) years of experience.

The voters will again have a choice in November to be heard on this matter.

Will they have a similar choice re: Palin? Do people vote for the ticket or the nominee alone?
 
i'm not sure joe voter will make that distinction, if spun correctly.
Is it really wise for democrats to try to use experience as a key issue and keep it in the headlines? Those sorts of attacks just reinforce the talking points of the GOP about Obama.
 
if referencing my post - i was clearly kidding.

edit: moreover, if anonymous posters on a u2 forum impact your political positions that easily, you may want to consider a new hobby.

thanks for the free advice....where were u 10,000 posts ago....

no I was not directing it at you and....I some people in here having met them...so not all is anonymous.
 
Executive experience is defined as having run a state or a business, right?

A presidential campaign is a business, you know. A business of which the candidate, namely Obama or McCain, is the CEO. They're big businesses with departments for communications/speechwriting, advertising, policy, scheduling, fundraising, etc etc. Each of the departments has a director, usually chosen and appointed by the candidate him/herself. Decisions are made every day, and the biggest/most important ones are no doubt made by the head honcho - the candidate. It's a business and the candidate - Obama or McCain - is running the whole show, has the final say on everything and bears the ultimate responsibility and/or blame for everything.

Considering that this business of Obama's has raised anywhere from 265 to 340 million dollars so far this election cycle(aka since its foundation) and has in the neighborhood of 60 to 70 million dollars on hand right now, and considering it managed to fill a stadium with 84,000 people the other night to support it, and since it has the support of probably 55-60 million people nationwide, and since he has been complimented by many for how well he's run his campaign, I'd say he's doing a hell of a job running this business of his, and since this business will be nearly two years old when all is said and done, I'd say that's some valuable executive experience.

And I don't know the exact numbers for McCain, but if he's still here, I guess he's doing an ok job(though not as good as Obama) running his business too.

Those numbers look nice, but they don't explain why just as recently as last Monday, he was behind by 2 points in the national polls. They certainly won't mean much if he loses in November.
 
Well, anyway, one thing that does seem to lend some degree of credence to the posts of the Obama supporters here is the reaction of former Bush speechwriter David Frum:-



John McCain met running mate Sarah Palin just once - Times Online

Bush and McCain can hardly stand to be in a room together and it was nothing aside from political opportunism that has put them in a position of support for one another. I don't find it surprising that supporters in either camp would criticize one another.

Time will tell how Palin represents herself, especially against Biden.

On the question of waste, I am not sure if it was mentioned, but she sold the Governor's jet when she took office as a cost cutting measure.

One thing I find interesting is that she visited her National Guard troops in the middle east almost a year prior to Obama's visit to the region.
 
Those numbers look nice, but they don't explain why just as recently as last Monday, he was behind by 2 points in the national polls. They certainly won't mean much if he loses in November.

You miss the point(maybe on purpose). It wasn't just a 'look how great Obama is' post. It was a 'running a presidential campaign IS executive experience' post.
 
i know a die-hard conservative who is not thrilled with the strength of either candidate to begin with, but has been completely turned off by mccain's vp selection, describing it as "purely political." and even though this person "hates" joe biden, said individual would rather have biden directing two wars than a relatively green governor from alaska. this person thought it irresponsible for someone of mccain's age and health (two time skin cancer survivor) to put someone like palin a proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency.

certainly not everyone's opinion, but i doubt that it is completely isolated.

It's an interesting game of chess.

Obama picks Biden in an attempt to take the sting out of lack-of-experience criticisms, but in doing so also neutralises the 'McCain too old to be President' argument.

McCain then picks Palin to neutralise the 'not a true conservative' argument, and, arguably, steal some of the more centrist or conservative-leaning Hillary voters, but in doing so runs the risk of re-opening the 'McCain too old and too many health issues to be President' argument and adds a new twist - 'Are you telling me if McCain dies, the world will be run by a former town major?'. But, the Dems will be wary of raising that line again, lest it re-opens the 'But hold on. Should the world be run by a guy that until 2 years ago was a common-or-garden Illinois state legislator?' angle.

Of course, only the naive would suppose that both sides haven't done all of these calculations many times, but only one side will ultimately prevail.
 
Is it really wise for democrats to try to use experience as a key issue and keep it in the headlines? Those sorts of attacks just reinforce the talking points of the GOP about Obama.

no, probably not wise at all. but does the gop really want mccain's age and health concerns, along with his inexperienced president-in-waiting, in the headlines either?

i think there is a possibility palin could neutralize the debate over experience. i could be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom