Game Change

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

She, by your definition of executive experience, had more that Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John McCain, all put together. Happy?

Agreed. She did. Unless, Biden and McCain did something outside of the Senate that I don't know about, which is possible.

Anyway, I think we'd then also agree that Biden and McCain had more overall experience than Obama. Considering Obama only served two years in the US Senate as a Junior Senator, at least one of which he was running for President.

Bottom line: the guy in the White House wasn't very experienced. People were excited because they bought into the thought that electing someone different, regardless of whether he had solid qualifications or not, would bring real change.

JonnyPistachio

executive experience means nothing when you lack common sense. Its a waste to debate this about Palin.

inlet13

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no, in her mind she was running for president. look at how angry she got and threw mccain under the bus for stopping campaigning in michigan. the campaign knew they could not win there, yet she went public and tried to undermine that decision. she also wanted to give a concession speech on the night of the election. that shows to me that she was running for president, and her ambition makes that obvious to me. no vice presidential candidate in american history has ever given a concession speech, yet she felt like she was owed the opportunity to give one. in her mind, she was running for president. it was all about her...

Who was the Republican nominee for President in 2008?

polaris_x

JonnyPistachio wrote:

executive experience means nothing when you lack common sense. Its a waste to debate this.

yes ... but it at least indicates why no matter who the republicans nominate - they will always have a chance ...

Johnny Abruzzo

It's pretty important that the VP nominee be prepared to be president, especially when the candidate is 72 years old on day one of his term.

It may be your opinion that Obama was too inexperienced to be president, but he proved to enough people that he was prepared for it.

inlet13

JonnyPistachio wrote:

executive experience means nothing when you lack common sense. Its a waste to debate this.

I agree. Palin wasn't qualified, in my mind, for reasons outside experience. But, her "experience" (which polaris originally called into question) wasn't really the issue.

Moreover, I keep coming back to it, she wasn't running for President. Personally, I don't think Biden is the sharpest tack either. Not trying to argue that she'd be a good VP, because I think she'd be terrible, just like Biden.

My overall point here is when people compare Obama (who I think is also terrible) to her. First, he was running for President, she wasn't. Second, if a person takes off their partisan hat and thinks about it, Obama was not really experienced. No matter how bad someone wanted him to be. So, when they called into question Palin's experience, it was silly when the guy on the head of the ticket on the other side, had issues with his own experience.

shadowcast

During this movie there were times that I felt bad for Palin. Because they did throw her into a race that she had no business being in. But in the end I am glad she was exposed. I also thought they painted McCain in a positive light/class act. Which doesn’t mean he wasn’t. In the end McCain is to blame for creating Palin and basically separating the Republican Party to this day.

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

It's pretty important that the VP nominee be prepared to be president, especially when the candidate is 72 years old on day one of his term.

It may be your opinion that Obama was too inexperienced to be president, but he proved to enough people that he was prepared for it.

I agree that it's important for a VP (Palin) to be prepared to be President. I'm not questioning that. I also think she wouldn't have been a good VP or President. But, my point is that...

it's more important that a Presidential candidate (Obama at the time) be prepared to be President, than their VP. I thought all along, he was a great speaker, but he didn't know how to manage anything, he had no experience there.

That's why this argument is and always has been absolutely ridiculous to me.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

I agree. Palin wasn't qualified, in my mind, for reasons outside experience. But, her "experience" (which polaris originally called into question) wasn't really the issue.

i called into question people who used her "executive experience" to say she was more qualified to be president ...

Johnny Abruzzo

inlet13 wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

It's pretty important that the VP nominee be prepared to be president, especially when the candidate is 72 years old on day one of his term.

It may be your opinion that Obama was too inexperienced to be president, but he proved to enough people that he was prepared for it.

I agree that it's important for a VP (Palin) to be prepared to be President. I'm not questioning that. I also think she wouldn't have been a good VP or President. But, my point is that...

it's more important that a Presidential candidate (Obama at the time) be prepared to be President, than their VP. I thought all along, he was a great speaker, but he didn't know how to manage anything, he had no experience there.

That's why this argument is and always has been absolutely ridiculous to me.

We got it. Dead horse. He now has over 3 years experience as president. Obviously you don't like him and you have every right to your opinions.

You would probably enjoy the movie that you are refusing to watch. The characters in the movie share your viewpoint.

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I agree. Palin wasn't qualified, in my mind, for reasons outside experience. But, her "experience" (which polaris originally called into question) wasn't really the issue.

i called into question people who used her "executive experience" to say she was more qualified to be president ...

Maybe there's some common ground...

Executive experience is not everything, but I think most would say it's very positive in an executive role (like President), and certainly contributes mightily towards gauging a candidate's overall experience. That's basically my point. Sometimes, even experience itself (overall) can be overlooked if the candidate possesses other positive attributes. In my opinion, this is what the U.S. citizenry did with electing Obama. There's no doubt one attribute, directly applicable to the job that he possesses was his public speaking. That said, I feel that another attribute that the U.S. media and, even some citizenry, liked about Obama was his skin color.... which obviously provides nothing one way or the other in terms of his ability to do the job. The truth is a lot of folks, particularly in the media, really wanted a African American President because of the show that would be provided with the inauguration. That's why, but I find there's an elephant in the room when people act like McCain was crazy for seeking a female VP pick. He knew that certain citizens, and certainly the media, were excited about the possibility of the first African American President. He reacted to it with his choice, I'm sure.

Unrelated to Palin - I do think executive experience matters when you're a Presidential nominee. It's my opinion that typically Governor's are better suited as Presidential candidates because they have executive experience. Of course, there are other ways to get executive experience though.

gimmesometruth27

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no, in her mind she was running for president. look at how angry she got and threw mccain under the bus for stopping campaigning in michigan. the campaign knew they could not win there, yet she went public and tried to undermine that decision. she also wanted to give a concession speech on the night of the election. that shows to me that she was running for president, and her ambition makes that obvious to me. no vice presidential candidate in american history has ever given a concession speech, yet she felt like she was owed the opportunity to give one. in her mind, she was running for president. it was all about her...

Who was the Republican nominee for President in 2008?

i don't get it??

mccain was the nominee, palin was campaigning for herself. if i were you i would maybe read a book, or perhaps watch the movie, or look at the news articles and interviews with mccain staffers that came out in 2009 or 2010. it is quite obvious she was in it for sarah palin, not america, and not john mccain... i know you are not a dumb person,, so do not ask me dumb questions like that.

Johnny Abruzzo

Some governors have turned out to be lousy presidents, such as Jimmy Carter.

gimmesometruth27

anyone can memorize a few zingers and win a debate based on audience response. this is all palin was good for...

when couric asked she could not even answer what newspapers and magazines she reads on a regular basis....that was the ultimate "gotcha" question...

inlet13

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no, in her mind she was running for president. look at how angry she got and threw mccain under the bus for stopping campaigning in michigan. the campaign knew they could not win there, yet she went public and tried to undermine that decision. she also wanted to give a concession speech on the night of the election. that shows to me that she was running for president, and her ambition makes that obvious to me. no vice presidential candidate in american history has ever given a concession speech, yet she felt like she was owed the opportunity to give one. in her mind, she was running for president. it was all about her...

Who was the Republican nominee for President in 2008?

i don't get it??

mccain was the nominee, palin was campaigning for herself. if i were you i would maybe read a book, or perhaps watch the movie, or look at the news articles and interviews with mccain staffers that came out in 2009 or 2010. it is quite obvious she was in it for sarah palin, not america, and not john mccain... i know you are not a dumb person,, so do not ask me dumb questions like that.

My point was she never ran for President.

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Some governors have turned out to be lousy presidents, such as Jimmy Carter.

True.

Let me re-quote what you're responding to with some annotation:

inlet13 wrote:

I do think executive experience matters when you're a Presidential nominee. It's my opinion that typically Governor's are better suited as Presidential candidates because they have executive experience. Of course, there are other ways to get executive experience though.

That in no way implies all governors make great presidents. It says "typically they're better suited", which is true in my opinion. I think, in recent times, the citizenry has agreed. Hence, why no senator was elected President since Nixon (prior to Obama).

brianlux

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Some governors have turned out to be lousy presidents, such as Jimmy Carter.

That's certainly a matter of opinion. The well respected conservative writer Andrew Bacevich seems to disagree. He implies that Carter lost his bid for a second term because American's didn't want to hear the truth. Here's some of what Bacevich had to say in an interview with Bill Moyers:

BILL MOYERS: Now you go on to say that there was another fateful period between July 1979 and March of 1983. You describe it, in fact, as a pivot of contemporary American history. That includes Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, right?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I would be one of the first to confess that - I think that we have misunderstood and underestimated President Carter. He was the one President of our time who recognized, I think, the challenges awaiting us if we refused to get our house in order.

BILL MOYERS: You're the only author I have read, since I read Jimmy Carter, who gives so much time to the President's speech on July 15th, 1979. Why does that speech speak to you so strongly?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, this is the so-called Malaise Speech, even though he never used the word "malaise" in the text to the address. It's a very powerful speech, I think, because President Carter says in that speech, oil, our dependence on oil, poses a looming threat to the country. If we act now, we may be able to fix this problem. If we don't act now, we're headed down a path in which not only will we become increasingly dependent upon foreign oil, but we will have opted for a false model of freedom. A freedom of materialism, a freedom of self-indulgence, a freedom of collective recklessness. And what the President was saying at the time was, we need to think about what we mean by freedom. We need to choose a definition of freedom which is anchored in truth, and the way to manifest that choice, is by addressing our energy problem.

He had a profound understanding of the dilemma facing the country in the post Vietnam period. And of course, he was completely hooted, derided, disregarded.

BILL MOYERS: And he lost the election. You in fact say-

ANDREW BACEVICH: Exactly.

BILL MOYERS: -this speech killed any chance he had of winning reelection. Why? Because the American people didn't want to settle for less?

ANDREW BACEVICH: They absolutely did not. And indeed, the election of 1980 was the great expression of that, because in 1980, we have a candidate, perhaps the most skillful politician of our time, Ronald Reagan, who says that, "Doom-sayers, gloom-sayers, don't listen to them. The country's best days are ahead of us."

polaris_x

carter was a great president for the wrong people

Johnny Abruzzo

polaris_x wrote:

carter was a great president for the wrong people

Maybe - I was too little to remember. He clearly didn't connect with the people, but yes we are a group of spoiled brats you might say.

polaris_x

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Maybe - I was too little to remember. He clearly didn't connect with the people, but yes we are a group of spoiled brats you might say.

sadly ... so much of what people go by is done via mass media ... the right have vilified carter while at the same time raising reagan to be god-like ... and they've had a successful campaign at that despite what the facts show ...

carter knew of the dangers of the military industrial complex and the oil industry and here we are in 2012 beholden to both those groups and all they are doing is taking america for all its worth ...